I do not agree. Berkeley takes "matter" in very much the way of Aristotle. That's how he manages to conceive of substance without matter.
I believe that Berkeley is actually demonstrating the incorrectness of this 'new' way of conceiving of "matter" by showing how these ideas that people have about "matter" do not hold up if we adhere to principles.
The quote you provided seems to agree with me. Berkeley was criticizing the 'new' conception of matter. — Metaphysician Undercover
physicists have not been deterred from subtitling their books things like: "the quest for the ultimate nature of reality," or "what is real?" etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus
…..with David Hume and the advent of modern philosophy, the whole concept of natural causation is thrown into question. — Wayfarer
To conflate what comes first in time with what is most fundamental in being is to mistake the descriptive for the ontological. — Wayfarer
The logical relations and causal connections we discern in the world are only possible because the world is idea—a representation shaped by the mind. — Wayfarer
But the world as idea… only appears with the opening of the first eye.' — Wayfarer
Zeno's paradoxes, and the idea of infinite divisibility, had cast doubt toward the reality of spatial continuity. — Metaphysician Undercover
Where does Berkeley lay out an alternative theory of matter? I mostly recall him being fairly adamant about wholly eliminating matter ("immaterialism"), even for non-representationalists (in the Dialogues).
In any event, I was thinking of the "matter" of those he spends most of his time criticizing (e.g. Locke). — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes, I'll concede that, but there's nothing in Berkeley's philosophy that corresponds with the 'morphe' of Aristotle's hylomorphism. — Wayfarer
Hmmm….dammit, you’re right, I forgot about that. In the strictest possible sense of spatial continuity, yours is the stronger for being deferred to the temporal, but for the common understanding of the ordinary man…of which there are decidedly many more than philosophers per se….that a thing is in his way is very much more apparent than the notion that if he waits long enough, it won’t be. — Mww
Sense observation is of the external, therefore producing principles of spatial separations and movements. "Time" as being understood through internal reflection, and logical comparisons, is secondary. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. There's only one table, but there are two different ways of looking at, or thinking about, the table. One perspective is scientific (particles & forces in space) and the other philosophical (appearances & phenomena). Scientists use artificial extensions of human senses in order to study the hidden world beyond surface appearances. Philosophers use the scientific information to look inside the human mind, and to imagine how meta-physical ideas relate to physical reality. :smile:What I'm trying to say here is that the "appearance of solidity", and the sensation of weight, and the visual image of a rock, are all mental functions. If you see a gray mass, and you believe it to be solid & massive, you will refrain from kicking it. Unless, of course, you are trying to demonstrate that something is there "that is not solely mental". You know from personal experience that your mind/body requires a door in order to "pass through a wall". — Gnomon
Eddington's Two Tables — Wayfarer
Yes. Biology & Physics give us a look inside the skull of an observer. From those facts we can construct a mechanical model of how the brain produces ideas. However, there remains an unexplained gap, between neuronal networks and mental functions, that Meta-physics can bridge with reasoning & imagination*1. :smile:I do agree the world is a construction of the mind. We don't even need metaphysics to establish this, — Manuel
.Have I made myself clear? ... The overcoming of morality by itself, through truthfulness, the moralist's overcoming of himself in his opposite—in me—that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, Why I am a Fatality § 3
I’m sorry, but “opening of the first eye” is absurd, if such is meant even remotely literal. To reconcile the absurdity, we are forced to admit the metaphor merely represents some arbitrary initial impact on a fully developed rational intelligence. — Mww
Since all imaginable characteristics of objects depend on the modes in which they are apprehended by perceiving subjects, then without at least tacitly assumed presuppositions relating to the former (subject) no sense can be given to terms purporting to denote the latter (object). In short, it is impossible to talk about material objects at all, and therefore even so much as to assert their existence, without the use of words the conditions of whose intelligibility derive from the experience of perceiving subjects. — Bryan Magee, Schopenhauer's Philosophy
Isn't this where the colloquial "go kick rocks" comes from? — DifferentiatingEgg
I believe the shift away from Aristotelianism, in the way that "matter" is conceived, is derived from the physicists. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, it comes from the Samuel Johnson anecdote, which is described in the OP. — Wayfarer
Since all imaginable characteristics of objects depend on the modes in which they are apprehended by perceiving subjects, then without at least tacitly assumed presuppositions relating to the former (subject) no sense can be given to terms purporting to denote the latter (object). In short, it is impossible to talk about material objects at all, and therefore even so much as to assert their existence, without the use of words the conditions of whose intelligibility derive from the experience of perceiving subjects. — Bryan Magee, Schopenhauer's Philosophy
So, while it is an empirical fact that universe pre-existed conscious beings, the way in which it exists outside of, or before, conscious beings is unknowable as a matter of principle — Wayfarer
So, while it is an empirical fact that universe pre-existed conscious beings, the way in which it exists outside of, or before, conscious beings is unknowable as a matter of principle, as the knowledge we have of it, which is considerable, is still held within that intellectual framework. — Wayfarer
If you are sad – very sad inside, to the point of despair – and you look at yourself in the mirror, you may be crying. So you will see tears flowing down your face and contorted muscles, but not for a moment would you think that those tears and contorted muscles are the whole story. You know that behind those tears, there is the thing in itself – the real thing – which is your sadness. So the tears and the muscles are the extrinsic appearance, the representation of an inner reality. — Mind over Matter
So what happened to spatial movements making the concept of time necessary, rather than merely secondary? — Mww
Where can I read about the reducing of time to an aspect of space? — Mww
So what happened to spatial movements making the concept of time necessary, rather than merely secondary?
— Mww
Spatial movements are what make 'the concept' of time necessary. — Metaphysician Undercover
Where can I read about the reducing of time to an aspect of space?
— Mww
This is relativity theory. It's known as spacetime, in which time becomes the fourth dimension of space. — Metaphysician Undercover
that Meta-physics can bridge with reasoning & imagination*1. — Gnomon
There is always going to be a metaphysical component in epistemology, but it's quite small. — Manuel
It seems to me a matter of rather routine observations. — wonderer1
Don't scientists subscribe to a massive metaphysical commitment, that reality can be understood? — Tom Storm
Doesn't epistemology rely upon metaphysical commitments for it to make sense? I'm not sure one can meaningfully talk about what we can know unless we have resovled what there is and somehow we continually end up in a tail chasing discussion about whether an external world exists outside our perception and what it is. Not to mention the quesion of time and space - are they products of the cognitive apparatus of human minds, or do they exist? Don't scientists subscribe to a massive metaphysical commitment, that reality can be understood? — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.