Idealism
- Created by: lucy._.hart
- Created on: 05-10-20 19:07
View mindmap
- Idealism - Berkeley
- argument 3 - master argument
- if you suggest the exsitence of mind independent objects then you are thinking of it so it is mind dependent
- there are no mind independent objects
- criticism 1 - doesn't mean the tree is mind dependent
- could still be thinking of an object outside of mind
- if you suggest the exsitence of mind independent objects then you are thinking of it so it is mind dependent
- argument 2 - likeness principle
- for things to comparable they must be similar
- mind dependent objects are sense data + mind independent are matter
- therefore we can't compare
- only claim that 'IDEAS can only resemble IDEAS'
- therefore we can't compare
- mind dependent objects are sense data + mind independent are matter
- how successful? - not that successful
- represent doesn't mean the same resemble
- represent doesn't mean the mid independent and dependent are similar but that mind independent triggers the dependent
- represent doesn't mean the same resemble
- for things to comparable they must be similar
- argument 3 - no distinction between primary + secondary qualities
- all properties caused by sense data - size + shape are subject to variability of perception like colour + smell
- primary qualities are as mind independent as secondary ones, they are inseparable
- how successful? - successful
- highlights problem with secondary qualities so disproves IDR
- doesn't prove idealism to be true
- all properties caused by sense data - size + shape are subject to variability of perception like colour + smell
- argument 3 - master argument
Comments
No comments have yet been made