Lecture IX

advertisement
LECTURE 9
BISHOP BERKELEY
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
QUALITIES
&
THE “CONCEIVABILITY” ARGUMENT
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
QUALITIES
• THE PRIMARY QUALITIES ARE EXTENSION,
FIGURE, SOLIDITY, GRAVITY (WEIGHT OR
MASS), MOTION, AND REST.
• THE SECONDARY QUALITIES ARE ALL THE
REST OF THE SENSIBLE QUALITIES – AND ALL
HAVE NO EXISTENCE OUTSIDE THE MIND.
FROM WIKIPEDIA
(EDITED)
• Primary qualities are properties of objects
that are independent of any observer, such as
solidity, extension, motion, number and
figure. They exist in the thing itself.
• Secondary qualities are properties that
produce sensations in observers, such as color,
taste, smell, and sound. They can be described
as the effects things have on certain people.
HYLAS CLAIMS THAT THIS DISTINCTION
WILL DEFLECT PHILONOUS’S
ARGUMENTS
• BERKELEY (AS PHILONOUS) ARGUES THAT THE
SAME REASONS FOR TAKING SECONDARY
QUALITIES TO BE “IN THE MIND” APPLY TO
THE SO-CALLED PRIMARY QUALITIES.
SIZE, SHAPE, SOLIDITY, MOTION
THESE ALL VARY WITH THE STATE OF THE
OBSERVER: OBJECTS ARE PERCEIVED AS
LARGE BY SMALL OBSERVERS AND WHEN
THEY ARE FAR AWAY THEY ARE PERCEIVED AS
SMALL. THINGS ARE PERCEIVED AS HAVING
DIFFERENT SHAPES WHEN PERCEIVED FROM
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES – AND SO ON.
“ALL THE QUALITIES ARE IN THE MIND
OF THE OBSERVER”
ACCORDING TO BERKELEY THE PRIMARYSECONDARY DISTINCTION IS ILL-CONCEIVED
BECAUSE THE SAME VARIATION WITH THE
PERCEIVER APPEARS IN BOTH CASES. AND WE
CANNOT EVEN IMAGINE OBJECTS JUST
HAVING PRIMARY QUALITIES.
THE “CONCEIVABILITY ARGUMENT”
(RECONSTRUCTED)
(1) TO CONCEIVE OF A SITUATION IS TO IMAGINE
HOW THAT SITUATION WOULD BE.
(2) TO IMAGINE AN OBJECT EXISTING
UNPERCEIVED WOULD BE TO IMAGINE HOW
THAT OBJECT WOULD BE IS IT WERE
UNPERCEIVED.
BUT:
MORE PREMISES
(3) TO IMAGINE AN OBJECT EXISTING IS TO
IMAGINE HOW THE OBJECT WOULD BE IF
PERCEIVED.
(4) IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE AN OBJECT AS
HOW IT WOULD BE IF UNPERCEIVED AND AS
HOW IT WOULD BE IF PERCEIVED.
THEREFORE:
CONCLUSION
(5) IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCEIVE OF AN OBJECT
EXISTING UNPERCEIVED (!).
(“BERKELEY’S PRINCIPLE”): “TO BE IS TO BE
PERCEIVED.”
DO OBJECTS CEASE TO EXIST WHEN
NO ONE IS PERCEIVING THEM?!!
BERKELEY: NO.
TWO ANSWERS (FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF
BERKELEY’S WORKS).
(PHENOMENALISM): TO SAY THAT AN OBJECT
EXISTS WHEN NO ONE IS PERCEIVING IT JUST
MEANS “IF SOMEONE WERE TO BE
PERCEIVING IT, IT WOULD APPEAR THUS-ANDSO.”
BERKELEY’S FAVORED ANSWER
GOD IS ALWAYS PERCEIVING ALL THE “OBJECTS”
(FROM EVERY POSSIBLE POINT OF VIEW).
BERKELEY HAS AN ARGUMENT FOR THE
EXISTENCE OF GOD – WHICH WE WILL NOT
STUDY IN DETAIL. ROUGHLY: GOD IS
REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHY OUR
PERCEPTIONS ARE ORDERLY AND OCCUR
ACCORING TO REGULAR LAWS.
HOW CAN WE ANSWER THESE
ARGUMENTS?
GO BACK TO THE “SENSIBLE OBJECTS”
ARGUMENT. DISTINGUISH TWO SENSES OF
“PERCEIVE” (AND “SEE”, “HEAR”, ETC.). WE
SEE, HEAR AND FEEL OBJECTS “MEDIATELY”,
I.E., BY HAVING SENSATIONS. IF WE HOLD
FAST TO THIS IDEA, WE CAN RESIST
BERKELEY’S ARGUMENTS.
THE CONTINUITY ARGUMENT
FELT HEAT (THE SENSATION) IS INDEED IN THE
MIND. BUT PHYSICAL HEAT (WHICH IS THE
MOTION OF MOLECULES) IS IN THE OBJECT.
AS WE FEEL DIFFERENT DEGREES OF HEAT, BY
MOVING CLOSER TO A FIRE SAY, THE FIRE
DOES NOT GET PHYSICALLY HOTTER.
THE CONCEIVABILITY ARGUMENT
WE SHOULD NOT ADMIT THAT TO CONCEIVE OF
SOMETHING IS TO CALL UP AN IMAGE OF IT.
WE CAN CONCEIVE OF MANY THINGS FOR
WHICH WE CANNOT FORM AN IMAGE.
IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT THE EARTH’S
POPULATION SHOULD EXCEED 60 BILLION.
THAT SOMETHING EXISTS UNPERCEIVED SEEMS
(TO ME ANYWAY) TO BE QUITE CONCEIVABLE.
Download