{"id":1537,"date":"2023-03-31T09:38:46","date_gmt":"2023-03-31T09:38:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2023\/03\/31\/berkeleys-unperceived-table\/"},"modified":"2023-03-31T09:38:46","modified_gmt":"2023-03-31T09:38:46","slug":"berkeleys-unperceived-table","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2023\/03\/31\/berkeleys-unperceived-table\/","title":{"rendered":"Berkeley’s Unperceived Table"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ed writes,<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

A question: if Berkeley is out of his study, and says \u2018My table is in my study\u2019, is he speaking truly or falsely? If truly, then \u2018my table\u2019 and \u2018my study\u2019 must have referents, and the referents must stand in the relation \u2018in\u2019. But neither referent is perceived, so neither exists, according to B\u2019s first definition of \u2018exist\u2019, and so \u2018My table is in my study\u2019 is false. According to B\u2019s second (counterfactual) definition of \u2018exist\u2019, the statement can be true, but then we have to drop the first definition. Then what else do we lose of B\u2019s philosophical system?<\/span><\/p>\n

For example, is the statement \u2018the table in my study is brown\u2019 true or false, given that if B were seeing the table, he would perceive it to have the sensible quality of brown, and given that B is now outside his study? If true, then he must concede that the referent of \u2018the table in my study\u2019 is bearing the visible quality signified by \u2018brown\u2019, and so concede that everything he says about the impossibility of material substance is wrong, e.g. in \u00a79 of the Treatise<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Indeed the whole project of Idealism collapses once we allow the possibility of language, and thence the possibility of successfully referring to objects and states of affairs that are not perceived.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

My valued interlocutor is being a bit quick here. Let's sift through this carefully starting with definitions of 'exist(s)' either found in or suggested by a charitable reading of Berkeley's writings.<\/span><\/p>\n

D1. X exists =df<\/sub> x is being perceived. (Esse est percipi<\/em>.)<\/span><\/p>\n

D2. X exists =df<\/sub> x is such that, were a perceiver P on the scene, P would perceive x.<\/span><\/p>\n

D3. X exists =df<\/sub> either<\/em> x is being perceived or<\/em> x is such that, were a perceiver P on the scene, P would perceive x.<\/span><\/p>\n

(D3) is the disjunction of (D1) and (D2). It is suggested by this passage:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The table I write on, I say, exists, that is, I see and feel it; and if I were out of my study I should say it existed, meaning thereby that if I was in my study I might perceive it, or that some other spirit actually does perceive it. (PHK 3, quoted here<\/a>) <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

God would be the best candidate for 'some other spirit.'  The author of the SEP entry, Lisa Downing, writes,<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

If the other spirit in question is God, an omnipresent being, then perhaps his perception can be used to guarantee a completely continuous existence to every physical object. In the Three Dialogues<\/em>, Berkeley very clearly invokes God in this context. Interestingly, whereas in the Principles<\/em>, as we have seen above, he argued that God must exist in order to cause<\/em> our ideas of sense, in the Dialogues<\/em> (212, 214\u20135) he argues that our ideas must exist in<\/em> God when not perceived by us.[20<\/a>]<\/sup> If our ideas exist in God, then they presumably exist continuously. Indeed, they must exist continuously, since standard Christian doctrine dictates that God is unchanging.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

There is much more to it than this, of course, but what I have said suffices to neutralize Ed's objection.  He thinks he has refuted Berkeleyan idealism. He has done no such thing. He ignores (D3).<\/span><\/p>\n

I must also object to Ed's apparent identification of idealism with Berkeleyan idealism. Ed is being unduly insular. A little to the East of where he lives there is this land mass called The Continent where other forms of idealism have been known to thrive.<\/span><\/p>\n

I am also puzzled by Ed's talk of phrases like 'my table' needing referents when he himself denies (in his book) that there is extra-linguistic reference and affirms that all reference is intra-linguistic.  As I read him, Ed is a linguistic idealist. Linguistic idealism, however, is by my lights much less credible than Berkeleyan idealism.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ed writes, A question: if Berkeley is out of his study, and says \u2018My table is in my study\u2019, is he speaking truly or falsely? If truly, then \u2018my table\u2019 and \u2018my study\u2019 must have referents, and the referents must stand in the relation \u2018in\u2019. But neither referent is perceived, so neither exists, according to … Continue reading “Berkeley’s Unperceived Table”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[489,79],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1537","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-berkeley","category-idealism-and-realism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1537","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1537"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1537\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1537"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1537"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1537"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}