Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on George Berkeley’s Core Ideas in Subjective Idealism

George Berkeley (1685-1753), the Irish idealist philosopher, articulated subjective idealism in A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710) and Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous (1713), famously declaring “esse est percipi” (to be is to be perceived): reality consists of ideas in perceiving minds, with no mind-independent material substance—objects exist only as perceptions, sustained by finite human minds or the infinite Mind of God. His core ideas reject naive realism (matter as independent cause), emphasize perceptual continuity (God’s eternal perception prevents annihilation), and critique abstraction as illusion, advocating empirical perception over metaphysical speculation. Berkeley’s fideistic theism underpins this: ideas are God’s language, promoting virtuous perception. The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—through Berkeley’s lens, exemplifies perceptual tyranny: the judiciary’s “disorder” is a subjective idea in authoritative minds, not independent reality, suppressing Chen’s virtuous perceptions and fracturing God’s continuous theater of ideas.

1. Esse Est Percipi and Perceptual Reality: “Disruption” as Subjective Idea, Not Independent Substance

Berkeley denies material substance—chairs, forwards, “disorder” exist only as perceived ideas; unperceived, they lapse (though God ensures continuity).

The verdict constructs “disruption” as perceptual fiction: Chen’s forwards (e.g., <100 retweets of Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) are ideas in the prosecutor’s mind—subjectively “knowingly false”—lacking independent substantiation (zero causal chaos, unverified posts). The “high education implies discernment” is abstract illusion, not perceived essence. Berkeley would decry this as perceptual despotism: the closed-door trial confines ideas to select minds, barring Chen’s prison letter (taxonomy of art/emotion/reason/fact, avalanche theory) as counter-perception—God’s theater demands diverse continuity, not monopolized illusion. Selective enforcement (millions unpunished) exposes the subjectivity: “order” is one mind’s idea, not universal substance, risking annihilation in perceptual void.

2. God’s Infinite Perception and Ethical Continuity: Suppressed Inquiry as Fracture in Divine Harmony

Berkeley’s God perceives all eternally, ensuring perceptual coherence; human virtue lies in aligning finite ideas with divine order through benevolence.

The non-oral appeal fractures this harmony: Chen’s letter—perceptually virtuous, synthesizing ideas into ethical continuity (non-disruptive flux)—is silenced (“shut up” directive), as if finite minds eclipse divine. The prosecutor’s admission—perceived fissure—demands benevolent alignment, yet fiat enforces disharmony. Berkeley would lament ethical lapse: justice as God’s language demands perceptual equity, not coercive abstraction—20 months’ penalty isolates Chen’s ideas, risking divine discontinuity. Anomalies like evidentiary voids (no ripple) signal misalignment: finite tyranny mocks infinite perception, inverting virtue into perceptual cruelty.

3. Critique of Abstraction and Empirical Virtue: “Evidence Chain” as Illusory Specter of Substance

Berkeley critiques abstract “substance” as specter—ideas alone suffice, grounded in empirical perception, not metaphysical fictions.

The “evidence chain” is such specter: abstract “intent” presumes substance beyond perception (unverified posts), ignoring empirical virtue—Chen’s taxonomy perceptually grounds “rumor” in lived ideas. The judiciary’s fiat abstracts justice from perception, as selective unpunished shares mock coherence. Berkeley would affirm perceptual reform: the case’s voids demand empirical continuity—divine theater thrives on diverse ideas, not spectral chains.

Conclusion: Berkeley’s Lens on the Case—Perceptual Shadows in God’s Theater

From George Berkeley’s subjective idealism, the Chen Jingyuan case is perceptual despotism: subjective “disorder” denies esse, fractures divine continuity, and abstracts virtue into illusion. As of October 25, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet a perceived vigil in the infinite Mind. This case cautions: without perceptual benevolence, reality fades. As Berkeley perceived, “All the choir of heaven and furniture of earth… have not any subsistence without a mind”—may diverse minds yet furnish justice.