Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Berkeley's idealism leads to realism about minds (human and divine), not realism about material substance.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Berkeley's God functions as an unobservable substratum guaranteeing the continuity of objects, structurally mirroring the material substance he rejects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A metaphysical posit that does the same explanatory work as material substance inherits the same epistemological liabilities Berkeley leveled against Locke.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore Berkeley's 'realism about minds' smuggles back a form of the unperceived substratum problem rather than eliminating it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume argued that Berkeley's own empiricist principles, applied consistently, dissolve the notion of mind or self into bundles of perceptions with no persistent active substance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Berkeley's epistemological commitments undermine material substance, those same commitments preclude the robust, enduring mental substances his system requires as perceivers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Under Berkeley's idealism, things are ideas perceived by the mind of God.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This framework affirms the reality of minds as active perceiving principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Material substance, as an unperceived substratum, plays no role in this framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.