While studying Bishop Berkeley in depth I have faced some interesting arguments regarding his philosophy is shifted and changed on his later life.
The main source of this argument is from his not popular latest work "Siris" (1744) passed through some six editions in six months.
There are some solid arguments stating that his ideas are shifted slightly on his late period of life. One famous source for this critisism is from a book called "Did Berkeley change his mind":
https://www.amazon.in/Siris-Revisited-Berkeley-Change-Mind/dp/1244016055
Siris is an important piece to the Berkelean puzzle. Chapter 1 demonstrates the correlation between Berkeley's Bermuda project and Siris. Chapter 2 responds to scholars who argue that in Siris Berkeley departs from the Christian faith and argues that Berkeley's primary goal in Siris is to promote Christianity. Chapter 3 shows that it is evident from Siris (as in his other writings) that Berkeley is a weak panentheist, a term I define and use to contrast Berkeley with Moltmann. Berkeley's weak panentheism stems from his theocentric idealism and allows him to remain orthodox. Chapter 4 contends that while most scholars categorize Berkeley as a rule-utilitarian, he should actually be regarded as a virtue theorist.
Another argument states that: His last philosophical work, Siris (1744), includes a discussion of the medicinal virtues of tar water, followed by properly philosophical discussions that many scholars see as a departure from his earlier idealism. https://iep.utm.edu/george-berkeley-british-empiricist/
Another argument from the book : A paradigm shift in George Berkeley's philosophy 1707-1709
The Early Berkeley, on the one hand, spoke about “objects” as (1) “real” things, which (2) we are acquainted with by virtue of god-given perceptions; (3) and these perceptions represent “real” objects by resemblance.
33In the Theory of Vision, on the other hand (1) he is not talking about “objects” in the everyday sense of “real” things; ontological issues are irrelevant to his “Science of Vision”; (2) only such “objects” as pure sensibles are “given,” whereas perceptions are end products of mental processes; (3) and these perceptions do not represent what they signify by likeness.
So what are your final thoughts? Did he shift his radical version of idealism to a softer version throughout his life?
