Berkeleys Contention on Unnecessary Abstractions in Philosophy - Research Paper Example

Berkeley’s Contention on Unnecessary ions in Philosophy George Berkeley was an influential idealist philosopher who brilliantly critiqued his predecessors. He was an immensely talented metaphysician and was popular for defending idealism. Idealism is the view, which claims that reality consists exclusively of minds and their ideas. The Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge and Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous is the most studied of his famous works. For instance, Berkeley charges that materialism promotes skepticism and atheism. Why is that? He claims that, materialism promotes skepticism because it is an implication that human senses mislead them to the nature of material things, which do not have to exist at all. Furthermore, it also promotes atheism because in a material world, individuals might be expected to exist without God’s existence (Olscamp 111). However, Berkeley’s main charge against the current philosophical tradition was that philosophers were guilty of complicating knowledge by introducing unnecessary abstractions. It is in this regard that the main focus of this research paper is to defend philosophy against the said charge by stating a position of endorsement and by showing the metaphysical and epistemological issues involved, that is to say, whether abstractions are epistemologically necessary, and whether Berkeley’s metaphysical charges were correct. To start with, the metaphysical and epistemological issues involved in Berkeley’s charge, as opposed to his materialist predecessors, aims to defend idealism and immaterialism. As result, Berkeley argues that no material thing exists; he rejects that material things are mind-independent things or substances, as the rationalists would call it. Hence, he argues that materialism promotes cynicism and disbelief. For this reason, Berkeley presents arguments to prove that when people perceive ordinary objects, they only perceive the idea of those objects and therefore, ordinary objects are mere ideas. Thus, Berkeley defends two metaphysical theses: first, the idealism claiming that everything that exists either is a mind or depends on a mind for its existence (Olscamp 27), and second, the immaterialism which claims that matter does not exist. Herein, Berkeley argues against the common views, which suggest that sensible objects are mind-independent. Sensible objects are perceived by sense only sensations are perceived by sense and, therefore, sensible objects are sensations. Similarly, sensations are mind-independent. Therefore, sensible objects are likewise mind-independent. Lastly, Berkeley implies that premises are obvious. However, he claims that the first is obvious only if indirect perception is allowed, and that the second cannot be obvious if the first one is permeated. In his argument, Berkeley employs philosophical strategy to convince his readers and fellow philosophers. For instance, in his empirical theory of vision, he challenges the account of distance vision, which demands geometrical scheming. He offers alternative account focusing on visual and tactual objects. By offering this account, Berkeley shows that the visual insight of distance is explained by the association of philosophies of prospect and touch. In addition, Berkeley claims that intellectual concepts are the foundation of everything metaphysical mystification and misconception. For instance, in his introduction to the principles of Human knowledge he argues that, Locke can be considered as the best account of abstraction. This is because Locke’s description of abstract ideas seems to suggest that, ideas cannot be formed; they are not essential for communication or information and they are unpredictable thus making them incredible (Olscamp 86). This particular line of argumentation helped in the advancement of philosophy in several ways. Firstly, it helped other philosophers like Immanuel Kant to explore the idea of materialism thus enlightening readers and other philosophical scholars. For instance, some philosophers has accused Berkeley of equivocating, this stems from his implications that premises are obvious. His argument can be construed as sensible objects whether directly or indirectly are perceived by senses, only sensations are directly perceived by sense and only mind-dependent qualities can be indirectly perceived through sensations and; therefore, sensible objects are sensations qualities. On a similar note sensations are mind-independent and; therefore, sensible objects are mind-dependent. Secondly, Berkeley’s line of argument has helped other philosophers to involve themselves with more research for clarity. As a result, they are able to come up with more philosophical ideas, which help readers, to gain knowledge and insights. On the other hand, Berkeley line of argument can be considered as failing philosophical discussions. This is because it seems to suggest that not all that philosophers’ claim is dependable. For this reason, some people may fail to involve themselves in philosophical discussions the fear of critiques. In addition, some philosophers like Locke and Hume might not be able to defend their convictions fully and hence withdraw from philosophical discussions (Olscamp 39). Philosophy can be defined as the study of the essential nature of knowledge, reality and existence. Consequently, it can also be termed as a set of views and theories of a specific philosopher in regard to such study or a facet of it. Therefore, philosophy sharpens basic skills used for critical thinking, problem solving, logic, analysis, clarification and writing. Philosophy also offers a room for critical viewpoints on and the appreciation of ideas and issues. These ideas and issues encompasses everyone within the center of Western intellectual thought which has contributed in intriguing human beings from time immemorial. It also prepares students for varieties of positions of responsibility when applied to specialized training in other disciplines. This will give them an opportunity to bring to their work a range of perspective, depth, flexible intellect, and good skills in critical thinking and communication (Giddens 46). Focusing on the above description of philosophy I think that Berkeley was incorrect in his argument that philosophers are guilty of complicating knowledge by introducing unnecessary abstractions. This is because he fails to make the distinction between what a person knows and what is to be known, or in the slightest, explains the distinction hastily. Therefore, I endorse that philosophers use the flexibility of intellectuality in their research as they think critically and offer their perspective. In addition, abstraction refers to a quality of dealing with ideas itself and not the event. Abstraction can also be termed as anything that exists solely as an idea. Therefore, unlike Berkeley who brings an idea of materialism using physical objects I combine the concept and the material object to form an independent mind (Giddens 31). For this reason, these abstractions argued by Berkeley are epistemologically necessary since epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. Therefore, using this tangible definition Berkeley charges are somehow incorrect. Moreover, Berkeley’s defense in the Principles’ outline of his elimination from the list of conceptions formed by generalization, on which his integration arguments for the mind-dependence of sensations’ potentials depend. Abstraction, for Locke, was a mental operation, in which certain aspects of a particular idea were stripped away. This omits a general idea of which its aspects fits in numerous diverse ways. For example, ideas are a copy of sensational idea and abstract idea is a partial copy. In my own opinion, this stripping away can be done intentionally. As a result, readers, as well as scholars, are offered a room to explore on this context, which gives them a chance to get more informed. Therefore, his argument seems to be one –way- traffic, whereas other philosophers leave a space for other scholars and readers to explore other possible implications (Musgrave 125). This research paper utilizes a linear methodology. This is because I first wrote a general introduction, then I focused on the Metaphysical and epistemological issues involved in the said charge. In this part, I wrote down the understanding of Berkeley’s charge in the light of metaphysics and epistemology. Moreover, I explored the Philosophical strategy employed by Berkeley. This part required a thorough investigation of a logical approach employed by Berkeley himself in his argument. In addition, I discussed how the particular line of argument used failed or helped in advancing philosophical discussions. Lastly, I suggested my own position regarding the said issue. This position depended on my analysis of Berkeley’s charge and his arguments against it. Herein, I gave my own endorsement and a clear argument based on various philosophical concepts. Therefore, this methodology required a point-to-point follow up, thus helping the writer and the reader to understand and write a comprehensive research paper. In conclusion, Berkeley had a particularly solid argument and his abstractions were epistemologically necessary. However, Berkeley was not convincing enough for he could offer only one sided argument. His charges were equivocal which created a forum for other philosophical scholars to challenge him in a very subtle manner. Nevertheless, his philosophical concepts and strategies were right depending on the flexibility of Philosophy as a discipline. Nonetheless, they were not clear enough to either convince or attract the reader and other philosophers. For instance, Berkeley fails to make the distinction between what a person knows and what is to be known, or in the slightest explains the distinction hastily. This is a clear indication that, though applying the philosophical strategy, he lacks clear thoughts to solidify his point of view. Therefore, Berkeley was incorrect in his argument that philosophers are guilt of complicating knowledge by introducing unnecessary abstractions. To show his incorrectness let us focus on one issue of abstraction, for Locke, as a mental operation, in which certain aspects of a particular idea were stripped away. A person can argue that elimination of a certain aspect does not necessarily create an abstraction but rather allows a room for more discussion. As a result, the reader is more enlightened and challenged to research more thus giving him/her a room for gathering more insights regarding a certain issue. Therefore, as philosophy demands, let all readers seek to be enlightened and challenged by philosophical abstractions, rather than to be spoon-fed with today’s technological on-hand information. Works Cited Olscamp, Paul J. The Moral Philosophy of George Berkeley. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1970. Print. Giddens, Anthony. A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. London: Macmillan, 1981. Print. Musgrave, Alan. Common Sense, Science and Scepticism: A Historical Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Print. Read More