Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

paper 1 epistemology content > idealism content > Flashcards

idealism content Flashcards

1
Q

What is Idealism?

A

The claim that all that exists are minds and the objects that they percieve. The immediate objects of our perceptions are ideas, which are mind dependant. An idea is a bundle of qualities. These ideas are caused by the mind of God.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are ideas?

A

Ideas are mind dependant bundle of qualities caused by the mind of God

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are the main claims of Idealism?

A
  • The existance of objects are dependant on a mind
  • All that exists are minds and their ideas
  • What we call physical objects are just ideas that only exist when being percieved by a mind
  • Our continued existence is dependant on being percieved by an infinite mind —> proof of the existance of God
  • esse is percipi means essence is perceptions —> also known as to be is to be percieved
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What problem did IR face which leads to Idealism?

A

-IR leads to the scepticism of the external world
- Philisophical sceptisism = questioning our usual justifications for things we claim we know
- Berkeley argues that since there is no difference between P+SQs they are mind dependant so…
- since we dont experience the external world of our perceptions, we cannot know its nature —> leading to scepticism of the external world

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the difference between idealism and realism?

A

Realism argues that there is a world of mind independant objects, whereas idealism argues that no such world exisits and that everything we percieve is mind dependant.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

How might Idealism be supported by Ockhams Razor?

A

We shouldnt mulitiply entities beyond neccessity.
Idealism is simple like DR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What were Berkeleys criticisms of IR that led to Idealism?
- there is no distinction between P+SQs

A
  • Our perceptions are unified
  • when we percieve shape we also simultaneously percieve colour
  • Colous is a SQ so is mind dependant and varies based on the perciever
    —> shape is a SQ but also mind dependant
    —> no distinction between P+SQs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What were Berkeleys criticisms of IR that led to Idealism?
- we cannot know the nature of the external world

A
  • All we percieve are P+SQs which are mind dependant
    —> so our ordinary experiences do not reflect a mind INdependant world
    —> we do not know through experience what a mind independant world is like
    —> scepticism of the external world
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is the formal argument for why idealism avoids scepticism of the external world?
P1, P2, P3, C1

A

P1) scepticism of the external world is a problem that arises for IR because we cannot know the true nature of mind independant objects.
P2) Idealism does not claim that mind independant objects exist, only mind dependant ideas exist
P3) we cannot know the nature of mind dependant ideas through our perceptions
C1) Therefore, idealism avoids scepticism of the external worlds by claiming that there isn’t one.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Why might idealism avoiding scepticism of the external world make Idealism a more convincing theory of perception?

A
  • All that exists is what we percieve
  • Like in DR, there is no reason to be sceptical of the external world if it simply does not exist
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Argument 2 : our perceptions support idealism
Give the formal argument for why our perceptions support idealism not realism
P1, P2, C1, C2

A

P1) If the hypothesis of an external world of mind independant objects were true, we would percieve mind independant objects.
P2) All we percieve are mind dependant primary and secondary qualities —> ideas
C1) Therefore, we do not percieve mind independant object. The hypothesis of an external world of physical objects is not suggested or supported by our experience
C2) Therefore our perceptions best support idealism rather than realism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Argument 2 : our perceptions best support idealism
What is a reason why this argument is convincing?

A

If we agree with and support Berkeleys argument that P+SQs are mind dependant then we must accept this argument too

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Argument 2 : our perceptions best support idealism
What are two reasons why this argument is unconvincing?

A
  • Counter intuitive
    —> not a strong enough point to completely reject this agrument
  • Berkeley could be wrong about there being no distinction between P+SQs
    —> PQs can be measured suggesting that there is an existance external to our own minds
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what is a substance

A

something which is ontologically distinct and doesnt depend on anything else for its existence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

what does russel claim about material substances and what does it mean for a concept to be incoherent

A
  • russel believes that either objects are made of matierial substances and we percieve these objects and their properties immediatly (DR) or we percieve sense data immediatly which are caused by and represent objects and their properties (IR)
  • Berkeley thinks this is incoherent
  • coherent = contains self contradictions
  • so this concept needs to be redefined or is logically impossible
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

why does berkeley conclude that the concept of a material substance must be incoherent + what is the implication for realism?

A
  • realists claim that the MID, external world is made of a MATERIAL SUBSTANCE —> such as P+SQs
  • but berkeley proved those to be MD —> so they cannot be properties of a substances
  • all our experience is already accounted for - we cannot concieve of what a material substance would be like distinct from the qualities
  • so it is not incoherent to claim they exist and realism is false
17
Q

what is berkeleys master argument

A
  • when you percieve an unpercieved tree you are percieving
  • contradictory —> cannot exist
  • this demonstrates that everything that exists must be percieved
18
Q

how does russel object to the master argument

A
  • russel claims berkeley has confused a thought with what it is about
  • thought = a psychological event that cannot exist outside the mind
  • cincieving a tree = a thought = MD
  • the tree itself is MID object
  • just because our thinking is MD doesnt mean that what we think about is also mind dependant
  • there is no logical contradiction in concieving of a tree which exists when no one is concieving it
19
Q

Give berkeleys argument for the existance of God P1, P2, P3, P4, C1, C2, P5, C3

A

P1) as IDEAS are MD, there are 3 possible causes of perception: ideas themselves, my mind, another mind
P2) ideas dont cause anything
P3) if ideas depended on my mind then i would be able to control what i percieve
P4) i cannot control what i percieve; perceptions are involuntary
C1) therefore ideas dont depend on my mind
C2) therefore ideas must be caused by another mind, which then wills i percieve them
P5) given the complexity of our perceptions, that mind must be God
C3) therefore, God exists and is the cause of our perceptions

20
Q

why cant ideas be causes

A
  • ideas are passive, we do things with ideas in thought or recieve them in perception
  • ideas cannot make us think or percieve it —> only minds are active and cause things through percieving, willing, thinking
21
Q

what about God makes it so that God must be the cause of our perceptions

A
  • God is a mind so is active and can be a cause
  • our minds = involuntary so cannot be the cause
  • God = infinite and omniscient
22
Q

what are the 3 objections to idealism

A
  • argument from illusions and hallucinations
  • solipsism
  • problems with the role of God
23
Q

what are illusions and hallucinations

A
  • illusions = when we percieve an object to have a property which it deosnt actually have, subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception
  • hallucinations = when we percieve an object to exist when it doesnt actuallt, subjectively distinguishable from veridical perception
24
Q

why are illusions an issue for idealism

A
  • since illusions are subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception, there is no way of distinguising them from true perceptions
  • given there is no MID object to refer to and no true propertu, it is difficult for idealism to state these are not true perceptions
  • conclude that the object does have that property
25
Q

how does berkeley respond to the issue of illusions

A
  • he claims we are not mispercieving - the object actually has the property it appears to
  • not coherent argument though
26
Q

why are hallucinations an issue for idealism

A
  • since hallucinations are subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception, theres no way of distinguishing them from true perceptions
  • no MID object to refer to, difficult for idealism to state these are not true perceptions
  • forced to conclude object actually exists, not coherent with our other senses though so Berkeley will need another defense
27
Q

how does berkeley respond to the issue of hallucinations

A
  • hallucinations are products of the IMAGINATION
  • usually this is voluntary —> dreaming but hallucinations are INVOLUNTARY
  • B claims they arent as “vivid and clear” as ordinary perceptions —> theyre “dim, irregular and confused”
  • even if they are vivid, they arent coherently connected with the rest of our experience
  • there will be some other perceptions which will contradict them
  • this still doesnt allow us to say that the objects being hallucinated dont exist so idealism = weak
28
Q

what is solipsism

A
  • only ones own mind exist
  • no MID objects or other minds
29
Q

what are the implications of solipsism if it is true

A
  • no consequences to our actions
  • nihilism
  • egotistical lives
  • meaningless lives
30
Q

what is the difference between metaphysical and epistemological solipsism

A

M = nothing exists external of owns own mind, existance of the external world is fake
E = nothing beyond what is directly accessible in the mind can be known, existance of the external world is an unresolves question rather than false

31
Q

why might idealism lead to solipsism and how is this a problem

A
  • all we have experiences of are our own perceptions which give us no reason to believe anything other than our own experience exists
  • if all we percieve are ideas and not minds then we have no justification for the existance of other minds
  • also it seems there is no difference between veridical perception and illusions/hallucinations for idealism
  • so we cannot have an objective idea of what the world is really like
  • so idealism leads to solipsism
32
Q

what is the role of God in berkeleys idealism

A

only a mind like God can cause the ideas we percieve

33
Q

why might the existance of evil pose as an issue for the existance of God

A
  • if God is omnibenevolent - all good and everything which exists depends on God then
    1) God has knowledge of evil and experiences pain, since God percieves everything - these imperfections are not what a perfect being should have
    2) God is the cause of evil since everything is dependant on God
  • both of these contradict the concept of God being omnibenevolent
34
Q

if the concept of God is incoherent then what must berekeley conclude

A
  • if we cannot conclude Gpd exists then Berkeley cannot prove the existance of his own mind
  • so solipsism is true
  • so idealism is less appealing
35
Q

how might berkeley respond to the problem of evil

A
  • God has an understanding of pain and evil without experiencing it
  • free will so evil is caused by humans not God

paper 1 epistemology content (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions