Berkeleys Criticism of Lockes Theory of Abstraction - Essay Example

Berkeley’s Criticism of Locke’s theory of ion Does Berkeley’s conflict with Locke’s opinions on ion hold ground, or are they simply variations of the same thing? In my opinion, both theories are not incompatible, but hold true with only a few slight differences. The first question that arises, of course, is what is abstraction, and where does the concept of abstract ideas come from? Locke, in his Essay concerning Human Understanding states, “…the mind makes the particular ideas, received from particular objects, to become general; which is done by considering them as they are in the mind such appearances, separate from all other existences, and the circumstances of real existence, as time, place, or any other concomitant ideas. This is called abstraction, whereby ideas taken from particular beings, become general representatives of all of the same kind; and their names, general names, applicable to whatever exists conformable to such abstract ideas.” To make this simpler, according to Locke, for an average human, knowledge comes only from what he is able to perceive, and already has perceived. He is unable to imagine qualities, unless he has already not seen, or felt those qualities before. He gives the example of white, and how it would be impossible to perceive the white in chalk or snow if it had already not been seen in milk, and thus by association, the mind is able to conceive of qualities, even that which it has previously no knowledge of. Thus abstraction signifies distinguishing a particular characteristic of a substance in one’s mind from all its remaining characteristics and using it as a mean of comparison with all other materials. Up to that point Berkeley agrees,[Introduction, (9)] as he concedes that if one perceived a certain similarity between three men, the mind would emphasize (or abstract) that similarity, and diminish the differences. Yet he also criticizes using this theory on humanity in general, for it does not happen that we imagine a human of complete and utter indeterminacy; that is though we recognize the fact that he will have the required two arms, two legs, one head (even that he questions; as Berkeley states it is possible for him to imagine a man with two heads thus also canceling the very first idea of man being unable to perceive anything he already does not know) it is also necessary for the human mind to wonder about the color, the stature and the build of the man. In essence, it is impossible to imagine a man simply on a general abstract, it is necessary to wonder on the ‘particulars’. He further postulates that Man cannot distinguish himself from animals primarily because he considers himself born with the ability to create general abstract ideas; in fact, the only reason we cannot imagine animals to do so is because they have no words to signify such (we must remember this essay was written during the early 18th Century, we now know animals have complex ways to communicate with each other). Thus Locke comes to the conclusion that words are used as signs of general ideas. That is white signifies the hue we associate with milk, and chalk, and snow. Berkeley disagrees with this statement as well, as he pronounces that a word does not state one general idea, but many particular ideas, that is when we consider white, we consider the white of the snow as well as that of chalk and milk as completely different forms of the very same word, white. In other words, further explanation of a term is necessary before one can properly form an image of that idea in his mind. To further stress this point, Berkeley uses another example of Locke’s from the very same ‘Essays on Human Understanding’. Locke states that abstract ideas are difficult to understand unless one has the idea cultivated in him; he gives the example of a triangle: “For example, does it not require some pain and skill to form the general idea of triangle, (which is yet none of the most abstract, comprehensive and difficult,) for it must be neither oblique nor rectangle, neither equilateral, equicrural, nor scalenon; but all and none of these at once. In effect, it is something imperfect that cannot exist; an idea wherein some parts of several different and inconsistent ideas are put together.” Here Berkeley commits a faux pas, convincing himself that Locke means that a triangle must contain all the above or none of the above qualities, that is it must be equilateral, or equacrural or oblique or scalene etc. this would mean that abstract ideas are inconsistent and thus impossible to imagine; though with all due respect to Berkeley, all Locke seems to state is that it is difficult to imagine a general triangle because it could be of any variation. The arguments that Berkeley makes contain one great discrepancy though, they are based primarily on the weakness of the language that Locke uses and do not propound anything other than a willful need to prove certain theories wrong. Abstraction to him certifies that the mind is unable to perceive anything other than the general idea, that is, it will associate with a word only the most universal of ideas. That does not hold true, because that is not what Locke tended to mean purposely. The arguments here are based mainly on the ‘particulars’ and the ‘universals’. Though for a average being of average intellect it is fairly obvious that a thing remains a ‘particular’ until by constant observation it becomes a universal. Let me highlight this by using an example: the Pygmies of Central Africa are the smallest people in the world, in comparison the Nordic are one of the tallest. Thus if we ask a specimen of both these communities on their opinion of ‘tall’ their idea would vary considerably. This is simply because their familiarities with certain statures would give them different perspectives. Let us further consider this idea of ‘generals’. The general idea holds that if a body is moving, it is being displaced. Yet this does not automatically tell us whether that body is moving horizontally, or vertically, forward or backwards, and in some cases, even moving in a trajectory. But the general idea of a body in motion at very first thought would be that the body is moving ‘forward’! This would be due to the fact that ever since childhood when we are given the idea of movement, it is almost always forward movement. Let me simplify further, if we think of the term “leaf” it is almost inevitable that we will perceive a green leaf. Hence both theories of ‘particular’ and general hold true. Thus in any case, though Berkeley is correct in stating that no idea can be formed universally, Locke also holds true that by careful cultivation from birth, a general idea (or abstract) can be inculcated in an average human being. To summarize, though Berkeley vehemently criticized Locke’s theories expounding abstract ideas, he fell victim himself to a certain amount of redundancy, holding an almost similar idea but phrasing it in a completely different manner. Locke stated that an abstract idea is what remains when, from a number of particular ideas, all features except those which are common have been dropped from attention; or in much simpler terms, an abstract idea is a particular idea which “represents” many other particulars. Berkeley, though in different terms, states almost the same thing. Thus in my opinion, both theories, at least in substance, share the same root idea. References Berkeley, George (1710) ‘Principles of Human Knowledge’ New York: Doubleday, 1974. Locke, John. (1) ‘An Essay Concerning Human Understanding’, New York: Doubleday, 1974. Word Count: 1,256 Read More