George Berkeley And John Locke Argument Analysis

Amy

Part One: Area of Philosophy

After studying philosophy for the past month I have come to the conclusion that we can’t know anything for sure. I made this comment to my philosopher friends George Berkeley and John Locke. They both looked at me and started arguing with one another on their beliefs. Their beliefs align with epistemology which is the study of knowledge.

Part Two: Argument Analysis

John Locke believed we are born with innate knowledge which is gained from experience. Locke said, “To this I answer in one word, from experience: in that all our knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives itself”. Locke was an empiricist who believed human knowledge can be traced to experiences with our senses. Locke believed that we can gain knowledge from experience. Locke also believed that as humans we have the ability to reflect. Locke’s book, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding went against the ideas of a rationalist. Locke attacked their innate views with his strong argument. When I asked Locke how we know what was true, he did not have a simple or concise answer.

Berkeley accepted John Locke’s empiricist view but that does not mean he wasn’t a skeptic.
Berkeley rejected Locke’s distinction between primary and secondary qualities.
The primary characteristics were in physical objects while the secondary characteristics depended on the human mind. Berkeley denied existence of an external world. Berkeley said “to be is to be perceived”. This means the only things that exist are our minds and our ideas. Berkeley’s epistemology was known as “subjective idealism”. Berkeley was also against rationalism and materialism but believed God was evident by perception. Berkeley’s main point was that objects cannot exist without being perceived. For example, when we see a tree and close our eyes we know it still exists even if we cannot see it. This is due to us knowing that people around us will also see the
tree.

Part Three: Argument Evaluation

Overall, the premises of both philosophers are safe to accept. While Locke’s argument was valid. Locke’s argument was considered pointless by Berkeley. Berkeley believed that Locke referencing an “unknown substratum” was an assumption. Berkeley’s argument has no substance to it. Overall it can be considered fallacious compared to other beliefs. I do not believe that Berkeley had a valid argument. Berkeley’s belief that ideas are nothing more than just beliefs is absurd. His entire philosophy is based on doubt instead of curiosity. Philosophy should question life, and science but Berkeley’s argument does not do this. Berkeley only denies beliefs instead of further questioning them. I believe Berkeley’s philosophy does not stand up to Locke’s argument but Berkeley did present a stronger argument than Locke. In doing so Berkeley did not have to make assumptions. Berkeley was also against Locke’s strong belief of general terms. Berkeley was more focused on concrete particulars. This allows us to have a definite idea of something. For example, when we think of circle we think of a perfectly round object, we do not think of a square, triangle or oval. This concrete idea allows us not to make assumption or use general terms. Locke did not agree with this and found it to not be reliable. Overall, I believe that Berkeley was correct with the idea on concrete particulars. It does not make sense why Locke would prefer general terms than concrete ideas. Philosophy does not search for more assumptions but instead the answers to these assumptions.

Part Four: Conclusion.

After listening to both of the philosophers and their arguments I have reached my own conclusion. Although philosophy is never a concrete answer I have combined both Locke’s and Berkeley’s views. I agree with Locke and his belief that we gain knowledge from our experiences. Knowledge is more than what can be learned in a school from studying. I believe we learn from our experiences and these experiences shape us to be who we are. Even though it is impossible to know everything, our experiences can help us have more knowledge. Berkeley did not support his overall belief in this argument. I think that we should believe in science until we have a strong enough reason to no. Since philosophy has yet to reach a concrete answer believing is the only thing we can do. Our beliefs are unique to us and should not be the same as everyone else. If we all had the same views on money, family, love, politics and the future it would not be interesting. By having different views, it follows Locke’s belief that experience shapes our knowledge. Our beliefs come from prior life experiences, example saving money since we realized sometimes unfortunate incidents occur. I agree with Berkeley since he defended common sense. Berkley presented a valid and sound argument which I agree with and do not find any issues with. Berkeley was able to help me further realize what philosophy is without having to create as many assumptions as Locke. Berkeley was able to have If Locke did not make so many assumptions his argument would have been more persuasive. We may never have the full answers to all philosophical questions but by analyzing the views of Locke and Berkeley we can come closer to these answers.