Descartes Vs. Berkeley 03/05/95 Essay, Research Paper
In Descartes & # 8217 ; First Meditation, Descartes writes that he has
come to the decision that many of the sentiments he held in his
young person are dubious, and accordingly all thoughts built upon those
sentiments are besides dubious. He deduces that he will hold to
confute his current sentiments and so build a new foundation
of cognition if he wants to set up anything steadfast and permanent in
the scientific disciplines that is perfectly true. But instead than confute
each of his sentiments separately, Descartes attacks the rules
that support everything he believes with his Method of Doubt. The
Method of Doubt is Descartes & # 8217 ; method of cardinal inquiring in
which he doubts everything that there is the slightest ground to
uncertainty. It should be mentioned that Descartes does non needfully
believe that everything he doubts is true. He does believe,
nevertheless, that whatever can non be doubted for the slightest ground
must be true.
Descartes spends Meditation One seeking to confute his
cardinal beliefs. First, Descartes doubts that his senses are
by and large trusty because they are on occasion fallacious ( eg.
a square tower may look unit of ammunition from far off ) . Besides, because he
realizes that there are no unequivocal marks for him to separate
being awake from being asleep, he concludes that he can non swear
his opinion to state him whether he is awake or asleep. But
asleep or awake, arithmetic operations still yield the same reply
and the self-preservation inherent aptitude still holds. To confute these,
Descartes abandons the thought of a supremely good God like he has
believed in all his life and supposes an evil mastermind, almighty
and all-clever, who has directed his full attempt at lead oning
Descartes by seting thoughts into Descartes & # 8217 ; caput.
With these three chief uncertainties, each increasingly more wide,
Descartes eventually is satisfied that he has sufficiently disproved
his old sentiments. He now is ready to construct a new foundation
of cognition of a physical universe ( the existent universe ) based on what
must perfectly be true.
Berkeley, nevertheless, would reason that Descartes is blowing his
clip by seeking to detect what must be perfectly true in the existent
universe. In his Dialogue One, Berkeley argues that there is no existent
universe, and that all reasonable objects ( those which can be
instantly perceived ) exist merely in the head. He starts by
turn outing that secondary ( extrinsic ) qualities exist merely in the head
by usage of the Relativity of Perception Argument. As an illustration,
Berkeley writes that if you make one of your custodies hot and the
other cold, and set them into a vas of H2O, the H2O will
look cold to one manus and warm to the other. Since the H2O can
non be warm and cold at the same clip, it must follow that heat ( a
secondary quality ) must merely be in the head. Berkeley besides uses
the qualities of gustatory sensation, sound, and colour as illustrations to turn out that
all secondary qualities must shack in the head.
However, Berkeley besides says the same statement can be applied
to primary ( intrinsic ) qualities. He writes that to a touch, his
ain pes might look a considerable dimension, but to smaller
animals, that same pes might look really big. Since an object
can non be different sizes at the same clip, it follows that
extension must be merely in the head. Further, since all other
primary features can non be separated from extension, they
excessively must be merely in the head.
An interesting facet of Descartes & # 8217 ; Dualistic position and
Berkeley & # 8217 ; s Idealistic position is the necessity of God. Descartes
demands an all-good non-deceiving God to see that the thoughts of
primary qualities of objects he perceives in his head accurately
represent those qualities of objects in the external universe. In the
Third Meditation, Descartes says that God is infinite and finite is
the deficiency of space. Infinite, he says, is NOT the deficiency of
finite. Since our construct of the space could non hold come from
the construct of the finite ( since space is non the deficiency of
finite ) , the thought of space could merely hold come from God. This
cogent evidence is rickety at best.
Berkeley, on the other manus, needs God to give us the thoughts of
the objects we see since there is no physical universe to pull those
thoughts from through the senses. But instead than turn outing God to
turn out his doctrine, Berkeley uses his doctrine as the cogent evidence of
God & # 8217 ; s being. In his Second Dialogue, Berkeley says God must
exist to set the same existent thoughts into everybody & # 8217 ; s heads because
heads can non interact straight. However, if it were the instance that
God did non really exist ( or had used his infinite powers to
take his eternity after he created the existence because he was no
longer needed ) , both Descartes and Berkeley would happen their
doctrines in problem.
375