Esse est percipi: “To be is to be perceived”

According to this argument, all the qualities attributed to objects are sense qualities. Thus, hardness is the sensing of a resistance to a striking action, and heaviness is a sensation of muscular effort when, for example, holding an object in one’s hand, just as blueness is a quality of visual experience. But those qualities exist only while they are being perceived by some subject or spirit equipped with sense organs. The 18th-century Anglo-Irish empiricist George Berkeley rejected the idea that sense perceptions are caused by material substance, the existence of which he denied. Intuitively he grasped the truth that “to be is to be perceived.” The argument is a simple one, but it provoked an extensive and complicated literature, and modern idealists considered it irrefutable.

The reciprocity argument

Closely related to the esse est percipi argument is the contention that subject and object are reciprocally dependent upon each other. It is impossible to conceive of a subject without an object, since the essential meaning of being a subject is being aware of an object and that of being an object is being an object to a subject, that relation being absolutely and universally reciprocal. Consequently, every complete reality is always a unity of subject and object—i.e., an immaterial ideality, a concrete universal.

The mystical argument

In the third argument, the idealist holds that in the individual’s most-immediate experience, that of his own subjective awareness, the intuitive self can achieve a direct apprehension of ultimate reality, which reveals it to be spiritual. Thus, the mystic bypasses normal cognition, feeling that, for metaphysical probings, the elaborate processes of mediation interposed between sense objects and their perceptions reduce its reliability as compared with the direct grasp of intuition.

It is significant that the claims of that argument have been made by numerous thinkers, in varying degrees idealistic and mystical, living in different periods and in different cultures. In ancient Greece, for example, it was made by Plato, to whom the final leap to the form of the Good was mystical in nature. In Indian Hindu Vedanta philosophy, it was made by the 8th-century monistic theologian Shankara and by the 11th-century dualistic Brahmin theist Ramanuja. In Buddhism the claims were made by the sometimes mystical extreme subjectivism of the Vijnanavada school of Mahayana (represented by Ashvaghosha in the 1st and Asanga in the 4th century) and in China by the Zen school and by the 7th-century scholar Hui-neng, author of its basic classic Liu-Tsu t’an-ch’ing (“Platform Scripture of the Sixth Patriarch”). In Islamic lands it was made by Sufis (mystics)—in particular, by the 13th-century Persian writer Jalal al-Din Rumi. And in the West during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was made by several distinguished idealists: in Germany, by the seminal modern theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher; in France, by the evolutionary intuitionist Henri Bergson, by the philosopher of action Maurice Blondel, and by the Jewish religious existentialist Martin Buber; and in English-speaking countries, by the Scottish metaphysician James Frederick Ferrier and the American Hegelian William E. Hocking.

More From Britannica

humanism: Idealism and the Platonic Academy of Florence

The ontological argument

This famous argument originated as a proof of the existence of God. It occurred to the 11th-century thinker St. Anselm of Canterbury, as an intuitive insight from his personal religious experience, that a being conceived to be perfect must necessarily exist, for otherwise that being would lack one of the essentials of perfection. God’s perfection requires his existence. Some idealist philosophers have generalized the argument to prove idealism. They distinguish conceptual essences that exist only in the intellect from categorial essences that actually exist in re (in the thing). Every actual reality, therefore, is a unity of one or more categorial essences and existence; and again, that means that it is an immaterial ideality or concrete universal. According to Hegel, “the ideality of the finite” is “the main principle of philosophy.”