A Discussion on Berkeley’s Account of Time A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Nicholas L. Shooner August 2020 © 2020 Nicholas L. Shooner. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled A Discussion on Berkeley’s Account of Time by NICHOLAS L. SHOONER has been approved for the Department of Philosophy and the College of Arts and Sciences by James M. Petrik Associate Professor of Philosophy Florenz Plassmann Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 Abstract SHOONER, NICHOLAS L., M.A., August 2020, Philosophy A Discussion on Berkeley’s Account of Time Director of Thesis: James M. Petrik We examine what George Berkeley says about the nature of time and weigh two competing interpretations of his theory to determine which is closer to his intended meaning. Berkeley presents a theory of time that is idealist (time consists in ideas and their motions), subjectivist (time is contained within subjects), and relationalist (time is not an absolute entity, but is a description of the relations between events). While these features of Berkeley’s theory are not in dispute, there is a debate concerning whether he accepts an inter-subjective, universal ordering of events which grounds the temporal experiences of all human subjects. H. Scott Hestevold argues that, for Berkeley, such an order is to be found in the all-encompassing subject, God, whereas Darren Hynes argues that no such ordering is needed in Berkeley’s system. We evaluate these interpretations in light of Berkeley’s other metaphysical commitments and conclude that Hestevold’s interpretation is superior since it is better able to accommodate Berkeley’s commitment to the meaningfulness of temporal language in ordinary discourse and his commitment to the possibility and success of the natural sciences. 4 Dedication I want to dedicate this modest thesis to all of my fellow students and classmates through the years, my teachers, my family, as well as all of my friends in Athens, Ohio, with whom I was so lucky to enjoy conversation and life. The learning that made this project possible was not something that happened strictly confined to a book, but in the day to day that I was so lucky to share with you all. 5 Acknowledgments I wish to thank, firstly, my fellow students in philosophy through the years, particularly those I have gone through the M.A. program with. In particular I would like to thank Dylan Rostoker, Kyle Burback, Christopher Meyer, Jamie Perzanowski, Luke and Ben Elmore, Zachariah Renfro, Brad Osuna, Nicholas Bocheneck, Matt Meyers, Samantha Stewart, and Jacob Koval, among others. Additionally, I want to thank everyone I’ve ever had the pleasure of living and staying with through the years, in particular the sailors: Andrew, Fish, Kyle, Spencer, John, Briana, Maggie, Mackenzie, Austin, Ben, and Robbie. Also, Dylan Vanover and Ryan Powers. All these people I am honored to consider my friends, and they know so well how much we exchanged thoughts and grew through each other, as well as the nature of the frustrations and resistance we all had to face (and likely still do) from time to time in the pursuit of our own projects, or our own ideas, or even in search of our own notion of what the best life is like and in any effort we may make to actualize it for ourselves. I also want to thank all of my teachers here through the years, and though I am nervous of the length involved in a full enumeration, I must at least attempt some account. How far back does one go, in looking at who is responsible for what they are at some later point? How do we thank all of those whose generosity, from our youth, even, was responsible for our growth; deeds sometimes let to fall away from our minds, but without which we would not be who we are. I want to acknowledge my teachers and friends in grade-school at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton and St. Andrew’s, and in my high school at Roger Bacon. I am here hesitant to name particulars because it would be 6 something of an absurdity, and I feel as though if I listed one I would have to name them all. I want to thank my teachers in subjects other than philosophy, here at Ohio University who have helped me develop my perspective; particularly those in linguistics – Gabriella Castaneda, and Sofia Fernandez – and in Classics and World Religions – Brian Collins and Steve Hays. I also want to thank the philosophers (or, those who I was lucky enough to know and learn from, at least); Scott Carson, Alfred Lent, Alyssa Bernstein, Jeremy Morris, Phil Ehrlich, Yoichi Ishida, James Petrik, Christoph Hanisch, and the late John Bender. As is common to all human relations, we certainly had moments of abrasion and contention, but nevertheless it all appears to have turned out, if not for the best, at least not for the worst. Also, all my friends in Athens, Ohio, who were so often willing to engage in friendly conversation and share a beer or two. I am so grateful for all of you, and, though it would be a fantasy to think that every deed or every exchange has been perfect, or even good, you have made my life full in many ways. 7 Table of Contents Page Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3 Dedication ........................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 8 2. Excerpts from Berkeley on the General Notion of Time .............................................. 10 2.1 Background Aspects of Berkeley’s Metaphysical System ................................... 12 3. Interpreting Berkeley’s View ........................................................................................ 14 3.1 Interpretation 1 (The Traditional Interpretation) .................................................. 14 3.1.1 A Preliminary Consideration Against the Traditional Interpretation .......... 16 3.1.2 Potential Solutions to This Consideration.................................................... 18 3.2 Interpretation 2 (Hestevold’s Alternative) ............................................................ 18 4. Is One Interpretation Preferable Over the Other? ......................................................... 21 4.1 How Proximate are the Two Interpretations? ....................................................... 21 4.2 A Defense of the Traditional Interpretation .......................................................... 23 4.3 Argument for Implicit Subscription to the Second Interpretation from a Commitment to Historical Consistency and Generalizability of Scientific Laws ...... 27 4.3.1 Why Berkeley Should Be Regarded as Subscribing to the Hestevold’s Interpretation ......................................................................................................... 27 4.3.2 Why Hynes Should be Regarded as Subscribing to the Second Interpretation ............................................................................................................................... 30 4.3.3 Unspecified Features of Events in the Overall Order of Events .................. 33 5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 35 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 36 8 1. Introduction In this paper we will discuss a number of aspects of Berkeley’s theory of time as forwarded primarily in the Principles of Human Knowledge.1 At the time Berkeley was writing, the predominant vein of physical theory was guided by Newtonian ideas, including his notions of absolute space and absolute time.2 Berkeley rejected the idea that space and time should be regarded as absolute, objectively subsisting metaphysical entities, and articulated an opinion by which space and time should be regarded as relative rather than absolute, and as dependent on events existing only within minds. Time (our particular focus here), rather than being an absolute entity that subsists independently of events, is by his account nothing more than a succession of ideas in minds.3 Here we will discuss two interpretations of Berkeley’s theory of time in order to determine if one interpretation is superior. Additionally, we will discuss whether these two interpretations are as distinct as they seem, and, if so, where exactly they diverge. The interpretations presented here are systematic and formalized re-statements of the ideas that Berkeley presented in a handful of remarks scattered throughout his writings. These can thus be regarded as attempts to specify through logical exposition ideas that were at first presented under a form which makes more of an appeal to intuitive understandings of the significances of terms.4 In particular, we will focus our evaluations 1 George Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge, in Readings in Modern Philosophy, ed. Roger Ariew and Eric Watkins, vol.2, Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Associated Texts (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2000). 2 G. J. Whitrow, “Berkeley’s Philosophy of Motion,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4, no.13 (1953): 37. 3 Berkeley, Principles, ¶98. 4 This brief