How is George Berkeley linked to Philonous?

Question

How is George Berkeley's position, "esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived), related to the question posed by Hylas to Philonous about the "bent oar in the water"?

I know it has something to do with mistaken perception: it is right to think the ore is bent when it is in the water; the mistake occurs in thinking it will be bent when it is removed from the water.

My question: how does this relate to the greater picture of Berkeley's views? What is the importance of the "bent oar" scenario. Is this related to Locke's veil of perception?

Answer 1

Keep in mind that Berkeley's main philosophical argument is one of immaterialism. To him, there are no innate material objects with intrinsic qualities... the only things that are really there are what our senses detect, and NOTHING else.

Hylas tries to bring up the issue of a 'bent oar' as a counter-argument to this notion. He argues that an oar in the water looks bent, but we know that it is not, and that therefore perception is wrong - what you see is NOT what is.

Philonous easily deflects this criticism, however. The problem of the bent oar is not a problem of perception, but one of inference. He argues that seeing the bent oar is indisputable - that is what you see. The error, he suggest, lies in then deciding that just because you see a bent oar, it also means you will FEEL a bent oar, or that you will ALWAYS see it as bent no matter what the conditions are. These are errors of judgment, not perception, and therefore his axiom still holds.

And that is how it relates to Berkeley's wider views too. Most of the critcisms of his ideas follow similar lines.

For example, you probably can't feel the difference in temperature between two objects that are just a degree apart, but you can measure it with a thermometer. Critics would say, 'if you can't feel the difference, it doesn't exist, so how does it show up on a thermometer?'. And the answer is the same - you only feel what you feel, and conclusions you make after that are your own problem.

That's my take, anyway. Hope that helps!

Answer 2

Berkeley is incorrect. Have him clarify strategies death.If somebody is strategies lifeless, their physique nonetheless exists. next flaw is that he needs to tutor the strategies exists. (user-friendly argument a million) next flaw is that the strategies and strategies are separate. If I hit my hand with a hammer, it nonetheless hurts whether i've got faith satisfied or unhappy approximately it. Edit: not coma, strategies lifeless. meaning machines save you alive. And returned I would desire to declare that the strategies and strategies are separate. soreness is registered by way of the strategies that my strategies perceives. yet there's a duality of strategies and physique. and not employing a strategies, the actual physique can't stay. So rely exists by means of fact the physique is fabric.