Locke Vs Berkeley

Berkeley's attempt to popularize his pro-mind conception of the external world, Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, serves to undermine Locke's distinctions between primary and secondary qualities of the external world. In his publication, Berkeley uses dialogue between Hylas and Philnous, which consists of a series of arguments, to determine the most sound theory. Ground rules of the debate consists of: whoever of the two's position avoids skepticism about knowledge of physical objects wins and that if one position can be shown to entail that we cannot know anything about physical objects, consequently that position should be dismissed as absurd (Kelly, 2013). Throughout the arguments, Berkeley weakens Locke's theory of Limited Representationalism by counteracting Locke's with the possibility that instead of “matter” that comprises physical objects in the external world, these objects are simply ideas. Drawing back on Berkeley's catchy motto, “to be is to be perceived”, he proposes three arguments that support his idealist view that the motto encapsulates. The three pieces of support also importantly shed skepticism upon Lockes primary and secondary distinctions involving “matter”. The three statements of support include: The argument that physical

John Locke starts off his treatise with the thesis that ideas spring from two fountainheads--sensation and reflection. The former, man acquires from external sensible objects that affect man's five senses--those same senses endowed upon all men by the Creator. Material things outside man's being are the objects of sensation. Through experiencing sensation, man's thinking process gives rise to ideas thereby gaining for the thinking being a certain amount of

John Locke thought that the ideas or perceptions which we have of objects in the world partially represent the objects as they are in themselves, and so whether they are being perceived. This view of Locke’s is called representative realism. The term realism refers to the view that objects are real or exist apart from perception. And representative means that some of our perceptions accurately represent an object as the thing which it is in itself apart from perception. Locke thought that only some of our ideas or perceptions are accurate representations of the object itself, and that

Locke’s states that “All knowledge comes from the senses through experience” interpreted when Locke’s “blank slate” idea to when we are kids we know nothing. Our brains have to make connections to things and these connections are gained through experience and continues

Berkeley and Hume are both philosophers that thought rationally and relied of reason instead of sensory experience to explain the world around us. Berkeley gives both an epistemological argument and a metaphysical argument to why the idea of mind independent matter is not an object of knowledge. I think Hume is also on the same page as Berkeley and gives an epistemological claim to why matters of fact is not a strong tool, Hume in a way is a lot like Berkeley just less fantastical.

Locke discards the suggestion of innate ideas. Locke believes that if we always had innate ideas, it would be impossible for us not to perceive or be aware of them. He believes that if there were innate ideas then they would be universal ideas present

In order to fully understand Berkeley’s argument for the dismissal of material objects, one must understand his preceding argument on abstract ideas. According to Berkeley, the existence of abstract ideas is actually a myth. Humans tend to generalize concepts, such as the general idea of a table, a car, or a triangle, for example. However, Berkeley claims in his argument that there is no explainable way to have a general idea of anything. So if someone tells another to think of a table, that person will have a very specific picture of a very specific table –maybe a brown dining table with large, carved wooden legs, or a plastic folding table. There is not one table that has all of the characteristics of a table and none of them at the

Primary qualities, however, are objective and include aspects such as an object’s height and weight (Paquette 212). Through this, Locke claimed that the existence of objects can be made certain due to the primary qualities it possesses (Paquette 212). Similar to Descartes, Locke believed in a sense of existence. However, in his view, the facts from the primary qualities proved the object exists because the object exists within itself (Paquette 212).

Locke feels that we do not have any innate ideas.  Then the question arises of

     Locke instead is an empiricist, and therefore he directly critiques Descartes epistemic system and tries to establish his own foundation of knowledge. Locke believes that our knowledge of the world comes from what our senses tell us. Locke’s theory state that we are all born with a blank slate, tabula rasa, before we

Like Descartes, Locke also believed in an external world. As an empiricist, Locke relied heavily on the senses to provide true knowledge (Moore 2002). He shared Aristotle’s belief that the mind is a blank slate, also known as tabula rasa, at birth (Paquette 211). Our sense experiences thereafter provide us with knowledge to fill in those slates (Paquette 211). In Locke’s “Representative Theory of Perception,” also known as Epistemological Dualism, he stated that material objects exist and are separate entities from human beings (Paquette 227). However, he also believed that objects exist in the mind as psychological entities (Paquette 227). Locke concluded that people can taste, smell, touch, and see the external world which, in turn, becomes impressions in our minds (Paquette 227). Descartes and Locke are thus seen to be similar in the sense that they both believed in an external world.

Secondly, George Berkeley, a representational idealist, believes that knowledge comes from experience, but he perceives his thoughts in a different way then Locke. He doesn't believe that things from your senses can be reality. Berkeley believes that if our minds did not produce an idea, then God delivered and perceived his experiences to us, but he also says that empiricism and Christianity cannot be used together. We have a small role to play out and God makes sure that everything gets done. Berkeley was very mind dependent; he had faith that there is no world without a mind. With this in mind, he felt that all objects we encounter in experience are nothing more than mind-dependent collections of ideas. This is known as Esse est percipi, or "To be is to be perceived." He also believed that reality is nonphysical and everything that exists is either minds or the ideas they perceive.

John Locke's theory of knowledge stated that all knowledge is derived from the senses, that are converted into impressions, that are then made into ideas, either simple or complex. Simple ideas are ones that involve only one sense, whereas complex ideas consist of multiple simple ideas being combined to create a vivid one. Ideas have two qualities, primary qualities, and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are things that are perceived the same for everyone, and secondary qualities are the individual perceptions of

The problem he has with us thinking like this is that all sorts of things would end up being defined as innate. Locke thought that we had the capacity to recognise “self evident” truths and that we do have an innate capacity allowing us to recognise things, however they are not actually innate ideas within us, but ideas we gain from experience which our innate capacity allows us to understand. He was of the opinion that ideas are material of thinking and that there was no thinking before perception. While the mind has the capacity to think, it is not actually constantly thinking. For example, if you are asleep but not dreaming, then according to Locke, your mind isn’t actually thinking.

John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are great political philosophers that have many similar insights about society and its political form. However, when closely examining the writings of these thinkers, one can easily discover many subtle differences among them. The two philosophers base their theories on different assumptions, which subsequently lead to dissimilar ideas about the origin of society and the constitution of governments. As a result, their views of the development of society greatly dissent from each other. Locke's and Rousseau's different versions in the development of society cause them to reach disparate conclusions concerning the legislative power, social unit, and revolution rights of the society. Locke believes that