FA+
Shop
236
Views
Views
7
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Music / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 120 x 90
File Size 4.59 MB
Report this content
More from Hunter_Foxx
Playing around with 8-bit is fun
First attempt.
Should I stop?
First attempt.
Should I stop?
Category Music / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 120 x 90px
File Size 4.59 MB
>The Irish philosopher George Berkeley (1685-1783), pointed out that the if all we ever see are secondary or primary qualities, how do we know that substance really exists? In other words, there may be no such thing as matter.
>So what arguments does Berkeley use? First he attacks the idea that secondary qualities can exist in the object:
>Sensation. When you put your hand in cold water, the temperature feels different depending on the temperature of our hand. If your hand is hot, the water will feel colder; if your hand is cold, the water will feel warmer. The water cannot be hot and cold at the same time. Therefore the perception of temperature must be in the perceiver.
>Taste. If a taste is pleasurable, such as the sweetness of sugar, how can we say that pleasure exists in the object itself (the sugar)? Therefore, since we cannot separate the taste of sweetness from our pleasure, both must exist in the perceiver and not in the object (the same obviously goes for displeasure).
There.
I just killed you.
>So what arguments does Berkeley use? First he attacks the idea that secondary qualities can exist in the object:
>Sensation. When you put your hand in cold water, the temperature feels different depending on the temperature of our hand. If your hand is hot, the water will feel colder; if your hand is cold, the water will feel warmer. The water cannot be hot and cold at the same time. Therefore the perception of temperature must be in the perceiver.
>Taste. If a taste is pleasurable, such as the sweetness of sugar, how can we say that pleasure exists in the object itself (the sugar)? Therefore, since we cannot separate the taste of sweetness from our pleasure, both must exist in the perceiver and not in the object (the same obviously goes for displeasure).
There.
I just killed you.
>Next he tries to show that some perceptions are relative, attacking both primary and secondary qualities:
>Colour. If two people see the same object from different perspectives, one might think it was a different colour to the other. Both colours cannot exist in the object at the same time, so the colour must exist in the perceiver and not in the object.
>Speed. If I am standing still and I see a train passing, the people on that train are moving at a certain speed, but to each other they appear to be sitting still. If speed exists in the object, how can the people on the train be both moving and at rest? The answer must be that the quality exists in the perceiver.
>Here Berkeley trues to show that there is no difference between real and apparent qualities:
>The Master Argument. Berkeley's main argument is meant to show that it is impossible for something to exist without being perceived (or, as he says, esse est percipi, Latin for "To be is to be perceived"). This means that if we cannot imagine what the perception of something must be like, we cannot really say that it exists. Berkeley uses this idea to attack the notion of substance or matter, for if all the qualities that we ascribe to it are either primary or secondary qualities, can we actually say that the substance itself exists?
so my question to you; if there is no one to observe you or your actions, how do you prove you exist?
>Colour. If two people see the same object from different perspectives, one might think it was a different colour to the other. Both colours cannot exist in the object at the same time, so the colour must exist in the perceiver and not in the object.
>Speed. If I am standing still and I see a train passing, the people on that train are moving at a certain speed, but to each other they appear to be sitting still. If speed exists in the object, how can the people on the train be both moving and at rest? The answer must be that the quality exists in the perceiver.
>Here Berkeley trues to show that there is no difference between real and apparent qualities:
>The Master Argument. Berkeley's main argument is meant to show that it is impossible for something to exist without being perceived (or, as he says, esse est percipi, Latin for "To be is to be perceived"). This means that if we cannot imagine what the perception of something must be like, we cannot really say that it exists. Berkeley uses this idea to attack the notion of substance or matter, for if all the qualities that we ascribe to it are either primary or secondary qualities, can we actually say that the substance itself exists?
so my question to you; if there is no one to observe you or your actions, how do you prove you exist?
Comments