Berkley's idealism Flashcards
What is the central claim of Berkeley’s idealism?
All that exists are minds and ideas.
Physical objects do not exist independently of being perceived. All there is are collections of sense data.
How does Berkeley tie God in to idealism?
He asserts that the universe is sustained in existence by being perceived by God’s infinite mind. Therefore God causes our sense data.
What can be said of God’s involvement?
Each finite mind is given perceptions directly from God. These are sufficiently similar and all cohere with each other so that there is the appearance that we see the same thing.
What does Locke argue that Berkeley tries to deny (about secondary qualities)?
He argues that no matter how many times we divide a material we cannot conceive of an object without primary qualities. Berkeley argues that we are equally unable to conceive of objects without secondary qualities.
What is the argument for Berkeley’s secondary quality case?
P1: It is impossible to imagine an object with only the primary qualities of shape, size, movement etc.
C1: So our ideas of the so-called secondary qualities of an object cannot be separated from those of its primary qualities.
C2: it follows that they must exist together.
P2: indirect realists accept that our ideas of secondary qualities are mind-dependent.
C3: it follows that our ideas of primary qualities are also mind-dependent
What is the main point against Berkeley’s secondary quality argument?
We can distinguish between ideas and sense data. Locke is not say that secondary qualities themselves are mind-dependent. Secondary qualities are the powers to cause in us sensations which are mind-dependent.
So the fact that both qualities seem inseparable does not mean that primary qualities exist in the mind.
So only the sense data of primary qualities exist in the mind.
What a Berkeley’s argument from perceptual variation?
P1: what looks small to us will look big to a mite.
P2: a material Brecht cannot be small and big at the same time.
C therefore size cannot be a property of material objects.
P1: the perceived shape of an object changes depending on the angle of observation
P2 an object cannot have two shapes at the same time.
C therefore shape cannot be a property of material objects.
Can also apply to motion
How can you criticise Berkeley’s perceptual variation argument?
P1: the apparent speed, size, shape or motion of an object varies.
P2: a material objects objective properties cannot vary.
C therefore the apparent size, shape, motion cannot be objective properties of material objects. But the material object can still have some specific size, shape and motion independent of the mind.
Give Berkeley’s master argument.
P1: try to conceive of a tree which exists independent of any mind.
P2: in doing so the tree is being conceived by you
C therefore the tree is in your mind and not independent of any mind after all.
What is Russell’s first critique of this and where did he write it?
Problems of philosophy chapter 4: Berkeley’s error is to mistake the act of conceiving the thing with the thing being conceived of. What the idea is ABOUT is not in the mind.
What is another objection that Russel gives to the master argument?
The master argument would prove that one cannot make sense of anything existing outside my mind. In this case I could online believe that my mind exists and so would lead directly to solipsism.
Why does Berkeley say that ideas can only be like other ideas? How can an indirect realist respond?
Without being able to compare our ideas with reality we have no way to establish any resemblance. Indirect realists might just say that it is the best explanation.
What about hallucinations and illusions? What problem does th8s being up?
Idealists say that illusions are subject to will and also less vivid than normal
It still doesn’t explain how to differentiate illusions and halls. If there is no mind independent reality then illusions are no different from verification.
What does Berkeley do the second time to get round illusions?
He says that illusions are not actually us being mistaken about the ideas. They are subjectively indistinguishable. However the reason we regard them as illusory is that they could cause us to make false inferences about what we are giving to perceive next.
E.g. if I judge on the basis of seeing a bent stick in water then it will be bent in real life. But no no
The master argument uses good logic but… name the most damming issue.
Solipsism. Implies that the world was created when I was born and will go out of existence when I die.
