Berkeley argues that skepticism is only possible if there is a distinction between appearance and reality. Furthermore, he claims that that distinction collapses once we deny the existence of material substance. Given these two premises, he concludes that skepticism in false. But is he correct? Does the distinction between appearance and reality collapse if idealism is true? Is it possible for God to perceive an object differently than me? Does that possibility redrawn the line between appearance and reality? Are there other problems with this argument?
Berkeley argues that idealism is the best objection to skepticism. He argues this because it is the idea of a material substance that makes up everything that leads to the lack of knowledge about the true nature of anything, but idealism allows you to know the truth of everything you perceive because your perception is the only thing that exists. Berkeley combines the appearance and reality of everything because it takes away the material substance in everything. One argument against this is that we do not know if we are perceiving the same thing as someone else, or as God. It is not possible to know if the red that I see is the same red that someone else sees which is a problem for idealism in objecting to skepticism. This difference in perception means that there is a possibility that we perceive color or any other sensible quality differently than others which means we do not even know if our perception is the true nature of everything we see. This difference makes me think about whether I taste the same thing at lunch as a friend who is eating the same thing does, or if I hear music the same way as someone else. The result of this is that I do not know anything about what I perceive, and therefore I do not know anything or have any knowledge. The same would apply to God's perception of the world, and how it compares to my perception. God's perception could be very different from how I perceive objects which would lead to a similar result of not knowing the true nature of objects, and therefore not have any knowledge of the world around us, and eventually lead back to skepticism.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley's argument that skepticism is only possible if there is a distinction between appearance and reality I think is false. The distinction between appearance and reality is an important one to make for it allows us to figure out how our brain really works. For example if I had a quarter and people viewed it from various angles they shape may appear to be a line or an oval. When in reality it is a circle. Thus this proves that shape is in our mind because something we know is a circle cant be anything but a circle. Which gives me reason to doubt my perceptions, which causes me to doubt many more things in my life like what other perceptions are false. I think it is possible for God to perceive things differently than me even though the bible says we were created in his image. I interpreted this as he made us to look like him but not behave exactly like him. Also there are just concepts that are so hard for me to grasp like the vastness of space that I feel like God has to perceive in order to be considered god. Otherwise I feel like he's just like any other human. I think the possibility that God perceives objects differently is one that kind of changes appearance and reality as what God perceives I assume is real seeing as God is the being that according to the bible created the universe. As a whole however I think it is difficult to fully understand this topic.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley’s argument that if reality and perceived appearance are in fact different, then we cannot possibly know anything real, convinces me of skepticism. However, if we make the assumption that material substance does not exist, and everything we perceive is a matter of the mind only (idealism is true), then I am not completely convinced that skepticism is false.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if idealism is true, then what we perceive through the mind must be the only truth. Although the argument that if idealism is true, then skepticism is falls seems sound at first, I think that problems with this argument are present when we bring God into the discussion. If God exists, and by that I mean an infinitely powerful, infinitely good, and infinitely perfect being, then shouldn’t we be able to perceive God in an idealistic world? If God exists, yet we are still not able to perceive him or find any evidence for his existence, then I believe skepticism to still be true, even if idealism is true. This is because God can still deceive us in an idealistic world and see things differently than we do. Therefore, idealism does not necessarily disprove skepticism.
Maybe skepticism is in fact false because of idealism, like Berkeley tries to argue. The only way I would be convinced of this is if God does not actually exist. In this situation, what we perceive through the mind is the only reality, and there is not the possibility that a supreme being is deceiving us.
Berkeley argues that skepticism exists when there is a distinction between appearance and reality. Essentially Berkeley is saying when what we perceive is different from what is there. It is not that our perception is wrong. Rather our instant inference from what we have just perceived is wrong. The only possible way to ensure that this distinction between appearance and reality is nonexistent is to conclude that material things do not exist, ergo Berkeley's solution, idealism. Idealism states that no material things/matter exists, only ideas and the mind exist. If we take this definition to be true then this distinction between appearance and reality disappears. If we state that the object we are viewing does not exist, it means that the reality of the object exists only in our mind and that the appearance does not matter since it is not within our brain. It is in the untrue/nonexistent form when we view it with our eyes. I find this to be a pretty solid argument. If we prove that the only way for things to exist is if we acknowledge they only truly exist in our mind then the rest follows suit. I mean it is difficult to fully believe in idealism since some latter points Berkeley makes are questionable, but I find this statement to be fairly comprehendible. His argument has solid premises that lay out the argument in a way that is easy to follow and easy to believe. Berkeley bases his argument on the fact that most things are dependent on the perceiver, but how does that change when the type of perceiver is changed. What if it is God or an animal? I feel like perception would follow a similar structure.
ReplyDeleteOne of Berkeley’s arguments says that if idealism is true then skepticism is false. I think that if idealism is true, and nothing truly exists then reality would not actually exist and everything we see now would be fake. We would know that everything we see is false and just an appearance. I think it is possible for god to perceive things differently because everyone perceives things differently. However, we do not know if skepticism is true or false because we cannot really know if what we are seeing is reality or just an appearance. We all have different perspectives and because of that, the way we see things and understand them is different. For example what may seem small to us humans, may be ginormous to a mouse. Since we do not know who God actually is and how he perceives things it’s impossible for us to know if it’s different to us. We could argue that because god created us he would have wanted us to all have the same ability of perception, which makes sense. However, some people are born without the ability to see or hear and because of that, they perceive things differently. Because of that it doesn’t exactly make sense that god perceives the same as us, unless he wanted us all to have different perspectives. I think that with his main argument there are problems with his argument because if idealism is true and skepticism is false then why are we all living in this fake reality filled with illusions and having nothing truly exist. It does not seem like a good quality of life and it also seems hard to prove. Overall I think his argument makes sense, but there is no way to actually prove it and actually know if what we are perceiving is real or an appearance.
ReplyDeleteIdealism is the idea that all perceptions of material substances are accurate, because the only things that exist are the mind and its constructs. Skepticism argues that certain knowledge is impossible; nothing can be proven with absolute certainty. Berkeley argues that skepticism is proven wrong by idealism, in that everything is perceived by the mind (and needs to to exist at all), and because of that, all revelations attained from one’s senses are true. He argues that while objects that are seemingly permanent are not being perceived by the perceiver, it is G-d who perceives them. If one perceives a tree in the summer, and comes back in the fall to the same tree, one may notice that the leaves have turned brown and fallen. But for an object to exist, and therefore change, there must be a perceiver. Berkeley argues that this perceiver is G-d, who subsequently watches over all material things.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think Berkeley is wrong. In fact, I’d argue that if idealism is true, then skepticism cannot be proven false. Idealism is the claim that nothing exists except ideas. In that case, all of our experiences are mental constructs. If our experiences are all mental constructs, then there is no way to tell whether or not those experiences are accurate representations of reality. Berkeley even seems to bring up this point in his argument for idealism: he explains that all experiences are created by perceivers; that there are no basic foundations that shape our reality; that materials can only exist by being perceived, and thus only form in the mind. But if these experiences only exist in the mind, that only further pushes the point that we cannot know if it is the true reality we are perceiving. It might be accurate, or it might be inaccurate. What looks like a tree may be an apple. We don't know. And since we can't tell, we can't say that our experiences are accurate representations of reality. And therefore, idealism proves skepticism cannot be proven false.
I agree with Berkeley's premise that skepticism does not exist. Perception and reality are the same, but differ from person to person. This is illustrated when Berkeley describes the mite's foot. A tall man appears in front of the mite in addition to a smaller animal. The smaller animal will view the mite as a large being, while the man will view the mite as a minute animal. So, is the mite both big and small? The answer to that is no since the mite does not change; its' weight size and color have not changed. Neither observer is wrong in this case as they each have different realities because they come from unique perspectives. Neither party is invalidated and the sensations reflected through their minds aren't false, proving Berkeley's argument.
ReplyDelete