Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous

Hylas’s name is derived from the Greek term for “matter.” Of the two protagonists in the text, Hylas is the only who undergoes any kind of transformation. At the outset, Hylas almost derisively accuses his friend of adopting what he thinks amounts to a truly outlandish position. He says to Philonous, “What! Can anything be more fantastical, more repugnant to common sense, or a more manifest piece of scepticism, than to believe there is no such thing as matter?” (8). His tone here is emphatic, but there is an irony in what he says: By the beginning of the third dialogue, Hylas’s views will fully devolve into skepticism as his understanding of reality is severely tested.

For much of the first two dialogues, Hylas cannot fully accept Philonous’s primary argument that matter does not exist outside the mind that perceives it. Gradually, as Philonous builds his argument, Hylas concedes one point after the next. This shows that perhaps his conviction in the absolute existence of matter has not been thoroughly examined. After the first dialogue, Hylas still holds fast to his original belief, but tenuously. Although he is unable to successfully articulate his opposition to Philonous, he cannot be entirely convinced that his friend is right.

At the conclusion of each of the first two dialogues, Hylas says to Philonous that he will further consider the day’s discussion and will come to the next dialogue with more developed thoughts. On the third day, Hylas appears to be in a state of despair as he finds himself forced to adopt a position of total skepticism. He says, “We keep a stir about knowledge, and spend our lives in the pursuit of it, when, alas! we know nothing all the while: nor do I think it possible for us ever to know anything in this life” (61). Hylas’s understanding of reality, knowledge, and existence all are fundamentally shaken. Much of the third dialogue involves Hylas trying to turn the tables on Philonous. He is armed with a litany of questions designed to seek some sort of flaw in the argument. He even adopts logical fallacies, such as the fallacy of public opinion (argumentum ad populum) to advance his cause. All the while, Philonous readily answers all the questions, and as the text nears its conclusion, Hylas’s transformation is complete, saying, “Now the glasses are removed, and a new light breaks in upon my understanding. I am clearly convinced that I see things in their native forms; and am no longer in pain about their unknown natures or absolute existence” (94). The rationalism he once exhibited has now been replaced by Philonous’s empirical worldview.