Berkeley Question: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Berkeley Question » Berkeley Question

Page: 1 2 3

Berkeley Question

keving
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 14

Posted 08/14/09 - 09:10 PM: Subject: Berkeley Question	#1
I've been studying Berkeley's Principles of Human Knowledge. I have a question to ask about this work. Berkeley contends that God is the cause of our ideas of sense. Is Berkeley postulating that nature actually exists independently of us, but are called "ideas" in God's mind instead of matter, which are then imprinted on our senses directly? Thanks in advance!

JamesBrenton
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 09, 2008
Location: Florida

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 56

Posted 08/14/09 - 09:27 PM:	#2
Yes. The outcome is actualy fairly logical. It's what maks him interesting. I'm no expert on berkley but I thought to give a little heds up flirt before the others arrive
Yea, though I walk through the vally of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 240

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 08/14/09 - 10:20 PM:	#3
keving wrote: I've been studying Berkeley's Principles of Human Knowledge. I have a question to ask about this work. Berkeley contends that God is the cause of our ideas of sense. Is Berkeley postulating that nature actually exists independently of us, but are called "ideas" in God's mind instead of matter, which are then imprinted on our senses directly? Thanks in advance! Something like that, yes. I like Berkeley generally, but not this bit. It's too much of a deus ex machina. Berkeley comes up against a difficulty with his theory and just wheels God in to solve it. To be fair to Berkeley, I got the impression that he wasn't too interested in this bit of the theory. It's a long time ago that I read it, but he seemed more interested in breaking down the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, and making all qualities subjectivity-dependent. By the time he'd done that he thought he'd done the important bit. I would have loved him to continue to apply his evident clarity of thought to the problem of the persistence of the external world. I can't remember, does Berkeley view this bit of his theory as an argument for God's existence? God must exist in order for there to be a persistent external world? The problem (for me) with God perceiving the rest of reality is that God does not have any sense organs. And differentiated sense organs are necessary for perception of characterised objects. It still might (arguably) be possible to perceive reality without sense organs, but the perception would have no characterised content, or perhaps consist in only the vaguest of feelings. A better solution for the idealist is panpsychism, that everything in the external world is conscious, and each centre of consciousness perceives itself in relation to other centres of consciousness. Better still for the idealist/panpsychist to be less dependent on perception as the cause of existence. It always bothered me how the first perceiver came into existence if it wasn't perceived by something else. Better just to say that reality/substance is sentient. Things come into existence not by being perceived but by substance acting and differentiating itself.
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

keving
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 14

Posted 08/14/09 - 10:45 PM:	#4
Yes, that's correct. If God isn't conscious of the universe, it wouldn't exist because He never knew of it. If this is the case, then the universe must be sustained by His sight/perception in some way or another.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5137

Posted 08/15/09 - 04:17 AM:	#5
bert1 wrote: Something like that, yes. I like Berkeley generally, but not this bit. It's too much of a deus ex machina. Berkeley comes up against a difficulty with his theory and just wheels God in to solve it. To be fair to Berkeley, I got the impression that he wasn't too interested in this bit of the theory. It's a long time ago that I read it, but he seemed more interested in breaking down the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, and making all qualities subjectivity-dependent. By the time he'd done that he thought he'd done the important bit. I would have loved him to continue to apply his evident clarity of thought to the problem of the persistence of the external world. I can't remember, does Berkeley view this bit of his theory as an argument for God's existence? God must exist in order for there to be a persistent external world? The problem (for me) with God perceiving the rest of reality is that God does not have any sense organs. And differentiated sense organs are necessary for perception of characterised objects. It still might (arguably) be possible to perceive reality without sense organs, but the perception would have no characterised content, or perhaps consist in only the vaguest of feelings. A better solution for the idealist is panpsychism, that everything in the external world is conscious, and each centre of consciousness perceives itself in relation to other centres of consciousness. Better still for the idealist/panpsychist to be less dependent on perception as the cause of existence. It always bothered me how the first perceiver came into existence if it wasn't perceived by something else. Better just to say that reality/substance is sentient. Things come into existence not by being perceived but by substance acting and differentiating itself. Yeah, this pan-sentience conjecture is far better than Berkeleyan idealism except that saying that every thing is sentient does away with the distinction between sentient & non-sentient altogether, and thus the concept of sentience itself.
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 08/15/09 - 04:39 AM:	#6
bert1 wrote Things come into existence not by being perceived but by substance acting and differentiating itself. And perception? How does that come into existence and what does it DO?
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

JamesBrenton
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 09, 2008
Location: Florida

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 56

Posted 08/15/09 - 04:49 AM:	#7
ragus wrote: bert1 wrote And perception? How does that come into existence and what does it DO? It just is. It's the subject of what we are.
Yea, though I walk through the vally of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 08/15/09 - 04:56 AM:	#8
JamesBrenton wrote It just is. It's the subject of what we are. The subject? And what are we? Perceiving things. Perceiving things. Things perceived. Things. Matter. Mutter. . .Mutter. . .Mutter . . .
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

JamesBrenton
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 09, 2008
Location: Florida

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 56

Posted 08/15/09 - 05:02 AM:	#9
ragus wrote: JamesBrenton wrote The subject? And what are we? Perceiving things. Perceiving things. Things perceived. Things. Matter. Mutter. . .Mutter. . .Mutter . . . Well could elaborate but I don't think you'd like to sit here an test your paience We are. Like I am. I am a subject that percieves things which integrate themselves(itself) in integrating matter, mutter, and other forms of our being. In fact I feel to get lost in conceptualizing your existance is all good if you know what your doing, it's usually just from my perspective integraing new concepts. I think we are whatever we are... Like I said I don't know much on this particular topic.
Yea, though I walk through the vally of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.

yebiga
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2009
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 127

Posted 08/15/09 - 06:39 AM:

#10

180 proof, wrote:

A better solution for the idealist is panpsychism, that everything in the external world is conscious, and each centre of consciousness perceives itself in relation to other centres of consciousness.

Better still for the idealist/panpsychist to be less dependent on perception as the cause of existence. It always bothered me how the first perceiver came into existence if it wasn't perceived by something else. Better just to say that reality/substance is sentient. Things come into existence not by being perceived but by substance acting and differentiating itself.

Yeah, this pan-sentience conjecture is far better than Berkeleyan idealism except that saying that every thing is sentient does away with the distinction between sentient & non-sentient altogether, and thus the concept of sentience itself.

Love it! I thought the thread was headed down the dead end "everything is my subjective world" view. You have rightly elaborated a valid, more likely alternative and far more interesting alternative. Berkely is obsessed with proving the existence of god, his philosophy is an early example of reverse engineering. Worse many of his ideas are over 2500 years old borrowed from a mixture of neo-platonism and pre-christian hermeticism.

In philosophical terms he follows both in time and argumentation Descartes, I think therefore I am - reduction. It is the continuation of this line of thought that only the subjective view exists. I can not know the object. He fills the inevitable vacuum this creates with god and all manner of twists in our perceptions.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.