1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't know. Berkeley talks about what exists, I think, not what is real. He contends that it's impossible for us to talk meaningfully about things that exist independently, outside the mind. In other words for us 'matter' can only be an idea, not something that exists independently, outside of the mind. It doesn't follow from this view that things therefore come into existence only when they are perceived -- just that they only do so in that way for us. (I think this is a strawman frequently foisted on Berkeley.)
If a tree falls in the forest...
If we take the BI view of the universe, what does "to be real" mean?
The 'tree falling in a forest' koan is quite apt.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt's still a play with words, in my view. The concept of "mind" is a dualist concept, so it's pretty meaningless without matter. Moreover, how can perceptions arise without anything existing independently of this weird 'mind' concept?
I don't know. Berkeley talks about what exists, I think, not what is real. He contends that it's impossible for us to talk meaningfully about things that exist independently, outside the mind. In other words for us 'matter' can only be an idea, not something that exists independently, outside of the mind. It doesn't follow from this view that things th ...[text shortened]... man frequently foisted on Berkeley.)
The 'tree falling in a forest' koan is quite apt.
I understand how we cannot really grasp what matter truly is (the more Kantian view), but to deny it exists entirely begs too many questions.
Originally posted by PalynkaYou're repeating the strawman I mentioned. Berkeley doesn't say that 'there is nothing outside the mind', only that all things we can talk about are ideas. In that regard, I don't see the difference between Berkeley and Kant. Do you?
It's still a play with words, in my view. The concept of "mind" is a dualist concept, so it's pretty meaningless without matter. Moreover, how can perceptions arise without anything existing independently of this weird 'mind' concept?
I understand how we cannot really grasp what matter truly is (the more Kantian view), but to deny it exists entirely begs too many questions.
As it happens, I don't think 'mind' need necessarily be a dualist concept. I think for Berkeley it tends towards the monadic ...
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThen I don't know enough to comment, as my view of BI is wrong...
You're repeating the strawman I mentioned. Berkeley doesn't say that 'there is nothing outside the mind', only that all things we can talk about are ideas. In that regard, I don't see the difference between Berkeley and Kant. Do you?
As it happens, I don't think 'mind' need necessarily be a dualist concept. I think for Berkeley it tends towards the monadic ...
Originally posted by Palynka"Aquire" a property in the country. Build a house in the middle. Grow heaps of Diviners Sage. Surround your house with it. Stay in your house.Only let close family and absolutely trusted persons visit you. Anyone else who wants to visit must smoke a cone of Diviners Sage first. Then you will get an understanding of what 'being real' means.
If a tree falls in the forest...
If we take the BI view of the universe, what does "to be real" mean?
Originally posted by karoly aczelFascinating.
"Aquire" a property in the country. Build a house in the middle. Grow heaps of Diviners Sage. Surround your house with it. Stay in your house.Only let close family and absolutely trusted persons visit you. Anyone else who wants to visit must smoke a cone of Diviners Sage first. Then you will get an understanding of what 'being real' means.