Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff M
And the absence of perception makes things "not be"?
|
Not exactly. Calling something a "thing" and saying it can be made to not be presupposes its existence. I.e., it's question begging (in the proper usage of that term, not the misuse that has become popular).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff M
(I've "experienced" that one. One minute, I'm up and about, the next I'm waking up on the pavement.)
|
I think the Bishop might say you have just made his argument for him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff M
Like it or not, things ARE or ARE NOT.
|
I'm good with that.
Bigger point: There is no logical inconsistency in Berkeley's idealism/immaterialism. Nor is he unable to explain within his theory all the things and events you can come up with. Of course it flies in the face of common sense and how we talk about the world, but he knew that. You can't refute it by simply denying it, which is what Johnson and most others try to do. People try to dress up their "refutations," but they are reducible to some version of "We know these things have material existence, so Berkeley is wrong." Johnson (who was surrounded by a bunch of groupies who were impressed with his every quip and, led by Boswell, wanted to preserve his every utterance for posterity) "knew" Berkeley was wrong because he
saw the rock,
felt it on his toe,
heard those around him agree that it was there, etc. No problem for Berkeley. Every way anyone knew the rock was there relied on perception.