ipl-logo

Aristotle Vs Berkeley

948 Words4 Pages

This essay will be comparing and exploring the ideas of Aristotle and Berkeley as they relate to the fundamental question of whether objects exist independently of our minds. I will be evaluating their theories and doctrines, and identifying the weaknesses in their claims. Aristotle and Berkeley were very different philosophers who have very opposed views.
Aristotle’s theories for metaphysics clearly convey his belief that objects do have an independent existence from our minds. He claims that the physical things in this world, be it changeable or impermanent, are reality. Aristotle’s metaphysical theory breaks objects into two distinct categories; primary beings (substances) and secondary quantities. A substance, as defined by Aristotle is …show more content…

Berkeley claims that the highest level of reality is in our own minds. He essentially believes that objects do not have independent existence from our minds. Berkeley’s idealistic theory claims that we cannot be sure of material objects or anything in the external world but because the perception still exists in our minds reality must be purely mental. This means that I cannot be sure if the desk in front of me is actually present, but I can be sure of my mental perception of that desk. Berkeley draws on his religious beliefs as he goes on further to say that we require God’s infinite mind as a presupposition. He claims that God’s mind contains everything, and we are in God’s mind. So we see a copy of the perfect object that is in God’s mind, so that is how two people see the same thing even if the perception is in their minds. Berkeley utilises his theory about God’s mind to also explain how things existed before we discovered them, like stars and planets. George Berkeley does elucidate that he does not deny that objects exist; he just denies that they have physical existence. Berkeley’s cogito ‘esse est percipi’ (to be is to be perceived) and his theories clearly illuminate his belief that objects do not have independent existence from our …show more content…

One of Aristotle’s theory’s flaws is regarding his explanation of a substance. He says a substance is formed using a form of the object and matter (using the form as a mould and matter as a filling), but this definition makes the substance partly mental because a form of an object is only held within the mind. This then disproves his belief that objects have an independent existence from the mind. George Berkeley, like Aristotle, also has flaws in his doctrine. He claims that everything we see is a copy of the true form that exists in God’s mind. This should then mean that there would be a true form of every human to ever exist in God’s mind. Another problem with Berkeley’s doctrine is that if he claims we exist in God’s mind, and everything we perceive is also in God’s mind, would that mean that God’s mind contains a different perception of reality and form for animals as they do not perceive the world in the same way that humans do? Does that also mean that God’s mind contains true forms of other entities that are perceived/believed by other religions? Berkley’s doctrine leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and Aristotle’s theory somewhat contradicts itself. Regardless of their flaws both philosophers raise strong points to prove their point of view. Aristotle cleverly separates physical objects into two categories to distinguish a difference certain objects. Berkeley

Show More
Related
213 Words | 1 Pages

He further to response to Princess Elisabeth question by introducing to her what is called (Cartesian Dualism) he uses these to explain to her that the mind, soul and the body are not the same and can never be same, which came to conclude that your mind cannot be your body and your body cannot be your mind. He also explains

Read More
126 Words | 1 Pages

The author uses this objection as an example to prove that Descartes’s idea of the mind and body existing without each because he imagines It, is wrong. Visualizing is not a very dependable way of proving something

Read More
1199 Words | 5 Pages

He claims that Berkeley’s theory of idealism does not give an adequate account of illusions and hallucinations. Hylas argues that since we perceive bundles of ideas, there must be an idea that corresponds to illusions we experience; however, we do not say that the physical object is as it looks in the illusion. He says, for example, if we see an oar in water, it will appear bent to us. Then if we lift the oar out of the water we will see that it is really straight thus the bent appearance of the oar was an illusion caused by the refraction of the water. His question is therefore, if the oar is nothing in reality over the way it is perceived, then is it really straight or is it crooked?

Read More
621 Words | 3 Pages

Injustice the Cornerstone of Sadness Once upon a time a civil rights activist named Martin Luther King Jr. declared, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” (“Injustice Quotes”). Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird has the recurring theme of injustice which rears its head in varying ways. Citizens of Maycomb from all social classes possesse many preconceived notions about people that lived differently from themselves, and this often resulted in injustice.

Read More
1695 Words | 7 Pages

Humans perceive our surroundings through our various senses; it has been argued that all of these feelings and impressions exist only within the perceiver’s mind. Irish philosopher and Empiricist George Berkeley argues in his Three Dialogues that heat and cold that we directly perceive is no different from pain or pleasure, which are ideas that only exist in the mind, since these feelings stem from the mind as a result of our contact with the outside world (Radcliffe, McCarty, Allhoff, and Vaidya 56). In this essay, I will provide arguments to justify that Berkeley’s pleasure-pain argument fails to justify his claim that pain and pleasure can only exist in one’s mind. In Berkeley’s

Read More
862 Words | 4 Pages

In order for his opinions and knowledge not to interfere with his perception, he chose to doubt everything. And so, he even chose to doubt the existence of the physical body and continued to stay

Read More
1919 Words | 8 Pages

Conclusion: The mind is substantively different from the body and indeed matter in general. Because in this conception the mind is substantively distinct from the body it becomes plausible for us to doubt the intuitive connection between mind and body. Indeed there are many aspects of the external world that do not appear to have minds and yet appear none the less real in spite of this for example mountains, sticks or lamps, given this we can begin to rationalize that perhaps minds can exist without bodies, and we only lack the capacity to perceive them.

Read More
1032 Words | 5 Pages

According to Aristotle, substance is independent of anything else. A cat, a person, and a tree would all be examples of substances. Other things might depend on substance, but substance does not depend upon them (Solomon, page 142). For example, a cat can exist without a tail, but the tail of a cat cannot exist without the cat itself. A substance can be defined in terms of what is essential (142).

Read More
717 Words | 3 Pages

In order to answer any metaphysical questions it is essential that one looks at Aristotle’s four causes. The four causes help us to better understand what a changing, living thing is. But for the sake of understanding Aristotle’s doctrine of the four causes I will discuss the four causes with reference to a wooden table though it is a non-living thing. Aristotle said that there are four things, or “causes”, one can point to in answering why something exists. These four causes are: The Material Cause, The Efficient Cause, The Formal Cause and The Final Cause.

Read More
1520 Words | 7 Pages

Thus, he argues that a body can exist without thought, since thinking is not in the essence of a body. As

Read More
600 Words | 3 Pages

Philosophy of mind has a dilemma: On the one hand, much of reality is explainable with purely physical terms. This forms the foundation of modern science, one of the main pillars of the modern world. On the other hand, with human beings, there is least an appearance of a mental realm, because we seem to have features such as free will. This appearance is recognizable even to those who are committed to physicalism.

Read More
1196 Words | 5 Pages

God’s existence is the fundamental reason Decartes can completely rule out the possibility of doubt in clear and distinct ideas. I hope I have shown that from Decartes’ idea of perfection it follows that the Perfect God would not have created human beings with a defected faculty of judgment, because deceit is a flaw and God is flawless. Goodness and willing what is good are perfect attributes, which is why God created human beings with perfects intellects. The intellect enables you to distinguish what is true from what is false because it can have clear and distinct

Read More
1104 Words | 5 Pages

It embodies the insight that there is a serious muddle at the centre of the whole of Descartes theory of knowledge. He says that we do not hold a clear idea of the mind to make out much. ‘He thinks that although we have knowledge through the idea of body, we know the mind “only through consciousness, and because of this, our knowledge of it is imperfect” (3–2.7, OCM 1:451; LO 237). Knowledge through ideas is superior because it involves direct access to the “blueprints” for creation in the divine understanding, whereas in consciousness we are employing our own weak cognitive resources that

Read More
1572 Words | 7 Pages

While Aristotle, did not believe Plato’s thinking of the Forms, his thinking was that the soul is not made of a form of objects that that’s on the shape of a material thing, but consists of the same higher substance or spiritual being in his metaphysics theological thinking. For Aristotle, the world beyond is where the physical immortal substance exists, and is developed through the belief that there is a higher being that gives us our soul. Based on Aristotle theories on human development, he has played a major role in bioethics. Bioethics is another branch of philosophy and biology, the study of living things. In reference to James Fieser from applied ethics, “Aristotle held a position now called delayed hominization: human fetuses only gradually acquire their souls, and in the early stages of pregnancy the fetus is not fully human”.

Read More
526 Words | 3 Pages

He argues that the body and soul are two elements that have the same underlying substance. He maintains that a person’s soul is the same as his nature of body; however, he argues that the mind differed from other parts of the body as it lacked a physical feature. In this case, he maintains that the intellect lacks a physical form, and this allows it to receive every form. It allows a person to think about anything, including the material object. In this case, he argues that if the intellect were in a material form, it could be sensitive to only some physical objects.

Read More

More about Aristotle Vs Berkeley

Related Topics

Open Document