The script to this video is part of... - The Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Perception" eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe3 - The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 2 'Metaphysics' available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2
this was amazing. im writing a paper on berkeley for my metaphysics professor right now and you guys just made the process 20x easier. keep making videos like this on all topics and promote them to university students! amazing works guys. keep it up. big thumbs up from me!
Dude, forgive my crass/colloquial manner of speaking. But just wanted to say I think your videos are the sh1T. I've always been a Bookworm, and love most varieties of Lit. and Philosophy. (anything but romance and pop-fiction) But never really had time to go to school. I had a kid early in life and needed to work. So. I'm a landscaper/tree-trimmer who reads/ writes in my spare time. Your videos are amazing and make it easier to follow some of the more complicated constructs of philosophy. (Also LOVED the one y'all did on the Euthrypo Dilemma) I hope more viewers discover you. I've shared several of your videos myself. Later
Philosophy 101 student and this video really helped me understand Berkeley's ideas. I also like the objections. This will definitely help with my class discussion.
these videos are SO FUCKIN USEFUL, philosophy A level is so difficult but ur videos make it so much easier to understand please make more!!!!! preferably covering the edexcel philosophy course :/
You don't have to presuppose God at all for idealism to work. Other philsophers have taken a better version and without God in the picture. There are even atheist philosophers who are idealists. Anyone who hasn't taken idealism seriously and its implications either doesn't know the view well enough or is simply wilfully ignorant.
I was all ready to pounce on all the reasons why Idealism is ridiculous, but the video thoroughly explored both sides of the argument, and I am content.
Daniel Louis Just so we are on the same page, phonetically means its spelled how it is pronounced. I took a quick google search and found that Wikipedia spells it out phonetically this way : bɑːrkli. I assume your textbook doesn't refer to Berkeley with a phonetic spelling because that would be confusing.
Most of the objections to Idealism are refuted in this video by Dr. Bernardo Kastrup: *Modern Idealism: Way Beyond Berkeley* Here is a peer-reviewed academic paper on how Idealism doesn't lead to solipsism: Henkel, Jeremy E. (2011). How to avoid solipsism while remaining an idealist: Lessons from Berkeley and dharmakīrti. _Comparative Philosophy_ 3 (1):58-73.
I am working on a short essay on Berkeley. Even I have read a chapter of Berkeley from Copleston's History of Western Philosophy Volume V, I find your video much easier for me to understand and better in terms of clarity while being succinct. Thank you so much. The only problem remains now is that how not to plagiarize this video. Sigh
May I correct one thing? It's important that you know his name is pronounced "Bark-lee". You are using the California school/region pronunciation. Thank you.
There also an argument that mentioned it in my last video. The camera argument, a high resolution camera perceives the same as you do (sizes, colours, light conditions etc...). The camera does not have a mind on its own and does not read our mind to give us what we have in our minds
@@hermesmercuriustrismegistu4841 - You have zero idea who or what I am, while it's clear what you are, immature. And, you are muted, no time for upset children!
Ironically his ideas work great in a computer simulation and quantum physics. In a simulation things are only simulated if there is an observer present to save computer memory. In qauntum experiments results are different if there is an observer present.
If the tree exists in the mind of God even when I am not looking at it, then what is the difference between existing in the mind of God, and actual reality created by God?
The problem with Berkeley's argument about God, is that just like how David Hume pointed out, is that Berkeley's all perceiving god doesn't seem to have any more empirical evidence than physical reality itself, there's no way to perceive God and thus, Berkeley's argument has problems with it
I am a practising Christian and student in Christian Philosophy (MA) but the inference of God as the source of our ideas independent of the reality is preposterous.
The existence of God can be demonstrated. But the human mind is capable of coming up with, and getting itself to believe, all sorts of bizarre things. So it is hardly surprising that some people have also denied the existence of God.
@@dyinginsidelol The existence of God can be demonstrated. What is meant is that the conclusion that God exists follows with necessity or deductive validity from premises that are certain, where the certainty of the premises can in turn be shown via philosophical analysis. This means that such a demonstration gives us knowledge that is more secure than what any scientific inquiry can give us, because the premises of the demonstration have to do with what any possible scientific inquiry must presuppose.
Thank you for this. Interesting how you refer to the 'perceiving of ideas,' or 'when we perceive an idea...' This, to me, makes your explanation unclear. Ideas are generated in the mind, right? (Berkeley would agree.) While perceptions are also generated in the mind, they are about external objects. An idea is not an external object, therefore it cannot be "perceived" in my humble understanding.
While our conceptualization of reality is indeed the result of sensory organs parsing out sense data and creating an internal perception which doesn't perfectly map onto reality, that doesn't mean that the underlying aggregate material which transmits information as sense data from doesn't exist. Idealists talk of conceptualization underlying every perception and every scientific endeavor, and while that is true they forget to mention that underlying every perception and every conceptualization is MATERIAL sense organs parsing out MATERIAL sense data feeding information on MATERIAL objects, and that those MATERIAL sense organs are the product of evolution and the processes which created them preceded the existence of mind. The outlook which best accommodates this fact (reality) is dialectical materialism. Idealism is inherently absurd. It is only possible if you assume a some form of panpsychism akin to panentheism in which some form of "immaterial mind" (good luck explaining/proving that) exists prior to and creates material reality. Idealism is nonsense and you're stuck in the philosophical stone age if you believe in it.
I was thinking about this Subjective Idealism of Berkeley last night and whilst it follows from what Berkeley believes and what prior beliefs he brings into it, I don't understand how an empiricist, even following Locke (Who was essentially a materialist), gets to this conclusion (That everything is immaterial in a disembodied immaterial mind) without having some prior non empirical beliefs brought into it, as I think Berkeley does. Berkeleys idealism was posited as the ''logical carrying on of Lockes empiricism'', but I just don't see how that is so. After all, Locke himself apparently believed in a ''God'', so there was nothing stopping him from coming to the conclusion Berkeley did, about everything in the immaterial disembodied mind of God. But its just that Locke didn't come to that conclusion and in fact stated these sayings when referencing radical sceptics who say everything is in their mind - 1) “if our dreamer pleases to try whether the glowing heat of a glass furnace is barely a wandering imagination in a drowsy man’s fancy, by putting his hand into it, he may perhaps be wakened into a certainty greater than he could wish, that it is something more than bare imagination.” (IV.11.8 Essay concerning human understanding) 2) “I think nobody can, in earnest, be so sceptical as to be [Completely] uncertain of the existence of those things which he sees and feels. At least, he that can doubt so far … will never have any controversy with me, since he can never be sure I say anything contrary to his own opinion.” (IV.11.3 Essay concerning human understanding) In the Essay of Human Understanding, Locke starts from the ground up with epistemology and empiricism. Bringing forth tabula rasa and so on. Stating that we as a body, are a separate material organism which uses our senses to interact with external material objects and for those objects to ''act'' on us, and that is how we acquire knowledge. It seems to me following Locke that you can only hold a form of Realism and Materialism following this and there is nothing more to it. Using my senses and empirical observation, I could never come to the conclusion that my mind or that part of me that thinks (Which is just recollection and reordering of material sense imprints) is immaterial (Completely non physical and without matter, without an organ, if you somehow concede it is immaterial you fall into the folly of cartesian dualism and ghost in the machine), I see via empirical anatomy that where my thoughts and thinking takes place is this material organ called the brain, tied to the nervous system, senses etc. Thoughts and thinking are the working of this organ just like digestion is of the stomach (This is the same line that Julien Offray De La Mettrie employs against immateriality and the nonsense of the immaterial soul/mind) There is no conclusion at all that these are immaterial, or that I would even ''know'' of anything immaterial as all I have are my senses to engage with other things but by definition something immaterial is not a ''thing'' so it would never occur or interact with my senses anyway. I think Thomas Hobbes is absolutely correct when he states that ''Something Immaterial or without matter'' doesn't exist because it is an absolute contradiction of definitions. Berkeleys Idealism then follows that things only exist when they are being perceived and as such when I stop perceiving them they don't exist. (Locke states in the Essay that this is counter intuitive and highly unlikely, Remember Locke could have followed this line of thought but he didn't, as in this vein he is working from the ground up and not inferring anything immaterial). If I meet a friend today who states that he is going to france tomorrow and will be back next week, under berkeleyian idealism, when I no longer perceive him he doesn't exist and neither does france or anything else etc. But when I meet my friend next week, he tells me about all the things he has done in france etc. So he was actually existing without me perceiving him, this of course debunks berkeleyian idealism and brings in ockhams razor against berkeley, that like common sense shows, things do indeed keep on existing when we stop perceiving them but now Berkeley will throw in the absolutely un-empirical idea of a ''God'' as a disembodied immaterial mind who we are all inside and that which is always perceiving, to say that the reason things still exist when we don't perceive them because this ''God/Mind'' is perceiving (Perceiving with what?) them constantly and we are all in this mind of God. This is an absurd jump based on nothing empirical at all except a religious belief and notion in a God/Mind and also a prior belief in the existence of disembodied minds and mind as an immaterial thing (Despite the fact that following Locke and empiricism, minds or that act of thinking as we know are tied to brains, nerves, senses etc seen via anatomy, so there is no immaterial disembodied intelligence to ever be sensed) Rather than following ockhams razor in this context, that yes things actually exist when we don't perceive them as common sense following empiricism infers, Berkeley just throws in God and the notion of disembodied immaterial mind without any evidence at all, completely counter intuitive and un-empirical. Following your senses, nothing immaterial is ever shown to you. Berkelyian idealism also cannot explain mental delusions, hallucinations etc as that would all have to be accepted as absolute real reality but I don't see the delusions and hallucinations that someone else stood next to me sees, we see everything else roughly the same but I don't see those delusions so who is seeing wrong here? Obviously the person having delusions, but if we are all in the same immaterial mind, why are there fractures and his reality is different?. It leads to absurdity and can only be accepted if you come to the argument already believing in immateriality, immaterial minds, disembodied minds, which has no empirical inference at all etc. Locke even posits that matter most probably has the capacity to think but never steps further in this line of thinking (As a materialist, I agree, mind is material, nothing immaterial), Many posit that Locke was a secret materialist (He certainly appears to be a ''Soft Materialist'') but never ventured further most likely due to fear of persecution, loss of position etc. Lockean empiricism is followed more truer to Locke on the continent by the french materialists of the 18th century, especially La Mettrie, Diderot etc
That Berkeley purportedly ‘believed’ in the existence of a god disqualifies him for membership in the ‘religio-philosophical realm’. period. To do so stopped the intellectual development he could have accessed if his thinking hadn't have been so narrowly defined by the context of the culture in which he was compelled to exist to survive, and the religion he was compelled to practice during his youthful and formative years. And that is the truth. (actually, only a component of the Whole Truth.)
There is the Source - infinite, unthinkable, unknowable. The Source has the power of creation, in the form of ideas. One of Its ideas is the human being. Then the human being have ideas about the Source’s ideas, but the human’s ideas are not the ideas of the Infinite. They are limited, because they are the ideas of an idea. When one sees very clearly that one’s ideas are not the beings and things in themselves, these ideas lose ther strenght, their tirany over the individual. Then, the individual becomes quiet and sees no separation between the Souce and Its creation, which includes him. This is monism, not pantheism.
There could be an interesting video to be made placing Berkeley and the likes of Judith Butler side by side. It seems to essentially be the same perspective only the individual mind being replaced by social consensus. There is no objective reality beyond linguistic definitions et al.
Looking at the beautiful painting then turning frame around, and it's full of bugs and big shit. Perception from frontal view is beautiful, while rear is disgusting. Direct realism is naive. Angles will change one's perception. Had this swimming in my head forever. People seem not to get it. Good points gents!
For what a 6 year late comment is worth, in my opinion the argument at the end of the video that Berkeley makes an assumption that God exist isn't as strong of an argument as it sounds. Outside of the fact that the argument itself implicitly implies God doesn't exist, it seems to me that the opposite would be to make an equivalent assumption that matter exists despite being innately unperceivable. Just my two cents. I'm not sure where I stand on Berkeley's stance on metaphysics, though I do find his perception/idea distinction a helpful model when thinking about how we process sensory information.
It's more accurate to say realism is idealism with extra steps. Idealism holds we know about reality with experience since reality simply is experience, while the realist/materialist holds there is a reality beyond experience.
Hallucinations and dreams being a refutation of the theory is, like the protagonist claims, is indeed false. Reality is full of so many innate qualia that it is easily distinguishable from hallucinations and dreams, even to those suffering from mental illness. There are few who do not account for this, but that is because they are mechanistically missing the prerequisite neural machinery to accurately perceive reality.
@@PhilosophyVibe Thanks man. btw last night I finished reading your book "Does God Exist" and I really enjoyed it. It was very easy to understand for me as a beginner in philosophy as well someone who also uses English as a second language. I only wish it was longer tho. I hope you have another book in preparation, perhaps an introduction to philosophy or something (or you could be more specific and write a book on ethics, another on soul, another on something else and so on). Whatever it is, I can't wait to read your next book. You are a great teacher.
Thank you very much for purchasing the Does God Exist book, it means a lot and really helps support the channel. If you would like a longer read, we have compiled all the scripts of our videos into a 3 part anthology series. These are also available worldwide on amazon and cover a very wide range of philosophical theories and works. (Links below) Thanks again for your support! Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS Volume 2 - Metaphysics www.amazon.com/dp/B092H5MGF9 Volume 3 - Ethics and Political Philosophy www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R
The sweet and hot thing is so easily debunked. Most this type of linguistic logic philosophy is flawd because it considers adjectives to be physical properties. Effects are subjective and their descriptions often just cataloguing which is always lazy.
Let's say there are other people and solipsism is false. People in this world sometimes kill each other. Do I understand it right that when someone dies it's because of the way ideas were set? And if so, isn't God the one that orders them like this?
All I can say this could be an argument till cows come home. As we are not just the invisible Spirit that is creating all this Uhmmm -+MATTER+- as to CONSCIOUSNESS it just living experiences through you, me and everything we can and can't see on a multi dimensional reality; thus being 3 Omini ... as 1!? Hmm... ..
Thank you for bringing this smart character that actually has something to say against Berkeleys annoying theory. Bro when I read on the internet theres just people admiring him and explaining the arguments he proposes against for example Locke, without questioning Berkeleys theory in the beginning.
