Is substance or material or matter in its philosophical acceptation a contradictory notion?

[Jack]

Appearance and Reality, Phenomenal and Noumenal, that dichotomey is found in most modern philosophy.  In contrast to Kant FMW begins his CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT effectively denying the existence of an unknown and unknowable substratum holding the appearances.  Turning to George Berkeley we find the same thing.  Neither denies the existence of physical objects.  But both see the contradiction in the postulation of matter.  Yet the deep seated habit of holding to a hidden support of the experienced is hard to drop. 

In his Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous (1713)  Hylas plays the role of the contemporary materialist.  He does a good job of it.  Philonous could be Dr. Woff at some stage in his life.  The writing is superb and much like a Platonic dialogue.  In his day Berkeley was highly regarded; he was a friend of Jonathan Swift who considered him a great philosopher and a fine writer.  He discussed mathematics with the mathematicians of the time and was quite knowledgeable of the science.  His philosophical work was done in his 20's; and it would be a mistake to consider that it represents his whole philosophy.  He was considered to be a very saintly individual. 
 
Berkeley's ideas are Franklin's objects.  HIs mind of God is Franklin's Consciousness.  Both men have just these two categories of objects and consciousness or mind.  The third category prevalent in most philosophies is omitted.  Neither has matter as a real.

The conventional portrayal of Berkeley is disappointing as it tends to misrepresent his real position.  Berkeley himself affirms the continued existence of objects when he leaves the room.  Perhaps his philosophy is too subtle for most.  And the use of idea throws some off.  Had Berkeley not considered himself to have Christian duty to do things in the world he might have written more treatises and added much to his position.  All in all he reminds me of another great Englishman, George Fox. 

So, just how  much of a hold does the concept of matter have on people.  In its ordinary usage there is no problem.  When we ask what something is made of, its material or substance, we accept things like wood or metal or plastic.  So that is not the problem concept.  But the materialists have something more in mind or really something less--a mysterious something or other to support the appearances.  Here we run into first rate problems.  We can not know this substance yet we have already given it a big job.  Give that some thought.  It would be the pure unconsciousness.