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