Wednesday, October 16, 2013
What You See Is What You Get?
Berkeley argues that skepticism is only possible if there is a distinction between appearance and reality. Furthermore, he claims that that distinction collapses once we deny the existence of material substance. Given these two premises, he concludes that skepticism in false. But is he correct? Does the distinction between appearance and reality collapse if idealism is true? Is it possible for God to perceive an object differently than me? Does that possibility redrawn the line between appearance and reality? Are there other problems with this argument?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that it is possible to have Skepticism without a distinction between appearance and reality, but this can only happen when the skeptic is not an independently thinking person. If there is no distinction between appearance and reality then everything I perceive is both my perception and reality. This makes it impossible for me to be a skeptic because I have a lot of knowledge about the world around me that I have acquired through the appearances I perceive. However, if someone else is giving me these perceptions, then I am not really perceiving anything. In this case Skepticism can exist because I am incapable of perceiving anything, and therefore I do not know anything. In this case it does not matter that reality and appearance are the same because as I do not know appearances, I do not know reality.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between appearance and reality can still exist without material substance, but also only under very specific circumstances. If there is no material substance then there is no physical object that determines reality as opposed to appearance. Therefore, one can assume that everything we perceive is just as real as anything else. However, there could be something else determining reality such as an all-powerful being. Since this being is by nature all-powerful, its perceptions of reality must be the most accurate ones. Therefore, its perceptions are what determine true reality, and all other perceptions are appearance. Appearances, meaning the errors in identifying reality, are then the fault of humans.
Given the two premises that Berkeley states about the distinction between appearance and reality, I do not believe that he successfully proves that skepticism is false. If idealism is true, the line of distinction between appearance and reality doesn’t fall because one person’s perception of something can be completely different from someone else’s. Take for example the perception of a person who can see colors to the perception of someone who is color blind to the point in which they can only see black and white. The person who can see colors might see Marty’s shirt as yellow, but the person who can only see black and white might see his shirt to be a shade of grey. As shown, these are two different perceptions from two different people, but which perception is the right one? By the “right” one, I mean the perception that correlates with the actual reality of it. Perception does vary based on the mind that is doing the perception. Having said this, it is possible that God, being an infinite mind, has a different perception of things than I do. If God’s perception of something is the one that is reality, than the line of distinction is once again drawn, since it is impossible to perceive the same as God does. Skepticism is the idea that we really have no knowledge about the world around us. If the line of distinction is drawn again, then it is possible that we can be deceive and that we know nothing, thus Berkeley’s premises does not prove that skepticism is false.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley’s argument can be broken down into 4 main points. If skepticism is true, then one can be deceived. If one can be deceived then there is a difference between appearance and reality. If there is a difference between appearance and reality, then material substance must exist. However, material substance doesn’t exist and therefore nullifies skepticism as a whole. In an idealistic world, where material substance doesn’t exist, this theory has some merit. As reality is based entirely upon perceptions in this case, then there cannot be a difference between appearance and reality and therefore skepticism must be false. However, I don’t think this proves Berkeley’s theory. I think that skepticism can exist even in an idealistic world. Knowledge needs to be objective, as otherwise it would just be beliefs. In a world where perceptions are reality, and therefore perceptions are knowledge, how is this knowledge going to be objective? Perceptions are entirely a case-to-case basis; cyan to one person might be turquoise to another. This raises the question of whether or not there can be knowledge in an idealistic world. Berkeley talks about the possibility of God’s perceptions, and whether they can be different than his. If God’s perceptions were objectively true, wouldn’t they still differ from the common man’s? Doesn’t the creator have a different worldview? If so, then aren’t all humans being deceived and therefore we have no knowledge? I don’t believe that Berkeley’s argument is foolproof and I think it actually shows how skepticism CAN exist in an idealistic universe.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley’s point refuting skepticism is not correct because material substance does exist. Material substance exists and I can come to this conclusion because if material substance did not exist then the human sense of touch would not exist. This is because by my definition material substance is anything that can be touched. Therefore, skepticism can be true and Berkeley is wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between appearance and reality does in fact collapse if idealism is true because then there would be no material substance. Having no material substance proves the main points of idealism. Idealists argue that everything is in the mind and therefore there is no material substance making the distinction between appearance and reality collapse. This is because there would be no distinction and appearance and reality would not exist.
It is possible for God to perceive objects differently than the average human because there are objects that we do not even perceive but God does. God perceives everything whereas we only perceive some things. This, however, does not redraw the line between appearance and reality because God’s perception does not change reality. Humans have our own reality based on what we perceive. This fact is true for all beings meaning that we have a different reality then a dog but that does not make our reality right and their reality wrong. Therefore the conclusion can be made that God’s perception does not redraw the line between appearance and reality and proves that there are multiple correct realities based on perception.