discussion1 : Berkeley’s Idealism
COLLAPSE
Chapter 10 discusses idealism, the claim that nothing exists but our minds and
their ideas. Many people find this a difficult theory to grasp, let alone accept.
Watch the video below about idealism; it succinctly explains the theory as well
as objections to it. Then, explain your understanding of idealism and your
response to it. Do you accept idealism? Why or why not? If you don’t accept it,
how do you refute it?
George Berkley's Idealism. YouTube video file. [8:58]. Philosophy Vibe.. 2016,
April 24. youtu.be/v-lDlxVQy4c
reply students post separately
(start with hello ….. ) because in your replies you directly talk with them
student 1 (sarai)
My understanding of idealism is that everything we “see” is a product of our mind. It
does not have any matter or existence outside of our own mind. Berkeley’s idealism is
all about the external world just being an idea created by our mind. However, I do not
believe in this theory and therefore I do not accept it because this is all about
perception. The way we each perceive things varies from one individual to the next
based on tastes, culture, education, etc. There are a great number of factors that
contribute to how everyone sees or perceives the world.
In the matter of the bitter/sweet perception, it is all about everyone’s taste buds. We
all do not like the same things. Some of us may like the same things but we are too
many people in this world, and we all do not like everything that there is in this world.
On the topic of hot-cold perception, your hot hand may feel the water at room
temperature cold because the temperature of your hand is higher than the water. A
similar thing can be said of a cold hand, the hand’s temperature is lower than the
temperature of the water at room temp. so when your cold hand touches the water, it
feels warm.
Now, Berkeley’s answer to the question about continuity even when there are no
minds to perceive stuff that God is present, now that is just silly. I believe in God, but I
do not believe he concerns himself with sitting there minding little insignificant things
such as a candle’s wax melting. I think he has much bigger things to mind such as
caring for us than minding the candle or the like. Berkeley also bases this idea
thinking that everyone believes that God exists. How does Berkeley explain it to those
who do not believe in God?
student 2 (lopez)
explain your understanding of idealism and your response to it.
My understanding of idealism is that all I perceive through my intellect is real, as for
whatever is external is doubtful, and reality is just in my brainpower. And, this reality
is present only when it is being observed, and the very moment we are not observing
it it disappears. Therefore, Esse Est Percipi; To Be is To Perceived, then reality is
existence and if we do not see it; it is not real. Since the theory of George Berkley
rejection of matter that reality was a series of mental ideas. Adding, George Berkley
where he uses John Locke primary and secondary quality distinction with his indirect
realist approach to reality, where he emphasizes how many parts of reality exists in
the mind and in the external world, which there are just mental. Similarly, God has a
watchful eye on reality and things will not change because He is watching them.
Do you accept idealism?
I do not accept the concept of realism
Why or why not?
The reason I reject the concept of idealism, is because I see my surroundings, and
sometimes my intellect can be deceitful since I do not trust it, however, material
things even though they change, in reality they are still there. Similarly, there are
things I can not see unless is with a microscope, which it does not mean they are not
there, just because they are imperceptible with my naked eye. According to the
Likeness Principle and Master Argument, which they distort reality, and the way we
conceived our reality from our own minds. Hence, another reason to refuse this
concept.
If you don’t accept it, how do you refute it?
Since reality is consistent with the material world, and God created the laws of nature
for our minds to perceive, and I know for a fact God is involved in every aspects of
our lives, every moment and every detail is under His divine will, and even though
some people do not believe in God, that does not mean He is not real. As a result, I
refute idealism because is based on sights and sounds, however, God has told us
that there is a reality stronger than the one we know, which is here, but the actual
reality is invisible, where He dwells. The ethereal realm and for this reason I refuse the
idealism concept.
student 3 (mariam)
After I watched the video, I understood that everything that we see, hear, or touch is just the
perspective that we have in our mind, in another word it just in our mind. It does not have a
physical existence. Well to deny this theory or to accept it, it all depends on how I look at it. I
believe that we have the power to create our reality which is the way of our thinking about how
we want to see the world and the existence of God, it seems like idealism somehow. At the
same time, I cannot deny the existence of the world because even if I created everything in my
mind it still has an appearance in the relevant world. This way I must deny idealism because
God existed, and he creates everything there for everything must exist and is not just in my
mind. In another word, I created in my mind and it has physically existed in the real world.
student 4 (samantha)
Idealism may be similar to religion. Both can hardly exist with the existence of
science. The theory of Idealism is easily debunked by science. How can the idea of a
physical/exterior world be inconceivable if we literally can touch and feel and smell?
The brain does not create these feelings and touches and smells the brain reacts to
these senses, unless we are all schizophrenic. This may sound problematic, but this
theory sounds like someone just wanted to start an argument or debate about
something because the questions being asked to support this theory are so easily
answered, The question about how things can look different from different distances
or how can something look different in different lights is pointless to ask because this
can be explained by science and physics.
I feel that these arguments do not support George Berkley's ideas of the theory of
Idealism at all because they can be easily answered. It makes sense that no one can
perceive what is existing inside your mind, just like you have your own idea of who
you are but everyone you have ever met may have a different opinion/idea of who you
are. I could try to explain a dream to a friend but only I know exactly what it looks like
because my mind created the picture. But this does in no way mean that an exterior
world can not exist. When I came to the end of the video and saw that Berkley
supported his theory with the existence of God and God maintaining the continuity of
our ideas IF an exterior world were to not exist it just reminded me of a previous unit
where I had the opinion that someone a long time ago could not explain how the earth
came to be so the answer was God. This feels like deja vu. To me, it sounds like
Berkley tried to come up with a groundbreaking theory and didn't have all of the
answers so he answered with "God made it so" because how can you argue with
religion? Answer: You don't.
student 5 (berenica)
My understanding of idealism is that nothing exists physically outside of our minds, according
to Berkeley’s theory. We make ideas and thoughts and perceive them as reality, so what we
see as our reality, in the “real” world is just created by our minds. I personally don’t accept
idealism due to the fact that I found myself siding with indirect idealism the most. I believe that
there is an external world separate from the one in our minds, and what we take away or add to
it is all up to our own perspective. For instance, if I go to an art gallery, it is very likely I will
view a painting differently than the person beside me, even though we are seeing the exact
same image. The only thing that would differ is what we take away from the painting, which
would be how we perceive the image in our minds.
discussion 2 :Would You Want to Live in the Matrix?
COLLAPSE
The film The Matrix is in large part based on Descartes’ Meditations,
specifically the Evil Genius argument, and Plato’s allegory of the cave (video
below). In The Matrix, one character, Cypher, wants to return to the matrix (a
computer simulated reality), knowing full well that nothing he experiences
there will be ‘real’ (see Agent Smith and Cypher video below). In thinking of
how you value your experiences, specifically, what you value about them, is
one criterion for assigning value related to whether or not an experience is
real? Does it matter to you if something 'really' happened? Or, if you
experience it as real, is that all that matters? If, at the end of your life, you were
to find out that all of it had been a computer simulation, would that change the
way you value the ‘experiences’ you had? Explain why or why not.
The Cave: An Adaption of Plato's Allegory in Clay. YouTube video file. [3:10].
bullheadent. 2008, April 18. youtu.be/69F7GhASOdM
Agent Smith and Cypher. YouTube Video file. [1:11]. pumasheen. 2006, Dec 12.
youtu.be/Z7BuQFUhsRM
student 1 (sarai)
I value my experiences based on how much impact the experience had/has on me and
whom I share(d) those moments with. I believe that everything I have lived until now is
real and I cannot think of a reason, or way, for that to change. Because I believe that it
is real, I do not care whether it is real or not. If I perceive it to be real, then that’s
enough for me.
If at the end of my life I find out that it all was just nothing but a computer program,
well, it will not change the value of my experiences because it is all I have ever known.
If this revelation happens until the end of my life, I will have nothing to compare it to. I
will not know the difference between what I have experienced and what the “real deal”
is like, so it will not change the value of the experiences, memories, or moments I
lived/had.
student 2 (mariam)
In my opinion, it doesn’t matter if it was real or not what I had experienced, the only
thing that matters to me is that if I want to keep it or let it go in my head. For example,
if it is something that brings happiness even if it was just a dream not real, I would
keep it in my mind the feeling at the moment and if it was another way around I let it
go even if it was real. So it does not matter if it had been a computer simulation or
not, it all about my emotion about the experiences if it was a good one or not.
student 3 (entisar)
Till now, this has not been occurred. In any case, the pattern shows that in future
such reality may occur. Man should live with mankind and the headway of innovation
can never lessen the human worth.
In the film it is demonstrated that Cipher sells out with the entire group. At first his
disloyalty shows up villainy. However he has question whether barely any people can
lessen the predominance of machine over human race. It is actually a pitiable issue if
mankind is no more and individuals are constrained by machines. Individuals are the
designer of machine. As indicated by the human worth the maker can never be
constrained by creation. Along these lines, the control of human undertakings by
machine can never be acknowledged. In the event that such reality shows up, we
should challenge it. It will ruin the entire people. It's anything but an individual issue.
It is identified with each life. Machine ought to never be permitted to control
individuals. In the event that such issue occurs, everyone should find a way to
maintain a strategic distance from the use of machine in each circle of life. We ought
to keep up some essential estimations of life like:
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
Respect to others.
Giving priority to emotion and sentiment.
Offering the passage for justice seasoned with humanity.
Maintaining human relationship and giving value to the relationship.
We must cherish love, affection, pity, friendship, fellow feeling etc.
We must take the path of religion and the ways of spiritual
consolation.
We should not leave the aesthetic pleasure.
we should control our dependency on machine.
student 4 (tisbet)
I think that I am who I am because of my experiences. It does not matter to me if they
are not real because I experienced them and they shaped me. So I think that if I found
out that my life was just a simulation, my experiences would still matter to me. What
would be the alternative? I would have experienced nothing else so who I am would be
based on those experiences regardless of whether they were real or not. I think that my
experiences feel real and vivid enough that if I were to find out they were not real it
would shock me, but they would still be valuable because of how real they felt.
student 5( emily)
I truly do value my experiences as most of them hold valuable memories and lessons that
have made me the person I am today. Real or not, you could never take away my perspective
of those memories and feelings I had during those experiences. I don't think something such
as our life experiences, even if they were stimulated by a matrix could ever be fake as it would
be hard to fake our true emotions and thought process through said experiences. You might
call the experiences fake but the memories and feelings during those times, are those fake
too? I would be lying if I didn't say that towards the end of my life I found out it was all just a
computer that I would be a bit heartbroken. I would obviously have to process that and get a
notion and handle my new thought process. Although I might be sad in the end, I would still
feel grateful that I was able to experience and earn memories and have emotional attachments
to those memories because you could never take away my initial thoughts of my valued life
experiences and memories.
discussion 3 : Dreams and Evil Demons
COLLAPSE
State your understanding of Descartes' dream argument and his Evil
Demon/Genius argument. Exactly how do you know that you are not dreaming
right now? Given the strength of the Evil Demon argument, how do you think
one can escape the skepticism it seems to entail? What do you think we can
know with absolute certainty? Defend your response with reasons and
examples.
student 1 (entisar)
The contention of the Evil Genius is the asset utilized by Descartes in the precise
uncertainty to radicalize the quest for clear information. It comprises in the
speculation that maybe we have been made by a divine being who looks to delude us
even in those information that appears to be generally evident to us.I'm alert, I'm
working, I just got up from a rest; I have enough educational experience to know
when I am dozing and when I am conscious. The accuracy and consideration I offer to
the inquiry to response the proof I don't sleep.I imagine that a couple of hundreds of
years after the presence of Descartes, we have enough information to comprehend
that there is no abhorrent virtuoso answerable for our misleadings, substantially less
have motivation to accept that all that we think can be a mistake.I don't have to trust
it. We as a whole know things for sure.
a. Everest exists, I don't have any acquaintance with it, when I state that Everest
exists Can anybody disclose to me that I am lying?
b. As of now, in my town, the climate is cool, it appears that it will rain. My faculties
see it. I don't have to lie about it. I realize that the climate is surely cool since I feel it
in my corporeality and catch it through my sight. How might somebody recriminate
me and deny something that is a piece of my experience?
c. The United States is the biggest equipped force on the planet and its military has a
long history of different military intercessions in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, for all
intents and purposes everywhere throughout the world. I have never been an
observer to such occasions, in any case, when I avow this, I know, similar to millions
a larger number of individuals than this is valid. Would it be able to be denied?
student 2 (sarai):
Descartes’ argument about the evil demon/genius argument is that our thoughts may
not be our own because there is an evil being who manipulates our every thought. In
his argument, that evil entity controls what we think.
I cannot think of a proper answer about how to know whether I am dreaming or not, or
how to escape the skepticism. I do not know if what I am doing or living is a dream or
reality. However, even if this is a dream, it is the life I have had, and I love and have
enjoyed every bit of it. I would not change anything about it. I also have a strong faith
that God would not have created us to be in a dream-like state. He created all of us for
a purpose.
student 3 (emily)
From what I understand about Descartes' Evil Demon/Genius argument is about how our
thoughts are not our own because there might be a manipulative evil demon controlling our
every thought, his overall argument he makes is that an evil entity controls what we think day
to day. Although I don't have an exact answer as to how I know that I am not dreaming right
now, however, I do have a weird understanding or concept that helps me know that I am not
dreaming. Our minds are so creative and powerful that even in our dreams we can feel and
touch things and express emotions just like the non-dream world. In a way, I still believe we
have control over what happens in our dream and how it continues or stops. I know I am not
dreaming right now because I don't see my favorite celebrity crush knocking on my front door,
I want it to happen but it's not going to because my mind doesn't have control over what
happens in reality or in a non-dream state. I don't know if that s a good way to think of how can
one escape from skepticism but personally makes me feel better knowing that I am not
dreaming of ongoing life. All that I can say lastly is that I have faith in God and knowing that
my life has a purpose and isn't just some "dream" reality and if it turns out it is, I will still be
grateful to have lived such a life filled with experiences and memories.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment