John Locke's Primary and Secondary Qualities
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лип 2024
- Join George and John as they discuss different Philosophical theories. In this video they will be debating John Locke's Primary and Secondary Quality distinction. How much of our reality exists in the mind and what distinctions can we make between mental ideas and a mind independent external world?
The script to this video is part of...
- The Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Perception" eBook, available on Amazon: US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QPL6P4
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QPL6P4
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QPL6P4
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QPL6P4
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QPL6P4
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QPL6P4
- The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 2 'Metaphysics' available worldwide on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H5MGF9
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H5MGF9
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H5MGF9
Check out the Philosophy Vibe merchandise store: philosophy-vibe-store.creator...
0:00 - Introduction
0:41 - Primary and Secondary Quality Distinction
2:37 - Colour Example
3:18 - Hot and Cold Water Example
4:05 - Fire Example
5:04 - Problem with Locke's Primary and Secondary Quality Distinction
6:45 - The Threat of Idealism
#JohnLocke #PrimaryQualities #SecondaryQualities #Philosophy
The script to this video is part of...
- The Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Perception" eBook, available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QPL6P4
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QPL6P4
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QPL6P4
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QPL6P4
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QPL6P4
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QPL6P4
- The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 2 'Metaphysics' available worldwide on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H5MGF9
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H5MGF9
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H5MGF9
Did you all do a video on neutral monism?
The stress of my PHIL101 midterm is only a sensation caused by my perception of it, the midterm itself is not stress, but the powers from its primary qualities have allowed me to taste pure rage.
this channel is single handedly holding me together in my phil101 course
Glad we could help. Best of luck in the Philosophy course.
me me me me me me
I'm in phil101 rn and struggling 😂 so glad I found this
This is my new favorite anime
Do you think anyone cares what your XXX is?
the manga was better
Man that was really good, i had been looking for just such info on berkeleys critique of primary and secondary qualities. You seem to have nailed it without going over everyones head.
I LOVE YOU GUYS! you're helping us all so much.
You guys have opened my mind. Keep it up!
Thank you so much. Keep them coming.
This is very very very good video. Helped me to cover my Philosophy course at university. Many thanks.
Helped me to realize just how much reality is in the mind. It seemed like to took awhile for me to grasp it once I was able to distance myself from emotions. I meditated on the phrase of "trying to make sense of the real world which is a property of solidity" and entered a "dream" that took me to a white concrete house and the only colors I saw were my light blue jeans and a tv with a video playing.
Perhaps meditating on it further will be beneficial.
Thanks for the vids
i love the way you present ideas that are sometimes hard to grasp only through books. Thank You!
You're welcome. Glad you are finding these videos helpful.
Really wanted too see the awesome team behind this amazing channel who made philosophy (( a veryyy interesting subject))! ❤️❤️Veryy grateful to you💖
love this channel. Thanks, guys. Really grasping these concepts
Thank you :) so glad we can help!
clear and concise. Amazing work. Still helping students after 7 years
I did enjoy the vibe. Thank you so much!
A pleasure, glad you enjoyed.
These videos are helping me so much in my philosophy class and with my exams, thank you!!
You're welcome, so glad we can help :D
Loved the explanation!!
Watching your video in a study group. We love you!
Absolute pleasure. Really happy to hear the videos are helping!
I am not a philosophy student, but i still find these vidz interesting, super cool i watched them all.
+Ndiyakholwa Mqamelo Really happy to hear that! A lot more interesting topics will be covered throughout the rest of the year.
Thanks, I needed the refresher
Thanks for watching.
thank you so much for this video!!
You're very welcome, thanks for watching.
Trying to read Locke is like running around in a maze, blind drunk, naked, and in the dark. This explanation helped me so much and answered my question regarding how his distinction could at all work (it clearly doesn't). Thank you!
The only other thought I will add is that if all sense data is coming from the mind and is not actually coming from an external source which we can come into contact with and come to "know" then that very statement is also coming from that apparent illusion. Thus, we could never know it to be true. Moreover, such problems lead to the impossibility of epistemology itself as there would be no justifications of claims (including the claim that we are in a mind projected illusion world) thus rendering knowledge impossible. Therefore, such a world would render logic, epistemology, meaning and knowledge itself null and void. Yet here we are, asserting meaning and claiming that the world is a mind projected illusion. As a result, this entire problem I would say could be quashed by simply saying that it is an absurd conclusion. To affirm it would be to deny knowledge and thus refute yourself anyway.
I always enjoy the vibe. :-D
Thank you 😊
Very helpful!
this video is a great explanation for newcomers to Locke's philosophy except it starts getting things wrong beginning at 5:36. "Size", in the way that the interlocutors are using it, is only referring to the apparent size within an individuals visual field and NOT to it the actual space occupied in the 3 spacial dimensions of spacetime. So "size", meaning "extension an object in spacetime" is still correctly a primary quality within Locke's philosophical framework. However, there is a knockdown argument that has been made by other people such as Berkeley (pron. BARK-ly). Try imagining a "colorless" apple. You can't. You're either imagining a white, black, or transparent apple. Another knockdown argument is to argue that Locke has it wrong when he claims that motion is a primary property... which is wrong because general relativity...derp.
Thanks for this explanation!
Good contribution to philosophy students and faculty
Thank you very much 👍
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
FANTASTIC!!!! THANK YOU!!!
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
Thanks! It is really good!
Thank you, glad you liked it.
I just watched john Locke on school of life . Great upload once again.
Mind= Ghost in machine---John Locke.
thanx for giving me transcripts of Free Will Vs determinism.
Keep it coming!
+updown 16 Our pleasure. And glad you are enjoying the videos.
wow awesome videos!
I'm so glad I stumbled upon these little gems! Awesome videos brother!
Is one person doing both of the voices? or are there two of you?
thanks! helped alot
Pleasure. Glad it helped.
Best explanation
Also I curiously meditated on where ideas come from, did not get a comprehensive answer though
Awesome, yay!!!
I wish philosophy debates in my classroom were that calm.
Going by the last piece of the argument, in order to have any ideas of our surroundings, we have to have a basis. Something can't come from nothing, there has to be an external world in order for us to have any perception of it. We may never be able to perceive it directly, but that should not rule out its existence altogether.
please, just wanted to say a big thank you from a Brazilian student who's struggling to get good results on her exams! hahaha, I really enjoyed the video's vibe!!
Very happy to hear this video helped. I wish you the best of luck in your exams.
thanks, very good.
Thank you.
please make a video about skepticism!!
awesome ...
Great stuff!
Thank you :)
This video us absolute gold!
Janell Balmaceda glad you liked it
Friend, I just cited your work in my Locke paper for a modern philosophy course. Your video was a true life saver!
So happy to be of help
Doing an essay on Berkeley now, could really use that next video xD
+SuicideHotline123 Will be released this Sunday :)
I guess the "size" part still makes sense in indirect realism. It depends on what you mean by size. According to Wikipedia, Size is magnitude or dimension of a thing; concept abstracted from the process of measuring by comparing a longer to a shorter or vice versa. If it's the case then it's totally OK with indirect realism. Since it will always be, for example, 100 meters weather you see it from any distance. The actual size will always be 100 meters.
You have helped me in my oral comprehensive
You're welcome!
“We only experience our ideas directly, so how can we argue in favor of an external world?” Perfect example of Stove’s “Worst Argument” in philosophy. Just because the world is experienced only in relation to us/under conceptual schemes, THEREFORE we cannot know things in themselves. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Berkeley, whom you noted, is a major culprit of this fallacy.
That's so useful 🖤
Glad we could help.
Nice one lads
I only regret that I have but one like to give to this video.
The force associated with mass was initially conceptualized from our physical interaction with the world: carrying, pushing and pulling. We then externalized this concept with the invention of scales, standard horsepower, etc. Thus giving an "objective" existence to our internal experience of force. Color functions in EXACTLY the same way. An experience that is externalized by measurement of light frequency.
Thus we have to conclude that the notion of "Primary" and "Secondary" properties is entirely illusionary.
is texture part of extension ?
Is there a nice channel for laws instructions?
So, I see the problem raised the independent object changing based on the secondary quality...but I still see that Locke’s ideas of extension and primary qualities still hold true. Because those are physical measurements independent from our vantange points which would be a part of secondary qualities. If you are standing close to a building it’s large, if we’re looking at it from afar it’s small. Ok! But it does have a definable measurement. Let’s say it is 160 feet tall. That does not change. Our relationship to it can changed contingent on our proximity to it, it can look small or big but it doesn’t change that it is 160 feet tall.
So I disagree with that particular critique of Locke’s Primary and Secondary qualities and I think it’s applications are powerful when we extend is to the context of political and religious beliefs. It all simply depends upon the way it is all perceived which is informed by information passed to us, information which is almost always biased. For instance, “That building is HUUUUUGE!” But what if you’re accustomed to being surrounded by 500 foot skyscrapers? If you simply took the person at their word without you seeing it for yourself, you’d have a particular bias about it until you yourself observed it and came to realize how subjective and it all is.
Cant that be said for secondary qualities though like the room temperature water never actually changes temperature even if we perceive it as either hot or cold
Hi - thanks for the video. One thing I have been thinking about is colour as a primary quality. When we see the colour green we see light waves in the region of 520nm. The wavelength of these lightwaves exists in the object as the wavelength is a product of the material and incident light, and so the colour green it would seem is mind independent hence making colour a primary quality. Thoughts? I understand Locke may not have had the lightwave/colour explanation around when writing.
But the greeness of the Apple is not the same for everyone. If you look at the same apple under different light conditions from different angles, it appears to have different colors. That's what I've understood. 😅
Also for a color blind person "green" Might actually be blue or something. Hence, mind dependent.
@philosophy vibe, can you tell me why Locke uses the primary and secondary qualities to show that knowledge comes from sensory experience?
4:58 Hey loved your video! But did you mean to say "mind-independent" rather than "mind dependant" here?
Hello, yes this was a mistake on our part :( we have edited the video to remove this. Glad you still enjoyed it, thank you for watching.
Who are the two commentators on locke about primary and secondary qualities?
Thank you!
You're welcome :)
So why is it that secondary qualities do not resemble the objects themselves?
Good video
Thanks
This made me think of pain and love and how it correlates with our external reality. It would be Secondary quality wouldn't it?
Charlie and Lola vibes.
Ufff thank goodness this video is perfect for tomorrow examination.. Anyway I regret the most for opting philosophy as a subject it sucks my brain
Thank you, and good luck in the exams.
Philosophy Vibe ❤
nice
What about cameras, do they give an image different than what your eyes do? Primary and secondary qualities will be perceived the same by high resolution camera and your eyes (a far away building, an object with different light angles or colours). Saying this means philosophically speaking that the camera has a mind on its own...
This is good shit.
Lol thank you!
Berkeley reigns supreme. Glory to Tlön!
and now i want icecream...
Everything is this video is great, except for the building size bit. From different distances, yes the building changes sizes. The building is, let's say, 150ft tall. That is it's primary quality. A human perceiving it as only a foot tall that is standing 300 feet away from it is using secondary qualities. Therefore, a human is adding the quality of perceived size solely dependent on the placement of the human, and not so much the building altering it's primary quality. Our sight is changing the way we perceive the building, making it secondary. We have seen red apples and green apples. Both have the primary qualities to be the same size, but a human perceives it as different colors. The building is still 150ft tall, regardless of the way we perceive it because the distance between us and the building is dependent.
Is it just me or is the building example kinda weak. (not attacking the creators) I just want to know why that is a good argument.
This is selfevident. Maybe it was eyeopening in Locke's days. Seems like developments in science have made a lot of these philosophical models and arguments redundant.
Swear it's not true that Locke says that secondary qualities are mind dependent - because they're still in the object itself, just in an inferior way than primary qualities are.
Don't take Locke as gospel. Science has since rejected his claims. He also denied we have a soul.
Woah your faces are different in this dimension
Anybody here an St. Anthony's
Idealism has entered the chat
I raise a child isolated....teach him the sky is green and the grass is blue..... ..then no buddy can change...