Philonous Response To Hylas In Berkeley's Third Dialogue

In Berkeley 's third dialogue, Hylas discusses the implications of the first two dialogues. Berkeley expands upon self knowledge first. Philonous states, “I do nevertheless know, that I who am a spirit or thinking substance, exist as certainly, as I know my ideas exist. Fatherer, I know what I mean by the terms I and myself.” Even though, Philonous states the words myself and I, he does not explain to Hyas what they actually mean. However, Philinois does share what the mind is and, states that it is a thing which thinks, acts and perceives. Once again Philinois does not explain to Hylas another concept. The concept Philonous fails to explain again is the explanation Hylas needs as to why an object cannot both perceive and be perceived at the same time. Philonous defends this throughout his three dialogues and, still repeats it in the third. Hylas first objection is that Philonous must either accept material substance or deny spiritual. Why he points this out again is because Philonous admits spiritual substance but not material substance. However, he expresses that he has no idea of spiritual substance. Hylas finds this very changeable, and having no idea of material substance is what made Philinois reject it. Which Philonous explains to Hylas that he does have a belief of spiritual substance, and that he does have an …show more content…
Hylas states, “according to your way of thinking, it should follow that you are only a system of floating ideas, without any substance to support them.” Hylas uses Philonous own points against him and that becomes a problem for him. Philonous arguments against Hylas are just reinstatements to what he has argued before. Philonous explains to him that he knows that he is distinct from all sensible things and ideas. Philonous keeps on repeating himself and saying that he knows this and that, but never explains exactly how he is so certain or how he