Locke, Berkeley, & Empiricism: Crash Course Philosophy #6 

Studying 🤓 even more so if you can explain what you learned to a friend 😁

how about fun:)

Either

This has increasingly become a dilemma in my life

You just need to think about it

Thats just how philosophy works

that's sublimation actually, an idea that breezes throughout hegel's

@@catalinluncanu1170 Your impressive! Thank you.

then

welcome to philosophy

MemesAreHealthy u don’t

I feel like I don't know anything after watching this, haha

Me after completing this course I know that i know nothing .

More like you know only that you know nothing

I feel like I don't know what it's knowing.

I guarantee you that video either already exists or will exist in the near future.

Of course you would, sheep follow their masters.

Yeah, that's the point of philosophy.

rite?

You thank him now, but one day you will stumble upon Hegel and your life will be ruined.

tHANKs

yep! all of a sudden we became addicted and committed to this course ☺️

You love phlosophy ?

+Clicker Happy "Hey guys, want to hear an apple sound?"

Somewhat. It's not blank but it sure as hell ain't full. It is WAY more blank than full most of the times.

Mj Black I've best heard it described as a coloring book. There are lines filled in to color as you wish. You could ignore them and draw other things, but generally people won't.

We do have some limited instincts, and minor differences in temperament. But that was not what Locke was getting at. Instinct and temperament are not knowledge. To understand what he meant, you must compare it to the school of thought he was countering.

+Mj Black Heck, the people in office nowadays are probably closer to blank than they were at birth!!!

How do you know we have biological underpinnings? What you describe is an assumption or hearsay. With that said, there is the fact that Locke lived in a time in which this knowledge just didn't exist. Still, it may be dangerous to reject the Tabula Rasa completely. We don't know with which knowledge we start our lifes. For example, Immanuel Kant argued that there was knowledge preceding experiences. Among them are space, ttime and causality. Howevever, modern physics imply that we were wrong about the nature of these very things. Furthermore, cognitive science has shown that understanding these concepts, especially causality, is a learned skill. Thus, we are back at square one: what are those ideas we are born with?

+Aaron G ME TOO. I don't have that kind of authority, but ME TOO. -Nicole

aristen the link is broken

+shane tennyson ...Right, I saw one casually thrown to the ground, then atrociously maimed by a heinous bite.

+invock Your visual sensors fooled you. Deduct that experience. 10/10 - Descartes

+HistoricaHungarica 10/10 would have another existential crisis

+Dan Yates End of the month! We put out the trailer a bit early, it seems. But soon! The wait is over soon! -Nicole

+CrashCourse Hey Nicole, or Crash Course, or whoever sees this; do you reckon we'll ever see the return of John and World History? Or just John in general? Don't get me wrong I love all these series, but I must confess that John, and World History will forever be my favourite. I discovered Crash Course whilst revising for my Egyptology college course, and through that discovered Vlogbrothers etc, etc. So it would be nice just to see his return. Your content rocks by the way!

+Joshua Davies I don't know about world history, but John is doing some more literature. No idea when it is coming, though.

+Joshua Davies Yah john will be doing several lit videos. Covering Their Eyes were Watching God (by Zora Neal Hurston) and others.

+Joshua Davies You're taking Egyptology? What college is this at?

... Woah

Mindblowning.

then u should take care of empirisism

But how can I really be sure you were eating an apple?

+Vaibhav Gupta I hope it was a better apple than the one Hank was eating. Red "Delicious" . . . should be called Damp Moldy Cardboard. I know it's an iconic cultivar, it's just such a bad exemplar of what a good tasting apple is. A dozen varieties available in a typical grocery store and they gave him a Red "Delicious."

+Vaibhav Gupta dude I didn't even realize the connection as I was eating this apple

+William Dye Appealing to quantum physics is just ad hoc reasoning. A tree is a bad analogue to particle and quantum physics. A tree is unaffected by the forces that govern the deepest reaches of our knowledge in physics.

While it's easy to abuse QM principles, I think that the connection to Berkeley is quite valid. Are you familiar with Schrödinger's cat? Re-read your counter-argument, substituting the word "tree" with the word "cat". It then reads: "A *cat* is a bad analogue to particle and quantum physics. A *cat* is unaffected by the forces that govern the deepest reaches of our knowledge in physics." Again, I acknowledge that it's easy to abuse QM principles, but I don't think that we can dismiss the connection to Berkeley. The experimental results are consistent: QM is a fundamental part of how the universe works. That includes cats in boxes, trees in forests, and our own minds trying to make sense of it all.

'If a tree falls in a forest' is a philosophical thought experiment about observation and reality. The cat in Schrödinger's example is secondary since the example has radioactive matter which sets off the poison gas if decay happens. The cat is only there to show that the randomness can have real life consequences. The quantum phenomena is transferred to our physical level through the poison and the cat.

+William Dye A cat actually is a bad analogue for a particle. The real problem with Schrödinger's cat is that both the cat and the Geiger counter would act as observer's. Quantum objects behave as quantum objects, and non-quantum behave as non-quantum objects.

+Calum This is a good discussion, constrained to a bad forum. :-) I don't think that our time is well-spent interacting though RU-vid comments, so I'll try to be brief. My original point is that Berkeley should not be dismissed lightly, and by extension, neither should philosophical debates. Physics equations break down when underlying assumptions are changed, and the debate about Platonic ideals teaches us that this limitation is inherent. Long and expensive debates turn out to be a matter of differing basic assumptions, and "I think therefore I am" teaches us that we will always have unproven assumptions. We still can't experimentally settle if we're in a many-worlds universe, or if we are all just Boltzmann brains, and Berkeley teaches us that such failures are rooted in deep vagaries about what constitutes an observation. I've seen very intelligent people use the term "philosophical argument" as a synonym for "waste of time", and that's the assumption I'm challenging. Even when philosophy doesn't give us answers, it can be of practical value to scientific inquiry, because the difficultly of the unanswered question often indicates a fundamental problem that cannot be easily settled through experiment. Whenever you find yourself in such a situation, I expect that you'll do well to spend more time spelling out your assumptions carefully, and double-check your experiment for anything that is difficult to define. That strategy won't settle any ancient philosophical debates, but it might help you avoid them.

The Geckomancer after one whole year. What have you concluded now.?

It does seem to be a good argument. I like to mix western and eastern philosophy a lot and this particular question makes me think of Buddhism. In this explanation of empiricism, the usually sense organs were describes: sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch. In Buddhism, the mind is another sense organ, with thought being the sense object of the mind. I do think it is easily arguable that thought is a form of perception, as our thoughts are generally subjective experience in the same way that sight, sound, etc are. So, in this sense, I think it can be said that we don't disappear because we are self-perceived. Even when we're asleep, our mind is still going, providing some amount of information or reiterating information we've received throughout the day in the form of dreams. We are self-perceived by our conceptions of ourselves through our additional sense organ: our minds.

It is indeed a pretty amazing and elegant argument, but the problem is it only works if we are certain that there can only be perceptions and percievers and no matter in the world. That seems hard to prove.

I m theist agnotic because there are so many theory both support and go agaisnt the existence of god, bu i hope the higher being exist as it make me less afaid of dead.

@@s.toctopusn248 let me tell you what helped me be less scared of death as an atheist, I thought about how boring heaven must be if you have done everything in heaven multiple times, if there is nothing after death why would that be scary it shouldn't be because you "experience" nothing(no boredom, no happiness, no sadness etc) it's just like before you were born.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

+Cryp Tic Well thinkered.

+Cryp Tic I Kant handle this right now.

+POWERBUT Just step onto this Plato

Robin Didriksen Sure, I'll just Bentham over.

+beatngu We will always perceive you Hank.

+Rahell Omer Oh hey! I had the same thought!

+Rahell Omer Maybe they save Hume for the debate of reason vs. passions and the topic of moral psychology.

+karamei ikr!

+Demian Haki true, but he is still not to be dismissed in his area of expertise.

and my exam

Renske050 I don't understand.

It says "hello" on the calculator when you turn your screen upside down.

LOL Yh

Bruh

SO COOL

+Jason_c_o Lmao this is true

+Jason_c_o hahahahahahahhaahhaahhaahahha

Lmaoo

More like, Berkeley argued object permanence was an illusion.

+Kenneth Uyabeme Um, that's Plato with Aristotle, but he totally is :)

Tiwinee you really can just think logically here, the second part the french people added isn't there in the latin version

Time for Wiki messing

Evgeny Koslov okay, I should've checked that first. thanks for explanation!

my school philosophy book ( Greek btw) .. has the French version

It's like they attached the Rene Descartes philosophy to It.

+katten elvis last night minute physics had one too.

+katten elvis this one is different than the others. your senses are lying to you.

H Its still an existencial crisis

+Kate Parker I feel like scientific thinking and the scientific method have solved a lot of old philosophical dilemmas which were based on faulty thinking or pure rational thought removed from falsifiable evidence.

+edheldude Sure! Plus it really doesn't seem like it matters whether we're "real" or not: we still have to live our lives and be productive, curious, kind, and helpful. Even if this is all an illusion, I'd rather make it count. But I was wondering what Berkley would have said about shared perception, if he really did believe that perception was the way the world worked.

Remember that you don't have to explicitly follow empiricism. You can also follow strict rationality where primary and secondary qualities are both objective. We would know, through equilibrium theory what an apple's texture and color and form if we look hard enough. Our subjectiveness adheres not to something universially nonexistent but rather to something that's actually in nature objective.

existentialism merely is the oversimplification of existence and the abolition of metaphysics and logic imo. For in the end there is only chaos and flux and the only thing that is real is your will, the power of your will will determine your path in this life. but in the end, nothing has a reason because its all accidental. our lives have no greater purpose or meaning. there is no reason to have morality, there is no room for true objectivity. only what is experienced is true. but no purpose in our lives ultimately leads us to the idea that nothingness awaits us after our short lives have ended. its truly a wonderful 'philosophy'

mullet_muffins and rioters

UC Berkeley but is it really there?

THE POT IS ONLY IN YOUR HEAD, WHICH MEANS YOU'RE ALWAYS HIGH. shiiiiiieeeeeeet

@Miguel Cisneros Show me why I should believe in a god.

Peter Schorn why do you not believe in God ?!?? Lol

+Zachery Hall Agreed.

Allah doesn't exist

Did you even exist before I read your comment? Do I only exist now after you read mine?

SuchADumbUsername Maybe!

***** /)

***** He is the man that lives in the space between spaces.

He wasn't real. Also I paused the video and scrolled away to this comment, so he's not real now either.

+Riya Vyas OOPS! Thanks!

+CrashCourse no problem!

+CrashCourse You actually replied!

+SuperTerryBros. They do that often when someone points out an error

+Bram06 now will you reply to me?? Make me exist, PLOX!

slendy9600 it depends on whether you believe in Berkeley’s “to be is to perceive” philosophy

Partial conversion fallacy detected: All snow is white. some flour is white Therefore flour is snow? =FALSE (p.s. anything yellow is no longer snow ;-)

+Reckless Roges snow pee is

Not true, not valid. Would be valid if it said: When you know nothing, you are a new born. Jon Snow knows nothing. Conclusion: Jon snow is a new born. The problem here is: being new born => knowing nothing =/= knowing nothing => being born This is a logical mistake, both in maths and phylosophy, so no, not valid.

you equated sufficient condition with necessary condition. your are born --- > knowing nothing And then you made this fallacy Jon knows nothing .....> Jon is new born. You reversed it. When you're a newborn you know nothing, but just because you know nothing doesn't mean you're a new born. kay.

that is a different. form of fallacy not conditional. Syllogism.

Yup! I think that's a common mistake people make when they start learning about different forms skepticism. It was not quite what the philosophers were saying. (I don't know about Berkeley, though.)

Not quite: "I cannot be sure of the nature of reality, as I can only experience it through my perception of it, which is unreliable. Therefore, the nature of reality cannot be determined."

Susan Garry I do not see whats the difference between your and my statement

Berkeley was trying to convey that it is physically impossible for anything to exist, not that there is uncertainty as to whether anything exists or not. Premise 1: Primary qualities cannot exist without secondary qualities. Premise 2: Secondary qualities are not objectively real. Conclusion: Therefore, primary qualities, including all matter, cannot exist. Explanations: Premise 1: Primary qualities cannot exist without secondary qualities in the same way an object cannot have a shape (the primary quality) without a colour (the secondary quality), or in the same way an object cannot exist without having a texture or feeling. Premise 2: Secondary qualities are not objectively real, but can only be subjectively perceived. This is because humans perceive objects so differently - Some may think that something tastes good, while others may think it tastes bad - and none of those human perceptions are objectively, "more right," than others. This means that there is no, "objectively right," perception, and if there is no objective perception, then the perception cannot be real unless there is someone there to perceive the object and make the perception themselves. Conclusion: If one thing cannot exist without another thing, and that other thing does not exist, then the first thing cannot exist either - Because there being primary qualities, and matter as a whole, relies on there being secondary qualities which do not exist, there can not physically be any matter at all.

how do you know your perception exists?