Interpreting ' A Treatise Concerning The Principles Of Human Knowledge Essay

Through the course of this paper, I began to wonder if it was even worth finishing. Thoughts rushed through my head on whether this Word document I was typing on even really existed. My reality as I presumed it to be may actually be thoughts in my head, and this philosophy assignment may have just been some weird way my own mind decided to entertain me. Perhaps yet, it may have been the work of a divine mind, taking helm of the way my thoughts flowed. These were all questions that came up as I read through George Berkeley 's, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. For in his manuscript, he addresses skepticism about the physical world, that is the ambiguity humans have in how a physical world outside of our minds is like. Berkeley has a simple solution to this. Through his interpretations of ideas, Berkeley comes to the conclusion that there should not be any skepticism surrounding the physical world because the physical world simply does not exist.

that it is a mental act of understanding the object. However, what about the “thing” itself?

From the instant folks begin to grip the world around them, notions begin to form. The mind plays a significant role in such chore as it is the core machine transporting such concepts for a soul to comprehend the world. In fact, this concept mimics the passage of an individual gathering apples during a pleasant summer day. Each apple recollected, enfolds a gist in its figure, tint and size over the networks attained by the individual from the instance each apple is selected, and this pertains my view about experiences since we evolve by them. Similarly, the empiricist John Locke, developed his theory of knowledge grounded by sense experience claiming individuals can get to know things outward to their minds. Contrary to this view, Rene Descartes who held rationalist backgrounds, doubted about knowledge acquisition through the senses putting into question perceptions rejecting the concept of material objects being sensed, meanwhile it is Locke’s main key from where his epistemology derives from. Both thinkers try understanding the origins and acquisition of knowledge differing in the idea of grasping the outside world.

In The Ghost in the Machine essay, Gilbert Ryle asserts that Descartes makes a “category mistake” by thinking that there is something called a “mind” over a person's behavioral temperaments. A category mistake, according to Ryle, is an error in which one assigns a feature or action to something that can correctly be assigned to things only of another category. When one commits a category mistake, the person is essentially misusing a word. Ryle uses the example of a person visiting Oxford for the first time.

Berkeley argues that the spirit is the only form of substance and everything else that creates the framework of the world is no substance at all, but a group of ideas originating from the mind. The substance that Berkeley talks about is the spiritual substance not the material, because there are no material substances. He opposes to the materialistic view of the world because materialists believe in matter (where everything has to be seen) and not in the soul, spirit and mind. Whereas, Berkeley has an idealist view of the world, where he believes that only the spirit exists. In this essay I will be discussing four key components of the perspectives of the materialists and how Berkeley criticizes these components and makes strong claims to

While holding truth to his materialistic thoughts, he also argues that the material objects exist in the external world and subjective things only exist in our mind. He also uses this to prove the existence of God, I believe he is saying all things are subject to God and therefore we only exist in him. God is the only one that cannot be subjected to anything. Because in order for us to exist, we had to be

David Hume wrote Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding in 1748, right in the middle of the Enlightenment and on the eve of the Industrial and Scientific Revolution. So it only makes sense that some of the ideas and comparisons used are slightly outdated, but science, if anything, helps his argument regarding causality. Hume is ultimately concerned with the origins of causality, how we are able to gain knowledge from causality, and if we can even call the knowledge derived from causality real knowledge. This is essentially the problem of induction, and is a central pillar of Hume's overall philosophy. There are some significant objections to Hume's ideas concerning causality, but they do not hold much clout and are no match for his

Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something greater, but we cannot imagine something that is greater than God. Therefore, God exists.

I shall present a case against materialist empiricism via Russell’s argument for the existence of a mind independent reality, followed by a critique of Russell’s stance by way of an updated version of Leibnizian Mathematical Rationalism, which will disprove Russell’s attempt at furnishing an objective mind independent reality through an empiricist epistemology. Russell’s argument for the existence of a mind independent reality is an attempt by Russell to justify the theory that material objects exist independently of mind. Russell argues in favor of a “direct realist empiricism”: The belief that knowledge is informed by the senses. His Direct realist argument is contrasted against Berkeley’s idealistic account of reality. Thus in opposition to Berkeley’s argument that only minds and that which they perceive exist – “esse est percipi” – Russell argues for empiricism with the criterion for the certainty that matter exists being the independent reality of physical objects. Russell approaches the question “Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no man could doubt it” (Russell, Chapter 1), by employing the Cartesian method of radical doubt upon his present empirical experiences. In examining objects within the immediate environment, i.e., the table, Russell distinguishes between appearances and reality (what things appear to be and what they are) and determines that the color, hardness and shape of the table are subjective qualities of appearance only

After listening to this book, I have identified several themes that are interwoven throughout the book. There are three main themes that are incorporated in the book are sin, knowledge, and the human condition. The first theme, sin, is depicted by the presence of the strong Judeo-Christian origin this country was built on. As we see through Hester’s experience; and with the reaction from society, Christianity was deeply rooted into their culture. As I listened to the some of the adversities Hester faces, it brings me to some experiences of my own. Like Hester being inundated with Christian beliefs, I was also engulfed by the Christian mindset. I was raised as a Christian, but more specifically as a Mormon. I was taught similar morals, values, and beliefs. I was also condemned for similar choices Hester made. I was isolated from the world around me, and was completely alone.

We experience the world through the different symbols our five senses are absorbing. Also we communicate to others and ourselves through a series of symbols that are interpreted to form an idea or sensation. Our symbolic nature affects the way we think by giving each individual a unique experience through the same symbols. Sure we all have a general sense of what someone or something is trying to communicate to us but that doesn't mean that we all react the same way or even interpret the symbols the same way. Our individuality creates a personalized reaction because we all experienced different things in the past. No two people have experienced the same exact situations their entire lives. Even on a genetic level only twins are identical. All symbols are open to interpretation.

exists except from matter so therefore the mind and the body (brain) work together and

Aristotle believes that sensory perception of material objects is knowledge and he says, "Our senses begin the

or that death is not the end. There is no way to prove that this is

     Hume is an empiricist and a skeptic. He develops a philosophy that is generally approached in a manner as that of a scientist and therefore he thinks that he can come up with a law for human understanding. Hume investigates the understanding as an empiricist to try and understand the origins of human ideas. Empiricism is the notion that all knowledge comes from experience. Skepticism is the practice of not believing things in nature a priori, but instead investigating things to discover what is really true. Hume does not believe that all a posteriori knowledge is useful, too. He believes “all experience is useless unless predictive knowledge is possible.” There are various types of skepticism that Hume