Again, this is false , or, at the least, it is not what Locke means or says when he distinguishes between primary and secondary qualities. Remember the first quotation we began with: ideas exist in our minds, and qualities are the powers in objects to produce ideas in our minds.
Qualities , that is, by definition, exist in objects, not in our minds. But why, then, would someone say that secondary qualities exist only in the mind?
Recall our example about seeing a blue rectangle. So, one might say, the blue that we see exists only in our mind, and not in the world. But blue, a color, is a secondary quality, so secondary qualities must exist in our minds. In claiming that my sensation of blue does not resemble the quality that produced that idea in me, Locke is saying that there is nothing in the world that resembles my sensation of blue.
It is easy to slip from this to the claim one that Locke is not making that there is nothing in the world that is blue, i. But this last claim is clearly false, as our experience shows. Dialogues 3. Other philosophically important works [Not yet available] 4. Life and philosophical works Berkeley was born in near Kilkenny, Ireland. But with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever this principle may be entertained in the world; yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question, may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve a manifest contradiction.
For what are the forementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense, and what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations; and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these or any combination of them should exist unperceived? Berkeley presents here the following argument see Winkler , : 1 We perceive ordinary objects houses, mountains, etc.
Therefore, 3 Ordinary objects are ideas. He assumes, again with good grounds, that the representationalist answer is going to involve resemblance : But say you, though the ideas themselves do not exist without the mind, yet there may be things like them whereof they are copies or resemblances, which things exist without the mind, in an unthinking substance.
I answer, an idea can be like nothing but an idea; a colour or figure can be like nothing but another colour or figure. PHK 8 Berkeley argues that this supposed resemblance is nonsensical; an idea can only be like another idea. Hence it is evident the production of ideas or sensations in our minds, can be no reason why we should suppose matter or corporeal substances, since that is acknowledged to remain equally inexplicable with, or without this supposition.
PHK 19 Firstly, Berkeley contends, a representationalist must admit that we could have our ideas without there being any external objects causing them PHK After all, Locke himself diagnosed the difficulty: Body as far as we can conceive being able only to strike and affect body; and Motion, according to the utmost reach of our Ideas , being able to produce nothing but Motion, so that when we allow it to produce pleasure or pain, or the Idea of a Colour, or Sound, we are fain to quit our Reason, go beyond our Ideas , and attribute it wholly to the good Pleasure of our Maker.
Locke , ; Essay 4. But say you, surely there is nothing easier than to imagine trees, for instance, in a park, or books existing in a closet, and no body by to perceive them. I answer, you may so, there is no difficulty in it: but what is all this, I beseech you, more than framing in your mind certain ideas which you call books and trees , and at the same time omitting to frame the idea of any one that may perceive them?
But do not you your self perceive or think of them all the while? This therefore is nothing to the purpose: it only shows you have the power of imagining or forming ideas in your mind; but it doth not shew that you can conceive it possible, the objects of your thought may exist without the mind: to make out this, it is necessary that you conceive them existing unconceived or unthought of, which is a manifest repugnancy.
When we do our utmost to conceive the existence of external bodies, we are all the while only contemplating our own ideas. But the mind taking no notice of itself, is deluded to think it can and doth conceive bodies existing unthought of or without the mind; though at the same time they are apprehended by or exist in it self. PHK 22—23 The argument seems intended to establish that we cannot actually conceive of mind-independent objects, that is, objects existing unperceived and unthought of.
By sight I have the ideas of light and colours with their several degrees and variations. By touch I perceive, for example, hard and soft, heat and cold, motion and resistance, and of all these more and less either as to quantity or degree. Smelling furnishes me with odours; the palate with tastes, and hearing conveys sounds to the mind in all their variety of tone and composition.
And as several of these are observed to accompany each other, they come to be marked by one name, and so to be reputed as one thing. Thus, for example, a certain colour, taste, smell, figure and consistence having been observed to go together, are accounted one distinct thing, signified by the name apple.
Other collections of ideas constitute a stone, a tree, a book, and the like sensible things; which, as they are pleasing or disagreeable, excite the passions of love, hatred, joy, grief, and so forth. Berkeley eliminates the first option with the following argument PHK 25 : 1 Ideas are manifestly passive—no power or activity is perceived in them. Therefore, 3 Ideas are passive, that is, they possess no causal power. They allow him to respond to the following objection, put forward in PHK …it will be demanded to what purpose serves that curious organization of plants, and the admirable mechanism in the parts of animals; might not vegetables grow, and shoot forth leaves and blossoms, and animals perform all their motions, as well without as with all that variety of internal parts so elegantly contrived and put together, which being ideas have nothing powerful or operative in them, nor have any necessary connexion with the effects ascribed to them?
The like may be said of all the clockwork of Nature, great part whereof is so wonderfully fine and subtle, as scarce to be discerned by the best microscope. In short, it will be asked, how upon our principles any tolerable account can be given, or any final cause assigned of an innumerable multitude of bodies and machines framed with the most exquisite art, which in the common philosophy have very apposite uses assigned them, and serve to explain abundance of phenomena.
We must no longer say upon these principles that fire heats, or water cools, but that a spirit heats, and so forth. Would not a man be deservedly laughed at, who should talk after this manner? I answer, he would so; in such things we ought to think with the learned, and speak with the vulgar. PHK Natural philosophers thus consider signs, rather than causes PHK , but their results are just as useful as they would be under a materialist system. He claims that there is no problem for …anyone that shall attend to what is meant by the term exist when applied to sensible things.
The table I write on, I say, exists, that is, I see and feel it; and if I were out of my study I should say it existed, meaning thereby that if I was in my study I might perceive it, or that some other spirit actually does perceive it. PHK 3 So, when I say that my desk still exists after I leave my office, perhaps I just mean that I would perceive it if I were in my office, or, more broadly, that a finite mind would perceive the desk were it in the appropriate circumstances in my office, with the lights on, with eyes open, etc.
Can a real thing in itself invisible be like a colour ; or a real thing which is not audible , be like a sound? Philonous responds as follows: May we not understand it [the creation] to have been entirely in respect of finite spirits; so that things, with regard to us, may properly be said to begin their existence, or be created, when God decreed they should become perceptible to intelligent creatures, in that order and manner which he then established, and we now call the laws of Nature?
You may call this a relative , or hypothetical existence if you please. As with the counterfactual analysis of continued existence, however, this account also fails under pressure from the esse est percipi principle: Hylas.
Yes, Philonous, I grant the existence of a sensible thing consists in being perceivable, but not in being actually perceived. He does, however, have an account of error, as he shows us in the Dialogues : Hylas. What say you to this?
Since, according to you, men judge of the reality of things by their senses, how can a man be mistaken in thinking the moon a plain lucid surface, about a foot in diameter; or a square tower, seen at a distance, round; or an oar, with one end in the water, crooked? Early on, Berkeley attempts to forestall materialist skeptics who object that we have no idea of spirit by arguing for this position himself: A spirit is one simple, undivided, active being: as it perceives ideas, it is called the understanding , and as it produces or otherwise operates about them, it is called the will.
Hence there can be no idea formed of a soul or spirit: for all ideas whatever, being passive and inert, vide Sect. A little attention will make it plain to any one, that to have an idea which shall be like that active principle of motion and change of ideas, is absolutely impossible.
Such is the nature of spirit or that which acts, that it cannot be of it self perceived, but only by the effects which it produceth.
In the Dialogues , however, Berkeley shows a better appreciation of the force of the problem that confronts him: [Hylas. But at the same time you acknowledge you have, properly speaking, no idea of your own soul. You even affirm that spirits are a sort of beings altogether different from ideas. Consequently that no idea can be like a spirit. We have therefore no idea of any spirit.
You admit nevertheless that there is spiritual substance, although you have no idea of it; while you deny there can be such a thing as material substance, because you have no notion or idea of it. Is this fair dealing? To act consistently, you must either admit matter or reject spirit. PC A closely related problem which confronts Berkeley is how to make sense of the causal powers that he ascribes to spirits.
Wn I ask whether A can move B. DM 33 On this interpretation, Berkeley would again have abandoned the radical Humean position entertained in his notebooks, as he clearly did on the question of the nature of spirit. I do not pin my faith on the sleeve of any great man. PC Luce and T. Jessop eds. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons. Luce Works —52 References to these works are by section numbers or entry numbers, for PC , except for 3D, where they are by page number.
Other useful editions include: Berkeley, G. Philosophical commentaries, generally called the Commonplace book [of] George Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne. Luce ed. Berkeley, G. Philosophical Works; Including the Works on Vision.
Ayers ed. London: Dent. Belfrage ed. Oxford: Doxa. Jesseph trans. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. A collection, useful to students, of primary texts constituting background to Berkeley or early critical reactions to Berkeley: McCracken, C. Tipton eds. Bibliographical studies Jessop, T. A bibliography of George Berkeley, by T. The Hague: M. Turbayne, C. Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Sosa ed. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 85— Atherton, M. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Women Philosophers of the Early Modern Period. Indianapolis: Hackett. Muehlmann ed. Bennett, J. Locke, Berkeley, Hume: Central Themes. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bolton, M. Bracken, H. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Campbell, J. Gendler and J. Hawthorne eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, — Chappell, V. Chappell ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 26— Cummins, P. Downing, L. Winkler ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fleming, N. Gallois, A. Jesseph, D. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Manifest Reality: Kant's Idealism and his Realism. Find in Worldcat. Go to page:. Your current browser may not support copying via this button. Search within book. Subscriber sign in You could not be signed in, please check and try again.
Username Please enter your Username. Password Please enter your Password. Forgot password? You could not be signed in, please check and try again.
0コメント