Aristotle Vs Berkeley

This essay will be comparing and exploring the ideas of Aristotle and Berkeley as they relate to the fundamental question of whether objects exist independently of our minds. I will be evaluating their theories and doctrines, and identifying the weaknesses in their claims. Aristotle and Berkeley were very different philosophers who have very opposed views.

Aristotle’s theories for metaphysics clearly convey his belief that objects do have an independent existence from our minds. He claims that the physical things in this world, be it changeable or impermanent, are reality. Aristotle’s metaphysical theory breaks objects into two distinct categories; primary beings (substances) and secondary quantities. A substance, as defined by Aristotle is

Berkeley claims that the highest level of reality is in our own minds. He essentially believes that objects do not have independent existence from our minds. Berkeley’s idealistic theory claims that we cannot be sure of material objects or anything in the external world but because the perception still exists in our minds reality must be purely mental. This means that I cannot be sure if the desk in front of me is actually present, but I can be sure of my mental perception of that desk. Berkeley draws on his religious beliefs as he goes on further to say that we require God’s infinite mind as a presupposition. He claims that God’s mind contains everything, and we are in God’s mind. So we see a copy of the perfect object that is in God’s mind, so that is how two people see the same thing even if the perception is in their minds. Berkeley utilises his theory about God’s mind to also explain how things existed before we discovered them, like stars and planets. George Berkeley does elucidate that he does not deny that objects exist; he just denies that they have physical existence. Berkeley’s cogito ‘esse est percipi’ (to be is to be perceived) and his theories clearly illuminate his belief that objects do not have independent existence from our

One of Aristotle’s theory’s flaws is regarding his explanation of a substance. He says a substance is formed using a form of the object and matter (using the form as a mould and matter as a filling), but this definition makes the substance partly mental because a form of an object is only held within the mind. This then disproves his belief that objects have an independent existence from the mind. George Berkeley, like Aristotle, also has flaws in his doctrine. He claims that everything we see is a copy of the true form that exists in God’s mind. This should then mean that there would be a true form of every human to ever exist in God’s mind. Another problem with Berkeley’s doctrine is that if he claims we exist in God’s mind, and everything we perceive is also in God’s mind, would that mean that God’s mind contains a different perception of reality and form for animals as they do not perceive the world in the same way that humans do? Does that also mean that God’s mind contains true forms of other entities that are perceived/believed by other religions? Berkley’s doctrine leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and Aristotle’s theory somewhat contradicts itself. Regardless of their flaws both philosophers raise strong points to prove their point of view. Aristotle cleverly separates physical objects into two categories to distinguish a difference certain objects. Berkeley