Berkeley, George

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2010)

This article may require copy editing for English grammar. You can assist by editing it. (September 2010)

George Berkeley

Portrait by John Smibert (NPG)
Full name	George Berkeley
Born	12 March 1685(1685-03-12), Kilkenny, Ireland
Died	14 January 1753(1753-01-14) (aged 67) Oxford, England
Era	18th century philosophy
Region	Western Philosophy
School	Idealism, Empiricism
Main interests	Christianity, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Language, Mathematics, Perception
Notable ideas	Subjective idealism, master argument
Influenced by John Locke, Isaac Newton, Nicolas Malebranche
Influenced David Hume, Edmund Burke, Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer, A.J. Ayer, Jorge Luis Borges

George Berkeley (pronounced /ˈbɑrkliː/ ^[1]) (12 March 1685 – 14 January 1753), also known as Bishop Berkeley (Bishop of Cloyne), was an Anglo-Irish philosopher whose primary achievement was the advancement of a theory he called "immaterialism" (later referred to as "subjective idealism" by others). This theory contends that individuals can only know sensations and ideas of objects, not abstractions such as "matter", and that ideas depend on perceiving minds for their very existence. This belief later became immortalized in the dictum, "esse est percipi" ("to be is to be perceived").

Contents 1 Life 2 Contributions to philosophy 2.1 Theoretical starting principles 2.2 Theology 2.3 Relativity arguments 2.4 New theory of vision 2.5 Philosophy of physics 2.6 Philosophy of mathematics 2.7 Moral philosophy 3 Place in the history of philosophy 4 Commemoration 4.1 Veneration 5 In popular culture 6 Berkeley's writings 7 Writings on Berkeley 7.1 Eminent Berkeley scholars 8 See also 9 Notes 10 Further reading 10.1 Primary 10.2 Secondary 11 External links

In 1709, Berkeley published his first major work, An Essay towards a New Theory of Vision in which he discussed the limitations of human vision and advanced the theory that proper objects of sight are not material objects but light and color. This foreshadowed his chief philosophical works A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge in 1710 which, after its poor reception, he rewrote in dialogue form and published under the title Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous in 1713.^[2] In this book, Berkeley’s views were represented by Philonous, Hylas being an embodiment of the Irish thinker’s opponents, in particular John Locke. Berkeley argued against Sir Isaac Newton's absolute space, time and motion in De Motu ^[3] (on Motion), published 1721. His arguments were a precursor to the views of Leibniz, Mach and Einstein. ^[4] In 1734, he published The Analyst, a critique of the foundations of infinitesimal calculus, which was influential in the development of mathematics.

[edit] Life

Berkeley was born at his family home, Dysart Castle, near Thomastown, County Kilkenny, Ireland, the eldest son of William Berkeley, a cadet of the noble family of Berkeley. He was educated at Kilkenny College and attended Trinity College, Dublin, completing a Master's degree in 1707. He remained at Trinity College after completion of his degree as a tutor and Greek lecturer.

His earliest publication was on mathematics, but the first that brought him notice was his Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision, first published in 1709. In the essay, Berkeley examined visual distance, magnitude, position and problems of sight and touch. Though giving rise to much controversy at the time, its conclusions are now accepted as an established part of the theory of optics.

The next publication to appear was the Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge in 1710, which was followed in 1713 by Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, in which he propounded his system of philosophy, the leading principle of which is that the world, as represented by our senses, depends for its existence, as such, on being perceived.

Of this theory, the Principles gives the exposition and the Dialogues the defence. One of his main objectives was to combat the prevailing materialism of the time. The theory was largely received with ridicule; while even those, such as Samuel Clarke and William Whiston, who did acknowledge his "extraordinary genius," were nevertheless convinced that his early principles were false.

Shortly afterwards, Berkeley visited England, and was received into the circle of Addison, Pope and Steele. In the period between 1714 and 1720, he interspersed his academic endeavors with periods of extensive travel in Europe, including one of the most extensive Grand Tours of the length and breadth of Italy ever undertaken. In 1721, he took Holy Orders in the Church of Ireland, earning his doctorate in divinity, and once again chose to remain at Trinity College Dublin, lecturing this time in Divinity and in Hebrew. In 1724, he was made Dean of Derry.

In 1725, he formed the project of founding a college in Bermuda for training ministers and missionaries in the colony, in pursuit of which he gave up his deanery with its income of £1100.

In 1728, he married Anne Forster, daughter of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland. He then went to America on a salary of £100. He landed near Newport, Rhode Island, where he bought a plantation in Middletown, Rhode Island – the famous "Whitehall". He lived at the plantation while he waited for funds for his college to arrive. The funds, however, were not forthcoming and, in 1732, he left America and returned to London. While living in London's Saville Street, he took part in the efforts to create a home for the city's abandoned children. The Foundling Hospital was founded by Royal Charter in 1739 and Berkeley is listed as one of its original governors. In 1734, he was appointed Bishop of Cloyne in Ireland. Soon afterwards, he published Alciphron, or The Minute Philosopher, directed against both Shaftesbury and Bernard de Mandeville; and in 1735–37 The Querist.

His last two publications were Siris: Philosophical reflexions and inquiries concerning the virtues of tar-water, and divers other subjects connected together and arising from one another (1744) and Further Thoughts on Tar-water (1752). Pine tar is an effective antiseptic and disinfectant when applied to cuts on the skin, but Berkeley argued for the use of pine tar as a broad panacea for diseases. It is said that his 1744 book on the medical benefits of pine tar was the best-selling book in his lifetime.^[5]

He remained at Cloyne until 1752, when he retired and went to Oxford to live with his son. He died soon afterward and was buried in Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford. His affectionate disposition and genial manners made him much loved and held in warm regard by many of his contemporaries.

[edit] Contributions to philosophy

Berkeley’s contribution to philosophy is his thorough substantiation of the so-called “new principle”^[6] esse est percipi (to be is to be perceived).

“

This is the claim, most often presented negatively,[7] as the thesis that matter does not exist, with which Berkeley is most closely associated.[8]

”

According to the “esse is percipi” thesis, all the things surrounding us are nothing but our ideas. Sensible things have no other existence distinct from their being perceived by us. This also applies to human bodies. When we see our bodies or move our limbs, we perceive only certain sensations in our consciousness.

When identifying the sensuously perceived world with ideas of the knowing subject, Berkeley did not maintain that ideas exhausted the content of reality. There is perceiving, active being, or mental substance (mind, spirit, soul), in which ideas exist.

According to Berkeley there are only two kinds of thing: spirits and ideas. Spirits are simple, active beings which produce and perceive ideas; ideas are passive beings which are produced and perceived .^[9]

Hence, it follows that human knowledge is reduced to two heads: that of ideas and that of spirits (Principles #86). In contrast to ideas, spiritual substance cannot be perceived. A man’s soul perceiving ideas is to be comprehended by inward feeling or reflection (Principles #89). Unlike John Locke, Berkeley refused to use the term “idea” with regards to objects of reflection. Whereas Locke called them ideas, Berkeley restricted the meaning of the term “idea” to passive objects of perception.^[10] It being so, Berkeley introduced the word “notion” to account for discourse about spiritual substance and its operations (Principles ##89, 142). For Berkeley, we have no idea of spirits albeit we have a “notion” of them.

[edit] Theoretical starting principles

This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (September 2010)

Allegedly, Berkeley stated that individuals cannot think or talk about an object's being, but rather think or talk about an object's being perceived by someone. That is, individuals cannot know any "real" object or matter "behind" the object as they perceive it, which "causes" their perceptions. He thus concluded^{[citation needed] [11]} that all that individuals know about an object is their perception of it.

Allegedly under his theory, the object a person perceives is the only object that the person knows and experiences. If individuals need to speak at all of the "real" or "material" object, the latter in particular being a confused term that Berkeley sought to dispose of, it is this perceived object to which all such names should exclusively refer.

To some, this possibly raises the question whether this perceived object is "objective" in the sense of being "the same" for fellow humans. In fact, is the concept of "other" human beings, beyond an individual's perception of them, valid? Berkeley argued that since an individual experiences other humans in the way they speak to him—something that is not originating from his own activity—and since he learns that their view of the world is consistent with his, he can believe in their existence and in the world being identical or similar for everyone.

It follows that^{[citation needed]}:

1. Any knowledge of the world is to be obtained only through direct perception.
2. Error comes about through thinking about what individuals perceive.
3. Knowledge of the world of people, things and actions around them may be purified and perfected merely by stripping away all thought, and with it language, from their pure perceptions.

From this it follows that:

1. The ideal form of scientific knowledge is obtained by pursuing pure de-intellectualized perceptions.
2. If individuals pursue these, we can obtain the deepest insights into the natural world and the world of human thought and action available to man.
3. The goal of all science, therefore, is to de-intellectualize or de-conceptualize, and thereby purify, human perceptions.

[edit] Theology

A convinced adherent of religion, Berkeley believed God to be present as an immediate cause of all our experiences.

The course of the Irish bishop’s thought is interesting. He did not evade the question of the external source of the diversity of the sense data at the disposal of the human individual. He strove simply to show that the causes of sensations could not be things, because what we called things, and considered without grounds to be something different from our sensations, were built up wholly from sensations. There must consequently be some other external source of the inexhaustible diversity of sensations (such is the logic of the subjective idealist)… The source of our sensations, Berkeley concluded, could only be God; He gave them to man, who had to see in them signs and symbols that carried God’s word.^[12]

Here is Berkeley’s proof of the existence of God:

Whatever power I may have over my own thoughts, I find the ideas actually perceived by Sense have not a like dependence on my will. When in broad daylight I open my eyes, it is not in my power to choose whether I shall see or no, or to determine what particular objects shall present themselves to my view; and so likewise as to the hearing and other senses; the ideas imprinted on them are not creatures of my will. There is therefore some other Will or Spirit that produces them (Berkeley. Principles #29)

And that "other Will or Spirit" is God. Hence, it follows that

Berkeley’s mystic idealism (as Kant aptly christened it) claimed that nothing separated man and God (except materialist misconceptions, of course), since nature or matter did not exist as a reality independent of consciousness. The revelation of God was directly accessible to man, according to this doctrine; it was the sense-perceived world, the world of man’s sensations, which came to him from on high for him to decipher and so grasp the divine purpose.^[12]

God is not the distant engineer of Newtonian machinery that in the fullness of time led to the growth of a tree in the university quadrangle. Rather, my perception of the tree is an idea that God's mind has produced in mine, and the tree continues to exist in the quadrangle when "nobody" is there, simply because God is an infinite mind that perceives all.

Berkeley’s inference from the sense data to God’s existence is sometimes taken lightly. A number of critics believe that such a “proof” is merely a stroke of tactics, and Berkeley's transition to a stance of objective idealism is meant to avoid solipsistic consequences of the “esse est percipi” formula. It is traditionally accepted that a logical development of Berkeley’s immaterialism leads to solipsism, to the assertion that nothing but the self exists. Berkeley’s contemporaries had already imputed solipsism to him. Thomas Reid’s reaction is typical. In Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man (II, X), he argues that Berkeley’s system

seems to take away all the evidence we have of other intelligent beings like ourselves. What I call a father, a brother, or a friend, is only a parcel of ideas in my own mind. … I can find no principle in Berkeley's system, which affords me even probable ground to conclude that there are other intelligent beings, like myself. … I am left alone, as the only creature of God in the universe, in that forlorn state of egoism into which it is said some of the disciples of Des Cartes were brought by his philosophy.^[13]

It was Berkeley whom Diderot bore in mind speaking to d’Alambert about a mad “harpsichord”:

There came a moment of madness when the feeling harpsichord thought that it was the only harpsichord in the world, and that the whole harmony of the universe resided in it. (Diderot. Conversation between D'Alembert and Diderot)

Similar interpretation of Berkeley’s philosophy finds wide support among scholars at present.^[14]

Berkeley identified objects with sensations, and that was the ineradicable fault of his essentially solipsistic theory.^[15]

Berkeley himself admitted that his immaterialistic principles provoked doubts about the existence of other minds:

It is granted we have neither an immediate evidence nor a demonstrative knowledge of the existence of other finite spirits. (Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, III)

According to Berkeley, a verisimilar, feasible logical conclusion based on analogy is the only ground for one’s belief in other minds (Principles #145—148).

The philosophy of David Hume concerning causality and objectivity is an elaboration of another aspect of Berkeley's philosophy. As Berkeley's thought progressed, his works took on a more Platonic character: Siris, in particular, displays an interest in highly abstruse and speculative metaphysics not to be found in the earlier works. However, A.A. Luce, the most eminent Berkeley scholar of the 20th century, constantly stressed the continuity of Berkeley's philosophy. The fact that Berkeley returned to his major works throughout his life, issuing revised editions with only minor changes, also counts against any theory that attributes to him a significant volte-face.

Over a century later Berkeley's thought experiment was summarized in a limerick by Ronald Knox and an anonymous reply:

There was a young man who said "God

Must find it exceedingly odd

To think that the tree

Should continue to be

When there's no one about in the quad."

"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;

I am always about in the quad.

And that's why the tree

Will continue to be

Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

In reference to Berkeley's philosophy, Dr. Samuel Johnson kicked a heavy stone and exclaimed, "I refute it thus!"

[edit] Relativity arguments

John Locke (Berkeley's predecessor) states that we define an object by its primary and secondary qualities. He takes heat as an example of a secondary quality. If you put one hand in a bucket of cold water, and the other hand in a bucket of warm water, then put both hands in a bucket of lukewarm water, one of your hands is going to tell you that the water is cold and the other that the water is hot. Locke says that since two different objects (both your hands) perceive the water to be hot and cold, then the heat is not a quality of the water.

While Locke used this argument to distinguish primary from secondary qualities, Berkeley extends it to cover primary qualities in the same way. For example, he says that size is not a quality of an object because the size of the object depends on the distance between the observer and the object, or the size of observer. Since an object is a different size to different observers, then size is not a quality of the object. Berkeley rejects shape with a similar argument and then asks: if neither primary qualities nor secondary qualities are of the object, then how can we say that there is anything more than the qualities we observe?

[edit] New theory of vision

This section requires expansion.

In sections 1-51 of his Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision, Berkeley argued against the classical scholars of optics by holding that: spatial depth, as the distance that separates the perceiver from the perceived object is itself invisible; namely, that space is perceived by experience instead of the senses per se.This question concerning the visibility of space was central to the Renaissance perspective tradition and its reliance on classical optics in the development of pictorial representations of spatial depth. This matter was debated by scholars since the times of the 11th century Arab polymath and mathematician Alhazen (al-Hasan Ibn al-Haytham) who affirmed in experimental contexts the visibility of space. This issue, which was raised in Berkeley's theory of vision, was treated at length in the Phenomenology of Perception of Maurice Merleau-Ponty in the context of confirming the visual perception of spatial depth (la profondeur) and by way of refuting Berkeley's thesis. ^[16]

[edit] Philosophy of physics

This section requires expansion.

"Berkeley’s works display his keen interest in natural philosophy … from his earliest writings (Arithmetica, 1707) to his latest (Siris, 1744). Moreover, much of his philosophy is shaped fundamentally by his engagement with the science of his time."^[17] How profound this interest was can be judged from numerous entries in Berkeley’s Philosophical Commentaries (1707–1708), e.g. "Mem. to Examine & accurately discuss the scholium of the 8th Definition of Mr Newton’s Principia." (#316)

[edit] Philosophy of mathematics

In addition to his contributions to philosophy, Bishop Berkeley was also very influential in the development of mathematics, although in a rather indirect sense. "Berkeley was concerned with mathematics and its philosophical interpretation from the earliest stages of his intellectual life."^[18] Berkeley’s “Philosophical Commentaries” (1707–1708) witness to his interest in mathematics:

Axiom. No reasoning about things whereof we have no idea. Therefore no reasoning about Infinitesimals. (#354) Take away the signs from Arithmetic & Algebra, & pray wt remains? (#767) These are sciences purely Verbal, & entirely useless but for Practise in Societys of Men. No speculative knowledge, no comparison of Ideas in them. (#768)

In 1707 Berkeley published two treatises on mathematics. In 1734, he published The Analyst, subtitled A DISCOURSE Addressed to an Infidel Mathematician, a critique of the calculus. Florian Cajori called this treatise “the most spectacular event of the century in the history of British mathematics.”^[19] The infidel mathematician in question is believed to have been either Edmond Halley, or Isaac Newton himself—though if to the latter, the discourse was then posthumously addressed, as Newton died in 1727. The Analyst represented a direct attack on the foundations and principles of Infinitesimal calculus and, in particular, the notion of fluxion or infinitesimal change, which Newton and Leibniz used to develop the calculus. Berkeley coined the phrase Ghosts of departed quantities, familiar to students of calculus (see Ian Stewart's book From Here to Infinity, chapter 6), which captures the gist of his criticism.

Berkeley regarded his criticism of calculus as part of his broader campaign against the religious implications of Newtonian mechanics – as a defense of traditional Christianity against deism, which tends to distance God from His worshippers.

The difficulties raised by Berkeley were still present in the work of Cauchy whose approach to infinitesimal calculus was a combination of infinitesimals and a notion of limit, and were eventually sidestepped by Weierstrass by means of his (ε, δ) approach, which eliminated infinitesimals altogether. More recently, Abraham Robinson restored infinitesimal methods in his 1966 book Non-standard analysis by showing that they can be used rigorously.

[edit] Moral philosophy

This section requires expansion.

The tract Passive Obedience (1712) is

Berkeley’s main contribution to moral and political philosophy. … Other important sources for Berkeley’s views on morality are Alciphron (1732), especially dialogues I-III, and the Discourse to Magistrates (1738).^[20]

[edit] Place in the history of philosophy

Berkeley's Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge was published three years before the publication of Arthur Collier's Clavis Universalis, which made assertions similar to those of Berkeley's.^[21] However, there seemed to have been no influence or communication between the two writers.^[22]

German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote of him: "Berkeley was, therefore, the first to treat the subjective starting-point really seriously and to demonstrate irrefutably its absolute necessity. He is the father of idealism…".^[23]

George Berkeley has gone down in the handbooks as a great spokesman of British empiricism.^[24] He influenced many modern philosophers, especially David Hume. Thomas Reid admitted that he put forward a drastic criticism of Berkeleianism after he had been an admirer of Berkeley’s philosophical system for a long time.^[25] Berkeley’s “thought made possible the work of Hume and thus Kant, notes Alfred North Whitehead.”^[26] Some authors draw a parallel between Berkeley and Edmund Husserl.^[27]

During Berkeley’s lifetime his philosophical ideas were comparatively uninfluential.^[28] But interest in his doctrine grew from the 1870s when Alexander Campbell Fraser, “the leading Berkeley scholar of the nineteenth century,”^[29] published “The Works of George Berkeley.” A powerful impulse to serious studies in Berkeley’s philosophy was given by A. A. Luce and Thomas Edmund Jessop, “two of the twentieth century’s foremost Berkeley scholars,”^[30] thanks to whom Berkeley scholarship was raised to the rank of a special area of historico-philosophical science.

The proportion of Berkeley scholarship in literature on the history of philosophy is becoming increasingly greater. This can be judged from the most comprehensive bibliographies on George Berkeley. During the period of 1709-1932 about 300 writings on Berkeley were published. That amounted to 1 ½ publication per annum. During the course of 1932-79 over one thousand works were brought out, i.e. 20 works per annum. Of late, the number of publications has reached 30 per annum.^[31] In 1977 publication began in Ireland of a special journal on Berkeley’s life and thought (Berkeley Studies).

[edit] Commemoration

The city of Berkeley, California, was named after him, although the pronunciation has evolved to suit American English: (/ˈbɜrkliː/ BURK-lee). The naming was suggested in 1866 by a trustee of the then College of California, Frederick Billings. Billings was inspired by Berkeley's Verses on the Prospect of Planting Arts and Learning in America, particularly the final stanza: "Westward the course of empire takes its way; The first four Acts already past, A fifth shall close the Drama with the day; Time's noblest offspring is the last." A residential college and an Episcopal seminary at Yale University also bear Berkeley's name, as does the Berkeley Library at Trinity College, Dublin.

[edit] Veneration

Berkeley is honored together with Joseph Butler with a feast day on the liturgical calendar of the Episcopal Church (USA) on June 16.

[edit] In popular culture

This "In popular culture" section may contain minor or trivial references. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivial references. (September 2010)

• George Orwell. "Nineteen Eighty-Four^[32]
• "The Dean of Thin Air" (a film about Berkeley)^[33]
• Don Juan by Lord Byron:

“	When Bishop Berkeley said 'there was no matter,' And proved it—'t was no matter what he said. They say his system 't is in vain to batter, Too subtle for the airiest human head... ... ...Will I leave off metaphysical Discussion, which is neither here nor there: If I agree that what is, is; then this I call Being quite perspicuous and extremely fair.	”
	— Lord Byron, “Don Juan,” canto 11, stanzas 1-5

• Letters to his Son by The Earl of Chesterfield - "Doctor Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, a very worthy, ingenious, and learned man, has written a book, to prove that there is no such thing as matter… His arguments are, strictly speaking, unanswerable; but yet... -Letter LII (LONDON, September 27, O. S. 1748)
• In his poem, the "Seven Sages", William Butler Yeats refers to Berkeley as one of the "great minds that hated Whiggery".

“	..... A voice Soft as the rustle of a reed from Cloyne That gathers volume; now a thunder-clap.	”
	— William Butler Yeats, “The Seven Sages", 1933, The Winding Stair and Other Poems

[edit] Berkeley's writings

• Arithmetica (1707)
• Miscellanea Mathematica (1707)
• Philosophical Commentaries or Common-Place Book (1707–08, notebooks)
• An Essay towards a New Theory of Vision (1709)
• A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Part I (1710)
• Passive Obedience, or the Christian doctrine of not resisting the Supreme Power (1712)
• Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous (1713)
• An Essay Towards Preventing the Ruin of Great Britain (1721)
• De Motu (1721)
• A Proposal for Better Supplying Churches in our Foreign Plantations, and for converting the Savage Americans to Christianity by a College to be erected in the Summer Islands (1725)
• A Sermon preached before the incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1732)
• Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher (1732)
• The Theory of Vision, or Visual Language, shewing the immediate presence and providence of a Deity, vindicated and explained (1733)
• The Analyst: a Discourse addressed to an Infidel Mathematician (1734)
• A Defence of Free-thinking in Mathematics, with Appendix concerning Mr. Walton's vindication of Sir Isaac Newton's Principle of Fluxions (1735)
• Reasons for not replying to Mr. Walton's Full Answer (1735)
• The Querist, containing several queries proposed to the consideration of the public (three parts, 1735-7).
• A Discourse addressed to Magistrates and Men of Authority (1736)
• Siris, a chain of philosophical reflections and inquiries, concerning the virtues of tar-water (1744).
• A Letter to the Roman Catholics of the Diocese of Cloyne (1745)
• A Word to the Wise, or an exhortation to the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland (1749)
• Maxims concerning Patriotism (1750)
• Farther Thoughts on Tar-water (1752)
• Miscellany (1752)

[edit] Writings on Berkeley

• Jessop T. E., Luce A. A. A bibliography of George Berkeley. 2 edn., Springer, 1973. ISBN 90-247-1577-6, ISBN 978-90-247-1577-0
• Turbayne C. M. A Bibliography of George Berkeley 1963—1979 [DOC, DjVu] // Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays. (EPUP, Google Books) Ed. by C. M. Turbayne. Manchester, 1982. P. 313—329.
• Parigi, Silvia. Berkeley Bibliography (1979—2010) — A Supplement to those of Jessop and Turbayne
• A bibliography on George Berkeley — about 300 works from the 19th century to our days
• Tomy C. A. & Varadarajan N. A bibliography on George Berkeley

[edit] Eminent Berkeley scholars