Locke's point on view about empiristics - Assignment Example

Question: Locke claims (contra Descartes) that empiricists can demonstrate the independent existence of the material world by means of two main ideas/theories: (a) the distinction between primary and secondary properties of objects, and (b) the causal theory of perception. Explain why Berkeley maintains that if empiricists take these ideas seriously, Locke's account actually leads to radical doubts about the existence of the material world. What solution to this problem does Berkeley think that empiricists should accept?

Berkeley's solution, however, is widely seen to be highly problematic. Which of these two problems---the (alleged) problems facing Locke or Berkeley's solution to these problems---seems to be the most damaging or difficult problem facing empiricism? Why? Critically defend your position. The empiricist claim of Locke proposes that knowledge only comes from experience and feeling while the rationalists asserts that reason is already an innate attribute and is already previously present in Descartes Cartesian proof.

Locke posits that the human consciousness evolves and therefore starts as an “empty mind” or a tabula rasa. It continuously evolves with experience, learning and sensation which are the sources of our ideas. The rationalists like Rene Descartes however, presupposes that reason is already inherent in man. It is already there even before he or she attempts to evolve or make a conscious effort to even think. For Descartes, the mere exercise of thinking is already a validation that one exists.

Even the process of doubting one’s existence, in Descartes perspective, is already a proof that one exists due to the sheer exercise of thinking. Locke divide the objects between primary and secondary properties. Primary properties are the physical attribute of an object which can be measured or quantified such as big, small, etch and this attribute is similar to all observer of the object. Secondary properties are the experience we derive from the primary qualities of an object or our perception of an object and this can be subjective or different from one person to another.

Locke’s empiricist approach however leads to radical doubts about the existence of the material world because he assumed that the objects that has certain properties has substance and through this properties can the substance be known. This is problematic because that substance or “something” is not even known to Locke and he only asserted that just because we cannot see it, it does not mean it does not exist if we are not sure what that substance is. For Locke, properties has substance but he cannot be certain if substance has properties because he resigned that substance is beyond the comprehension of human knowledge.

Berkeley in a way “got” Locke when he challenged Locke’s idea of “substance” by applying his own Ockham’s razor test, that states everything that we know can be explained. Here, Locke clearly contradicted himself in his idea about substance because he asserted something that he himself is not sure what is when he also asserted that everything can be explained. Berkeley however agreed with Locke in a way that the qualities of objects can be known through experience which also made him an empiricist just like Locke.

But instead of dividing objects into primary and second properties where the second properties facilitates the primary properties, Berkeley asserted that all can only be known by experiencing them and did not distinguish the properties of objects because they are undistinguishable. But unlike Locke who argued that objects have an objective and independent existence, Berkeley asserted that everything is “all in the mind” or merely exists as an idea in our mind. He cited the example of the sound of the tree falling in the forest whereby he posited that the fall of the tree will not make a sound if there is no one to hear it.

For Berkeley, there is no such thing as an objective world with an independent existence and being such, when no one is around when a tree falls, then it did not make a sound. Its sound depends on the notion of the observer which seems to be the same to everybody experiencing the same phenomena. Of the two empiricist, I believe that Berkeley’s solution posed a greater problem facing empiricism because his assertion that objects does not have objective or real existence can be readily refuted by science.

The advances in Chemistry can already identify the specific composition of an object and this validates that objects has independent existence. A tree is a tree whether one has seen it or not. It will continue to exist even if it is not observed or experienced by an individual. While we interpret the universe as we perceive them just as Berkeley asserted, objects in our universe still have their own real existence and not just in our mind. Modern science can in fact supply if it does not choose to refute the problem in Locke’s idea about substance.

We all know objects have properties and that property is the carrier of the substance that Locke does not know. Under the modern microscope, that substance may be a particular atom of such object that makes the unknown substance known giving solution to the problem posed by his idea about substance and his Ockham’s razor test to stand because it can now explain everything that we know of.