Descartes And Berkeley: The Nature Of Sensible Objects

In their writings, Descartes and Berkeley argue the nature of sensible objects. Sensible objects are what are perceivable to the mind. The nature of how these objects are perceived and if, what the mind perceives exists is the foundation of both Descartes and Berkeley’s arguments. Are sensible objects distinctly external matter that are perceived by the mind, or are they created within the distinct mind and perceived directly. The arguments are related to Descartes and Berkeley’s different stances on rationalism and empiricism, or if our minds identify knowledge of sensible objects through experience or innate knowledge. In what follows, I will compare the two arguments and their connections to functionalism and empiricism. I will argue that Descartes’ substance theory is more plausible than Berkeley’s bundle theory because common sense tells us that we can perceive mind-independent objects, which counters with his theory. Descartes’ substance theory states that all sensible objects are made of a substance distinct from its properties. A substance, how Descartes defines it, is any entity that can exist on its own. The …show more content…
Descartes believes that God made the distinct mind and body interact in parallel with each other. Berkeley believes that God constantly perceives everything; therefore sensible objects can exist even when we don’t perceive them, because god still perceives them.
The arguments relate to the argument between rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism relates with Descartes’ substance theory because he claims that intellect exists solely in the mind, that it is innate and only internal. Empiricism relates with Berkeley’s bundle theory because he claims that we cannot know a sensible object unless you perceive, or experience all of its collection of ideas. Their different stances, Descartes as a rationalist and Berkeley as an empiricist, are evident in their