Berkeley And Humes Views On The Vulgar Vs. The Philosophical

For as long as philosophy has existed, the paradigms of the intellectual thinkers and the common men have come into conflict. Philosophers have often been accused of living in ivory towers, positing theories, which, while they may seem semantically and/or logically possible, seem a wholly unpractical way for anyone to regard life when they are living, as Hume says ‘away from their desk.’ Both George Berkeley and David Hume recognized the chasms between the worldview of these two classes, and both attempted to decipher with which group the truth lay. Berkeley and Hume were both empiricists, yet it would be false to assume that because their metaphysics were similar, they shared all their other views as well. In fact, each of these philosophers had their own, very distinct notion of the relationship between philosophical and vulgar ideas.

Berkeley, as I will show here, believed that we arrived at true ideas when we combined the philosophical and vulgar. In his book, Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, Berkeley makes it very clear that he regards his own position to be that of the everyday man on the street. In

…to unite and place in a clearer light the truth…shared between the vulgar and the philosophers, the former being of opinion that those things they immediately perceive are the real things, and latter, that the things immediately perceived are ideas which exist only in the mind. (112)

There is one major point on which Hume would disagree with Berkeley, and that is Berkeley’s belief that the vulgar opinion is correct, if not fleshed out. In Hume’s philosophy, the true opinion is close to the sentiment of the vulgar, but not to the factual belief. Berkeley is concerned with knowing what is real – Hume is more concerned with understanding the nature of those real things. In Berkeley argument, the philosophical opinion does not change the nature of the belief, that ‘those things they immediately perceived are the real things’ (112). The philosophers’ opinion the idea that those things that are immediately perceived are ideas of the mind.

Hume’s reaction to Berkeley would be to question how Berkeley can so support the opinion of a group who use of their empirical senses, while correct, leads them directly into error. In a most basic sense, Hume is a philosopher who is concerned more with means than with the end, at least in terms of the relationship between the vulgar and philosophical. In Book I, he spends very little time on the fact that all three types of opinion result in the same affect, and yet explains exhaustively the means by which each group arrives at the conclusion. It is based on the means used to reach the final idea that Hume judges the validity of the opinions.

One of the reasons that Berkeley gives for his support of the vulgar is that the vulgar opinion coincides with common sense, a faculty far less elevated for him than it is for Hume. In Hume’s philosophy, the vulgar idea of immediate perceptions is placed on the level of sentiment. For Berkeley, that same idea is considered an opinion. While it may seem like semantics, the distinction between sentiment and opinion is important to understanding this issue.

Most people who have encountered children who are around the age of two know how little they like to take naps. In fact, young children are often violently opposed to taking a nap, even when all of experience and knowledge indicates to them that they will feel less grouchy and happier after sleeping. The desire to stay awake is not based on any empirical opinion. It is based on the child’s sentiments, his or her desire to stay awake. However, the child’s sentiments, their feelings of grouchiness or their desire to stay awake, are superseded by their parents understanding of what that sentiment means, i.e. the child needs to sleep. A child will often exhaust themselves to tears and not understand that the exhaustion is the reason for the tears.

For Berkeley, though, it is an equal relationship, and the relationship between the vulgar and philosophical is that of empirical partners compiling their information. The vulgar person navigates through daily life with the use of empirical senses. Therefore, the vulgar person is perhaps more qualified to pronounce their immediate perception as real; the vulgar person sees a thing, and then proceeds to touch, taste, or in some way use it. The philosopher, studying at their desk, perceives a thing in their mind and proceeds to think about it. In that way, we can see how for Berkeley there is a necessary connection between the philosophers and the common man. Without the common man, the desk-bound scholar might be unable to assert the empirical presence of say, a tractor, or an outhouse. Without the scholar, the common man would be unable to understand the nature of his perceptions and how his sensible perceptions are inextricably linked to the mind.

Some topics in this essay:
According Hume, Hume Hume’s, Hylas Philonous, Berkeley Hume, Book Hume, Berkeley Berkeley’s, David Hume, Dialogues Berkeley, Despite Hume, Philonous Berkeley, true philosopher, vulgar philosophical, true philosophers, false philosopher, berkeley hume, philosophical vulgar, immediately perceived, vulgar person, false philosophers, common sense, desire stay awake, relationship vulgar philosophical, opinions vulgar false, false philosopher true, ideas exist mind,