Philosophy Exam 2 (Set 6) Berkley

Front 1

Is Berkley rationalist or empiricist

Back 1

Empiricist like Locke

Front 2

Does Berkley believe in nativism or the blank slate thesis?

Back 2

Blank slate thesis like Locke

Front 3

What are Berkley's ideas about ontological entities

Back 3

He believes God is the infinite mind
Believes in finite minds
Rejects the idea that things actually exist.

Front 4

Why does Berkley reject the idea that things actually exist?

Back 4

You only get things by experience. When Berkley thinks about the gap problem he says it's just an idea. So he believes God infinite mind
Finite minds
and ideas

Front 5

Berkley what does he say about what is really present?

Back 5

The only thing really present is intellect. Only thing we really encounter is ideas. Because of this there are no physical things in existence. Berkley is usually noted that he is an idealist. Be believes all that exists is ideas.

Front 6

Why is Berkley called an idealist

Back 6

Berkley is usually noted that he is an idealist. Be believes all that exists is ideas. Not because he is overly positive

Front 7

What does Berkley say about the existence of tables?

Back 7

Berkley says if you can't see the table you won't have the idea in us. To go back to Descartes I have an idea but can I prove it? Berkley says not unless you have an experience of it outside of seeing it/bumping into it ect.

Front 8

What does Berkley say about ideas and existence?

Back 8

He says to exist is to be perceived. Ideas are present to the mind. Do I know the table exists? YEs, I see the mental image. He doesn't know what the physical object is. The table (physical object) isn't in my mind. Rather the idea exists in my mind.

Front 9

How does Berkleys understanding of ideas relate to the cogito?

Back 9

Descartes exists because he's a thinking thing. This keeps it internal. As opposed to thinking of the outside world. Moderns shift to individual account. We're the ones doing the inquiring. We have to figure out what we're doing. Berkley rejects Locke's notion of physical existence.

Front 10

What does Berkely reject that Locke argues for?

Back 10

Berkely rejects Locke's notiono of physical existence. He says there are no primary qualities.

Front 11

Where does Berkley believe our ideas come from?

Back 11

HE doesn't give an account as to where we get our ideas. He disproves Locke but doesn't offer a solution.

Front 12

What does Berkley say about the existence of physical objects?

Back 12

Physical objects such as primary qualities don't need a mind to exist. Noone needs to perceiving them, they just exist. Outside of our perceiving these things do they really exist?

Front 13

Argument against Locke's notion of matter. P1

Back 13

To perceive somethign is to have an idea of it.
(When you perceive an object you get an idea. Nothing controversial).

Front 14

Argument against Locke's notion of matter. P2

Back 14

Ideas are mind dependent
(Even if primary qualities should exist outside us it can only produce an idea in something with a mind. No mind, no ideas) (Not controversial).

Front 15

Argument against Locke's notion of matter. P3

Back 15

Locke claims that matter is mind independent.
(In the Locke picture the mind object should exist independnetnly of my perception)/

Front 16

Argument against Locke's notion of matter. P4

Back 16

According to Locke's commitment to empiricism and his causal theory of perception, to claim that matter is mind independent is to say that you have an idea of mind independence.
(If you look at mind independent and causal theory when you make a claim that it's mind independent what if we have an idea of mind independence. If we have na idea of mind independence we must have experienced it. The ideas of the primary qualities must resemble any ideas we have are mind independent.

Front 17

Argument against Locke's notion of matter. P5

Back 17

If you have an idea of mind independnece than that idea is itself mind-dependent (because it's an idea)/

Front 18

Argument against Locke's notion of matter. P6

Back 18

So what we perceive/experience of matter is in fact, mind dependent.
(Sensation is supposed to be passive, so we get a contradiction matter is somehow independent and dependent? Thos does not seem to be true. If it's independent it should be so all the way through. The idea should resemble things all the way through.)

Front 19

Argument against Locke's notion of matter. P 7

Back 19

Locke's notion of matter seems to be that matter is both mind-independent and mind-dependent.

Front 20

Argument against Locke's notion of matter. Conclusion

Back 20

Locke's notion of matter is unintelligible and involves a manifest contradiction.

Front 21

What does Berkley attack?

Back 21

He attacks Locke's primary qualities accounts particular sights and sounds aren't real but we do know they are actual objects that aren't there. Descartes primary qualities aren't mind independent. Some seem to be mind dependent. If you have mind-dependence then you don't have primary qualities, they are all secondary qualities.

Front 22

What does he say about extension?

Back 22

There's different types of extension. Can say on one hand it's 36 inches, on the other hand it's 3 feet. Dividing the garin of wheat depends on perception. If I'm looking under a microscope I could see something different so it seems to be mind dependent. Same things with shape. Shape is a primary quality but it's not mind independent the way you look at it changes the shape. If you look at a penny from different angels it looks different so what is the primary shape?

Front 23

What does Berkley say about the primary quality of motion?

Back 23

You can slow something down to the point where it looks like you're not moving it at all. This appears to be mind dependent. Driving at teh same rate of something else it can seem like you're not moving. If the primary qualities differ then everything collapses.

Front 24

Variance argument

Back 24

Locke claims that only secondary qualities vary. (Primary qualities don't because they resemble actual cause).
But it looks like some primary qualities are highly variable.
So by Locke's own logic, they are mind dependent.
Outcome: All qualities then are mind dependent so there's no longer mind-independent matter. You will never get the physical.

Front 25

REjection of resemblance thesis

Back 25

According to Locke we have ideas of particular colors/shapes/numbers. These are supposed to resemble things. This idea should resemble a primary quality. How can an idea represent a primary quality. We don't say oh this table is alot like Bob. Things that are of the same type are the things that resemble. Ideas that are mind dependent cannot resemble primary qualities that are mind independent. Now wehave a huge proble. How do I know these primary qualities actually exist if i can't have experiences of any of them?

Front 26

Which part of the resemblance theseis does Berkley reject?

Back 26

He rejects the resemblance thesis.

Front 27

What does he say about mind-dependent and mind-independent entities?

Back 27

He says they are fundamentally different Unlike apples and oranges aren't fundamentally different because they both grow on trees. Bob hopes dreams physical things can't

Front 28

Rejection of Locke's resemblance thesis P1

Back 28

Mind independent entities and mind dependent entities are fundamentally different.

Front 29

Rejection of Locke's resemblance thesis P2

Back 29

Things that are fundamentally different cannot resemble one another.

Front 30

Rejection of Locke's resemblance thesis Conclusion

Back 30

so it doesn't make sense to say, as Locke does that ideas resemble physical objects. Doesn't make sense to say the mental image resembles the physical body

Front 31

The gap problem what does it get us

Back 31

Here he gets at if you have the veil of perception if all you ever encounter is mental image that creates skepticism of physical objects.

Front 32

The gap problem P1

Back 32

Materialism leads to skepticism
(Take Locke's route and argue there are physical objects and this is how we perceive things. Do we actually know they exist? Berkely says we have mental images)/

Front 33

The gap problem P2

Back 33

Idealism- what exists? That which can perceive and this which can be perceived (ideas).
Idealism doens't lead to skepticism.

Front 34

What problem arises if to exist is to be perceived?

Back 34

Problem is if nobody is perceiving it, it doesn't exist. We think the table is here even if we're not there. If we ado[t this view then when we're sleeping we aren't perceiving ourselves. We'd have an existentail crisis because we'd no longer exist.

Front 35

How does Berkley solve the gap problem

Back 35

He solves the problem of unperceived existence by thinking of God as the eternal perceiver.