Metaphysical Idealism Analysis

1759 Words8 Pages
The human mind is unmaterialistic in contrast to the human brain. We can’t sense the mind, i.e., can’t touch it and see it while we can most certainly touch and see the brain. The general crowd would agree that the senses are used to perceive matter. Matter is the atom of the physical existence claimed to be more or less constant. The general boils down to the specific immaterialist and the idealist, George Berkeley who presented a Metaphysical idealism under the famous claim esse est percipi" ("to be is to be perceived").Berkeley’s claim meant that an idea or an object that is not perceived by the mind does not exist since in order for anything to exist it has to be perceived by the mind and that nothing outside the mind exists. Berkeley’s…show more content…
By saying that all ordinary objects are ideas, Berkeley did not strip the word “substance” from existence. On the contrary, he stated that the only substance that exists is the spirit since the most important aspect of a substance is its activity and the spirit is active in both producing and perceiving ideas. Hence, thinking substances do exist and for them to exist they have to perceive. But we shall point out that the spirit is not perceived since ideas are for the sensible objects and their qualities and we have only notions and not ideas about the spirit. Matter is neither perceived nor perceives (doesn’t exist). Hence, substances are not made of matter but are on the contrary, mental. What humans count as matter is the idea derived from the sensory perception of physical properties like extension, form, motion…Therefore, the existence of an object is ideal (mental) since it can only be real (exist) if it can perceive or be perceived by the human mind. According to Berkeley, we can certainly abstract, but abstraction is what leads us to think that objects exist independently of the mind and that is not true. Berkeley said that we can say that I can imagine the smell of a rose without thinking of the rose itself but this “conceiving power does not extend beyond the possibility of real existence or perception”. Hence, he claims that abstracting ideas is possible but is very contradicting since he refuses to differentiate between what is real (sensible) and what is in the
Open Document