Idealism: perception Flashcards
25 mark plan:
Assess idealism.
Intro: Idealism is false
define: idealism
para1: for, master argument
Response: MA conflates the idea of an object with the object itself.
para3: against, illusion
Response: berkeley peception
response to response: hallucinations + dreaming
conclusion: Berkeley’s master
argument fails. idealism fails theory of perception, unable to explain hallucinations + dreams
What is idealism?
Is the view that:
- there is no external world independent of minds (anti realist theory)
-We perceive ideas directly
In other words the immediate objects of perception are mind-dependent ideas.
Berkeleys Master argument
first paragraph
dialogue between Hylas + Philonous (H+P):
P: try to think of an object that exists independently of being perceived.
H: Ok, I am thinking of a tree that is not being perceived by anyone.
P: But that’s impossible - you’re perceiving it right now! u might be imagining a tree in a solitary space with no one perceiving it but ur still thinking ant the tree. u can think of the idea of a tree, but not of a tree that exists indecently of the mind.
So what does Berkeleys argument mean
whenever we try to think of an unpercieved + mind-independent object we r perceiving it + so its not mind-independent.
= as soon as we think of a mind-indepednt object it becomes mind-dependent. so idea of a mind-independent object is inconceivable + thus IMPOSSIBLE.
what’s the response to Berkeleys master argument
(para2)
the MA conflates the idea of an object with the object itself.
its impossible to think of something that’s mind-independent because thought itself is mind-dependent! but just bcos we can’t think of something that is mind-independent, it doesn’t make the object itself impossible.
argument against illusion
(para3)
B says that we perceive ideas directly and these ideas r what reality is.
= idealism makes no distinction between appearance and reality.
but if no distinction how can B explain argument from illusion?
-pencil in water looks crooked, but we don’t think the pencil is crooked in reality. idealism has to say the pencil rlly is crooked but this is obviously false = so idealism must be wrong.
Berkeleys response to criticism - illusion.
para 4
-yes, there is some sense in which the pencil rlly is crooked.
-there r no such thing as mind-independent objects, only ideas.
-if we r perceiving the idea of a crooked pencil that idea is just as real as the idea of a non-crooked pencil when u take it out of water.
-B says sometimes such perceptions can b misleading.
-example, just because pencil looks crooked when it is in water. it could be a mistake to assume the pencil would also feel crooked, or that is look crooked in other conditions.
criticism 2 hallucinations
para 5
-idealism makes no point between perception + reality - “to be is to be perceived”
if no distinctions, implies hallucinations r just as real as ordinary perceptions r.
this seems obviously false! hallunctions clearly not real, whereas ordinary perceptions r.
-so idealism must be wrong.
response to hallucinations problem
para 6
hallucinations + dreams argues r products of imagination rather than perception.
-even tho imagination is normally voluntary, hallucinations + dreams r involuntary.
-whereas god is the cause of ordinary perception, in hallucinations + dreams we r the cause of our perception.
Berkeley’s 2 distinctions between hallucinations + dreams
(can include in para 6)
1) H + D r “dim irregular and confused” whereas ordinary perception are “more vivid and clear”.
2) hallucinations + D r not connected with our ordinary lives + experience.
what does Berkeley not make a distinction between
our perceptions and reality.
what’s berkelys famous quote abt perception
“to be is to be perceived”
how does Berkeleys idealism avoid the veil of perceptions
(from God as the cause of perceptions argument)
- idealism doesn’t lead to “veil of perception” bcus words like “physical object” refers to bundle of ideas and not mind-independent objects.
-ideas r reality, so doesn’t make sense for their to be vel of P between these ideas n reality.
-leaves question what causes these ideas? = B answer is God.
God as the cause if perceptions
proper argument for this:
- everything we perceive is mind-dependent
-there r 3 possible causes of these perceptions:
ideas, my own mind, another mind.
-it can’t be ideas, bcus ideas by themselves don’t cause anything.
-it can’t be my own mind, bcus if I was the cause of my own perception then id be able to control what I perceive.
-TF, the cause of my perception must be another mind.
-given the complexity , variety, order + manner of my perceptions, this other mind must be God.
How does Berkeley avoid potential objection that his quote suggest objects don’t exist when were not perceiving them?
(from God as the cause of perception argument + apple example)
-If Berkeley says “to be is to be perceived” then this means objects dont exist when were not pericieving them - but not true.
APPLE EXAMPLE: if I leave apple in a close drawer for a few months, when I come back it will withered + changed form.
How is this possible unless it existed in the drawer when I wasn’t looking?
B response: the apple constantly exist in the mind of GOd.
