Berkeley's Idealism Flashcards
Berkley’s Idealism
The immediate objects of perception (ie ordinary objects such as tables, chairs, etc) are mind-dependent objects.
There is no external world independent of minds
argument for idealism - Berkley’s attack on Locke’s primary/secondary quality distinction
Berkley establishes that primary qualities are also mind dependent Berkley uses the argument from perceptual variation to argue this. Something that looks small to me may look large to an animal, something that looks large up close may look small at a distance, a smooth surface may look jagged under a microscope. Size, shape and motion are all primary qualities but our perception of them changes depending on the circumstances.
Therefore, an object’s primary qualities are not independent of how they are perceived. They are mind-dependent
counter arguments for Berkley’s attack on Locke’s p/s quality distinction
Locke and Russell are both happy with mind dependent secondary qualities. invokes ockham’s razor - best explanation for our perception is that mind independent properties exist, as they are necessary to make sense of our experience eg. properties that science identifies (composition of chemicals)
Berkley’s appeal to God is not as compelling/realistic
how does Berkley show that the objects of perception are entirely mind-dependent?
P1: Everything we perceive is either primary or secondary quality.
P2: Both primary and secondary qualities are mind-dependent.
C1: Therefore, nothing that we perceive exists independently of the mind: the objects of perception are entirely mind dependent.
argument for idealism - Berkley master argument
ESSE EST PERCIPI
We cannot even conceive of a mind-independent object because as soon as we conceive of such an object, it becomes mind-dependent. Thus, mind-independent objects are impossible.
Berkley asks us to imagine something that is independent of perception- and object that is existing independent of any ones perception.
He, in his dialogue goes for a tree- Hylas (one for the characters) says that he is thinking of a tree existing unperceived by anyone.
However, Berkely says: what Hylas is thinking of depends on his mind- he isn’t actually thinking of a tree that exists independently of any mind; he is a imagining a lone standing tree where no one perceives it but, all the time he is thinking of such a tree. So, he says, we cannot thing of a tree that is neither perceived nor conceived of.
We can think of the idea of the tree, but not of a tree that exist independently of the mind.
issue with idealism - arguments from hallucination and illusion
idealism makes no distinction between perception and reality since all we ever have access to is the mind-dependent realm of ideas or sense-data, both positions will need to appeal to the differences in the mental contents to distinguish the veridical from the illusory.
(eg why would a pencil in water look crooked when it is not in reality)
Berkley response to argument from hallucination/illusion
BERKLEY RESPONSE: we perceive correctly we just make false inferences about the physical world as a result of illusions, he says the pencil is crooked but we should say it seems crooked as ‘it is’ implies under normal conditions.
hallucinations are ‘dim irregular and confused’ they’re not connected with the rest of our perceptual experience as opposed to veridical perceptions they originate from our own mind, rather than God.
issue with idealism - leads to solipsism
Berkley’s argument that everything one perceives is mind-dependent, suggests that there is nothing exists beyond one’s experience.
I never perceive other minds, all I perceive are ideas - therefore I have no reason to believe that other minds exist at all.
Berkley response to solipsism
P1 - the mind perceives, thinks and wills, whereas ideas are passive,
P2 - I am capable of this activity,
C1 - I am a mind,
P3 - As I am a mind, I have the notion of what a mind is,
C2 - It is possible other minds exist,
P4 - my perceptions don’t originate in my mind,
C3 - they are caused by some other mind,
C4 - the complexity of my perceptions indicate a God.
Problems with the role played by God in Berkeley’s Idealism (including how can Berkeley claim that our ideas exist within God’s mind given that he believes that God cannot feel pain or have sensations?)
1 - They are part of my mind, inside my mind, not God,
2 - God can’t have perceptual experiences so cannot perceive as I do (incl. pain/sensations),
3 - objects of my perception change and go out of experience, but God’s mind is unchanging,
4 - problem of evil,
5 - we have no direct experience of God - empirical ,
6 - invoke master argument - my only experience is of my own ideas. god is a mind-independent object?
7 - circularity - Idealism serves as a proof of God’s existence (e.g. since God is required to explain origins of sensations) but that Idealism cannot be accepted without assuming the existence of God (e.g.the existence of God is required to guarantee the existence of objects outside of the minds of individual perceivers and therefore to support idealism.
What are Berkeley’s solutions to why we can be perceiving ideas from God’s mind?
1 - it’s a copy of God’s mind,
2 - Physical objects don’t exist in God’s mind as perceptions but understandings, so he knows what it is like for us to experience things (incl. pain/sensations),
3 - God doesn’t change his mind when things come in and out of existence, they are all a result of his willingness.
Explain why Berkeley believes there must be a God?
The cause of our perceptions must be a mind, as only a mind is active. Because of the manner and variety, it must be a wise and powerful mind.
