Berkeley does not eliminate matter, but rather lifts it to the level of spirit. Those who immediately and arrogantly dismiss Berkeley deprive themselves of the beauty of this idea.
Berkeley refutes idea of matter as being absurd. He says it might as well exist but it has no effect on our mind or we have any way of knowing if and what it is. For example our solar system is there only until any mind is able perceiving it. Once there are no minds to perceive our earth, moon and sun. These would at once cease to turn, shine and be there, absolutely. And we have no way of knowing what the earthly life, reality is deprived of all the perceptual qualities. And if there is any substance behind the perceptual field.
Exactly. The most important line of his that expresses that is, I paraphrase: I do not propose to make things into ideas but ideas into things. If you know the exact quote, please share.
@@JohannesNiederhauserNo, he says the idea of the matter of the corpuscularists (materialists) is absurd, that there is something that we can affirm exists that has never and cannot in principle be known.
Thank you for covering Ireland’s most intriguing philosopher(Ireland was viewed as British at this time). I do believe the Dublin Bishop significantly influenced Kant and the genesis of the great German idealist epoch.
Thanks for pointing out the complexity of empiricism. For Berkeley matter was an absurd idea, but same is if we switch it for God or Simulation and etc. I'd rather stick to the idea our cognition is limited to understand fully what empiricism implies. And our inherently religious and individualistic tradition prevents most people see themselves nothing but a random collection of common ideas co- existing in a network of sensual perceptions and language. Where matter, god, mind, I, we is just chimeras we create for our everyday comfort.
You made this video quite enjoyable! Saying so because I see you have liked recent comments.. I heard about Berkeley in a video explaining different theories of quantum mechanics, immortality, and bio/neo-briocentrism. Would you say the work of Berkeley, especially since you refer to him as a dogmatic idealist, is irrelevant to those ideas/ discussions? Or just another perspective?
it's out of context, but yes, being is being perceived, and as he wrote in the pre-'psychology' era, we know now that social shunning is the most effective way to 'erase' one from reality, obviously as social beings. and that in order for us to have 'impact' and for us to 'realize' ourselves and to 'influence' others we must be perceived/heard/seen. and also yesterday had epiphany that the history of philosophy is about what is revealed, finding truth, discovery ... from platonic forms and greek aletheia thru the uncanny of freud to the disclosure of heidegger. and that every time something new is hinted at or posited there is a dramatic resistance to it, but gradually layer upon layer is revealed, and the new layers effect our understanding of old layers, and it's all new yet strangely familiar as well, that which is freshly revealed. so yes ... one is all important in the moment and in the eventuality of time all is one once again. and 'again' is just 'a gain' over and over, a new form of addition and eventual dissolution; the eternal return. and without vision, a human is lost in understanding the world around them, just as without 'vision' (towards the future) humans are lost in progress towards continually finding meaning.
This is perfect for sleeping. Don’t get me wrong, it is also super interesting. I promise I’ll listen to it twice tomorrow. Just your voice would be perfect for telling stories.
Great video Johannes! Do you see much of a difference between materialists and physicalists? I'm against both but the latter tries to say its more inclusive of phenomena. What can I use to counter it?
In general, one can always question the presuppositions and silent assumptions someone makes in their arguments and then "attack" those. Often, you will find, people make crude assumptions or simply posit something as given, obvious, self-explanatory etc.
Philosophers tend to prove their philosophy (instead of just showing the value of thinking their way and present a consistent philosophic theory) by delivering evidence and by argumentative rejecting other or even opposed philosophies. That's a big mistake. Neither materialism nor idealism (and of course solipsism) can be proved or refuted. It's not possible. By trying to do so anyway they create statements which are refutable. Finally they end up with being refuted, although not their ideas can be or were refuted, but only the way they tried to prove their philosophy was refuted. So Berkeley created a flawed argumentation to show up some evidence. Berkeley divided matter into two different parts, a perceivable part and a part of "matter as itself" which is not perceivable. On first sight that's a good strategy, because denying the first part would lead to an absurd statement "There is no perception of matter or the perception of matter has nothing to do with matter" and denying the existence of "matter as itself" directly leads to Berkeley's position. Great! But unfortunately Berkeley withholds the fact, that matter is not perceived directly by the mind but by a thing called "senses". If you honor the fact that "matter as itself" does, maybe ;), nothing else than triggering our senses by the way of "matter as itself" is existing, then there is no dualism of matter in Berkeley's argumentation, so the existence of matter this way can't be shown as impossible or irrelevant. Unfortunately Berkeley could not let go god and the compulsion of proving god's existence f*cked up his whole philosophy, although this philosophy was a great step forward to a basic class of idealism. At this point I have to leave some criticism to Mr. Niederhauser cause he seems to reject idealism as a position which has to lead to god or absurd consequences in general. I really wonder how a person can have the idea that a lot of quite intelligent people are too stupid not to realize such inevitable consequences, but he/she does. Of course idealism is not more absurd or goddish than materialism. Try to reject the following statements and I will destroy the argument. - Materialistic philosophies as a class can't be proven or refuted - Idealistic philosophies as a class can't be proven or refuted - Materialistic philosophies are more related to reality than idealistic philosophies - Idealistic philosophies are more related to reality than materialistic philosophies - Idealistic philosophies are more "goddish" than materialistic philosophies - Calling a class of philosophy "absurd" _always_ refers to a lack of understanding If someone states "there is always something illusionary if you have only access to ideas" he has not developed his mind sufficiently. The idea of what is real and what is illusion is deeply implanted in the part of our mind which we call "good judgement". Unfortunately there is a lot of Hoax stuff in this section. To put it in simple words, an "mental native" human has some expectations how a real world has to be. If he realize that some of the needed properties or markers are missing, he starts to feel unreal or consider things as illusionary. This is a mental Hoax! Once you realized how it works and how ridiculous it is, you can drop it and a lot more things can become "real". When is a simulation given? When there is another reality, which is different from the human reality, in which the human reality is created and/or controlled. Without another reality which is considered as the "real or true" reality, it is not possible to have a simulation. Does Idealism creates _another_ "real or true" reality? Of course not. To call idealism and the idea of a simulated world similar or related is based on an immature understanding of what is reality. I do not expect any answers, this is time intense and maybe feels awkward. It's already nice to let it live, because it maybe triggers one or two minds to think twice. Thank you.
nice, i like terming him a dogmatic idealist and Kant as a transcendental idealist. for Berkeley then perceiving is seeing God - interesting yet rather simplistic idea. the ideal and immaterial. but yet in a way it's true that matter doesn't exist, and that all is energy, or forces, in a way. so it is basically explanatory Berkeley's concept, but highly un-utilitarian and impractical when trying to exist and develop 'in the world'. Berkeley's respect for spirit, however, is an essential element of idealism. our phenomenology, our physical engagement with the natural world innately has an equivalence with nature; we are built of the same material and exchange sensory info exactly via the means nature produces it, and vice versa. so all interactions are real and revealing of information in that sense, but yet the essence of this exchange (molecules, atoms, quarks, etc.) have their own metaphysical reality that is of another level. ... and all of this is fine, and in an entirely other way doesn't really 'matter' (excuse the pun) because the real question is the ontological one - what is life, what is being, and why are we here? (etc.)
Berkeley does not eliminate matter, but rather lifts it to the level of spirit. Those who immediately and arrogantly dismiss Berkeley deprive themselves of the beauty of this idea.
Perhaps. But he does not say that matter is something absurd to believe in?
Berkeley refutes idea of matter as being absurd. He says it might as well exist but it has no effect on our mind or we have any way of knowing if and what it is. For example our solar system is there only until any mind is able perceiving it. Once there are no minds to perceive our earth, moon and sun. These would at once cease to turn, shine and be there, absolutely. And we have no way of knowing what the earthly life, reality is deprived of all the perceptual qualities. And if there is any substance behind the perceptual field.
Exactly. The most important line of his that expresses that is, I paraphrase: I do not propose to make things into ideas but ideas into things. If you know the exact quote, please share.
@@JohannesNiederhauserNo, he says the idea of the matter of the corpuscularists (materialists) is absurd, that there is something that we can affirm exists that has never and cannot in principle be known.
Excellent! This really helped my prepare for class
Thank you! Very glad to hear that
@@JohannesNiederhauser This analysis is so good, I am a subscriber.
Thank you for covering Ireland’s most intriguing philosopher(Ireland was viewed as British at this time). I do believe the Dublin Bishop significantly influenced Kant and the genesis of the great German idealist epoch.
Thanks for pointing out the complexity of empiricism. For Berkeley matter was an absurd idea, but same is if we switch it for God or Simulation and etc. I'd rather stick to the idea our cognition is limited to understand fully what empiricism implies. And our inherently religious and individualistic tradition prevents most people see themselves nothing but a random collection of common ideas co- existing in a network of sensual perceptions and language. Where matter, god, mind, I, we is just chimeras we create for our everyday comfort.
You made this video quite enjoyable! Saying so because I see you have liked recent comments.. I heard about Berkeley in a video explaining different theories of quantum mechanics, immortality, and bio/neo-briocentrism. Would you say the work of Berkeley, especially since you refer to him as a dogmatic idealist, is irrelevant to those ideas/ discussions? Or just another perspective?
it's out of context, but yes, being is being perceived, and as he wrote in the pre-'psychology' era, we know now that social shunning is the most effective way to 'erase' one from reality, obviously as social beings. and that in order for us to have 'impact' and for us to 'realize' ourselves and to 'influence' others we must be perceived/heard/seen. and also yesterday had epiphany that the history of philosophy is about what is revealed, finding truth, discovery ... from platonic forms and greek aletheia thru the uncanny of freud to the disclosure of heidegger. and that every time something new is hinted at or posited there is a dramatic resistance to it, but gradually layer upon layer is revealed, and the new layers effect our understanding of old layers, and it's all new yet strangely familiar as well, that which is freshly revealed. so yes ... one is all important in the moment and in the eventuality of time all is one once again. and 'again' is just 'a gain' over and over, a new form of addition and eventual dissolution; the eternal return. and without vision, a human is lost in understanding the world around them, just as without 'vision' (towards the future) humans are lost in progress towards continually finding meaning.
This is perfect for sleeping. Don’t get me wrong, it is also super interesting. I promise I’ll listen to it twice tomorrow. Just your voice would be perfect for telling stories.
I agree! I kind of feel bad but sometimes the narration can make these “educational” videos impossible to watch, I could definitely sleep to this!
Great video Johannes! Do you see much of a difference between materialists and physicalists? I'm against both but the latter tries to say its more inclusive of phenomena. What can I use to counter it?
In general, one can always question the presuppositions and silent assumptions someone makes in their arguments and then "attack" those. Often, you will find, people make crude assumptions or simply posit something as given, obvious, self-explanatory etc.
Philosophers tend to prove their philosophy (instead of just showing the value of thinking their way and present a consistent philosophic theory) by delivering evidence and by argumentative rejecting other or even opposed philosophies. That's a big mistake. Neither materialism nor idealism (and of course solipsism) can be proved or refuted. It's not possible. By trying to do so anyway they create statements which are refutable. Finally they end up with being refuted, although not their ideas can be or were refuted, but only the way they tried to prove their philosophy was refuted.
So Berkeley created a flawed argumentation to show up some evidence. Berkeley divided matter into two different parts, a perceivable part and a part of "matter as itself" which is not perceivable. On first sight that's a good strategy, because denying the first part would lead to an absurd statement "There is no perception of matter or the perception of matter has nothing to do with matter" and denying the existence of "matter as itself" directly leads to Berkeley's position. Great! But unfortunately Berkeley withholds the fact, that matter is not perceived directly by the mind but by a thing called "senses". If you honor the fact that "matter as itself" does, maybe ;), nothing else than triggering our senses by the way of "matter as itself" is existing, then there is no dualism of matter in Berkeley's argumentation, so the existence of matter this way can't be shown as impossible or irrelevant. Unfortunately Berkeley could not let go god and the compulsion of proving god's existence f*cked up his whole philosophy, although this philosophy was a great step forward to a basic class of idealism.
At this point I have to leave some criticism to Mr. Niederhauser cause he seems to reject idealism as a position which has to lead to god or absurd consequences in general. I really wonder how a person can have the idea that a lot of quite intelligent people are too stupid not to realize such inevitable consequences, but he/she does. Of course idealism is not more absurd or goddish than materialism. Try to reject the following statements and I will destroy the argument.
- Materialistic philosophies as a class can't be proven or refuted
- Idealistic philosophies as a class can't be proven or refuted
- Materialistic philosophies are more related to reality than idealistic philosophies
- Idealistic philosophies are more related to reality than materialistic philosophies
- Idealistic philosophies are more "goddish" than materialistic philosophies
- Calling a class of philosophy "absurd" _always_ refers to a lack of understanding
If someone states "there is always something illusionary if you have only access to ideas" he has not developed his mind sufficiently. The idea of what is real and what is illusion is deeply implanted in the part of our mind which we call "good judgement". Unfortunately there is a lot of Hoax stuff in this section. To put it in simple words, an "mental native" human has some expectations how a real world has to be. If he realize that some of the needed properties or markers are missing, he starts to feel unreal or consider things as illusionary. This is a mental Hoax! Once you realized how it works and how ridiculous it is, you can drop it and a lot more things can become "real".
When is a simulation given? When there is another reality, which is different from the human reality, in which the human reality is created and/or controlled. Without another reality which is considered as the "real or true" reality, it is not possible to have a simulation. Does Idealism creates _another_ "real or true" reality? Of course not. To call idealism and the idea of a simulated world similar or related is based on an immature understanding of what is reality.
I do not expect any answers, this is time intense and maybe feels awkward. It's already nice to let it live, because it maybe triggers one or two minds to think twice. Thank you.
nice, i like terming him a dogmatic idealist and Kant as a transcendental idealist. for Berkeley then perceiving is seeing God - interesting yet rather simplistic idea. the ideal and immaterial. but yet in a way it's true that matter doesn't exist, and that all is energy, or forces, in a way. so it is basically explanatory Berkeley's concept, but highly un-utilitarian and impractical when trying to exist and develop 'in the world'. Berkeley's respect for spirit, however, is an essential element of idealism. our phenomenology, our physical engagement with the natural world innately has an equivalence with nature; we are built of the same material and exchange sensory info exactly via the means nature produces it, and vice versa. so all interactions are real and revealing of information in that sense, but yet the essence of this exchange (molecules, atoms, quarks, etc.) have their own metaphysical reality that is of another level. ... and all of this is fine, and in an entirely other way doesn't really 'matter' (excuse the pun) because the real question is the ontological one - what is life, what is being, and why are we here? (etc.)
God isn't even close to a simulation... He is the reality by which we simulate and make youtube videos :)
tongue in cheek, interesting summary btw :)
Nice one!
Bad translation
I wish my ex ceased to exist when she wasn't in my face.