Idealism (epistemology) Flashcards
Idealism
The immediate objects of perception (ie ordinary objects such as a table, chairs etc) are mind dependent objects and their properties
- reality cannot exist outside of the mind
Central ideas of Berkeley’s idealism
1) The existence of objects is mind-dependent
2) All that exists are minds and their ideas
3) To be is to be perceived
4) Our continued existence is dependent on being perceived by an ideal mind (Berkeley felt this was proof of the existence of God)
How might the problem of indirect realism lead to idealism? (sense data)
IR claimed that sense data represents mind-independent objects, but if this sense data is continually changing, it cannot be an accurate representation.
SO, there is not mind-indepednet obj. Perhaps all there is is sense data as we can never know a world beyond it.
What does Esse est percipi mean?
To be is to be perceived
Berkeley’s argument from perceptual variation (our experience best supports idealism)
P1: The same object cannot be both warm and cold at the same time if temperature is mind independent.
P2: The same water can be warm to one hand and cold to the other.
C1: Therefore temperature must be mind dependent as it is not in the water itself.
Berkeleys attack on the primary/secondary quality distinction
-> inseparability thesis
-> collapsibility thesis
INSEPRABILITY
P1: Primary qualities and secondary qualities are both mind dependent.
P2: To imagine an object with no secondary principles (e.g no colour). If you do this, it leaves no object at all.
C1: Primary qualities (e.g shape) are mind-dependent as they don’t exist at all without the mind-dependent secondary qualities.
COLLAPSIBILITY
P1: Temperature is a primary quality-reducible to pain (sensation).
P2: Pain is a secondary quality (mind dependent).
C1: Therefore, temperature (a primary quality) is also mind dependent.
C2: Therefore, reality is mind dependent as primary qualities collapse into secondary qualities.
How did Berkeley argue that indirect realism could lead to scepticism? (Strength of idealism)
- If the secondary qualities ‘represent’ real primary qualities then we can doubt that these representations are accurate.
- if representations are not accurate then we do not know what reality is really like or if it even exists at all.
Berkeley’s ‘master’ argument
P1: It is not just the case that an object cannot exist unperceived but also that it cannot be imagined unperceived.
P2: The very idea of an unconceived object, outside of the mind, would be a logical contradiction.
P3: We cannot claim that we can conceive a mind independent object as it requires someone to conceive the object from their mind.
C1: Therefore, we cannot conceive of an object that exists independently from our mind, as the moment we try to do so that object is in our mind
solipsism
the view that all we can know for certain is my mind and it’s ideas (not the minds of others)
Russel’s issue with Berkeley’s master argument
- Berkeley thinks he has proved that, since objects cannot be thought of outside of the mind, they cannot exist outside of the mind.
- This is fallicious.
- All he has proved is that ideas, not objects, cannot exist outside of the mind (he is confusing the physical object with the mental representation of it)
Problems with idealism -> hallucinations and illusions
- If all that exists are our minds and their ideas, we cannot differentiate between veridical and non-veridical perceptions.
Hallucinations-> only reason we know we ae having one is by comparing it to veridical perception.
- RESPONSE: can know when we are dreaming/hallucinating as they lack coherence
- BUT this is a problem as sometimes dreams can feel vivid and real when in reality they are not veridical perceptions.
Illusions-> Illusions are misinterpretations of reality therefore there must be a reality to misinterpret
How does idealism lead to solipsism
- The Master Argument ; it is a contradiction to conceive of a mind-independent object (because as soon as I claim that I unconceive it, I am conceiving it).
- Therefore, it would be a contradiction t o imagine any human mind/God’s mind are independent of my mind (as soon as I claim this I am conceiving them)
SO…All I have access to is my mind and its ideas, nothing outside of it. - So I do not have access to other people’s minds or that of Gods.
- Therefore, how do I know they exist if I cannot perceive their minds and ideas? …. I cannot.
How does Berkeley argue that we have a ‘notion’ of God’s existence?
- We cannot have an idea of other minds
-We have a notion of our own mind - Remove all imperfections + magnify the perfections = God
-I cannot cause my ideas -> must be dependent on a mind ( greater than my own…GOD) - Thus, we cannot experience Gods mind but we can infer it
How does the ‘notion’ of God’s existence avoid solipsism ?
- If we can infer God’s mind then we have an ultimate explanation of what causes our ideas.
- If God causes our ideas than solipsism must be false as it is not just ourself that is known in existence .
epistemic vs ontological solipsism
e-> all i can know is my mind and it’s ideas
o -> all that exists is my mind and it’s ideas
