Essay about The Central Part of Berkeley's Metaphysics

Berkeley`s states that everything is an idea and that there has to be a supreme spirit (god) out there that has the ability to put ideas in our mind. Thus, being the one who controls everything that we are able think. The way that I understood Berkeley`s argument is that he believes that the existence of “God” is essential in order to know anything from the external world. Comprehending Berkeley`s argument wasn’t an easy task, but I have come to my personal conclusion that this so called; “Supreme spirit” is not necessary for me to have knowledge about the things that I can observe. Therefore in this paper, I will argue that Berkeley`s response to skepticism is not successful because he thinks that god is the base of knowledge.

Matter is defined by Lucretius as a primordial entity free of void and decay; they are the atoms that create entities. Atoms and primordial entities are synonymous with each other: the solidity of matter is called “procreant atoms, matter, seeds of things, or primal bodies, as primal to the world” (107-108). Lucretius uses all these words, emphasizing the simplicity of his philosophy. This simplicity is explained as he declares: “primal bodies are solid, without a void” (596). Because he believes that all entities are composed of primal bodies and a void, the primal body must be free of any void, thus giving substance to the object. He declares that entities are composed: “partly primal germs of things, and partly unions deriving from the primal germs” (566-567). This definition states that all matter consists of atoms, which, when combined, form molecules. Molecules, as defined by science, are the “unions” of atoms. This scientific principal is further explained: “So primal germs have solid singleness, which tightly packed and closely

In the Discourse on Metaphysics by Leibniz he suggest that, "we maintain that everything that is to happen to some person is already contained virtually in his nature or notion, as properties of a circle are contained in its definition." This assertion raised a difficulty for Leibniz. This difficulty was that "human freedom will no longer hold, and that an absolute fatality would rule over all our actions as well as over all the rest of what happens in the world." With such a reality there would be no use for free will and whatever fate succumbs an individual is the will of the Most High; in other words, being destined. But for Leibniz, this is not the determined reality of humanity. Leibniz

-          I can imagine myself as a thinking thing existing apart from the body (as shown by the different essences in the argument from essence.).

A crucial concept required for this discussion is the concept of “emptiness”. Emptiness is the notion that nothing has an underlying essence or inherent existence. Therefore, even though things may appear to

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

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

George Berkeley believed that nothing is real but minds and their ideas. Ideas do not exist without the mind. Through a complicated line of reasoning he concluded that “to be is to be perceived.” Something exists only if someone has the idea of it. George Berkeley stated that if a tree fell in the forest and there was no one there to hear it, not only would it not make a sound, but there would be no tree. According to George Berkeley, that the mind of God always perceives everything.

Matter is often defined as mass that can be physically observed by the senses, it can be measured scientifically and is tangible , it could be said the material world unlike aspects of social worlds is less abstract and easier to define, for example a building which comprises of bricks, wood, metal and other materials built into a specific shape compared to a community which can relate to people of the same place or shared values or interests or all. That is not to say that matter just is, it too can have agency and varying meanings dependent upon the

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.

However, George Berkeley had faced the same problem as many philosophers that have attempted to attack the same idea and that was if the existence is just the universe of the ideas and notions in our minds, then why can't we control the universe through our thoughts? He uncovered an answer and concluded that there is a greater mind which controls the universe of ideas and that is the proof for the existence of God. Attacking the idea of the existence of God is a major key in this paper because the idea of the existence of God is a major different root of Hume's and Berkeley's conception of perception. Berkeley's argument for the existence of God were that the ideas that humans are aware of do not depend on everyone's wishes and, if that is the case, then these ideas have to have some kind of existence apart from our minds. Furthermore, if none of us can be responsible for the ideas we perceive than there must be some other "thing" that controls or occupies the ideas.

Although the problem of the relationship between Nietzsche and metaphysics might seem to be a settled issue, this is in fact a quite complicated and fascinating problematic. The difficulty with this subject lies in the often unacknowledged ambiguity that the term ‘metaphysics’ exhibits in Nietzsche's writing, as this word assumes different nuances and connotations in different contexts. Therefore, if we can get past the usual rhetoric on the topic, we come to realize that Nietzsche addresses the topic of metaphysics in at least two distinct ways.

Metaphysics can be defined as an attempt to comprehend the basic characteristics of reality. It is in fact so basic that it is all inclusive, whether something is observable or not. It answers questions of what things must be like in order to exist and how to differentiate from things that seem real but are not. A common thought is that reality is defined as what we can detect from our five senses. This type of philosophy is called empiricism, which is the idea that all knowledge comes from our senses. An empiricist must therefore believe that what we can see, touch, taste, smell, and hear must be real and that if we can not in fact see, touch, taste, smell, or hear something, it is definitely not real. However, this is a

Some would choose to declare that every human being is both a body and a mind. Both being gelled together until death, than having the mind go on to exist and the body being lifeless. A person lives throughout two collateral histories, one having to do with what happens to the body and in it, and the other being what happens in and to the mind. What happens to the body is public and what happens to the mind is private. The events which reply to the body consist of the physical world, and the events of the mind consist of the mental world.

He also agreed with Berkeley that human never experienced the physical directly and can have only perception of it. He did not deny the existence of physical reality, but he denied the possibility of knowing it directly.