I am working on some very smart things to say here. Really. Meanwhile, there's 
Yesterday I was bothering the wife with some philosoapy (no, not a spelling error this. I can't say the word with a straight face) about existence, perception, spinoza's god and the like. Dear Mr Berkeley was at our side urging us to consider the irrefutable dictum of his that "to be is to perceive" and that ultimate existence is in the mind. In short, Berkeley said that If no one is looking at a tree, the tree does not exist. The tree, the rock, the moon and all else certainly exist even when we don't see it. How so? Berkeley's Philosoapy has the most astonishing answer I've ever heard. It says everything exists even when we don't see 'em because He, the God dude, sees all things all the time. God makes existence be by perceiving it.
In service of hilarity I'll sacrifice further nuances of Berkeley and present to you the famous limerick. (Oh, come on. What's a philosoapy worth if we can't have a laugh.)
There was a young man who said "God
Must think it exceedingly oddIf he finds that this tree
Continues to beWhen there's no one about in the Quad."
"Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the QuadAnd that's why this tree
Will continue to beSince observed by Yours faithfully, God."
-Ronald Knox
The title of the post comes from that quip of Samuel Johnson - who when confronted with Berkeley's supposition that a mind is all that truly exists - supposedly gave a hard kick to a stone and said "I refute it thus".
Comments
Many years ago, my roommate in graduate school wrote this:
As neat as the couplet is, I'm with the dictionary man on this one.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Blumberg | January 3, 2007 4:38 PM
How about the following: "Very well, Mr. Berkeley, we shall all turn our eyes away. Now you may shut your own eyes, and walk through the tree."
Posted by: David Harmon | January 4, 2007 12:08 AM
David, from what I understand, Berkeley knew very well about these objections. His philosophy seems to have been misinterpreted. He says the tree is always there because there is a god who keeps "looking" at it all the time. In that sense, he does not deny the existence of trees.
If anyone is interested, my readings are mostly from: http://plato.stanford.edu/
and Russell's book: http://www.amazon.com/History-Western-Philosophy-Touchstone-Book/dp/0671201581
Posted by: Selva | January 4, 2007 5:05 AM
Selva: So, everything keeps existing because God is watching it, and presumably we know God exists because if he didn't watch everything, it wouldn't keep existing? Circular Bah.
Posted by: David Harmon | January 4, 2007 4:50 PM