1001Philosophers

John Locke vs George Berkeley vs David Hume

Locke, Berkeley, and Hume are the three canonical British empiricists whose work shaped early modern epistemology. Berkeley developed his philosophy as an immanent critique of Locke; Hume developed his as a more rigorous extension of empiricist principles than either of his predecessors had been willing to follow. Read in sequence, they show empiricism pressed to successively radical conclusions.

Key differences at a glance

John LockeGeorge BerkeleyDavid Hume
Material substance Real, mind-independent, bears primary qualities.Incoherent; to be is to be perceived.No impression of substance; the idea is empty.
The self Substance persisting through time.Substantial mind underlies all perceptions.Bundle of perceptions; no persistent self.
Status of God Demonstrable by reason as creator.Sustains material objects as ideas in the divine mind.Not preserved by the empiricist program.
Endpoint of empiricism Mind-independent material world preserved.Idealist immaterialism preserves God.Skepticism that does not rescue substance, self, or God.

Biographical facts

John LockeGeorge BerkeleyDavid Hume
Dates 1632 – 17041685 – 17531711 – 1776
Nationality EnglishIrishScottish
Era ModernModernModern
Profile John Locke →George Berkeley →David Hume →

Where they agree

All three held that all ideas derive from experience, all three rejected innate principles in epistemology, and all three took the careful analysis of perception as the central method of philosophy. All three wrote in clear vernacular English aimed at educated lay readers rather than at scholars.

Where they disagree

The disagreements concern what empiricist principles ultimately commit one to. Locke distinguished primary qualities (extension, motion, figure) which inhere in objects from secondary qualities (color, sound, taste) which exist only in the mind, and held a substantial self that perceives. Berkeley argued the distinction collapses on Lockean principles and that material substance is incoherent: to be is to be perceived, and only minds and ideas exist, sustained by the mind of God. Hume pushed further still: there is no impression of substance or of a continuing self, and what we call knowledge of necessary connections in nature is grounded only in custom and habit. Locke's empiricism preserves the material world; Berkeley's preserves God; Hume's preserves neither.

Representative quotes

John Locke

  • “No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience.”

    Book II, Ch. 1, sec. 19

  • “All mankind being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”

    Second Treatise of Government , Ch. II, sec. 6

  • “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”

    Second Treatise of Government , Ch. VI, sec. 57

George Berkeley

  • “To be is to be perceived.”

    A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, §3

  • “Truth is the cry of all, but the game of few.”

    Paragraph 368

  • “Few men think, yet all will have opinions.”

    Philonous to Hylas. The Second Dialogue. This appears in a passage first added in the third edition, (1734)

David Hume

  • “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.”

    Part 3, Section 3

  • “Custom, then, is the great guide of human life.”

    Variant (perhaps a paraphrase of this passage): It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom.

  • “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.”

    Section X: Of Miracles; Part I. 87

Pairwise comparisons

Continue reading