Where were we?
After I did a lot of work on Locke, it was time to proceed. I was about to skip Berkeley to jump into Hume immediately, Prof. Stocker made a good remark about this man by saying "the ones who are mostly interested in science may like reading Berkeley".
That was the turn point, exactly.
I took Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous as the textbook of the course and began to discover.
I was never prejudiced. Okay, maybe a little bit. I knew he has a quite different kind of experimentalist point of view. He has objections against Locke's qualities which I enthusiastically tried to refute all over the first dialog which we were responsible of. I did not want to believe his thoughts on the existence of external world, indeed. And I really tried to put him down. I discussed many of his arguments against his precedents with Prof. Stocker, even sometimes got crazy about this kind of perspective which I tried my best to anticipate.
I always thought he was surely wrong.
But then, when it comes to make a conclusion from what I read and thought, surprisingly the conclusion I drew was quite different from what I thought before. I attacked him in my final paper, very badly. However, as being objective I sadly accepted he was right about some point... some point which every philosopher after him called this problem as the riddle of the philosophy... some point which even Hume accepted the final knockout and built up the new philosophy [experimental philosophy] upon this fact.
See what it is.