To be is to be perceived

The empiricist philosopher George Berkeley claims that our perception of reality is objective, because we agree on the nature of reality with other people, and other people exist objectively, because they express ideas that have not originated in our mind or been perceived by our senses.

Do you agree? If yes, why? If no, why?

 

i tend to blend empiricism with spiritualism. indeed, it seems to me empiricism is spiritualism. just because it decomposes and dies doesn't mean that of which it is comprised ceases to be, in so many (*choke*) words.


so i agree to disagree, sky.

now i'll take whoopi goldberg for the block.

lol.

much love

 

Hmm. Care to elaborate? I'm afraid I didn't understand your point.

So, if you disagree, do you think reality is nonexistent? Or just subjective?

 

it is quite evident that "reality" is both objective and subjective. that the interaction of objective beings, percieving each other subjectively, shapes what constitutes reality. to say that reality is something people agree on can be made to seem quite farcical, if only you view the exchange of ideas in just this forum. yes, we may both see a chair, and agree to call it a chair. but the chair itself came from many perceptions through many generations of just what would be the most convenient and efficient way to design and modify an object that would be suitable for sitting.

does that clarify for you at all?

i do apologize for my ambiguous approach to philosophical discussion, but their are no specific words that cover the gammut of spirit emanation that flows through me.

much love

 

Of course. That is what I believe, too, by the way.

Still, it's interesting that we can know nothing for sure, as the nature of knowledge and its sources is little known itself...

 

I disagree. this guy is obviously cut off from God by his mind.

 

actually, didn't the empiricist philosophers of that time believe in a deity, a god? i know that locke did. didn't berkely... i believe that he only was refering to the capacity of humanity, not god. correct me if i am wrong here, pink.


much love

 

"Still, it's interesting that we can know nothing for sure, as the nature of knowledge and its sources is little known itself..."
-sky pink

yes, again, regarding knowledge, we are shrouded in ambiguity. but when you sit silently and regard your existance... does it feel so ambiguous? not the forms it takes, but... that which it is, all in and of itself? damn words! lol.

much love

 

Out of the empiricists I know, Hume was an atheist (if I'm not mistaken) and Berkeley believed in God. I don't recall about Locke. It was quite important in Berkeley's case, as it meant that objective reality existed in all cases, because God was always there.

 

Depends on how much you've had to drink...

Anyway, I've always noticed how you can think about general things and think about specific things, but never both at the same time. Meaning, it's impossible to get even a subjectively whole view of reality.

 

i've found that it is possible. if you stop thinking. of course, i may just be delusional. lol. but its a hell of a "view".

really, all of those guys may have in truth been atheists, but in that time period it would have been dangerous for them to admit it. locke was one of the few who was married christian, though i'm not sure exactly what kind he was. i totally dig hume's "just don't talk about it, it's pointless and insoluble" philosophy regarding the nature of god, though i obviously don't ascribe to it. it's widely accepted that voltaire was an atheist, though for the sake of survival in fanatical france, he claimed himself a deist. voltaire, by the way, is my favorite... though he comes somewhat after the first empiricists, and might not necessarily be regarded as one himself. i highly recommend "Candide" and his other tales, they are especially rich in caustic wit, especially in their refutation of liebniz's "best possible world" philosophy.

much love

 

For philosophers, being a theist or an atheist (or an agnostic) is very important, especially in tradicional philosophy, I think. Most of the classical philosophical theories attempt to describe the whole world (at least the general principles of reality). This in turn means they likely didn't ignore God, they had a certain opinion on him.

Of course, whether they openly declared their beliefs is another thing, indeed...

 

Can you actually REMEMBER times when you've stopped thinking?

 

oooo... tricky question. the answer is no. i remember a space unremembered, a something between two remembered spaces... but since i was not actually thinking, there is no landscape, backround for the memory... but there is this extremely tranquil feeling afterwards.... my girlfriend said that i once disappeared out of thin air... but... well, even i'm skeptical. i haven't achieved that state in quite a while, really. too much on my plate to really be that still in the last few years...

much love

 

So one cannot remember wholeness, the whole reality. Interesting.

 

that is, of course, if that is really what i had... er, accomplished. i must be humbly skeptical. like i said, that tranquility... it felt so... absolute? true? complete? i don't know a word that really describes it. it was not the first time i had experienced it, but the first time someone had observed me... disappearing. had i known she was watching, i probably would not have been capable. she was asleep when i began the meditation that led me to that state. as a matter of fact, i think the lack of quietude and privacy is the main reason i have not achieved that state since... i do not lament this, though, as i have a distinct feeling there will be plenty of time for that after my death, which i am to stave off at least long enough to see my daughter grow to become a woman.

much love

 

Both locke and berkley both believed in god..

berkley believed that nothing exists really, only that objects in the empiricle world are only thoughts in our brain, made in the mind of god. so there is nothing that is real about this world, only everything is thoughts and ideas. its called idealism

locke's theories extended to primary and secondry qualities when looking at realism.

all very interesting

i disagree with berkley though, im more of a materialist and a direct realist. i cannot say that with any degree of certainty, but for me direct realism is the way to go

 

How old is your daughter, osiris?

Anyway, some time ago I read a lot about Buddhism. And realized I didn't WANT to detach myself from life and its sufferings. Pointless to wish I did want it...

 

my daughter will be a month and a half old on friday! *proud father beams* every day has been a precious and dear revelation! she naps beside me now, in her bouncy chair. perfectly peaceful and oh so beautiful! .

and yes... i too have finally made a decision to be involved with life, whatever that means. i had to sit back and consider it seriously for a long time, but the birth of my child has decided for me. like i said, plenty of time for emptiness after death. funny that you mention buddhism. people used to ask me if was buddhist all the time, though i didn't know much of anything about it until just recently.

much love

 

she has demon eyes there, but we caught her in the tail end of a smile. her name is Phoenix.