実在と信念 : ロックとバークリ、パースとジェイムズ

Abstract

My aim in this paper is to show the possibility of Berkeley's idealism. To do this, I first discuss that the relation between Locke and Berkeley is similar to the relation between Peirce and James. Locke and Peirce respected the scientific method and presupposed the real world as the starting point for their investigation. It is often said that Berkeley denied this presupposition. Such an interpretation is correct in some senses. However, I suspect that Berkeley could have reconstructed the Lockean real world by turning it into ideas in the mind, without denying it. I think William James deliberately did this for Peirce. James is the one who tried to reconstruct what reality is like and explain it by using empirical terms. I think that James' trial was to explicate Peirce's concept of reality. Moreover, there are some possibilities that he found that method in Berkeley's argument. Second, I will show the difference between Berkeley and James regardless of their similarities, and at the same time I will point out the problem both thinkers have in their respective theories. Berkeley's idealism seems to have some problems. For example, he needed God to maintain the objectivity of our world, but we can doubt the usefulness of such an argument from a modern point of view. However, I think his idealism is highly suggestive to us when we think about what the world is like. His idealism contains both subjective and objective worldviews. They are related to each other, and they form the essential basis of our modern worldview. I will show that Berkeley's idealism is a good example of having such a structure.