Richard Rogers
V00172942
PHIL 314
Winter 2009
Professor Perlman
Final Exam
Due: 3-18-09
2
Section 1 Question 2.
Idealism is a philosophical theory by George Berkley, and it means that
what we as human beings perceive as reality, is actually in our minds, that reality
is in our minds. Berkley believe in Idealism because he thinks that the only way
to know what you are seeing, feeling, tasting, hearing and smelling, is to stick
your brain outside your head and compare what you tasted, felt, smelt, heard,
and touched to what you actually tasted, felt, smelt, heard, and touched. But
this is not possible, so if everything, including reality is in your head, you know it to
be true.
Locke and Descartes believe that only thoughts and ideas and the
secondary qualities (which are color, sound, taste, smell and feel) are all in the
mind, that they do not exist outside the mind. They also believe that the primary
properties (which are size, shape, weight and location) exist only in substances.
Berkley believes that thoughts and ideas, and both the secondary and primary
properties exist in our minds, which nothing exists outside our minds.
Berkley argues that if you believe in Locke’s theory (about thoughts and
ideas and secondary properties), that matter or substances are unknowable,
inconceivable and unnecessary. Berkley believes that if reality does not exist
inside our minds, then we cannot know reality because we do not real know if
what we see, hear, taste, feel, or smell is actually real, therefore it leads to
skepticism and Berkley does not like skepticism.
3
Berkley has an odd view on objects we all see. For example, we all see a
table in the room, but because we cannot all be in the same spot at the same
time, we all have to a different angle. Berkley believes that our mind creates a
different reality for an object like the table. All of these thoughts combine into
collection of ideas of sense and nothing more. This is the same for all objects;
tables, chairs, pens, markers, paper, etc. Berkley believes things like physics and
science are spirits. More specifically, they are God. God is what makes thing
happen. He is science and physics.
Until Berkley gets to objects, he has a pretty solid foundation of idealism,
but I believe it falls apart when he starts talking about points of view creating
ideas of sense. His explanation does not really give a strong foundation
because how can we all feel and see the same objects if they are only a point
of view. We would all have a different feel and view of the same object if that
were true, but we may have a different view but still feel the same thing.
Then his argument about science and physics has a shaky foundation too.
No one knows that God exists, so it is hard to believe that he is science and
physics and more, without faith. At best Berkley’s theory of idealism is plausible
because it requires one must believe in God, or everything after the argument
that reality is in our minds, falls apart.
4
Section 2 Question 5
Kant thought that neither empiricists nor rationalists had the right idea, but
he leaned more towards a rationalist then an empiricist. Kant was not a true
rationalist because he believed that not all ideas are innate, that no a priori
knowledge is objective, all knowledge arises from experience and all
knowledge claims are claims about the world as experienced. Kant believed
that both rationalists and empiricists made the same wrong assumption. Kant
believed that instead of us using knowledge or reason to understand the world,
we should let our concept of the world shape our knowledge of the world.
Kant believed that all knowledge could be divided into two categories;
the first is a piori and the other is a posteriori. a piori means something is known
before experience. For example, time is a priori because we cannot experience
time but we know what it is. a posteriori means that what is known, is known
through experience. For example, we know water is wet because we have felt
it. There is no way to know it is wet until we feel it, someone could tell us, but I do
not know if they are trying to deceive me, so I must test the water to see if it is
wet.
Also, Kant believed that all knowledge could be categorized by either
being synthetic or analytic. Analytic means that knowledge is true by definition.
For example, ‘The bachelor is unmarried’. We know the bachelor is unmarried
without being told because one of the definitions of a bachelor means he is
5
unmarried. Synthetic means that knowledge is learned through proof. For
example, I know water is wet because I felt it was wet.
Most people argue that nothing is synthetic a priori, that everything
synthetic a priori is caused by the mind, but Kant believes it provides vast
amounts of human knowledge. Kant believes that arithmetic and geometry
belong in this category, and that if metaphysics exist, it belongs in synthetic a
priori as well. Kant believes things can be synthetic a priori because of
arithmetic and geometry. It is something that has to be learned, but it had to
have been created before it was used.
Synthetic a priori depends on Kant’s theory of categories. Things are
divided into four categories and those categories have parameters. They are of
Quantity (unity, plurality, totality), of Quality (reality. Negation, limitation), of
Relation (inherence/substance, causality/dependence, community) and of
Modality (possibility/impossibility, existence/non-existence,
necessity/contingency). Then they are divided by judgment. Synthetic a priori
depend on Kant’s theory of categories because synthetic a priori are about
what we could experience and not what we have experienced. It is the
potential to learn something.
Kant’s dichotomy of synthetic/analytic and a priori/a posteriori make
sense to me, but where I got lot is his categories argument. They only halfway
make sense. I understand his theory about synthetic a priori, but that means at
one point in time, everything is synthetic a priori unless it was analytic a priori.
6
Can things transcend from the different sections in his dichotomy? Also, how
can we know there is something we have not learned yet, if we have not
learned to this point? If we know all we can, then there is nothing left that can
be learned, therefore there can be no synthetic a priori. Synthetic a priori is the
only category that is not clear. I agree with analytic a priori because the
bachelor example above. I agree with synthetic a posteriori because most
knowledge is learned through experience, as in the water example above. And
I agree with analytic a priori because math is known and learned but not
through experience. Kant’s theory on synthetic a priori to me is not solid, but he
might be headed in the right direction, but until we know more or learn more,
we can never be for certain that synthetic a priori is real.