Up@dawn 2.0

Friday, February 15, 2013

14-1: Esse Est Percipi

We've probably all heard the proverbial question,"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?" But rarely ever do we hear the answer. According to Georges Berkeley, it wouldn't make a sound—it wouldn't even exist at all. He argued that something needs to be perceived in order to exist. Fair enough—it's a perspective that we can imagine, but never prove, just like Descartes' own thought experiment.

Acknowledging Berkeley's theory that everything is only an idea is perhaps necessary to understand why he equated existence with perception. It's much easier to refute the existence of something that isn't really there. Berkeley believed that the world was comprised of ideas—even the sensations that arise from interacting with those "ideas." We are fooled into believing that things have substance. Our group wasn't particularly intrigued by Berkeley's idealism, as anyone who grew up in a society that values empiricism and measurement would not. It doesn't quite resonate as well today as it might have in the 18th century. We wondered if immaterialism and idealism really did prevail then, and if it did, how it affected people's lives. In the end, it doesn't really matter if what we believe to be objects are really just ideas—they'll always be objects to us because that's how we interact with them. Even if all matter was just an "illusion," it wouldn't be any less real to us.

In a way, Berkeley's philosophy is still relevant, but not in the metaphysical way that he posed it. We all see things tinted by both the cultural and personal definitions we give them. What exists in the foreground of one's life may only exist in the background of another's, quietly, unnoticed. Unlike in the 18th century, we now have the advantage of science proving our existence, with objective terms such as volume and weight. These, too, can be seen as only ideas, as nothing more than numbers on a page. But we know better.

(Schodinger's cat is a thought experiment in which a cat placed within a box with a flask of poison that could randomly shatter is thought to be both alive and dead until one observes the state of the system by opening the box. Most of the interpretations of this thought experiment have to do with perception, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, which explains that the system only becomes definite when it is measured—esse est percipi, as Berkeley says.)

DQ: If it could somehow be proven that all objects were only ideas, would it change how we value objects?
FQ: George Berkeley's philosophy can be classified as _____________.
A: Idealism and immaterialism

9 comments:

  1. http://youtu.be/MDWyTCVdBEI

    DQ: All objects are in fact only given to us in the form of ideas. That isn't to say that all objects are only ideas, but we can never be absolutely certain that objects are not in fact ideas.

    There is no reasonable argument to say that we should devalue objects if they are only ideas because they would have always been ideas and have not changed.

    #nuffsed

    ReplyDelete
  2. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? yes but it is the idea of a sound that is created when someone has seen that it has fallen over. if no one ever saw it laying on the ground and it rotted away did it ever exist? so did it make that sound? did it ever experience the sun and rain and wind and hot and cold is the tree a living soul that died when it fell or was it just only the idea of a tree that the collective idea box has stored for our generic thought consumption.

    DQ: when do reality and idea's exist together? if the reality is a collection of idea's but the collection is offbeat from the true reality then do the idea's and reality co-exist or does the reality exist from the idea's that we share?

    the idea that i wasn't at class thursday was a reality i wasn't there but i continued to exist just so you know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you sure you continued to exist?

      Delete
    2. (Heavy sarcasm, by the way.)

      Delete
    3. Ian Mallari12:54 PM CST

      I think your point is great...just because you do/dont see something, doesnt mean it does or doesnt exist. Just like unicorns....we dont see them, but could they exist? I feel like we over think things to a point that distracts us from reality.

      Delete
  3. My fever was too high to leave the house Thursday, although it might have made for some interesting comments from me, so I'll just put in what I think about it.
    Berkley in a way reminds me of a lot of our previous dicussion. Perception always seems to come up in some way, but I think this might be the first Pilosopher we have discussed that believes that something has to be seen to be real.How people percieve things is really important, but what about perception of ideas, and not just tangible things? I'm more of an if you can imagine it, it could happen thinker. It's not really all that hard to belive that his contemporaries thought he was crazy..
    I think maybe if video cameras had been invented in his time Berkeley wouldn't have though this way. I tend to be a really idealistic person but I'm pretty sure my idea of idealisim and Berkeley's idealisim aren't the same at all.

    Factual Question:
    On what island did Berkeley attempt to establish a school but failed? Bermuda

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian Hester9:48 PM CST

    http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F

    There is a little clip of the Simposons angle on this topic (sorta). Lisa says that it is not really about if the one hand clapping makes a sound, it is about the thoughts that the question provokes. So I think we should try to carry this ideology over to our group, because I have noticed that we spend a lot of time searching for answers to questions, but maybe they weren't meant to be answered, simply pondered. ( sorry for the bad spelling)

    ReplyDelete
  5. It just seems to me like, a fallacy and should be disregarded instead of spending time analyzing. Seems like we choose to push out common sense and scientific knowledge sometimes when we try and talk "philosophically."

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think we are over thinking things. :)
    This topic reminds me of a poem...

    I thought a thought.
    But the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I thought.
    If the thought I thought I thought had been the thought I thought, I wouldn't have thought so much.

    Sometimes we should just allow natural things to happen, and not over think or question them.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.