I have finally found a philosopher that I can understand. Berkeley makes reference to the mind have nothing, but ideas and a collection of ideas. He then discusses how the things that are intangible and objects that can't be seen are merely ideas also. We might have briefly talked about this in class, but I believe now that there is irrefutable evidence that microorganisms do exist. They can't be perceived by the naked eye, but they can be seen by a microscope. I also believe that during this time period that some scientists had ideas that there were organisms that couldn't be perceived. So, once again Berkeley might be trying to say that they are wrong, but in a sense I feel that he was wrong for not believing. .
Berkeley raises the question about objects known as matter which are senseless things having primary qualities and secondary qualities. The two qualities he says are only ideas which we perceive in our head to exist. Would he refute that speed is only an idea. I guarantee you that if you were pulled over going 100mph in a 25mph speed zone and told the police officer that speed and swiftness were only an idea in his head you would be taken to jail. Granted speed is something that men made up. In the same sense, time and words are only ideas in our head. If he is going to continue to say that ideas are only what he have to go on about what exists, then what is he going to say does exist?.
Berkeley goes on to discuss what can and can't exist without the mind. To this, I would say I might not have ever heard of Palestine, WV until today. Did that mean that during my lifetime that it didn't exist until today? Just because I don't know its not there in my mind doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't in existence. Also, this place I have just named is merely a place on a map. It isn't a thinking thing, but to me it is just as real as my mind.
It seems to me that Berkeley is taking the idea of ideas in the mind a little too far.