9. Locke and Berkeley - The Empiricists - John Locke, George Berkeley, David H me !

or the time line - Descartes "rites #editations in $%&$, 'e"ton "rites #athematical (rinciples o) 'at ral (hilosophy in $%*+ and in $%9, Locke "rites -n Essay .oncerning H man /nderstanding. Berkeley "rites one o) his most )amo s "orks Treatise .oncerning the (rinciples o) H man 0no"ledge in $+$,. H me "rites -n En1 iry .oncerning H man /nderstanding in $+&*. 0ant "rites .riti1 e o) ( re 2eason in $+*$. 3e4ll start "ith John Locke. Locke can in some sense 5e seen as trying to nat ralise Descartes. Descartes had 5een a champion o) mechanistic philosophy. Descartes "ork along "ith Galileo4s laid the )o ndations )or 'e"ton4s "ork. This allo"ed that mathematically precise physics to develop. Locke can 5e seen to hold m ch the same vie"s a5o t the mind as Descartes, e6cept some ma7or disagreements a5o t the nat re and so rce o) innate ideas as "ell as Locke is an empiricist not a rationalist. 8o he doesn4t think the "ay "e achieve kno"ledge is 5y reason 5 t rather "e discover the mathematical nat re o) reality 5y e6perimentation and care) l o5servation. The Attack on Innate Ideas. Descartes had arg ed that there "ere innate ideas. He said that all clear and distinct ideas are innate and these ideas are necessarily tr e and kno"n 5y reason. The )irst and )oremost idea is 9 think there)ore 9 am and then yo have vario s mathematical concepts, logical concepts. Locke develops t"o arg ments against innate ideas. The )irst arg ment is that not every person agrees or has these ideas. The second is that there is an alternative e6planation that all ideas come )rom e6perience. The First Argument - 9) there really "ere innate ideas there "o ld 5e niversal agreement. This arg ment relies on Descartes claim that one is immediately and in)alli5ly a"are o) the contents o) one4s o"n mind. Locke and Descartes 5oth held that it is inconceiva5le that there co ld 5e something in yo r mind "hich yo are na"are o). 8o Locke says that i) there "ere these innate ideas then "e "o ld 5e a"are o) them and nderstand them and "e "o ldn4t disagree on them. B t "e do disagree, so this m stn4t 5e tr e. - 9) there "ere innate ideas they "o ld have to 5e there at 5irth, so even in)ants "o ld have to 5e a"are o) them. B t they aren4t. 8o the idea is that in)ants and idiots don4t have these ideas, 5 t i) they are s pposed to 5e 5orn in, then they sho ld. 8o Locke is making an empirical claim, "e kno" 5y o5servation that these things are tr e. 8o Descartes4 claim that the clear and distinct ideas are innate is "rong.

The Real Issue B t the arg ment over "hether these ideas are innate is 5esides the point that Locke "ants to make. Locke really "ants to assert that all kno"ledge arises )rom e6perience. This is the Empiricists claim. 8o i) it does t rn o t that some aspects o) h man reasoning are innate, there is still the 1 estion o) "hether it co ld have arisen in response to e6perience. The Second Argument His second arg ment is that "e can acco nt )or all h man kno"ledge solely on the 5asis o) o r e6perience. This incl des everything, #athematics, logic, lang age, physics, 5iology, literat re, psychology, everything. 8o the goal Locke has is to sho" that ltimately all ideas come )rom e6perience. Locke makes a distinction 5et"een t"o kinds o) ideas: simple and comple6 . 8imple ideas are ones that don4t have any constit ent parts and come directly )rom e6perience. 8o a simple idea might 5e like a shape or a colo r or a so nd, so something "e pick p immediately )rom o r e6perience. .omple6 ideas are composed o) simple ideas. ;nce yo have these t"o kinds o) ideas its easy to e6plain a "hole "ide s"athe o) ideas that "e think a5o t. !or instance, i) 9 "ant to think a5o t a nicorn even tho gh there are no nicorns, 94ve never e6perienced a nicorn, 9 can sho" ho" my idea o) a nicorn is really a comple6 idea "hich is composed o) simpler ones. 9 have e6periences o) horses and also o) animals "ith horns, so 9 am a5le to com5ine those t"o ideas in the mind to make a comple6 idea. That is an important idea and one that gets sed a lot in constr cting empiricist theories. 8imple ideas have one o) t"o so rces: 8ensation and 2e)lection. 8ensation is the so rce o) o r ideas o) e6ternal o57ects: eg, ta5les, chairs, 5l e, green, hot. cold, s"eet, planets. -ll o) those things "e get )rom act ally sensing. 3e are also a5le to re)lect on o r mental activity and re)lection is the so rce o) o r ideas o) mental o57ects: eg "illing, do 5ting, perceiving, 5elieving, reason. Locke's Theory of Perception Locke 5asically accepts Descartes vie" a5o t perception. There is a physical "orld, "e are in a 5ody and those ca sally interact and that gives rise to o r e6perience. The colo rs, so nds and shapes are in the mind and not o t there in the "orld. This is "hat is s ally called Locke4s ca sal theory o) perception and Descartes held a ca sal theory o) perception as "ell. Locke gives names to these ... 8econdary 1 alities re)er to s ch things as so nd, colo r, taste etc. These things are not really o t there in the "orld 5 t only in o r mind.

The (rimary 1 alities o) an o57ect amo nt to the properties an o57ect has "hich can 5e 1 anti)ied and mathematicised . These things really are in the o57ects. The only 1 alities that are really o t there and mind independent are the primary 1 alities. Primary and Secondary - (rimary properties are mind independent - shape, solidity, motion, all properties "hich can 5e 1 anti)ied. - 8econdary properties are prod ced in the mind - colo r, so nd, smell. Locke on the Self Locke4s 1 estion< 3hat makes a person the same over time= 3e all )eel that "e are the same person today as "hen "e "ere yo ng. B t "hy= Locke4s ans"er is psychological contin ity. >o are the same person 5eca se yo are conscio s o) yo r mental li)e as 5elonging to a single sel). - Test - 8 ppose that a ne" technology is invented that allo"s s to teleport to )ar a"ay places. This technology "orks 5y scanning yo r genetic make p and reprod ces an e6act copy "herever yo need to 5e going. >o don4t act ally move, they scan yo and make an e6act d plicate. /n)ort nately in order to do this they have to destroy yo r original 5ody. B t the copy on the other side is e6actly the same, it has all o) the same memories, tho ghts, )eelings... Locke "o ld say yo are the same person. 8o the 1 estion is, the test )or yo - 3o ld yo se this technology or not= This isn4t a "ay )or yo to )ig re o t i) Locke is right or not, it4s 7 st a "ay )or yo to )ig re o t "hat yo think a5o t Locke4s vie". Locke4s vie" "o ld say that yo sho ldn4t care i) yo don4t have the same 5ody, "hat is important is that yo have the same psychological contin ity, the same stream o) conscio sness, the same memories, 5elie)s etc. This vie" o) Locke4s has 5een a very in)l ential vie" in the philosophy o) personal identity. Berkeley - Idealism Berkeley is an idealist, and an idealist is someone "ho denies that matter e6ists. Berkeley thinks that the only things "hich e6ist are mental things. Everything is an e6perience. By 4matter4 he means the mind-independent st )) that "e cannot perceive. Locke ?and Descartes@ endorsed the distinction 5et"een primary and secondary 1 alities. B t "e never see matter, so "hy 5elieve in it= -n Empiricist is someone "ho thinks that "hat is real is "hat yo can see, taste, to ch, smell and hear. -nd according to empiricism, the only things that yo see, taste, to ch and hear are e6periences. 8o empiricists sho ld accept that everything they o5serve is a mental thing.

(rimary 1 alities are said to resem5le the material they represent. Berkeley spends time trying to )ig re o t "hat that means, Ho" co ld something mental resem5le something physical= 9) "e take that serio sly, "e have no real "ay o) saying that primary 1 alities resem5le the material things that e6ist in the "orld. Berkeley says the very concept o) this material that these philosophers are talking a5o t is incomprehensi5le. This is "hat is sometimes kno"n as Berkeley4s master arg ment. B t the arg ment "as that yo cant even conceive o) "hat it "o ld mean )or matter to 5e e6isting "hen yo "eren4t looking at it independently o) yo e6periencing it. -nd the idea is that every time yo try to conceive or imagine some o57ect e6isting mind independently, yo are only pict ring the o57ect in yo r mind. An analogy .onsider the things yo see in a video game. 8 ppose yo are playing the 8ims and yo "alk into a room and see a ta5le. 9) yo leave the room "hen yo "alk 5ack in the ta5le is still there. 3hen yo are not in the room, there is no ta5le still e6isting there. There is only a 5it o) code some"here that says i) the player does this, then represent this on the screen. 8o the ta5le only e6ists "hen it is perceived. ;r "hen it is not perceived it does not e6ist. This is "hat Berkeley means "hen he says the essence o) things is to 5e perceived. Then "hat does this mean= 3hy do ordinary o57ect cease to e6ist "hen "e are not perceiving them= Berkeley claims that God is al"ays perceiving the physical "orld so "e can rest ass red that the physical "orld e6ists. Berkeley4s vie"s are very anti-common sense, the physical "orld doesn4t e6ist and all that e6ists are e6periences. Berkeley4s point is that the empiricists have no reason to 5elieve in matter 5eca se they cant see, to ch or taste, hear it. -ll they have access to is e6perience. 8o Berkeley is saying, i) yo are going to 5e an empiricist, e6plain "hy yo get to 5elieve in things yo have never seen.