George Berkeley, Common-sense Realist

By -
"According to Berkeley, the perceived world is itself a language -- or, rather, a discourse in a language. Berkley intends this claim quite literally. It is the linguistic structure of the perceived world that our thought and speech about co-instantiation, physical causation, and other structural concepts aims to capture. In this way, I argue, Berkeley succeeds in preserving the common sense and scientific structure of the perceived world... Bodies can be regarded as a joint product of God's activity as speaker and our activities as interpreters and grammarians of nature." -- Pearce, Language and the Structure of Berkeley's World, pp. 2-3

Comments

  1. Keshav Srinivasan8:34 PM

    Gene, I don't think it makes sense to call Berkeley a common sense realist. For one thing, our common-sense understanding of the world would say that there is nothing incoherent about there being a house that is currently unperceived by any conscious mind (human or divine). Berkeley, on the other hand, would have us believe, contrary to common sense, that it is incoherent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah4:18 AM

      To the contrary, Berkeley shows that position is incoherent *per common sense*.

      Delete
    2. Keshav Srinivasan10:00 AM

      Gene, what do you think is the best place to read the argument that there's something incoherent about there being a house unperceived by any conscious mind? Berkeley's own works, or the works of Collingwood, or your paper about Stove, or what? Who do you think phrases the argument most clearly and persuasively?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more