@Omnicron777 Descartes didn't 'posit' god - he argued for god's existence. Likewise with Berkeley. In fact, Berkeley's argument is easily the best argument for god ever made.
Berkeley's theory is certainly not gibberish; it makes more sense than realism, it is just not "common" sense: proclaiming "reality", is abstraction which negates itself due to the fact that it is itself ones thought and therefore not the reality beyond thought they claim with their own thought, non plus ultra, to exist.
If thinking is the active mental process by which its antithesis, the static product of knowing, is to be achieved; how is it we only have what is known to put thoughts toward?
I must say with respect to Berkeley's conception of material objects -- gibberish and hogwash! Berkeley makes his conception of the material universe sound more and more like a Twilight Zone episode penned by Rod Serling (entertaining but nonsense thinking with not a shred of proof to posit such an idea). Berkeley assumes the existence of God (bad idea) then goes on to explain God's method of creation and perception tricks (worse idea). Peter is doing an awesome job by the way. Thank you.
@MrAnthonyVance In fact I'd posit exactly the opposite from what you appear to be defending: materialism. There is no proof that matter, space and time can exist without a mind. What you call universe is only a perception. If human beings were born without sight, would color exist? There is no way to prove that it does. All we can do is start with what we're certain of: I have a mind, that mind percieves. Perception is there for the only thing we can be certain of.
@Omnicron777 Descartes didn't 'posit' god - he argued for god's existence. Likewise with Berkeley. In fact, Berkeley's argument is easily the best argument for god ever made.
Clear404 5 months ago
Spinoza is my favorite.
alifeofreason 7 months ago
@alifeofreason Spinoza is the worst.
Ljublana1000 2 months ago
Berkeley's theory is certainly not gibberish; it makes more sense than realism, it is just not "common" sense: proclaiming "reality", is abstraction which negates itself due to the fact that it is itself ones thought and therefore not the reality beyond thought they claim with their own thought, non plus ultra, to exist.
If thinking is the active mental process by which its antithesis, the static product of knowing, is to be achieved; how is it we only have what is known to put thoughts toward?
Raflegan 8 months ago
Millican is the man! saved my life ina couple of essays I had to do!
Beforeonesface 9 months ago
I must say with respect to Berkeley's conception of material objects -- gibberish and hogwash! Berkeley makes his conception of the material universe sound more and more like a Twilight Zone episode penned by Rod Serling (entertaining but nonsense thinking with not a shred of proof to posit such an idea). Berkeley assumes the existence of God (bad idea) then goes on to explain God's method of creation and perception tricks (worse idea). Peter is doing an awesome job by the way. Thank you.
MrAnthonyVance 9 months ago
@MrAnthonyVance
Actually Berkeley doesn't merely assume God's existence. He provides an argument for God after he establishes Idealism.
It's easy to call Berkeley's idealism hogwash and Twilight Zone. Refuting him is an entirely different matter.
AgApE010 8 months ago
@MrAnthonyVance In fact I'd posit exactly the opposite from what you appear to be defending: materialism. There is no proof that matter, space and time can exist without a mind. What you call universe is only a perception. If human beings were born without sight, would color exist? There is no way to prove that it does. All we can do is start with what we're certain of: I have a mind, that mind percieves. Perception is there for the only thing we can be certain of.
AuxentiusZ 3 months ago
This was poorly explained. Berkeley never said because something is not logically necessary it is impossible.
agnostic79 11 months ago