idealism Flashcards
what do idealists claim?
they argue that physical objects are not independent of our minds.
- they are mental things
what is berkeley’s idealism?
he rejects our understanding of physical objects as mind-independent
- he claims that reality is dependent on minds
- objects such as a chair must be perceived to exist at all
- the only things that exist are minds (that perceive)
what are berkeley’s arguments?
- his attack on Locke’s primary/secondary distinction
- the master argument
what is berkeley’s attack on primary/secondary distinction?
locke says that primary qualities are mind independent whereas secondary qualities are not.
- berkeley agrees that secondary qualities are mind-dependent
- but he also argues that primary qualities are also mind-dependent and he gives several examples:
something that looks small to me would look big to a small animal
a smooth surface may look jagged under a microscope
size and shape are primary qualities but they differ depending on circumstances, so he argues that we can’t say these objects have one single size or shape independent of perception.
what is berkeley’s pppc against primary and secondary qualities?
p1) when we perceive an object, we don’t perceive anything in addition to its primary and secondary qualities
p2) so everything we perceive is either a primary or secondary quality
p3) secondary qualities are mind dependent
p4) primary qualities are also mind-dependent
c) therefore, everything we perceive is mind-independent
what are the ppcs of berkeley’s master argument?
philonous: try to think of an object that exists independently of being perceived
hylas: ok im thinking of a tree that is not being perceived by anyone
philonous: but that’s impossible - you’re perceiving it right now. you might be imagining a tree in a solitary place with no one perceiving it but you’re still thinking about the tree. you can think of a tree, but not of a tree that exists independently of the mind
what is berkeley’s master argument?
it is essentially that the very idea of mind-independent objects is inconcievable
- his reasoning is that whenever we try to think of an unperceived and mind-independent object we are perceiving it and so it is not mind-independent.
what is the response to the master argument?
it conflates the idea of an object with the object itself.
- it is impossible to think of something that’s mind-independent because the thought itself is mind-dependent, but just because we can’t think of something that is mind-independent, it doesn’t follow from this that a mind-independent object is itself impossible
- the IDEA of an unperceived tree is impossible but not the unperceived tree ITSELF.
what is the role of god in idealism?
idealism does not lead to the same veil of perception problem that indirect realism does when we realise that words like physical object refers to bundles of ideas and not mind-independent objects
- but this still leaves the question of what CAUSES these ideas and berkeley’s argument is god
what are the ppcs for god in idealism?
p1) everything we perceive is mind-dependent
p2) there are 3 possible causes of these perceptions (ideas, my own mind, another mind)
p3) it can’t be my ideas because ideas by themselves don’t cause anything
p4) it can’t be my own mind because if i was the cause of my own perceptions then i’d be able to control what i perceived
c) therefore, the cause of my perception must be another mind
p5) given th complexity, variety, order and manner of my perceptions, this other mind must be god
how does god fix an issue with idealism?
if objects don’t exist when we are not perceiving them then how does a candle burn down when we are not perceiving it
- berkeley responds that because god is omnipresent, he is perceiving it.
what is the problem of god in idealism?
berkeley’s conception of god seems to contradict his claim that what we perceive are ideas in god’s mind
- god is unchanging and eternal but my perceptions are constantly changing
- god is said to not feel sensations e.g. pain byt my perceptions often include such sensations
how can my perception be an idea in god’s mind if god cannot have those things
what is berkeley’s response to the problem of god?
what we perceive are COPIES of ideas that exist in god’s understanding
- although god does no perceive sensations such as pain he understands what it is for us to undergo those experiences (he created us)
- our changing perceptions are what god actively wills us to perceive
what is the solipsism objection?
solipism is the view that one’s mind is the only thing that exists - there are no other minds and no mind-independent objects
- idealism supports the idea that other minds do not exist either - perception gives us no reason to believe anything exists beyond our own experience including the existence of other minds
what is berkeley’s response to solipsism?
god’s mind exists and we can infer the existence of other minds by analogy to our own experience
what is the illusion objection?
if there is no distinction between perception and reality how can berkeley explain the argument from illusion
- idealism has to say that the pencil is really crooked but this is clearly wrong
what is the response to the illusion objection?
yes there is some sense in which the pencil really is crooked
- there are no such things as mind-independent objects only ideas so if we are perceiving the idea of a crooked pencil, that idea is just as real as the idea of a non-crooked pencil when you take it out of the water
sometimes such perceptions can be misleading though
- just because it looks crooked when it is in water, it would be a mistake to assume that the pencil would also feel crroked or that it would look crooked in other conditions
what is the hallucination objection?
if there is no distinction between appearance and reality, this implies that hallucinations are just as real as ordinary perceptions are
- this seems false though as hallucinations are obviously not real
if god is the cause of our perceptions why would he cause us to perceive these hallucinations
what is berkeley’s response to the hallucination objection?
they are products of imagination rather than perception
- even though imagination is usually voluntary, there are cases i.e hallucinations where it is involuntary
- whereas god is the cause of our ordinary perception, we are the cause of our hallucinatory perceptions
he also provides two ways that we can tell hallucinations apart from ordinary perception
- hallucinations are dim and irregular whereas ordinary perceptions are more vivid and clear
- hallucinations are not connected with our ordinary lives and experience
