Berkeleys Theory of Knowledge - Essay Example

Berkeley’s Theory of Knowledge Berkeley’s theory of reality and reality can be considered to be the opposite of Descartes’ theory. For Descartes, the one true thing that could not be disproved was that people have their own thoughts and they can perceive themselves as having these thoughts. Even if they cannot prove anything else exists, they know that they exist because of their thoughts. Succinctly stated, Descartes used the ability to perceive thoughts and sensations as the basis for his theory. On the other hand, Berkeley’s theory stated that being perceived was the basis for existence and reality. His theory is contrary to the idea that there is some sort of underlying matter that is responsible for that which we experience. The type of thought that Descartes exemplified stated that we experience things through our senses, and while we might not be able to directly experience the matter that is responsible for being perceived by our senses, we know that it is there because we are in fact able to experience these senses. We know it is there because we perceive that it is there through the experience of our senses, but in the end we can only ever know it is there because of our senses because we have no way of directly experiencing matter. Berkeley’s ideas are so contrary to what a person might initially think because he wants to put our own existence as being dependent upon things that don’t have any direct effect on a person. To think about it as a solid example, Berkeley would state that the person who is walking down the street and is perceiving themselves as existing owes nothing to their own perception of themselves walking down the street and everything to the random person who sees the initial person walking down the street who is perceiving this happening. In other words, reality is not based in one’s own mind but in the minds of everyone else. While a person does not contribute to their own existence by merely being able to perceive their own existence, they are able to contribute to other people’s existence by perceiving other people. However, why is it exactly that a person can do this for another person while being incapable of doing it for themselves? We can observe the reactions we have upon other objects when we act upon them. Of course, this begs the question as to how a person continues to exist without being in the presence of other people constantly, but Berkeley uses this trouble in his logic to introduce the idea of God. In order to get to his point that existence depends upon being perceived, Berkeley states that it is pointless to consider matter that we cannot perceive directly. He states this because he says there is no way to get beyond the senses; no matter what, the only way anything can ever be experienced is through the senses. Berkeley states that it is pointless to consider sound waves because we don’t experience the waves, just the sound. While not denying that sound waves exist, Berkeley states that it is ridiculous to think of the sound waves as being what really exists because of our inability to be able to directly experience them. A lot of Berkeley’s theories were dependent upon or used scientific examples from his day and age. Of course, Berkeley did not have any experience with quantum mechanics which states that an electron cannot be directly experienced without altering its path and that it really only exists in any one point as a matter of probability. As a matter of logic, Berkeley’s view that it is pointless to discuss that which cannot be experienced directly through the senses might make some sort of sense; however, it completely lacks practicality and would make the sort of scientific progress that has been made not possible. This kind of thinking would have discouraged science. Atoms might exist, Berkeley would state, but since we cannot perceive them directly, there is no purpose to them. Berkeley could think that atoms are pointless, yet when an atom bomb is exploded and Berkeley is perceiving the mushroom, it seems to be rather ridiculous to consider that which cannot be perceived directly by the senses to be pointless. If we know that something exists because we can perceive the effects of it, then it seems pointless to try to state that it doesn’t make any sort of difference. While as a simple matter of logic it might make some sort of sense, at the same time it is worthless in real world experiences. The only thing that it does end up doing is to necessitate the existence of God. Really, it would seem as though the entire point of doubting that which cannot be perceived directly through the senses is an attempt to prove that God exists, because, as mentioned earlier, this sort of logic does not accomplish anything. In a sense, Descartes used the fact that he could prove that he existed as a way to show that God existed. In order to get to the Cogito, there did not need to be any sort of logic that necessitated the existence of God. Descartes used the Cogito to prove that God existed, while Berkeley has to bring God into his logic in order for his logic to work in the first place. Descartes’ original logic is not dependent upon the existence of God, but Berkeley’s logic is. While the rest of Descartes’ logical conclusions after the Cogito fell apart because of the difficulty in using logic to prove God’s existence, the entirety of Berkely’s logic is suspect because it depends upon the faulty use of logic to prove the existence of God. When one states that existence is dependent upon being perceived, one is stating that it would be possible to cease to exist if one isn’t being perceived. This has obviously never happened, and it would seem to be a weaker argument when one has to prove something that doesn’t need to be proved. We don’t need to have Berkeley explain to us why do not disappear when we are not being observed because it is a ridiculous thought in the first place. We don’t need an explanation as to why we don’t disappear when not being perceived because that is not something that anyone has ever had to worry about, and since there is not practicality to this line of logic, the entire point that Berkeley is making is useless. We do not need to come up with explanations as to why things that do not happen do not happen. To consider this, we do not need to come up with an explanation as to why the sun doesn’t rise and then turn around and state that it does actually rise because God causes it to do so. Since it is pointless to not consider that which isn’t experienced directly pointless, there is no need for there to be any sort of eternal perceiver who keeps everything and everybody from vanishing from existence. Also, it does not make any sort of sense that this God figure of Berkeley can observe everybody but cannot be observed directly and can exist without being perceived. Berkeley here is just completely ignoring the rules that he has set up and basically contradicts all of the logic that he has been following up until this point. While at first it might seem to be an interesting way to approach reality and the nature of existence, it does not in the end have any sort of productive outcome. Read More