Locke is held to maintain that the idea of a thing consists of a set of ideas of properties plus the idea of 'substance'. What is 'the idea of substance'? It seems to be a thought, the thought namely that the set of ideas of properties it occurs with all inhere in one and the same 'substratum'. Berkeley latches onto the second interpretation. Someone with Locke's empiricist principles, Berkeley objects, is just not entitled to this putative notion of a 'substratum'.
The idea of a substratum is the idea of an 'x' with no properties. Berkeley thinks this is not really conceivable - not intelligible. If we are right to ascribe to Locke the view that all knowledge and opinion is based on ideas of properties, Locke would have to explain how the idea of an x completely lacking in properties could be derived.
How can he? If you think there is a difficulty with 'substratum', do you think it is just the empiricist who has the difficulty? Let us be clear: the substratum cannot be the corpuscular constitution of the thing in question. The corpuscular thesis has no bearing at all on the thesis that properties have to inhere in something.
Corpuscles have properties too. They are not candidates for the x in which properties inhere. Where does this leave Berkeley? I think the situation is that he starts out alongside Locke with the thesis that all knowledge and opinion must be built out of ideas of properties. He cannot make sense of the idea of a substratum.
So he is left with the thought that things are bundles of properties with no string. Berkeley accepts that we cannot think of a mind in my own case as an idea. There is clearly he acknowledges more to my mind than an idea or a bundle of ideas. It is the thing that perceives ideas. So he acknowledges two types of existent, minds and ideas. There is no such problem - things actually don't exist when people are not perceiving them. All knowledge and opinion must be built out of ideas of things plus ideas of their properties.
Contents Berkeley's Strategy Berkeley's attack on Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualities Reprise: Locke's arguments Berkeley's arguments Continuity among sensible objects Berkeley's attack on Locke's account of abstraction Berkeley's account of natural science Berkeley on substance Existence of other spirits Review questions. Summary statement of concepts of substance.
To argue that Locke is to be disregarded on account of his prejudice against Christian belief. To argue that Locke's arguments purporting to show that some qualities are 'in the mind' only apply in fact to all qualities.
To argue that though most people will inevitably begin by thinking his Berkeley's immaterialism is ridiculous, with a little mathematical training anybody could be got to see that it must be true. A windmill looks exactly the same to someone near at hand as it does to someone a long way away - in perception we make the appropriate adjustment in the light of how near we are to the object.
A windmill looks differently to two different observers just as a bowl of water may feel warm to one and cold to another. Windmills and bowls of water have absolutely nothing to do with each other. In giving his argument from the bowl of luke warm water Locke takes a misleading case. Most of the time two people in the same room would be used to the same temperature and the water would feel just the same to both.
God created enduring objects and would not allow them to pass in and out of existence all the time. What you mean when you say objects exist even when no one is looking at them is that they would be perceived in certain different circumstances, and anyway God is always perceiving them.
General ideas are formed by subtracting from a set of particular ideas the elements that the members don't have in common. The only truly general ideas are ideas of numbers, and this is why mathematics is so central to knowledge. Locke is wrong to think that properties inhere in tiny 'corpuscles' or 'atoms'. An empiricist is not entitled to the idea of a bearer of properties that does not itself have any properties. In political theory, or political philosophy, John Locke refuted the theory of the divine right of kings and argued that all persons are endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and property and that rulers who fail to protect those rights may be removed by the people, by force if necessary.
According to Locke, shape being rectangular is a primary quality, while color being blue is a secondary quality. In the Three Dialogues, Berkeley very clearly invokes God in this context. Interestingly, whereas in the Principles, as we have seen above, he argued that God must exist in order to cause our ideas of sense, in the Dialogues , —5 he argues that our ideas must exist in God when not perceived by us.
Locke and Berkeley Agree: The only immediate objects of thoughts, sensations, perceptions, etc. John Locke is regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of modern times. He founded the modern theory of Liberalism and made an exceptional contribution to modern philosophical empiricism. I will then argue that this response would not be plausible for two reasons. First, it fails to recognize the inherent complexity that objects possess.
Second, it fails to account for mistakes in perception. Rather, the existence of the apple consists of a collection of ideas in minds, and therefore the reality of the apple is exhausted by the various perceptions of it. Indeed, for Berkeley, to talk about ideas of things not in the mind is a straightforward contradiction. Berkeley also claims that because our thoughts and ideas of objects are their reality, our perception and thoughts are an accurate representation of the reality of things.
In saying this, Berkeley is saying that his principles are opposed to skepticism. If he is aware of perceiving something, this awareness alone is enough evidence to not doubt reality.
He states that upon opening his eyes, it is not in his power to be able to choose what his senses will perceive p. This leads him to believe that the vast array of ideas in his mind cannot be created by his own will. According to Bishop Berkeley, this shows that God is a wise and benevolent designer of our ideas.
This in turn allows Berkeley to conclude that his ideas and experiences are part of the natural order of things governed by God. Therefore we can be sure that the experiences and sensations that we have when biting into an apple are fully proportionate to the apple itself, because a wise and benevolent God who governs the laws of nature and our ideas would not deceive us.
0コメント