Friday, October 18, 2013
MacBeth's Dagger and Other Illusions
Hylas objects to Philonous' idealism by claiming that on his view there is no way to distinguish between veridical appearances and illusions. In other words, idealism implies that the danger than Macbeth sees before his eyes but cannot clutch is just as real as the dagger he uses to kill Duncan. Is this a valid objection? How successful is Philonous' response?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI object to Hylas' claim. Imagine this scenario: you are lying down in bed, dreaming. In your dream, you grab a hack saw and saw off your arm. Of course, in the dream, it would be excruciating. However, if someone were to watch your sleeping body at the moment that event occurred in your dream, would the observer see your arm suddenly being lopped off? Surely not. A hallucination is scientifically nothing more than a vivid dream that can occur while the dreamer is awake, so what makes Macbeth's illusion dagger just as real as his Duncan dagger? Nothing at all, in fact.
ReplyDeleteRemaining in the dream-world for a moment, let's take a look at what happens to the mind during a dream. If the dreamer is 100% out-cold, it would be impossible for the him to differentiate dreams from reality, but we have already established that an outsider can do so. However, what happens when the dreamer is only slightly awake and slightly asleep, in that state where you're dreaming but you're just barely awake and conscious that what you're perceiving is not real? It's just that – even though you're perceiving your arm getting hacked off by the saw, you understand in your groggy state that your arm is of course still firmly attached to your body and will stay like that for at least the next few moments. Hylas' claim falls apart here, and therefore Philonous' response is justified.
Hylas’s objection is perfectly valid. Near the end of the work, Hylas starts to question some of the impracticalities of Philonous’s (Berkeley’s) argument of idealism. One of these is discovering the loophole of false perceptions. Basically, Hylas argues that since everything perceived is “real” then there are many things that are inherently broken. Much like Descartes, Hylas argues that the senses can deceive. Importantly, he argues that the senses deception is just as believable as when the senses actually function. Therefore, in a dream when you perceive your environment, you perceive to the same degree as you would perceive your “reality.” Or in the case of Macbeth, his illusions brought on by a longing for power. This is why, in a dream, you are often convinced of its legitimacy. Because of this, Hylas argues that, according to Philonous’s logic, that dreams are just as existent as the rest of the perceived world. This is basically the argument that Hylas establishes.
ReplyDeleteIn defense of his initial argument, Philonous responds to Hylas. He concedes the fact that, yes, his reasoning would imply that dreams or hallucinations are just as real as “reality.” However, he makes the counterargument that although they are perceived to the same degree, they are not considered to the same degree. Sure, when you are in a dream you fail to recognize the folly of your surroundings. However, the instance you leave your dream you can take all of your perceptions into perspective. Therefore, you can eliminate what does not fit. The non-congruencies, the non-sequiturs, and the impossibilities can be rationally deemed to be false perceptions. In other words, when you wake up from a dream you can instantly determine it is so (a dream). Not because it is hazy, but because you realize that the “fact” you fought a dragon and the “fact” you have no sword, no scathes, and no dead dragon are incompatible. Therefore, you eliminate the more outlandish scenario and carry on with life.
I agree with Hylas's argument. In the situation of the dagger in front of Macbeth, the hypothetical dagger, in his mind, is just as powerful as the actual dagger used to kill Duncan. When Macbeth builds this anger of Duncan inside of him, he starts to develop this thought. This thought eventually leads towards hatred and then the thought of murder is born. Without this original thought of anger and a single idea born into his mind, he couldn't have killed Duncan. When Macbeth makes up the decision in his head to kill Duncan, it is as damaging as the actual dagger which he used to kill him. Because of this hatred and how his mind was already made up that he would commit the murder, in Macbeth's mind, Duncan is as good as dead. The danger that comes from the specific thought is as great as the dagger as they both have the potential to kill a human being. When the idea is sparked in his mind, the idea of murder is formed. Without this idea, the murder could never have been committed. Although the dagger actually kills Duncan, the idea was as dangerous as it lead him to commit the act. Although Philonous disagrees by saying there is a clear difference between veridical appearances and illusions, he is ultimately wrong as an idea can have just as much danger as an actual object used to murder.
ReplyDelete