Is it true (as Locke argues) that you can completely remove a thing's secondary qualities, but that its primary qualities can only be changed, not wholly removed? Consider this question alongside Locke's claim that secondary qualities are powers in objects to cause sensations in perceivers. What consequences does your answer have for Locke's attempt to draw a distinction between primary and secondary qualities?
Locke on Primary and Secondary Qualities
Locke, an indirect realist, explores our immediate perceptions and with this attempts to draw a line between ideas and qualities, just how these are different entities. Sometimes referred to as Representative Theory, according to Locke, we are aware only of our ideas, these being things existing “in our minds”, sensations created. Our perceptions are indirect and their qualities, these are the causal properties of physical objects that then cause those sensations. This dualistic account of perception is one Berkeley disagrees with; however Locke’s distinctions are not particularly accurate enough to entirely agree with.
Yes, there are terms to agree with that an item’s secondary qualities can be removed, as these qualities are defined by Locke, to not be attached to the actual item and its existence. Take an apple for example; the apple will always stay the spherical shape it maintains. However my experience of it being green can be removed, especially if I see it to be different to someone else. To argue whether a primary quality can be wholly removed is another matter as it is difficult to distinguish whether it can be done so as these qualities live in the object itself. To deliberate if a quality can be completely removed, we must look at what we define each quality to entai...
... middle of paper ...
... and secondary, therefore they can proceed to be wholly removed.
These secondary features have an existence no less solid and objective than primary qualities.
Berkeley ‘Secondary qualities exist only in the mind’
This statement can be refuted to the logic that ideas exist only in our minds, with the qualities being the power in the objects to project these ideas. Then the definition of qualities follows as it existing in the objects, not elsewhere.
Discussing secondary qualities, they exist in the sense that objects enable us to produce sensations of taste, smell, touch, etc. however scientific explanation suggests otherwise telling us that these sensations have been produced by these microscopic particles out of which everything is composed of. This could infer that secondary qualities are not experiences and are of the same composure as primary, vice versa.
Berkeley ascribed to an imperialistic view in the sense that the immediate object of our knowledge is ideas or subjective impressions. He denied the distinction between primary qualities (size, shape, motion, time,) which are objective, real/true features of the world, and secondary qualities (color, taste, smell, sound, ect.), which are subjective/relative qualities existing in the mind. Berkeley argued that primary qualities are not perceptible separately from the secondary qualities; primary qualities are just as relative to the perceiver as are secondary qualities. If ten people were asked to draw a particular desk, the drawings would indicate ten different shapes for that one desk. Which drawing would reflect the true shape of the desk? Also, a soda can may be small to a human, yet...
John Locke believes that A is identical with B, if and only if, A remembers the thoughts, feelings, and actions had or done by B from a first-person point of view. This shows that the important feature, memory, is linking a person from the beginning of their life to the end of their life. Locke’s memory theory would look something like this: The self changes over time, so it may seem like personal identity changes too. However, even if you are changing, you are still retaining past memories. Therefore, if you can retain memories, memories are the link between you and an earlier you, so personal identity persists over time. So, memory is the necessary and sufficient condition of personal
Hume argues that perception can be divided into two types: impressions and ideas. He states that impressions are our first-hand perception, using all of our senses and emotions to experience them (Hume 2012, 8). For example, an impression of a sensation would be experiencing pain and an impression of reflection would be experiencing anger. Hume states that an idea is thinking about an impression. You cannot use your senses to experience the sensation or emotion, you are just simply reflecting on your experience (Hume 2007, 13). For example, thinking about the pain you felt when you stubbed your toe or thinking about how angry you felt when your football team lost. Hume argues that our thought is limited. He argues that when we imagine things such as an orange sea, we are simply joining two consistent ideas together. Hume argues that ‘all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones’ (Hume 2007, 13). This is called the Copy Principle.
Many can remember a point in their life when they were a small child, carefree and happy with dirt on their knees and a smile on their face, but how can one know that he is the same person now as he was then? This is a question concerning personal identity; which addresses why someone at one point in life is identical with someone later in life. When it comes to personal identity and it’s persistence through time, many theories exist to explain what makes a person a person. One view is John Locke’s theory of personal identity. He stated that identity was not dependent on any material substance, such as one’s body, instead Locke maintained that personal identity is tied to consciousness and perceptions.
Sameness of person consists not in sameness of soul nor the sameness of body, but in sameness of consciousness. According to the memory view, the personal identity is established by (genuine) memory-relations. Locke’s theory manifests the idea that rather than being tied to our physical bodies, our identity is bound to our consciousness. Locke, in one of his works states that consciousness is the perception of what passes in a man’s own mind. Essentially, meaning that consciousness equals memories. Unlike, the conventional theories; bodily and soul view, Locke’s views that memory relations constitute “a person is a sequence of person-stages linked by (genuine) memory.” As personal identity is not bound by a constant component of a person to be present over a whole lifetime, neither body nor a soul.
Locke uses the example of the oak tree. It starts off as a sapling and grows into a huge oak tree, with a massive change in mass. That oak tree could be subjected to the cutting of branches, and the winter fall of leaves, however it still remains an oak tree because it continues the life of a tree. It maintains the same functional arrangements of components (Blackburn, 1999: 125-126). An interesting example is raised by Blackburn in assessing “how much change to tolerate while still regarding it as the same ‘thing’”
The one thing on which Locke lays great emphasis throughout the Treatise is that the chief end or purpose for which the state or commonwealth is formed is making secure to the citizens the natural right to life, liberty and property which they had in the state of nature.
Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper void of all characters, without any ideas. How comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store which the busy and boundless fancy of man has painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from experience (Locke, 1690/1947, bk. II, chap. 1, p.26).
However, the permanent changes are only applicable to physical objects. In Descartes argument, he observes a piece of wax, from a hive, and using his judgment and senses, analyzes the structure and properties of the wax. This argument is an attempt to prove that the essential properties of things are not perceived through the senses, but through the mind. With this, Descartes reminds me as a human being to avoid being dependent to the senses. Though through matter by which we can be able to know something, depending on our senses is sometimes unreliable. The most interesting part of this discussion is that despite of the changing characteristics of physical objects, there will still be that character that will be stayed the
The purpose of this essay is to discuss how dualism describes reality more accurate than materialism, idealism, and transcendental idealism. Even though dualism doesn’t describe reality one hundred percent just like the other theories about the nature of reality, it is the most accurate argument out of the four major theories about the nature of reality and substance. Dualism was a concept that was not originated by Rene Descartes but coined by him. The concept was that our mind is more than just our brain. The concept was not originated by Rene Descartes because the Bible explains that we are more than our body and brains. It teaches that we have a separate mind, soul, and spirit. One argument for dualism is that the physical and mental territories have different properties. The mental events have qualities such as what does it feel like, what does it look like, or what it sounds like. Another argument is the lack of any understanding of how any possible reaction can take place between the mind and brain. The essay will include reasons for favoring the Thomistic and Cartesian forms of substance dualism and the counter arguments that are against them.
Locke distinguished the difference between primary and secondary qualities. He defined primary qualities as features that exist objectively in an object. They are independent of an observer and include position, number, shape, size and motion. By contrast, Locke defined secondary qualities as features that are dependent on the mind of the observer. They include colour, taste, smell and feel. Locke is an empiricist, meaning that most of his reasoning appeals to everyday experiences of the world rather than logical proofs. Locke says that primary qualities exist independently of our mind,
The first philosopher, John Locke, laid the foundations of modern empiricism. Locke is a representational realist who touches reality through feelings. He believes that experience gives us knowledge (ideas) that makes us able to deal with the world external to our minds. His meaning of ideas is "the immediate object of perception, thought, or understanding." Locke's ideas consist of simply ideas which turn into complex ideas. Simple ideas are the thoughts that the mind cannot know an idea that it has not experienced. The two types of simple ideas are; sensation and reflection. Sensation is the idea that we have such qualities as yellow, white, heat, cold, soft, hard, bitter, and sweet. Reflection ideas are gained from our experience of our own mental operations. Complex ideas are combinations of simple ideas that can be handled as joined objects and given their own names. These ideas are manufactured in the human mind by the application of its higher powers. Locke believes in two kinds of qualities that an object must have; primary and secondary. Primary qualities o...
John Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding his primary thesis is our ideas come from experience, that the human mind from birth is a blank slate. (Tabula Rasa) Only experience leaves an impression in our brain. “External objects impinge on our senses,” which interpret ate our perceptions of various objects. The senses fill the mind with content. Nothing can exist in the mind that was not first experienced by the senses. Dualism resembles Locke’s theory that your mind cannot perceive something that the senses already have or they come in through the minds reflection on its own operation. Locke classifies ideas as either simple or complex, simple ideas being the building blocks for complex ideas.
Ideas are what the mind is thinking of when something happens. Human minds know ideas not objects. George Berkeley discusses idea from the eye of the perceiver. We perceive ordinary objects such as houses, mountains and etc. We perceive only ideas therefore implying that ordinary objects are ideas. Through objects and things we are able to experience having ideas. The ideas represent external material objects which allows us to perceive them. According to Berkeley "esse est percipi" which translates to “to be is to be perceived" (Stanford, 2014). The existence of an idea cannot be separated from what is being perceived. If an idea or object is not perceived, then it does not exist. By sight I have the thoughts of light and hues with their few degrees and varieties. By touch I see and feel how hard and delicate, warmth and chilly, movement and resistant something is. Anything that we cannot perceive with our senses doesn 't exist. The soul cannot be perceived. However I wouldn 't go so far as to say "realize and recognize its presence." I think that instead of taking the literal approach that it could be extended to things that we do not yet know are there and yet are capable of being perceived "one day."
Some, such as Toby Syoboda, claim that “human beings lack any evidence for the position that non-human entities have intrinsic value”. Svoboda proposes that we cannot assign intrinsic value, as in another world that thing may not possess any value at all; however, I propose that things can have intrinsic value on the grounds that they are valuable with no regard to their function in human society, meaning that value does not come from being instrumental. I believe intrinsic value is something can exist with and without instrumental value; the most apparent example of something with both forms of value is friends; whilst friends do have instrumental value by giving us connections and doing us favours, they also have value in-themselves. Of course, I expect a friend to help me if they can, but if they cannot I value them no less, even though their instrumental value would be less significant to me. Moreover, there are also instances where things have had instrumental value, that has been lost or taken away leaving purely intrinsic value. A prime example of this is Marilyn Monroe’s “Happy Birthday, Mr. President Dress”. This year, the dress sold at auction for $4.8 million, so that it can be displayed in Ripley’s Believe it or Not Museum. Normally, an expensive dress is purchased as it is well fitted, or made of a material which will last a long time but ultimately to make the person wearing it more attractive. However, in this instance, one of histories most expensive dresses is merely sitting in a display. Whilst the dress could have this instrumental value, the intrinsic value overwhelms it to the extent that its instrumental purpose becomes redundant. On the other hand, we can also have value completely exclusive of instrumental value. For instance, Van Gogh’s painting, The Starry Night, to most people, holds absolutely no