idealism + evaluation

Question 1

define idealism (3)

Answer 1

— objects of our immediate perception are mind-dependent
— all that exists is our mind + ideas
— to exist is to perceive / be perceived

Question 2

how does Berkeley attack Locke’s pq/sq distinction?

Answer 2

— Locke argues that SQs aren’t necessary to object

— but if you take away SQs the object is MEANINGLESS
—> if you can’t sense it its contentless and essentially NON-EXISTENT

—so, PQs and SQs are both necessary, so both are the same. NO DISTINCTION
—> must both be MIND-DEPENDENT

Question 3

outline Berkley’s Master Argument

Answer 3

Imagine a tree that is unperceived.

YOU CAN’T! the moment you think of it, it is perceived.

Unperceived objects DON’T EXIST! They are all MIND-DEPENDENT.

Question 4

critique Berkley’s Master Argument (2)

Answer 4

— doesn’t distinguish between PERceiving and CONceiving

— yes, thoughts of a tree can’t exist outside the mind. But the tree itself CAN

Question 5

critique Berkley’s argument against SQ/PQ distinction

Answer 5

— if all is mind-dependent, we can’t explain or distinguish ILLUSIONS/HALLUCINATIONS

— if all is mind-dependent, how do we explain continuity + regularity in the world??

— trap of SOLIPSISM. if idealism is true then how can we prove existence of others? This goes against intuition and Locke’s evidence for an external world.

Question 6

how does Berkeley defend against the hals/ils argument against idealism? (What’s wrong w it? 3)

Answer 6

we can distinguish between h/i and normal perception, bc NORMAL PERCEPTION HAS CONTINUITY AND REGULARITY and h/i don’t

🤨
— need to distinguish between h+i
— h+i sometimes have continuity/regularity too
— still haven’t explained WHY they exist in the 1st place

Question 7

how does Berkeley defend against the continuity/regularity argument idealism?
(what’s wrong with this? 1)

Answer 7

GOD 🙏 is omnipresent and constantly perceiving everything, so holds everything in place.

🤨
CONTRADICTION: if we don’t know anything we don’t perceive, how can we know god exists??

Question 8

how does Berkeley defend against args against god’s existence? (What’s wrong w this? 1)

Answer 8

— he explains regularity and continuity BETTER than SCIENCE 🧪 , so prob exists

— he’s the only thing that can CAUSE IDEAS

— (responding to fault argument): GOD DOESNT HAVE FAULTS, HE JUST CAUSES THEM 😚

— (responding to contradiction argument) we don’t have reason to believe in mind-independent objects, but that doesn’t stop us believing in ANOTHER MIND

Question 9

how does berkeley defend against the trap of solipsism? (+ what’s wrong with this 1)

Answer 9

other minds existing is the simplest hypothesis, therefore the best (Occam’s razor 🪒)

🤨
surely not — my mind only existing is the most simple bc it needs less explanation

Question 10

critique Berkeley’s argument for existence of god

Answer 10

— CONTRADICTION: if we know nothing beyond perception, how can we know god??
—☝️we have reason to believe in another mind, but not mind-independent objects

— SENSATIONLESS: B claims god perceives 👁 everything but he’s supposed to not have sensations

— FAULT: God isn’t supposed to have faults. Why does he cause suffering?

Question 11

idealism essay plan

Answer 11

while idealism provides an answer to the question of scepticism from the veil of perception issue with indirect realism, it lacks explanatory power when it comes to hallucinations, illusions and the continuity and regularity of our senses (as it relies on the existence of God which it fails to defend).

1. critique Locke’s SQ/PQ distinction
   but how does he distinguish halls and ills from reality?
   they don’t have continuity and regularity, reality does
   but how do you distinguish?, also how do you explain the existence of either of them? also sometimes they do have continuity and regularity
2. another issue with the above is how do you explain continuity and regularity of the senses?
   berkley says: GOD! holds all in place with his perception
   BUT ISSUE: contradiction. if we have no reason to believe in things beyond our perception, why should we believe in God?
   Berkley defence: mind independent objects can’t exist, but ANOTHER MIND can!
   BUT: okay, i accept this, but just because we CAN believe in it doesn’t mean we SHOULD. This shows why we can’t fully reject God on the basis that it’s a contradiction but it doesn’t show why we should accept God.
   BERKLEY: we should believe God as he explains things better than science
   no he doesn’t??
   BERKLEY: but he’s the only thing that can cause ideas to be continuous and regular
   Just because he’s the only possible explanation for cont+reg, doesn’t mean it’s TRUE. Maybe idealism is just a bad theory, because we need to argue for something as problematic as God for it to make any sense at all.
3. to some it may not be clear that God’s role in idealism is problematic.
   But it is, because:
   He’s supposed to be sensationless, how does he perceive all
   He’s supposed to be faultless, how does he not do anything about faults in his perception
   So, he is problematic, and as idealism relies on him to make sense, idealism is also problematic