George Berkeley introduces his essay A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge with the idea that uncertainty, doubt, and contradictions arise from the “imperfection of our understandings.” Berkeley believes that a root cause of this failure is the notion of things, or what he calls the “abstract of ideas.” The abstract ideas that the mind conceives are surreal. For instance he writes, “And as the mind frames to it self abstract ideas of qualities, so does it,... attain abstract ideas of the more compounded beings which include several coexisting qualities.” Berkeley exemplifies this idea with an example. A person may see three men, of different statues and color, and pick out common abstract ideas of the single particular men and then form a larger abstract idea of what a man is. In this larger abstract idea however, the peculiar nature of each man demonstrates many more abstract ideas. Does it make sense that Berkeley believes that we can’t have an abstract idea that applies to many distinct ideas? For example we can’t have an abstract idea of motion because it is neither swift not slow, not curvilinear or rectilinear; it’s many distinct things. What can we say about the perception of an individual and the way each person tries to form an abstract idea of something? More specifically, how do people grasp abstract ideas?
Secondly, Berkeley discusses the way words come in to play when talking about abstract ideas. He states that by annexing a meaning to a word of what we perceive this word should mean, then the idea becomes general by being made to represent for all other abstract ideas of the same sort. By combining all perceptions of that same abstract idea we can formulate a word which represents the overall general perceptions of the concept. How, if possible, can we state Berkeley disagrees with Locke in the way each depicts the understanding of an abstract idea through words? There’s a strong belief that Berkeley uses universality as a basis for what words represent, “universality, so as far as I can comprehend, not consisting in the absolute, positive nature or conception of any thing, but in the relation it bears to the particulars signified or represented by it.” Furthermore, he believes words that represent abstract notions were not only created to communicate but to transcend emotions such as passions, fear, love. etc. We can conclude that Berkeley believes in clear, and concise use of words when trying to convey ideas. Is there a a way then in which we can compare and contrast Locke’s and Berkeley’s view on words and how they should be used? How do the views of Berkeley criticize those of Locke when talking about the use of words to convey abstract ideas?
As Professor Bobonich said in lecture, Berkeley agrees with Locke in that words represent ideas. However, Berkeley disagrees with Locke’s notion that words can represent things. Things, Berkeley argues are only perceived through ideas. Things exist because someone (God or man) perceives them. I agree with this notion as an argument for the existence for God; however I disagree with Berkeley’s argument about the natural sciences. Locke, I think, would agree that atoms, magnetic fields, and the like exist even if we cannot fully comprehend them with words and images. Berkeley’s notion that we use the ideas of atoms and magnetic fields so that our minds can comprehend advanced topics is ridiculous. Perception or not, magnetic fields exist. Not because we need them to so that our limited human minds can comprehend why magnets repel and attract each other, but because they must. They existed before humans could comprehend them, before humans even existed. They have always existed and always will exist whether humans know or comprehend it or not.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Plato, Kafka, Locke, and Berkeley, I think my understanding of words, images, and ideas has become deeper, and may be confusing. While before, we got the opportunity to analyze one writer/ philosopher, now, we are comparing their thoughts and ideas. Berkely unlike all the others we read for, introduces the concept of "ideas" and connects it to words and images. A word could generalize a thought or an idea but not an image. FOr instance as Berkley metions, the word man can present the idea of "humanity or human nature", but there is no general picture or color that could be associated with it, as there are humans who are white, or black, or brown,...etc.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Berkley shows how it is difficult for humans to divide their ideas while thinking of a specific idea because even that particular, specific idea is composed of many other different ideas.
I kind of felt strange when I read the following in Berkley's passage : "I can consider the hand, the eye, the nose, each by it self abstratced or seperated from the rest of the body". While reading the previous, I started imagining the parts of the body seperated from each other and it was really weird form me to picture that. This example, simply illustrates that humans link each single ideas they have to several other ideas to understand what it means. Therefore, ideas cannot be divided or separated because then we won't get the right image or the right message.
I find the parallelism between Locke's belief in the obstructive "veil of ideas" and Berkeley's in the "curtain of words" interesting. I think they have both hit on the same idea - that there is something keeping us from a complete understanding of our world - but have each postulated a different barrier. These barriers, whether they be our ideas or the way we express them, are solidified in us as we grow up, and complicate our vision, preventing us from seeing clearly as Berkeley thinks a philosopher must. A further difference in the two writers' theories is what they think these barriers are hiding from us. Locke writes that our ideas make it impossible for us to see reality, while Berkeley writes that our ideas are reality.
ReplyDeleteBoth Locke and Berkeley agree that words are bad because they can represent multiple ideas or things, but what they mean by that is slightly different. Locke says that certain words can refer to two completely different entities depending on the context they are used in. Because of that, words are ineffective in communication because they do not represent one individual thing. Berkeley, on the other hand, thinks that words represent abstract ideas that can be broken into multiple particular ideas. To him, words that represent a compilation of ideas are useless, as one can not be isolated from the other. So Locke and Berkeley are arguing similar things with different methods.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley takes Locke's assumptions to their extreme conclusion, that abstract ideas can't exist. His reasoning is that because we can't form a mental image of an abstract idea such as red, without ascribing other qualities, then it can't exist. However, I don't agree with this. Both Locke and Berekely have defined an idea as something that you can form into a mental image. With this definition, of course abstract ideas can't exist, but if you define ideas differently then abstract ones certainly could exist. Even if we can't form a mental image of only red, we can understand and recognize the concept of red. I think that is what defines an idea.
ReplyDeleteI found the similarities between Plato's Forms and Berkeley's object-ideas interesting. Both the Forms and the ideas are in some way shapeless; although they may be based in or evolve from our perceptions, we can never imagine them clearly and any distinct features we ascribe to Forms or ideas distance them from what they really are. Both Plato and Berkeley are religious, and just as in the Phaedrus it was the gods and bodiless souls who were able to see the Forms, so, according to Berkeley, is God alone able to perceive all ideas at all times. Plato and Berkeley also agree that in the pursuit of knowledge, it is the mind that must be active.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to see the progression of ideas from Locke to Berkeley. In one sense, it's a natural extension of Locke's ideas to say that actual objects don't exist, but on the other hand, it's a view that's so jarring with what we deal with on a daily basis that it seems like an impossibility. But apart from the disjunction between this kind of philosophy and simple common sense, it also fails to take into account other types of human interaction and activity. For example, it seems interesting that Berkeley would call into question the entirety of existence, but still rely on the reality of a god to account for the alleged permanence of objects. Berkeley is well on his way to the type of nihilism that would become the vogue for philosophy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but the fact that he hasn't followed his ideas to the extreme creates flaws in his argument, both from those who believe in the existence of objects and those who doubt the existence of everything.
ReplyDeleteI find it particularly interesting how Berkeley relates perception to existence. Berkeley argues that an object does not exist if it is not perceived by our mind. However, during lecture Prof. Bubonich stated that Berkeley believed that things do not "pop out of existence" due to the omniscience of God. I find it interesting how both Plato and Berkeley approach these questions of understanding in a more metaphysical and spiritual aspect. And it makes me wonder about the the use of reasoning in these arguments.
ReplyDeleteLocke and Berkeley both address the role of ideas in our mind. Locke distinguishes between primary qualities and secondary qualities. Primary qualities can be measured quantitatively and are objective. Secondary qualities are subjective and describe how the world appears to the individual, not how it definitely is. Berkeley would say that there is not distinction between these two "qualities." Everything is subjective. We perceive ideas. We use these ideas to build new ideas of varying complexity. This raises the question of how can we truly know what the outside world constitutes if what we perceive is subjective?
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of what should be said about Locke, Plato and Berkely has already been mentioned on here and in lecture. One topic that could be interesting to go into and which has not been mentioned here yet is how we can compare this to Kafka. It may be a bit far fetched, but I see some questions to raise, especially with the officer. How can we, for instance, relate Berkeley's perspective on ideas to the officer's lack of connection with reality? When we think about how Berkeley defines ideas as only being in the mind, can we interpret how the officer and the explored experience the machine differently? Although the parallel to Plato and Locke is more obvious, comparing the text to Kafka could be interesting, too.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very good question edgar. However I wonder if Berkey really does think that an object can just appear out of existence. Do we know he believes this for a fact? Or are him and Professor Bubonich on the same page in realizing the object still exists although we cannot see it. This whole philosophy reminds me of the quote "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound".
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Berkeley rules out the possibility for us to have an understanding of concepts like motion; he only argues that we can't have an idea of it in the sense that an idea is defined as our mental constructions of the general cases of physical things we encounter in our daily lives. That is, things like "motion," and as Prof. Bobonich explained in the lecture, things like "redness" are merely specific properties that can describe fundamental ideas of objects in everyday life. In that sense, motion is understandable, but not strictly an "idea."
ReplyDeleteOff of what Edgar and AJ are asking, what then is the difference between existence and what is perceived by God? If God is omnipresent and omniscient, and the existence and quality of objects when not observed by humans depends on his perceptions, then perception by God is practically equivalent to the objects existing. The difference seems to me a trivial choice of words. What is the difference between a tree existing in God's eyes versus a tree existing and no God there to perceive it?
ReplyDelete