Berkeley

5. Explain and assess Berkeley's most powerful reasons for thinking that things other than minds have no absolute existence altogether apart from or independent of minds.

Metaphysics is the study of the ultimate nature of reality and deals with what is truly real as oppose to what appears to be real. Berkeley is an idealist who believes that things other than minds have no absolute existence altogether apart from or independent of minds. He has several arguments but only the resemblance argument and the inconceivability argument will be discussed, as they are the most powerful reasons for thinking this. I believe that Berkeley proves his theory of absolute existence must be dependent on the mind through resemblance and inconceivability.

Realists believe what is ultimately real is independent from the mind and possess the primary qualities such as extension, shape, solidity and motion regardless of being conceived. This is opposite from Berkeley's and other idealists views. Berkeley does not believe that these primary qualities are the only things that define existence. Secondary qualities include colours, sounds, odors, and tastes must also be present. Secondary qualities are mind dependent and they are perceptions. These qualities are very important in Berkeley's discussion on existence with respect to resemblance and inconceivability.

One of Berkeley's most powerful reasons for absolute existence is proved through the resemblance argument. He believes that only something visually experienced can be like a visual experience, so ideas resemble other ideas. He continues to say ideas are mind dependent so no ideas can resemble qualities of a mind independent idea with respect to sense experience. For example, the idea of a unicorn is mind-dependent and resembles unicorns from fairytales as a horse with a horn. If there were never a sense experience with a unicorn, no ideas would resemble the qualities. Berkeley states "I appeal to any one whether it be sense to assert a colour is like something which is invisible; hard or soft, like something which is intangible; and so of the rest." We no what is hard because we have experiences with objects that are harder, softer, or the same.

Betrand Russell objects to Berkeley's notion of resemblance with two things, the first being that ideas represent reality by mapping reality not resembling it, and second, experiences only correspond to the idea, they do not resemble it. Take a scenic picture, looking at the picture, one would be able to tell what objects are closer or further away but the picture is flat, not 3d. Therefore how could this possibly resemble reality which is 3d? It does not, it only maps reality. The tree in the background of the picture corresponds to the tree in the distance in reality, however, it does not resemble a tree that is physically further away when it is on the same plane as a closer tree in the picture.

Berkeley would respond to this by bringing up qualities of mind dependent ideas. The trees in the picture are green because the same senses are being excited in the picture, as they are when a green tree is seen in reality. Distance is also a mind dependent idea, and although it is not physically apparent within the picture, the resemblance of the further away tree being smaller is still apparent, and therefore the trees are mind dependent ideas with resemblance, which supports Berkeley's theory that things must be experienced to exist.

Berkeley's second argument, which supports his reasons for thinking that things other than minds have no absolute existence apart from the mind, is about inconceivability. It is impossible to conceive of an object existing neither experienced or even conceived because it is being conceived about not being conceived. The world opening up and swallowing all