регистрация / вход

Locke Berkeley And Hume Essay Research Paper

Locke Berkeley And Hume Essay, Research Paper Enlightenment began with an unparalleled confidence in human reason. The new science’s success in making clear the natural world through Locke, Berkeley, and

Locke Berkeley And Hume Essay, Research Paper

Enlightenment began with an unparalleled confidence in human reason. The new

science’s success in making clear the natural world through Locke, Berkeley, and

Hume affected the efforts of philosophy in two ways. The first is by locating

the basis of human knowledge in the human mind and its encounter with the

physical world. Second is by directing philosophy’s attention to an analysis of

the mind that was capable of such cognitive success. John Locke set the tone for

enlightenment by affirming the foundational principle of empiricism: There is

nothing in the intellect that was not previously in the senses. Locke could not

accept the Cartesian rationalist belief in innate ideas. According to Locke, all

knowledge of the world must ultimately rest on man’s sensory experience. The

mind arrives at sound conclusions through reflection after sensation. In other

words the mind combines and compounds sensory impressions or "ideas"

into more complex concepts building it’s conceptual understanding. There was

skepticism in the empiricist position mainly from the rationalist orientation.

Locke recognized there was no guarantee that all human ideas of things genuinely

resembled the external objects they were suppose to represent. He also realized

he could not reduce all complex ideas, such as substance, to sensations. He did

know there were three factors in the process of human knowledge: the mind, the

physical object, and the perception or idea in the mind that represents that

object. Locke, however, attempted a partial solution to such problems. He did

this by making the distinction between primary and secondary qualities. Primary

qualities produce ideas that are simply consequences of the subject’s perceptual

apparatus. With focusing on the Primary qualities it is thought that science can

gain reliable knowledge of the material world. Locke fought off skepticism with

the argument that in the end both types of qualities must be regarded as

experiences of the mind. Lockes Doctrine of Representation was therefore

undefendable. According to Berkley’s analysis all human experience is

phenomenal, limited to appearances in the mind. One’s perception of nature is

one’s mental experience of nature, making all sense data "objects for the

mind" and not representations of material substances. In effect while Locke

had reduced all mental contents to an ultimate basis in sensation, Berkeley now

further reduced all sense data to mental contents. The distinction, by Locke,

between qualities that belong to the mind and qualities that belong to matter

could not be sustained. Berkeley sought to overcome the contemporary tendency

toward "atheistic Materialism" which he felt arose without just cause

with modern science. The empiricist correctly aims that all knowledge rests on

experience. In the end, however, Berkeley pointed out that experience is nothing

more than experience. All representations, mentally, of supposed substances,

materially, are as a final result ideas in the mind presuming that the existence

of a material world external to the mind as an unwarranted assumption. The idea

is that "to be" does not mean "to be a material substance;"

rather "to be" means "to be perceived by a mind." Through

this Berkeley held that the individual mind does not subjectively determine its

experience of the world. The reason that different individuals continually

percieve a similar world and that a reliable order inheres in that world is that

the world and its order depend on a mind that transcends individual minds and is

universal (God’s mind). The universal mind produces sensory ideas in individual

minds according to certain regularities such as the "laws of nature."

Berkeley strived to preserve the empiricist orientation and solve Lockes

representation problems, while also preserving a spiritual foundation for human

experience. Just as Berkeley followed Locke, so did David Hume of Berkeley. Hume

drove the empiricist epistemological critique to its final extreme by using

Berkeley’s insight only turning it in a direction more characteristic of the

modern mind. Being an empiricist who grounded all human knowledge in sense

experience, Hume agreed with Lockes general idea, and too with Berkeley’s

criticism of Lockes theory of representation, but disagreed with Berkeley’s

idealist solution. Behind Hume’s analysis is this thought: Human experience was

indeed of the phenomenal only, of sense impressions, but there was no way to

ascertain what was beyond the sense impressions, spiritual or otherwise. To

start his analysis, Hume distinguished between sensory impressions and ideas.

Sensory impressions being the basis of any knowledge coming with a force of

liveliness and ideas being faint copies of those impressions. The question is

then asked, What causes the sensory impression? Hume answered None. If the mind

analyzes it’s experience without preconception, it must recognize that in fact

all its supposed knowledge is based on a continuous chaotic volley of discrete

sensations, and that on these sensations the mind imposes an order of its own.

The mind can’t really know what causes the sensations because it never

experiences "cause" as a sensation. What the mind does experience is

simple impressions, through an association of ideas the mind assumes a causal

relation that really has no basis in a sensory impression. Man can not assume to

know what exists beyond the impressions in his mind that his knowledge is based

on. Part of Hume’s intention was to disprove the metaphysical claims of

philosophical rationalism and its deductive logic. According to Hume, two kinds

of propositions are possible. One view is based purely on sensation while the

other purely on intellect. Propositions based on sensation are always with

matters of concrete fact that can also be contingent. "It is raining

outside" is a proposition based on sensation because it is concrete in that

it is in fact raining out and contingent in the fact that it could be different

outside like sunny, but it is not. In contrast to that a proposition based on

intellect concerns relations between concepts that are always necessary like

"all squares have four equal sides." But the truths of pure reason are

necessary only because they exist in a self contained system with no mandatory

reference to the external world. Only logical definition makes them true by

making explicit what is implicit in their own terms, and these can claim no

necessary relation to the nature of things. So, the only truths of which pure

reason is capable are redundant. Truth cannot be asserted by reason alone for

the ultimate nature of things. For Hume, metaphysics was just an exalted form of

mythology, of no relevance to the real world. A more disturbing consequence of

Hume’s analysis was its undermining of empirical science itself. The mind’s

logical progress from many particulars to a universal certainty could never be

absolutely legitimated. Just because event B has always been seen to follow

event A in the past, that does not mean it will always do so in the future. Any

acceptance of that "law" is only an ingrained psychological

persuasion, not a logical certainty. The causal necessity that is apparent in

phenomena is the necessity only of conviction subjectively, of human imagination

controlled by its regular association of ideas. It has no objective basis. The

regularity of events can be perceived, however, there necessity can not. The

result is nothing more than a subjective feeling brought on by the experience of

apparent regularity. Science is possible, but of the phenomenal only, determined

by human psychology. With Hume, the festering empiricist stress on sense

perception was brought to its ultimate extreme, in which only the volley and

chaos of those perceptions exist, and any order imposed on those perceptions was

arbitrary, human, and without objective foundation. For Hume all human knowledge

had to be regarded as opinion and he held that ideas were faint copies of

sensory impressions instead of vice – versa. Not only was the human mind less

than perfect, it could never claim access to the world’s order, which could not

be said to exist apart from the mind. Locke had retained a certain faith in the

capacity of the human mind to grasp, however imperfectly, the general outlines

of an external world by means of combining operations. With Berkeley, there had

been no necessary material basis for experience, though the mind had retained a

certain independent spiritual power derived from God’s mind, and the world

experienced by the mind derived its order from the same source.

ОТКРЫТЬ САМ ДОКУМЕНТ В НОВОМ ОКНЕ

ДОБАВИТЬ КОММЕНТАРИЙ [можно без регистрации]

Ваше имя:

Комментарий