Paper Example on Berkely's Argument Against Materialism: Likeness, Objects, Anti-Abstractionism

Introduction

The Core Argument attacks and argues against materialism by employing three main principles. These principles include; Likeness principle, Ordinary objects are ideas principle and the principle of Anti-abstractionism. This argument brought out by Berkely establishes that no one can, in reality, be in a position to conceive of any mind-independent object to be material. It is a prevailing opinion by human beings that all the sensible objects like rivers and mountains are naturally existing, an argument that Berkely strongly opposes. He indicates that this opinion is perceived by understanding in mind and does not naturally come to be known. It has to originate from the mind; thus, it is dependent on the mind to validate this truth. The first principle in this argument states that ordinary objects are ideas (Berkeley, 17). Berkely argues in this principle that we do perceive ordinary objects like rivers and mountains as ideas at first before making them material. He claims that we can only immediately perceive ideas to make them material objects. Representing or having a perception that an object is material comes from the mind; therefore, we, in an indirect manner, recognize material things through a direct perception of ideas in the mind, something that is mind-dependent. For that case, external material objects are perceived ideas that can only be from the mind; therefore, they are not mind-independent but dependent.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The second principle in Berkeley's Core Argument is the likeness principle. In this principle, he states that ideas cannot come to existence without the presence of the mind. These ideas in mind can also only be equated to other things that are like them hence are copies of resemblance (Cassam, p21). Berkely argues that an idea is like nothing else but another idea; for example, a figure cannot be like anything else but a figure. In that case, two things can only be said to be alike or unlike not unless they are compared. Thus as Berkely puts it, the mind can only compare ideas of its own but nothing else. By hypothesis, the compared ideas in the mind are the things that have immediately been perceived by the mind. In this principle, material objects can only be extended as either coloured or solid by the sensory qualities of the mind that pertain to ideas. Berkeley's last principle is Anti-abstractionism; in this principle, he claims that for a sensible thing to exist, then it must be perceived by the mind. Therefore, it fully depends on the mind. Then, the mind is the source that can give the view of the existence of things.

Berkeley argues that it is the perception of the mind that helps us explain the uniformity and order in nature, which consequently enables us to carry out scientific analysis according to the idealism. For us to explain the uniformity or order in the world, we need objects to generate ideas. From the scientific point of view, we also need objects for analysis in order to explain the ideas behind the inferences (Cassam, p27). For instance, to explain the fact that I have an idea of a chair every moment, I get to my office is because of the existence of a chair in the office. The idea that I had in prior when I first saw the object and resolving to a perception that the object was a chair originated from the mind. On the other point of view, a friend coming to visit me in the office for the first time have a perception that I have a chair in my office that he will sit on immediately he gets in. This is because of the preformed idea in the mind that in each and every working office, there must be a chair. In this scenario, therefore, we admit that ideas could come into our minds with or without the existence of any external object, instigating them according to Berkley's idealism. The argument thus shows the skepticism that exists in materialism. Bodies like the physical world or the existence of the earth are because of the ideas that are generated in our minds to convince us that it really does exist. Other bodies that exist according to idealism are the mountains, houses, and rivers, among others. These bodies exist in the world as materials because of the idea that we had formed in our minds that they are indeed what we call them.On the other hand, we perceive the bodies by these names because of the resemblance or association of an idea we had formed in our minds as conscious awareness in previous days. The existence of God, according to Berkeley, is also a cause of the sense ideas. He argues that we have never seen God, but we have it in our thoughts that he exists, and He is the one initiating our thoughts. In a nutshell, Berkeley presupposes that everything that one immediately or directly perceives or thinks of is an idea.

Kant Analytic and Synthetic Judgments

Analytical judgments are the statements or truths that lack content that is independent on facts. They only designate knowledge that are self- contained. Analytical truths comprise of both mathematical and logical truths. They are the kinds of judgments that one can make without making any reference to anything or any external object. Analytical judgment is also described as tautological truth, as put by Kant. In the analytical judgment, everything that are contained in the subject concept are all predicate (Proops, p592). The nature of analytical judgment is such that it only explains what is merely on the conception. This judgment, therefore, does not teach us anything beyond an object. It only gives the statements as they were coined without much elaborations on how they were formulated or why something is referred to the way it is. That is, analytical judgments are so plain and only maintain the decisions that were made by those who formulated them. Because analytical judgments do not go beyond our cognitive or a conception of the object in question, as explained by Kant, it merely offers a strong explanation of the conception. Therefore, the nature of analytical judgment is that it is seen to be valid and authentic by only keeping what is contained in it, hence are necessary since they are everywhere true.

Examples of analytic judgment are; a Squares have got four same sides. Meaning, if the object in question did not have four same sides, it would not have been referred to as a square. For this case, a square cannot be investigated from any other four sided shape as there is no other four sided figure that has the same four sides of equal length. This statement is a self-contained truth because it has no further explanation of what a square is; because a square is a just square. The second example is, all bachelors are unmarried. If the man we are referring to was married, they wouldn't have been referred to as a bachelor but instead a married man. The other example is, murder is wrong; this is because it leads to the violation of the intrinsic human right to life. This is an analytical judgment because it offers no further perception. It only tells us that it is wrong to murder somebody because it is not right to murder a person.

Synthetic judgments are judgments that one makes with reference to external things. They are judgments whose predicates are distinct from the subjects because of the existence of a real external connection to the concepts they elaborate. They are informative in nature but need an in-depth justification from an outside principle by reference (De Jong, Willem, p255). The other elaborate nature of synthetic judgment is that they are uncontroversial matters and facts that people come to know by the help of sensory experience. They are also crucial cases because they can give true and new information. According to Kant's explanation, synthetic judgments are very significant as they can provide the basis of human knowledge. Geometry, arithmetic, and natural science all depend on synthetic judgment because of its power to predict and explain logical events.

The three facets falls in the synthetic judgement because they all require further investigation in order to come up with a convincing information.

Examples of synthetic judgments include; Kant was born in 1724; The sky is blue; The Game of Throne is a fantasy fiction. Kant might have been born in 1724, the sky might be blue, and Game of Thrones might be a fantasy fiction. The difference here is that one has to go investigate and find out if these statements are actually the case. Kant might have been born in 1930; the sky might be grey or white depending on the timing and the climatic conditions; therefore, the information given and their sources might be wrong. Game of Thrones might be a soap opera with little elements of fantasy fiction like white walkers, shadows looking like Stannis Baratheon and dragons among other elements of fiction. In this case, one needs to investigate to validate the information provided.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Analytic judgment is a priori judgement because it does not need any experience or further investigation to justify its truth. For example, 10 + 10 = 20 is an information that does not require any investigation because it is true as ten plus ten remains to be twenty and nothing else. They are necessarily true and doesn't need any explicative assertion. Whereas, synthetic judgment is a posteriori judgment because they require further investigation and experience to validate them. For example, all men are unhappy, require one to have experience, or even go for further research to verify the information. All men in this case may be or may not be unhappy depending on their status. One might also be forced to investigate the matter deeply because all this depends on the situation facing men at a given time.

Works Cited

Berkeley, George. Three dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. Broadview Press, 2012.

Cassam, Quassim. "Tackling Berkeley's puzzle." Perception, causation, and objectivity (2011): 18-34.

De Jong, Willem R. "The analytic-synthetic distinction and the classical model of science: Kant, Bolzano, and Frege." Synthese 174.2 (2010): 237-261.

Proops, Ian. "Kant's Conception of analytic judgment." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70.3 (2005): 588-612.