The first dialogue, opens with the appreciation of nature, discussing the different senses, that allow us to enjoy the beauty of nature: “Can there be a pleasanter time of the day, [...] are fit for those meditations, which the solitude of a garden and tranquillity of the morning naturally dispose us to.” (p1). Eventually, Berkeley asserts that Philonous cannot be a skeptic because he enjoys nature profoundly. This joy being described by Philonous serves as a safety method against the implicative accusation made by Hylas. Nonetheless, Philonous, also emphasizes that one should have a better rhetoric by looking at nature philosophically, along with what is said to be common, immediate, and sensitive to the natural objects of thought. Therefore,…show more content… Thus, we must look at the response to the accusations given by Philonous, who is the direct link to Berkeley. Philonous starts off by the contrast between doubting and denying, demonstrating that immaterialism can’t be a skepticism, because the latter leads to the suspension of the judgment whereas immaterialism alines to be a positive doctrine, equivalent to a judgment such as “I am as peremptory in my denial, as you in your affirmation.” (p3). As a result, Hylas and Philonous differ onto two philosophical point about the same original object: skepticism. Essentially, the definition of denying things is the negation of the problematic, because Hylas is surprised by it, and by the existence of sensitive things which leads to the: immediate character of the apprehension of these “sensible things.”; The apprehension, indicates that by accepting it, Hylas cannot go against what Philonous will deny, the existence of things that are not immediately sensitive, which weakens his attack. Following, Hylas proposes to Philonous another definition, and by the same bias reconstruct his attack since he is surprised by Philonous’perspective on the doubt itself being the medium of the existence of material substance. The argument of his philosophical system unfolds such as if ideas…show more content… If the senses do not make inferences, then what is not immediately sensible? And is it part of the domain of things perceived by the senses? As a result, in order to deny the existence of any “thing” that is not immediately sensitive, it will not be enough to make Philonous a skeptic. What will follow, is the necessary deconstruction of the definition to rebuilt another, one that will be undeniable. Berkeley, enumerates the definition of objects, applying the Cartesian method, thus by the sight we perceive lights, colors and figures, by the hearing of sounds...leading to draw that if only the immediate objects of the sense are qualities and not substances, then there is nothing skeptical to deny the existence of material substance, since they are not part of the realm of what is sensible and immediate. From the two different positions, Hylas considers that by denying the existence of material substance, Philonous denies the reality of an immediately sensible thing, and that of Philonous who will aim to show that material substance does not belong to immediate sensible things. Consequently, to the evidence of common sense, the immediate sensible things can therefore be rejected as a mere being of reason, to the existence of which is only
