Berkeley & God

1. What did Berkeley think about perception and being?

Berkeley believed that humans are incapable of knowing what an object really is, or whose actually state is separate from a person's perception of an object. The object only looks feels smells tastes a certain way due to the persons own subjective perception, the being of the object is filtered through the mode of the senses and finally beholden within the persons mind. This means that what is actually sensed may not actually be what is. Or what is, is only that which is sensed.

2. What did he think about attempts to refer to "real" or "material" objects?

I believe Berkeley would think attempts to refer to real or material objects would be futile. One can't really know whats REAL because we are limited to five senses and individual perception. Whats real is futile.

3. What is his argument for the existence of other people?

One can sense and know that what one understands and perceives is similar or exactly the same as other people, so one can assume there exists other people for other people have shown to operate on the same level of senses and first person perception. One can say...well I think/see it this way, he/or she thinks it that way may it be the same or different I can totally see how he/she would think that, we can think alike, but this being is separate from I, so the he/she must exist.


4. What is his argument that other people's perceptions are similar to his own?

When the person learns that people see the world along the same sensual experiences and lines of logic as himself/herself. I see green....you see green...we both see green....do you know what love is? I know what loves is, we both laugh, we both smile, we both love, we both talk.

5. What is Berkeley's view of God? How do his views require God to exist?
(...from my take of wiggipedia...)
For Berkeley for something to "exist" it must be perceived by a mind. If it is not perceived by a mind, it does not exist. Or it may exist, but its existence is irrelevant if there is no mind to conceive of it. At least for the human race. There is no difference/significance if it exists or not if no one can see it. Berkeley's view of God is the all seeing mind. God's mind is the mind that see's every single particle of existence (in its totality?). Since God perceives everything, if someone were to look away, if every people, mind, creature of the cosmos looks away, God is the mind that upholds its existence/significance by being a vigilant observer of the cosmos.

Ignore the stuff about Hume and the limericks.
k

6. How did Dr. Johnson try to refute Berkeley, and why did Dr. Johnson fail to refute Berkeley?
I think Dr. Johnson kicked a rock and said something along the lines of I PROVED YOU WRONG! HAH ow!
He failed because he saw what appeared to be a stone, he felt what appeared to be a stone. Berkeley would say, sorry kid, your sensors don't prove anything, try adjusting your antenna frequencies, i mean your foot, maybe that might help. I think Berkeley might agree with the statement of getting over our human selves, that our sensors do not detect the final say of the state of existence of all of the cosmos.. We may not be the glasses of God. Or maybe we are. *SHRUG* Or maybe we are but with really dumb brains.


7. What was Locke's view of primary and secondary qualities?
Primary quality was a quality that is inseparable from the object, secondary is a quality which can be separated from the object, like heat emanating from water, water doesn't need heat to be water. but water does need to be liquid to be water.

8. How did Locke argue for this view?
He said to stick two hands into two buckets of water, one hot one cold, both were water, both had the qualities of heat, but since the qualities of heat were different from both, or could change without changing the object, then that quality was a secondary quality.

9. How did Berkeley extend Locke's argument to primary qualities?
Berkeley said primary qualities don't exist either or are also the same as secondary qualities, meaning there is no quality that is inseparable from the object that would change state of existence of the object if it were tried to be changed, like the perception of size, or color for these can also change with distance, and atmospheric lighting?
Finally, I want you to think about the following questions on your own.

10. If things only exist when they are perceived, and no-one perceives God, can god exist?

From Berkeley's perspective things only exist when they are perceived by the mind. Berkeley seems to be hinting that the human minds perception of objects, is not the final say on the actual state of the existence of an object, but he also seems to be saying the only things which makes an object exist is the presence of it within a mind. I just think this is absolutely absurd now, because if everyone was just shot in the back of the head right at this moment, and every bug stomped, every fly swatted, basically if earth blinked out of space. and no mind that we as a human race know of is there to conceive of the universe, I have a strange hunch that the stars will continue to shine, and the galaxies will continue to spread, even though we'd all be dead. To answer the question, if things can ONLY exist when they are perceived, and no one perceives what they think God would be like is not to be found, then probably that type of God they are looking for doesn't exist. But a different God can exist I believe, going back to Berkeleys concept of perception especially human perception is not the final say, I believe human senses are quite limited, last I checked we had 5, a bit too limited to conclude that since certain detection of a God hasn't been met with 5 senses adapted specifically for just one planet, amongst a galaxy amongst billions amongst billions I am unable to rule out the possibility of a God. But if i really am just an advanced nintendo game on a big screen somewhere out there, or my life is just an echo of a thought from a timeless being, or a pale sketch of a masterpiece that is yet to come, I hope if there is a God out there, I hope he cares for me, I hope he watches over me, and I hope he seeks only good things for me and that goodwill would travel across space and time.

11. If there is no external, "real" world, and no God to hold it all together, how could it possibly happen that all these disconnected minds all perceive all the same things?
Because there is no necessity of a mind to hold it all together. Perception has its importance, but Berkeley is too extreme. Perception is being made into like a battery for the universe. The universe does not need a battery to run I think not. And if we believe that the universe or parts of it does not exist because no mind is perceiving it of the moment then we should call that Ignorception. an Ignorant denial of existence due to the lack of perception. If God had a huge body like a human and the universe was in his stomach, I don't think his stomach would disappear if he fell asleep.