Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous

At the beginning of Dialogue 1, Philonous uses literary techniques to describe the countryside he and Hylas are walking through in extensive sensory detail. How does this lyrical description of setting inform the ensuing argument about The Nature of Existence and the Role of Perception?

Evaluate Hylas’s transformation throughout the text. Why does his acceptance of immaterialism first lead him into despair, and what new insights allow him in the end to overcome that despair?

Philonous often summarizes Hylas’s arguments back to him in a way that makes them sound absurd, saying for example, “It seems then there are two sorts of sound, the one vulgar, or that which is heard, the other philosophical and real” (18). Is this an effective rhetorical strategy? Why or why not?

Consider Berkeley’s idealism in the context of digital media and generative AI. Does the prevalence of artificial images in daily life strengthen or undermine Berkeley’s argument? How so?

Philonous says, “You mean, they know that they know nothing” to which Hylas responds, “That is the very top and perfection of human knowledge” (62). This view of philosophical wisdom—that the wisest are those who know they know nothing—has a long history, going back at least to Socrates. Does Philonous agree with it? If not, how does he refute it?

To what degree does Philonous’s immaterialism depend on the existence of God? What attributes must God have in order for Philonous’s argument to work?

How have developments in science since Berkeley’s era impacted the credibility of his ideas? How might a theoretical physicist respond to the immaterialist argument?

Hylas says, “I see you can assault me with my own weapons” (88). How does Philonous use Hylas’s own arguments against him? What makes this technique effective?