RE: Berkeley's Idealism
March 15, 2012 at 1:40 am
(This post was last modified: March 15, 2012 at 2:26 am by genkaus.)
(March 14, 2012 at 5:49 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Agree. The question is whether perception occurs in physical reality or a purely mental one.
The former. The perception of illusion of perception occurring in the mental reality is called projection.
(March 14, 2012 at 5:49 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: One need only provide a mechanism in which to ground facts. That ground could either be an enduring physical reality or a universally enduring observer.
Incorrect. Facts are by definition grounded in reality. They don't require provision of an arbitrarily defined ground. Fact-like statements grounded in the observer - whether enduring or not - are called opinions.
(March 14, 2012 at 5:49 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Both share the quality of Being-in-Itself.
Not according to Sartre.
Quote:Being-in-itself refers to objects in the external world - a mode of existence that simply is. It is not conscious so it is neither active nor passive and harbors no potentiality for transcendence. This mode of being is relevant to inanimate objects, but not to humans, whom Sartre says must always make a choice.
(March 14, 2012 at 6:10 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: All I am saying is that we share the burden of proof. You must prove the existence of a physical reality independent of a mind that observes it. I must prove the existence of a mind independent of physical reality. Since neither of us can do that both of our ontological claims are equally valid.
That statement shows the critical error of your thinking.
Concepts such as proof, evidence or validity belong to the epistemological field. Your statements here are metaphysical (or ontological) in nature. Epistemology is a derivative of metaphysics, i.e. there are certain metaphysical assumptions it must make before evaluating the concepts such as proof or validity. Using these concepts to judge the validity of ontological claims is attempting to prove/deny the antecedent.
That does not mean that all ontological claims are equally valid. To judge the validity of an ontological claim, we must look to its consistency with the entailing epistemological statements.
When talking about facts or evidence, you are talking about state of reality as it exists - independently of any mind. The mind-independence of reality has already been assumed for any notion of proof to exist. That is the only metaphysical premise from which that concept can rationally entail. Thus, given your epistemological reliance on proof for validity, any contradicting ontological statement automatically becomes invalid.
(March 14, 2012 at 6:26 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: I too want to see the trump card. No sophestries or philosophies or subtle shit.
You do realize that this is a Philosophy forum?
