Perception - Idealism

An introduction to idealism as defended by George Berkeley.

0:00 - Introduction
0:56 - Defeating skepticism
3:57 - Empiricism
6:32 - Primary and secondary qualities
14:03 - Berkeley's Master Argument
17:25 - Objections to idealism
28:58 - Berkeley's appeal to God
34:40 - Skepticism again

[entityidentity]

Just discovered this goldmine of a channel.

Thank you for your work.

[ostihpem]

17:00 is just false. Of course (2) is also contradictory, though in disguise. If I conceive an arbitrary obejct as existing unconceived then in this moment this very object is conceived by me and therefore cannot exist as unconceived. Example: If I conceive a tree in an empty world then in this world the tree might seem to exist unconceived, but after all I do conceive the world with the tree in it, so eventually the tree is conceived by me.

[Existentialist]

How do we distinguish between perception and imagination?

The same way as anyone else does.  The hypothesis that there exists a mind-independent reality does not, and indeed could not in principle, help us distinguish between perception and imagination.  

I have a visual sensation resembling an apple.  I stretch out my hand and experience a certain characteristic tactile sensation.  I can lift it up and it has a certain weight.  I can bite into it and it has a certain taste.  And last but not least all my perceptual sensations of the apple have a realness which surpasses that of imagining an apple.    All this suffices to distinguish between the real apple and an imaginary apple.  And even if it doesn't those who hypothesise a mind-independent reality do not fare any better.

[DigitalGnosis]

2:50 - "Ess-ay eh-st per-kipp-y"

[doktorarslanagic]

can't we feel the shape through tactile sense data?

[gamislatte]

how does this idealism relate to the discovery of quantum mechanics?

[bristol]

Have you investigated Leibniz ?  His theory of perception is a bit difficult to understand, but essentially it consists in the conversion of physical sensory nerve signals into mental experience. If you google on perception Leibniz you will find a number of listings. If you include my name, Roger Clough, you can see some of my own writings.

[elliottcovert]

I always thought that Samuel Johnson's philosophical pronouncements betrayed a serious lack of critical thinking :) 

[DenceActivity]

At first I thought that you were on to something?

I then considered, how many moment's it would take me to dispute most of your philosophical ideas and opinion's based on your "sense perception" information?

Consequently and in consideration of your posit that nothing exists? I decided that to you, the effort would be a waste of my moment's?!

I am of a different opinion!

I posit that there is no such thing as nothing and therefore people are responsible for their action's in life. ~ Rather than help ignorance along by excusing the fact that it is ignorant of it's own action!

[timottes]

" I am conceiving that there exist an object ( ? ) such that the object (?) is unconceived."

' I am possessed of the idea of an object THAT EXISTS that I nor anyone else has an idea of. '

An Empiricist would disagree, it seems...as they'd say all of our conceptions ( Ideas ) come from perceptions ( Empirical Data, ) right?

You claim the real existence of your object, but don't define or classify it ( nice try... ) " there exist an object... " Or would you reject its real existence while saying " there exist an object... ? "
Is it a pure object of a mind ( Idea ...) or is it an idea from perception... you don't say.

If you rule out conception ( Idea ) from perception ( Sense Data )... we have an absolute idea/object of the mind, right, that you are obviously conceiving and asserting the REAL existence of !
There is a conceived object... the idea of the object comes from the perception of the object... if only in a mind...


So, it is... " I possess a thought object in my mind, an idea... gained from the perception by my mind of an existing/real object... which is not perceived or conceived by any mind, which, of course, includes mine "

It doesn't work as I have shown... as it is self refuting, or... its vagueness ( failure to classify the object you claim the real existence of... ) means one can take the proposition any number of ways..
.
It seems that you're trying to cobble together some version of the Liar Paradox, but it's a no go, because we can relate the IDEAS of your proposition to fleshed out philosophies that you can't refute, but only argue against...

Not all believers in G-d... give G-d the attributes that you claim.
You sound like an atheist that defines all believer's in G-d as fundamentalists...

You make these " attributes of G-d " literal conceptions of what G-d is... to suit yourself... your dogmatism...your argument.
Berkeley was a Nominalist... if I am not mistaken...

So, that is a Strawman...

And actually... ancient Skepticism would be the route to go, rather than with Hume's unintelligible and contradictory dogmatic nonsense... if one wanted to appear logical and rational... rather than dogmatically anti - religious... like Hume...
Some humble equipollence ( real Skepticism ) is in order rather than this shoddy dogmatism...

[stephenkirby]

That Berkeley purportedly ‘believed’ in the existence of a god disqualifies him for membership in the ‘religio-philosophical realm’. period.
To do so stopped the intellectual development he could have accessed if his thinking hadn't have been so narrowly defined by the context of the culture in which he was compelled to exist to survive, and the religion he was compelled to practice during his youthful and formative years.

And that is the truth. (actually, only a component of the Whole Truth.)

[I_Am_Midnight-i]

22:33. LOL. Last time I checked materialism was dead.