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?
I think Berkeley’s argument is sound and makes sense. If we fully accept idealism, which I do, there is no way to deny the claim he is making. First, I want to explain why I accept idealism. When I came into this class, I started forming some opinions that align very similarly with what Berkeley is preaching, so I was drawn to him when we started reading. I remember in one of our first discussions about Plato and morality, I talked about my view of a kind of “personal morality”, and how each person really decides for themselves what is right and wrong, because what really matters is their own view of themselves and their actions. This aligns closely in a way with idealism, which states that all ideas exist in the mind, and what you see is how things are. I agree with this because there is no real way to know what other people are thinking, you can only control yourself. Based on this, it makes sense that everyone's individual perception of things is the truth of them, because that is all we can really know. Idealism does not try and expand the meaning of things to be too universal, it just says things are as we see them.
ReplyDeleteDue to this, I think that Berkeley has every reason to deny skepticism. I cannot conceive of a way that things are different than how they appear. The main objection to this would be the oar in the water example, but I am satisfied with Berkeley’s answer that inferences and perceptions are different. I think idealism is a very foundational belief system, and there is no way to prove that the things we see are not real in our mind, and therefore think it is extremely valid to disprove skepticism.
The way I see it, Berkeley presents two options: either we accept skepticism, the knowledge that we know nothing, or we accept that everything is exactly as we perceive it -- that is, that we know everything. Berkeley claims that everything is exactly as we perceive it, and that in fact any given object's existence and immediate reality is dependent on our perception of it, the concept which we call idealism. However, this argument is made in the hopes of proving the existence of God, and one could argue that it almost falls into a Cartesian-like Circle. Berkeley tells us that (for a large-scale example) because objects would continue to exist even if all perceiving agents on the planet were to by wiped out, therefore there must be some Greater Mind, which continues to perceive and holds the ultimate reality. This is arguing backwards, by telling us that what the Greater Mind does must be proof that it exists; as opposed to arguing for the existence of a Greater Mind due to grounded logic.
ReplyDeleteA more convincing argument that Berkeley presents, however, could potentially eliminate some of our confusion here! This argument is the idea that because not all of the ideas we have are authored by us, there must be some Greater Mind out there, who is the author of all thought which extends universally even when an individual's perception of these thoughts fails. While it may appear that the universe exists in reality to each individual precisely as they perceive it, in reality the perception abilities of the Greater Mind are so superior that they are, in fact, what determine the realities of all that we perceive. While individuals may have their own versions of reality, such as seeing an oar as bent when it is refracted across the surface of water, the All-Knowing Greater Mind is still aware that the oar is straight. Hence, all realities other than that willed by the Greater Mind are ultimately skewed and must come to an end when their authors realize that they are not the be-all end-all of what is and could be. But the Greater Mind is.
At the start of the third dialogue, Philonous makes a claim that belief in material substance is to accept skepticism. To have skepticism there must be the possibility of illusion, and Philonous concludes that to believe in matter or material substance is to believe there is a distinction between perception and reality. With a distinction between perception and reality, there is the possibility that perception is an illusion, so material substance gives way to skepticism. Philonous attempts to defeat skepticism by eliminating the distinction between perception and reality through idealism. In idealism, perception is reality, and with no distinction between them, there is no longer the possibility of a great illusion or falsity.
ReplyDeletePhilonous’s argument is correct. Under the premise that idealism is true, the definition of reality changes. Reality is no longer determined by an idea of material substance and the true nature of an object, but rather reality is perception. The line between reality and perception is erased altogether, as they are now the same.
Some may argue that there is a problem with the argument, as different individuals can perceive the same object, such as a pencil in a glass of water, but it will appear different from different angles. One angle the pencil is straight, and the other bent. How can a single object take on multiple forms? The issue with this objection is that it continues to attack idealism under the materialist notion of reality, where it is impossible for a single physical object to take on multiple forms. It is important to remember that under idealism, reality is perception. With no difference between the two, there is no reason to question how the “real” nature of a physical object has differing appearances, as what one perceives is true. To one person, the pencil appears, and thus is in fact bent, and to the other it remains straight. Furthermore, the infinite mind of God (which is proven earlier in the dialogues) may perceive every reality of an object such as the pencil to determine an objective truth. While finite minds can only perceive the pencil one way at a time, there is no such limitation on the idea of God that has been constructed by Philonous’s previous arguments that would restrict it from perceiving not just everything, but every possible perception of everything, including the pencil in the glass of water.
A fundamental part of idealism, appearance and reality must both present the same image, or in other words, be equal. As such, the gap of distinction between appearance and reality, which is quite large in skepticism, collapses if idealism is proven true. While I may not personally agree with the argument for idealism, of which involves the existence of god, I understand the conviction in which skepticism is distinctly proven false if idealism is proven to be true. In that sense, this conclusion made by Berkeley could be perceived to be true only if the equation between appearance and reality is also proven. In the argument of idealism, it isn't necessarily possible for an object to be perceived differently by one person versus god. However, there exists a fundamental gap between the possible perceptions of both entities: God and oneself. This gap is what creates the disconnect between what one person may perceive to be true, and what is actually true. This is because a person would generally have a limited perception of any one object, in comparison with god who has limitless perception, and thus the person would necessitate the brain’s interpretation to fill in the missing perceptions. This gap in what could be conceived as knowledge is what creates what many people would generalize as false perceptions. An example of this phenomenon would be if a person believed they had seen a deer running across a field from a far distance, when in reality it was really a fox. From this far distance, a person must rely on limited sight information to then draw conclusions on what that item was, when in contrast, god who has full perception has a clear and distinct view of the animal and thus does not necessitate any interpretations. This explains the disconnect between true and false perceptions often observed in reality.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAs I sit here writing this comment, I’ve become infatuated with a candle burning in front of me. My sister just walked in the room and claimed it burned off a putrid odor, although I think it smells quite nice, like fall. This, in a way, is idealism. In layman’s terms, idealism is the theory that reality is simply the mental ideas we perceive, not material objects. S, let’s take the candle for instance, through my senses, I perceived a warm, oaky smell, yet my sister describes it as vomit-like and gross (i’ve found one way to keep her out of my room!). We perceive two different smells from the same candle, proving senses are just ideas from the mind. Additionally, when I leave the room, will the candle keep burning? Yes! This is due to an infinite mind, God; continuity persists as God will still perceive the burning candle. So here, we’ve accomplished a lot - proving both the existence of God and idealism. But how does this apply to skeptics?
As mentioned in the prompt, “Berkeley argues that skepticism is only possible if there is a distinction between appearance and reality”. Berkeley also claims that non-idealists' understanding of “reality” is just an appearance/idea made from the mind. As a skeptic's understanding of reality is just an illusion - or appearance - there is no distinction between the two, furthermore invalidating the belief in skepticism.
But is Berkeley correct in his assertions? Are minds and ideas the only things to exist? Well, he makes a pretty good argument for it. While one may argue that with this definition of idealism, one cannot distinguish real from dream, Berkeley supports his stance (although I won’t give any spoilers as there's another blog comment/section on that). Berkeley single-handley disproves materialism while proving the existence of God, simultaneously diffusing the barriers between reality and appearance, confirming all ideas/perception exist within our minds or Gods.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley argues that because of idealism, how things appear is how they exist. This leaves us with two options regarding skepticism and idealism. There is no in-between, we must either choose that everything is how we appear it, or nothing, in reality, is how we appear it. For Berkely to be right he is correct in attacking the distinction between appearance and reality, and if he can’t prove idealism destroys this distinction, skepticism is true.
A skeptic would say that when Manan dreams about winning a Super Bowl, he isn't doing that. In reality, he is a random high schooler in the middle of Ohio. Materially Manan exists, and the Superbowl exists. For a skeptic to show I am dreaming they must prove that these material substances exist. If there is no material Super Bow, there is no material such thing as a football player, and there isn’t a material substance like a high school, a skeptic can never prove an illusion. Illusion is predicated on false senses of reality, but if these senses are informing about something that does not exist, how can they ever be doubted or shown to be false?
Berkeley argues that from an idealist perspective, everything is how it is perceived. Ideas exist inside of the mind, and there is no material substance. What everyone perceives as true becomes true essentially. Material substance does not exist because reality is what is perceived. Illusion can not exist because that perception is reality. Since it doesn't therefore matter if material substance exists, skepticism is wrong. An illusion isn't real as that perception is real. There is no objective distinction and truth between a supposed illusion and actual reality.
I think Berkely has defeated skepticism. The same premises of skepticism say that essentially if a sense deceives once it can never ever be trusted and we therefore know nothing. This belief operates on material substance. What idealism imposes is that all perception is real. An individual's perception is reality, and in this regard Berkely is right. A schizophrenic’s reality is what they perceive, and for that person, they are living in their schizophrenic episode. In a dream, what we perceive, is that reality for the time being. Idealism conquers skepticism becuase reality is solely based on perception. A color-blind person will see objects differently than I do. Every person's perception is their reality, and there is no material substance because that assumes there is an objective truth. There will always be someone who perceives my “objective truth” as incorrect or different. It is also unfair in this regard to use the majority rules, that since all people who see red see a tomato as red, color-blind people are wrong. Their perception of a tomato might be yellow, and to them, that is their reality. A skeptic can not prove that someone's perception isn't true as reality. There are no objective material substances for society, individual perception is king here.
Berkeley would be a genius in this regard if not for his simultaneous god argument. God exists, and he perceives everything. Therefore is there not an objective material substance? Isn't it objectively true that the highest all-knowing power knows the objective truth about everything? God according to Berkely perceives everything and therefore knows everything. By this same logic, I believe that there is material substance. I believe that god perceives all of these things and there is material substance. God is more powerful and all-knowing than me, and therefore if I perceive something different than him, are I not wrong? If I am not wrong, does it mean that my perception is more important than God’s? If I perceive a substance different than god, I am wrong, and there therefore is a material substance, which re-opens the door that Berkeley had closed.
In his 3 Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, Berkeley argues that skepticism does not exist through a premise chain and with the legitimate existence of idealism. The argument is as follows.
ReplyDeleteAssume materialism is an idea, and it distinguishes between what we perceive and what is real regarding the world around us.
A difference between what we perceive in the world and what is actually real is considered illusionism. Everything that we think we see is not what we actually see.
If we are tricked by all of our perceptions of the world around us, then we know nothing that we think we know.
So, if we know nothing, then skepticism must be true.
However, a previously proved IDEALISM argument counters and trumps skepticism, because IDEALISM states that everything we see is from our mind.
From these premises, Berkeley argues that skepticism therefore cannot exist, because everything that we perceive cannot be false because it came from our minds.
Berkeley’s argument is wrong because he incorrectly claims that idealism MUST exist, when it cannot. Idealism cannot exist because to claim it exists is to claim that our minds can manipulate the world around us. If a thinking being’s mind has a part to play in the properties of an object, there is nothing stopping that being from changing the properties of that object because it can deliberate thoughts.
Every thinking being is mentally structured differently based on their goals and knowledge of the surrounding world. Berkeley asserts that if multiple thinking beings assess a single object, they may all reach different opinions about that object; one might think it is too big, the other too small. Through this line of thinking, he argues that the properties of an object exist in the mind because an object cannot have incompatible qualities. However, I argue that the qualities of the object are objective, and it is the difference in the way these beings’ minds perceive that object that they reach different conclusions about it. Their past experiences, their desires and their knowledge influence what they perceive and bias it to fit what they know. Therefore, perception and interpretation of the world around are separate from what it actually is, disabling idealism and PRESERVING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PERCEPTION AND REALITY.
Furthermore, there is an additional problem with his thesis. Berkeley cannot realize skepticism either for the sake of his argument. Skepticism does not exist either because a thinking being can learn and know what is around it by identifying patterns and learning from iterative experiences. If a being experiences several times that if it hits an object, it will learn that the object will always propagate a reaction. In fact, this principle has been experienced so many times that it has become its own governing law of life: Isaac Newton’s third law of motion. This identifies one of the many concepts that thinking beings know through iterative identification, and highlights an important objection to the skepticism argument: we can prove–for some things–that what we see is what is real. Therefore, true skepticism (“I have NO knowledge”) cannot exist, but a revised version of that does. Thinking beings only know what they have experienced repeatedly and have identified it to be a pattern, but they know nothing else. This idea of revised skepticism introduces EMPIRICISM–a much more viable epistemological concept. Empiricism states that everything a being knows is from experiences from which it has learned from.
Berkeley's argument is a complex one, and there are different interpretations and criticisms, but let's address the question of whether the distinction between appearance and reality collapses if idealism is true.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley's idealism does challenge the traditional distinction between appearance and reality. He argues that what we perceive are ideas in our minds and that the external world consists of these ideas, which are in turn constantly perceived by the mind of God. In other words, for Berkeley, everything that exists is a mental or spiritual entity.
If we accept Berkeley's idealism, the distinction between appearance and reality changes. In his view, what we commonly perceive as the external, material world is not something distinct from appearance but is itself a part of the realm of appearances, albeit consistent and ordered by the mind of God. This means that reality, according to Berkeley, is the same as appearance, as both are composed of ideas.
One problem with Berkeley's argument is the question of the existence of the external world. If everything exists in the mind, what happens when we stop perceiving an object? Does it cease to exist? Berkeley argues that objects exist because they are continually perceived by God, but this raises concerns about the reliance on God for the argument. This raises a question of the consistency of Berkeley's idealism in this regard.
Furthermore, Berkeley's idealism may be seen as counterintuitive because it challenges the common-sense view of an external, material world that exists independently of our perceptions.
Whether or not you find Berkeley's arguments convincing may depend on your philosophical perspective and your willingness to accept his redefinition of reality and appearance, especially in the light of God. Berkeley accomplishes a compelling argument on one hand, yet still, sets numerous challenges and assumptions, including and especially the existence and role of God.
Berkeley’s assertion that appearance is reality under idealism is untrue as one perception can be disproven by multiple outside sources. Under idealism, as explained by Berkeley, everything exists in the mind and material substance does not exist independently. Traditional beliefs of the distinction between reality and appearance are forgotten, as perception is reality. To justify this belief he proposes a scenario where an individual places one hand in hot water and one in cold water. After some time, both hands are placed in lukewarm water. Under these conditions, they would perceive the water as two temperatures simultaneously, which is absurd to agree with as it’s all one temperature. He then states that perception is reality, and there is no objectivity in material substance. I contend that this philosophy is true without the input of external characters. Returning to Berekely’s example, the only reason the water is at two temperatures is because the example only gives the perspective of one person. To ground the temperature of the water, a number of one hundred or some individuals sense the water as lukewarm. I argue it’s absurd to propose the water as two temperatures given one individual's perception when one hundred others assert that it’s entirely lukewarm. Since Berkeley’s rejection of material substance conflicts with how others agree upon reality, it becomes increasingly difficult to interact in the practical world. Without other minds to justify these beliefs, maybe perception is reality, but this is untrue as there are other individuals in the world to confirm and establish perceptions. To further argue against idealism, one can detach the warping of perception and how they’re measured objectively. His idea that perception is reality goes against all grounded measurements. With a temperature gauge, the water is around 95 degrees Fahrenheit (lukewarm), but can still be perceived as a different temperature. To combat this argument, mass hysteria is often proposed, however, mass hysteria refers to concepts with more complex qualities, unlike something as fundamental as temperature. Another attempt would be to say that the one hundred individuals are used to cold temperatures, and would perceive the water as hot. But the point still stands, no matter the perception the temperature can still be grounded without interpretation. The interpretation and physical truth are separate, and to say simply because our minds can easily be confused by sensory inputs that our senses are only reality is illogical. So, perception can differ from the truth, ensuring that idealism cannot be proven. Furthermore, objectively material substance can be justified using external tools and the agreement of other individuals. Berkeley’s argument for idealism fails, as it neglects the external validity of perceptions in its account of reality.
ReplyDeleteFor Berkeley to be correct in his final conclusion of skepticism, we must first prove that there is no distinction between appearances and reality. This could be done by a line of argument which depicts the idea that only what can be perceived or thought of could be considered real and in existence. That saying, if you were alone in a universe and you turned your head around, everything behind you would disappear from existence. This argument removes the idea of appearances and only equates everything that can be thought of or sensed as complete reality. If this argument, called idealism, is considered to be true, then yes: One could conclude that skepticism is false. However, no definitive argument for this line of reasoning has ever proven Idealism over other methods of thought. For example, Idealism states that if I turn around, and there is no one else to think or observe anything, then everything behind me will disappear. This is easily disproved in reality as, for instance, someone with schizophrenia in a sealed room, with only them to observe or think of anything, cannot will into existence some horrible monster from their mind. This flaw is “fixed” by arguing that there must be some being, or god, that observes all, and therefore nothing disappears or reappears when one of us is not observing it. This itself has one major flaw, we have not proven the existence of god, or his qualities. Say a philosopher was able to prove his or her existence, without the qualities of such a god also being proven, then we could never trust what's in front of us anyway! Or if anything disappears when we turn our back. Simply put, all of our metrics for measuring anything to do this Idealism, without proving god and its qualities, cannot be trusted and therefore Idealism cannot be considered to be true.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley advances a form of idealism that denies the existence of material substance. Instead, he posits that objects only exist as perceptions in our minds and that their continued existence is sustained by God, who perceives all things. Berkeley's argument against skepticism is built on the idea that skepticism about the external world is predicated on a distinction between appearance (how things seem to us) and reality (how things are independent of us). He contends that if we deny the existence of material substance, then what we perceive with our senses is indeed reality because there is no underlying material world that is distinct from our perception of it.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley's argument can be compelling at first glance. If there is no material world, then the skepticism that arises from questioning the correspondence between appearance and reality does indeed seem undermined. If the only reality is the perceived reality, then there can be no error in perception since there is nothing for it to correspond to incorrectly. However, the question arises: if idealism is true, and there is no material reality, does this collapse the distinction between appearance and reality? Not necessarily. Even within idealism, there can be a distinction between how things appear to a finite mind (like a human's) and how they are perceived by an infinite mind (like God's). Berkeley does maintain that God's perception is the standard of reality, but this introduces a different form of skepticism: how can we be sure that our perceptions align with God's?
The possibility that God perceives differently than we do could indeed redraw the line between appearance and reality, but it's a line that's significantly harder to discern. We have no direct access to God's perceptions, so any assurance that our perceptions are accurate reflections of God's is based on faith or inference, rather than empirical evidence or logical certainty. Moreover, Berkeley's approach also raises the problem of solipsism, the idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. If perception is the criterion of existence, what's to say that anything outside of our own perceptions exists at all, even other minds or God's mind? Berkeley attempts to circumvent this by positing God as a guarantor of shared reality, but this move has been criticized for being an ad hoc solution to the problem of other minds.
While Berkeley's argument does present a challenge to traditional skepticism, it opens up a range of other philosophical problems. The certainty it claims to provide rests on the acceptance of idealism and the existence of God as a perceiver of all things. Without these premises, the skepticism that Berkeley aims to refute may well remain intact.