Monday, October 22, 2018
Much Ado About A Mite
Berkeley argues for his idealism from the relativity of perception. He compares the size of a mite's foot as seen by the mite itself, by a human and by some smaller microorganism. What, exactly, is the argument? Is the argument successful? If not, how do we resist the sucking of all so-called primary qualities into the mind?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Berkley’s argument about idealism is about being rooted in perception. It is very fascinating and very abstract to think about as he goes into analysis of every sensory tool. He proposes his argument with a mite and his shoe. To a human the mite is small, to a bacteria the mite is very very large. The issue is that something cannot be two things at once, the mite cannot be small and big at the same time. So, the shape and characteristic of a material object is perceived in the mind. The perception of the small mite is with the human but the perception of the bacteria is that the mite is ginormous. He also uses it for color, as one person cannot see the same color as others, and something cannot be two things at once. You can use this argument in almost every identification of a thing. Smell is a fascinating example that you can argue and animal, pig, loves the smell of dung and wants to roll around in it but to a human it should be flushed down a hole and never seen again. Thus the dung cannot smell good or bad so the perception is obviously to the perceiver. The argument is clearly successful because it can work for almost anything because everyone and thing perceives objects differently with all senses. Someone can have different touch, taste, and hearing senses and totally perceive something different and because the argument works in a way that the object cannot be two things at once, that makes it successful.
ReplyDeleteBerkley's argument for idealism from the example of perception follows: there is a person, a mite, and a microorganism that is smaller than a mite; to the person, the mite's foot is very small; to the microorganism, the mite's foot is very big; something cannot be big and small at the same time, therefore perception of size exists only in the mind. Berkeley applies a similar argument to other properties, such as hot and cold and sweet and bitter, in which they do make sense. However, in the case of size, his argument does not work because, although perception of relative size is subjective, size itself is measured using objective units. The impossibility of something feeling hot and cold at the same time is not quite the same as something being big and small at the same time. Take for example the mite’s foot, which appears to be both big and small at the same time, depending on the perceiver. However, in reality, the mite’s foot may be 1 millimeter long. This measure of size is objective, no matter who is perceiving it; therefore, size does not exist in the mind, but in reality. In order to avoid being sucked into Berkeley’s idealism, one must consider these properties in objective terms. For the hot and cold example, although the water that the hands are in may be the same temperature, the heat (in scientific terms) given off by the hands is different, therefore changing the feeling. For taste of spiciness, although Berkeley does not mention it, something may taste spicy to one person and mild to another. However, spiciness is measured in objective scoville units.
ReplyDeleteBarkley argues that all parts of an object exist in the mind. He does this by proving each and every properties that define an object are secondary qualities rather than primary qualities. The way that Berkeley proves his point was through his mite argument. Berkeley claims that everything is based upon how we perceive things. From a smaller organism, a mite’s foot would be massive. For a human, a mite’s foot would be very tiny. From the mite’s point of view, the foot is normal sized. The size of the foot is different from each points of view yet all of them are technically true. It is impossible for all of the understandings of the size of the foot to be true and the size to be a primary quality. A primary quality would be exactly the same for all of the perspectives since the quality would be the same for each points of view. Therefore, since the size is different for each of the 3 viewpoints, the size of objects must reside within the mind and are not primary qualities but actually secondary qualities. This argument is successful as it proves that no objects contain no absolute size that is universal from all viewpoints. While the argument could be derailed by deciding which viewpoint is correct, it is impossible to decide which viewpoint is the right one. Therefore Berkley presents a very compelling argument that the size of objects are a secondary quality.
ReplyDeleteIn order to prove Idealism, Berkeley uses a mite, human, and amoeba to argue about the relativity of perception. Prior to this mite argument, Berkeley explained how other secondary qualities like sound, touch, and color are actually bundles of perceptions that only resides within our minds. From these arguments, Berkeley attempts to provide another secondary quality that only exists in our minds, which is size. His argument goes like this: from the perspective of the mite, it appears larger to the amoeba, but it appears smaller than the human foot. Something cannot be two contradictory things at once, therefore, dimensions can only exist in the mind. I believe that this argument is successful because it supports the idea that there is no absolute size as it is only based on our perceptions within the mind. These contradicting qualities are the reason why an object doesn’t exist. Although I think this is a compelling argument, one thing that I do not agree with is that just because an object has contradicting qualities, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. For example, let's use a quarter. Depending on your perspective, the quarter may appear circular, cylindrical, or even linear. Despite these different qualities of the quarter, it is still a quarter. His argument doesn’t prove whether something exists or not. Rather, it shows that everything has a different quality or property based on your perspective.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley argues that idealism is true because perception is relative. He uses the example of a mite’s foot to support his case. A mite’s foot is tiny as seen by a human but massive as seen by a microorganism. Because the size of the mite’s foot is not consistent when perceived by different observers, size (and by extension, other qualities) cannot be inherent to an object. Because these qualities cannot be inherent to an object, they must exist only in the observer’s mind. Therefore, all qualities are secondary qualities and idealism is true.
ReplyDeleteThe mite’s foot argument fails—even though perception of a quality may be inconsistent, this inconsistency does not prove that qualities are inherent to the observer’s mind. Take, for example, an elephant standing in a plain. Viewed from far away, the elephant is no bigger than a speck. However, it appears much larger when viewed from close up. There is an inconsistency in perception, but the observer knows that the elephant stays the same size—it does not grow larger as the observer moves closer. This objection holds up when we consider a case involving two different observers. Say that there are two people watching the elephant from afar. The first person is using binoculars to view the elephant, while the second person is using his normal vision. Even though the elephant appears larger to the first person, the pair would agree that the elephant is the same size. For these reasons, the mite’s foot argument is unsuccessful. It is clear that Berkeley’s idealism is not so grounded in common sense as he proclaims.
Berkeley makes an argument for size not actually existing by comparing the size of a mite's foot to the size of other organisms. A human will see the mite's foot as being very small, while an organism even smaller than the mite will see the mite's foot as being very large. According to Berkeley, something that exists in the physical world cannot both be small and large at the same time in the same context. Therefore, size can exist only in the mind. This argument does not hold up because the words "big" and "small" are relative terms. Anything can seem either small or large compared to another object when the actual object itself is neither small or large. Size is not whether something is small or large but rather the physical measurements of an object. No matter what system of measurement you use the object can only ever have one measurement. If the objects physical measurements changed, then you would have a lot more persuasive argument for size only existing within the mind. Size can be considered a primary quality because if we know the size we can know something for a fact about the object. The ideas of small and large are not primary qualities because we cannot actually gain any knowledge by simply knowing that an object is small or large. The same idea applies for all other primary qualities because they exist on their own and give us true knowledge rather than just a sensation or idea.
ReplyDelete