Michael Ayers on Locke and Berkeley: Section 5

[FeelingFreshSon]

Do things exist when we aren't looking at them? I act like they do...if by "exist" you mean...well exist means to, uh...

[LaoDecmius]

hmm he called him Mr and not professor

[LooksAeterna]

As usual, Berkeley is being under- and misrepresented by someone with unsympathetic prejudices.

That is very sad, given the fact that Berkeley's basic thrust is the only solution and future of philosophy for the mind body problem, totally independent of Berkeley's possibly biased motivations for generating his view.

[LooksAeterna]

(contd.) In that context: 4:33 - 5:20 !!!

So then why TF isn't more being said ??? Why the continued underrating of Berkeley ? Some interest group doesn't want to let that truth get out to the public ear and instead seems to want to keep it to itself. No you don't want the goyim to discover that life may be about something greater than slavery, junk food, bad fucking and watching TV.

You may wonder what they are doing in those masonic rituals, and Manly P. Hall can tell you.

[Catz007]

@LooksAeterna

Nice to hear such vigour and resolve: "the fact that Berkeley's basic thrust is the only solution and future of philosophy for the mind body problem"

[xTjPx]

because there is no evidence.

[cbaydalavideos]

I think Berkeley comes across as a contrarian; trying to prove the impossible; i.e. that things do not exist independently. If I was to back the man that means I would have to end up believing God. I am not ready to take that leap based on the evidence.

[soultorment27]

@cbaydalavideos

actually most people today who accept berkeley's view of perception are actually atheists. postulating that sense datum are all that can be known to exist, does not in any such way lead one to believing in god...

[Catz007]

@cbaydalavideos

He doesn't need to prove that things do not exist independently,

Do you think that the God-believer should prove God's existence or the Atheist should prove God's Non-existence?

If you assume that the Burden of Proof is on the God-believer to prove God's existence, then it is up to Materialists to prove the existence of independent "stuff" called "matter" as opposed to the simple phenomena which we experience.

Idealism makes for a more beautiful and meaningful and honest world.

[hamooon]

hard to grasp. Anyone got a good link explaining the difference betwee Impericism and rationalism opposed to idealism and realism?

[PeteUtonic]

I think they should have discussed how Berkeley dismissed Locke's primary/secondary qualities distinction as it's essential so to understand the core of his idealism

[worthy99]

That's really interesting. Can you perhaps say something about that please. All the books I've read refer to Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualities without going on to explain its basis or its significance.

[matvarn]

if this is fake my essay's totally wrong!!!!

[cakkkbap]

very good work

[rootberg]

Great as always. Berkley was a great man. What a beautiful and (surprisingly) coherent philosophy it is.

[Catz007]

Idealism has that slight edge over materialism - after all, the materialist must first answer this: "what is matter?" and "what is the evidence of matter?"

[Myndir]

I'm not keen on idealism (or dualism for that matter) but materialism certainly fails at hurdle after hurdle. It's very interesting to apply Peirce's pragmatic criterion to materialism in the light of Berkeley's critique.

[Catz007]

may I ask what stance you take on this issue?