![]() ![]() ![]() This assumption is defended in an argument found later in the First Dialogue (the Flower Argument), which I also examine in section 3. It is concluded that these arguments are used by Berkeley in his case for the central claim, but that they can only play this role because they involve the assumption that there is no distinction in immediate perception between the act of awareness and the object of awareness. In sections 3 and 4, the Argument from the Causal Theory of Perception and the Identity Argument (based on the claim that there is no distinction between hedonic sensations and sensible qualities) are considered. In section 2, it is concluded that this the Argument from Perceptual Relativity plays no positive role in Berkeley's case for the central claim. The next three sections provide an account of the three arguments which Berkeley employs in his attempt to convince the materialist of the central claim that sensible qualities are existentially dependent on the mind perceiving them. The first section is an examination of Berkeley's grounds for limiting objects of immediate perception to sensible qualities. This claim is central to Berkeley's idealism, since once he has established it, he uses it as the basis from which to argue that apart from minds nothing exists but what these minds immediately perceive. Berkeley's arguments in the first of Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous for the claim that the objects of immediate perception are existentially dependent on the mind perceiving them are examined. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |