1. Can you identify any strengths of idealism?

2. Main Strengths:
No issue of scepticism – We don’t need to worry about what the external world is like / whether it exists, idealists simply believe it doesn’t.
No linking problem – We don’t have to try and explain the link between our perceptions (what Berkeley calls ideas) and the external world. There is only our perceptions.
Fits with empiricism – If empiricism is the view that we can only know what we can verify through experience, then idealism is a better fit than any of the realist views. We simply can’t check the existence of an external world empirically.
Ockham’s Razor – With the elimination of anything we can’t directly perceive idealism is a deceptively simple theory.

3. What are the 3 main arguments in favour of idealism?

4. What are the 3 main arguments in favour of idealism?
Attack on the Primary / Secondary Quality distinction – Both primary and secondary qualities are inseparable from objects, and both are mind-dependent.
The Likeness Principle – ‘Only ideas can be like other ideas’ The indirect realist cannot make the claim they do about perception ‘resembling reality’ as we cannot access reality in order to compare it to our perceptions. This undermines IDR to the extent we should abandon it.
The Master Argument – There are no such thing as unperceived, unconceived, mind-independent objects, the second you try to think of one, it is being conceived and therefore mind-dependent.

5. Lesson Objective / Summary
To clearly identify the main criticisms of idealism.
To discuss whether there are any effective responses.

6. What criticisms did we mention last lesson?

7. Criticism 1 – Illusions / Hallucination
According to Idealism, objects have the properties that we perceive them to have (because the objects are the ideas / perceptions), so when a stick appears to bend in water, the stick must be bent. Similarly, hallucinations are a problem for the Idealist because when hallucinating, we are perceiving ideas. But Berkeley claims that ideas are objects / all there is. So if we perceive a pink dragon, then there must be a pink dragon. In both of these cases, if Idealism is correct, the illusion / hallucination is as real as anything else we perceive. This does not seem to fit well with our intuitions.

8. Responses – Vivid and Consistent
The initial response from Berkeley is to argue that illusions and hallucinations are somehow not as ‘vivid’ as veridical ( truthful) perceptions. But is this always the case? What about dreams that seem real? Or illusions / hallucinations that seem so real we don’t realise they aren’t? How can Berkeley deal with these?
In the case of these examples Berkeley argues that we are able to identify the false perceptions by appealing to the regularity of our experience. Essentially, we should look for things that don’t match up with the rest of our perceptions / way we usually perceive things.
So have we seen something in the world that stands out and does not fit with what we’d usually expect? If so, we have a good reason to assume it is an illusion / hallucination.
Has something happened in our life that would go against the regularity of our everyday experience? If so, we have reason to believe we are in a particularly vivid dream.

9. How strong is this response?
The initial response from Berkeley is to argue that illusions and hallucinations are somehow not as ‘vivid’ as veridical ( truthful) perceptions. But is this always the case? What about dreams that seem real? Or illusions / hallucinations that seem so real we don’t realise they aren’t? How can Berkeley deal with these?
In the case of these examples Berkeley argues that we are able to identify the false perceptions by appealing to the regularity of our experience. Essentially, we look for things that don’t match up with the rest of our perceptions.
So have we seen something in the world that stands out and does not fit with what we’d usually expect? If so, we have a good reason to assume it is an illusion / hallucination.
Has something happened in our life that would go against the regularity of our everyday experience? If so, we have reason to believe we are in a particularly vivid dream.

10. Criticism 2 – Trap of Solipsism
Since idealism is essentially accepting the sceptical conclusion that nothing beyond my mind and it’s ideas exists, the theory runs the risk of falling into solipsism. The whole of my experience seems to be little more than an extended dream and therefore I cannot know about the true existence of anything beyond my own mind – including other people.
Solipsism* – The view that all that can be known to exist is my own mind.
*Not a position usually defended by philosophers, but a trap to be avoided.

11. Criticism 3 – Continuity and Regularity
What happens to objects when no-one is perceiving them? If idealism is correct, then the answer appears to be that they cease to exist.
An apple, under idealism, no longer exists the second I put it in a draw and stop looking at and / or thinking about it.
Yet if I open the drawer a day later the apple is still there, even if I forgot I placed it there.
If I leave it a week and open the drawer, the apple may have changed, gone rotten, even without me thinking about it.

12. Criticism 3 – Continuity and Regularity
What happens to objects when no-one is perceiving them? If idealism is correct, then the answer appears to be that they cease to exist.
An apple, under idealism, no longer exists the second I put it in a draw and stop looking at and / or thinking about it.
Yet if I open the drawer a day later the apple is still there, even if I forgot I placed it there.
If I leave it a week and open the drawer, the apple may have changed, gone rotten, even without me thinking about it.
If idealism is correct and there are gaps in the existence of things when we are not perceiving them, how come the apple seems to have behaved as if there no gap in its existence?
Similarly, why can I expect it will behave in a regular way? That all apples will do something similar if left for a length of time? That I should be able to predict certain events in my future based on reality being ‘regular’?
Essentially if all that exists are our minds and their ideas, why does reality seem to behave in a regular, continual way?

13. Whiteboards Quickly summarise the three issues we’ve discussed so far:
Illusions / Hallucinations
Solipsism
Continuity and Regularity
Ensure you include why each is a problem for idealism.

14. Whiteboards Quickly summarise the three issues we’ve discussed so far:
Illusions / Hallucinations
Solipsism
Continuity and Regularity
Ensure you include why each is a problem for idealism.

15. Response – The God Card
In the case of both solipsism and the continuity of our experience Berkeley has a serious issue, but he thinks he has an ace up his sleeve to deal with them easily – God.
To argue for God, Berkeley questions where our perceptions could have come from otherwise:
They can’t be within me, we would not be able to move past solipsism if they were.
They can’t be from external matter due to reasons / arguments previously discussed so they must come from something else.
The fact that my perception retains continuity and regularity suggests a powerful, good being.
Combined Berkeley therefore concludes that our ideas come from God.
This essentially means that anything we perceive, that is not a direct part of our minds, must be caused by God.
For Berkeley God is the ultimate perceiver – keeping everyone and everything in continual existence by being everywhere (and perceiving everything) at once.
What is more, for Berkeley, sense data is originally in the mind of God and he then produces it in me in a manner that is regular and predictable. This potentially solves the issue of where we get new ideas from we discussed last lesson.

16. Counter-Criticism – The God Card
For many philosophers the use of God to shore up a philosophical position is a gigantic cop-out, akin to admitting your theory is seriously flawed.
There is arguably, no independent reason to prove the existence of God nor to support him in the role that Berkeley casts him in. If we always turned to God when faced with a difficult explanation we would not have any problems, but very few answers either.
A secondary, perhaps larger issue is that Berkeley has already posited that we cannot know anything beyond the mind and it’s ideas. If this is true how can we be sure of the existence of a being like God?

17. Response – The Evidence
Berkeley’s response is that at least God is supposed to be an intelligence, and so it makes sense that He would do things in an orderly way. He argues that by looking at the world around us, we can see the ‘language’ of God in the order and regularity. God, in other words, is continually speaking to us through our senses.
He provides a good explanation, argues Berkeley, of the regularity and predictability of experience. The idea that some mindless substance called matter should behave in a regular and orderly fashion and so account for the origin and regularity of experience is, according to Berkeley, a far less simple explanation than an appeal to God.
Perhaps crucially, Berkeley doesn’t think he is bringing in God at the last minute to ‘save’ his theory – rather he thinks everything he has argued so far is a solid grounds for believing God exists.
If matter cannot exist (given his arguments) the only way to explain the orderly appearance of sense data is to assume the existence of some intelligent being behind it.

18. Final Criticism – An Imperfect God?
A final, and perhaps more disturbing issue entailed by Berkeley’s view of God is the idea that it may lead to imperfection in the nature of God.
If Berkeley wants to assert that ideas we perceive from outside ourselves (i.e. from what seems like the external world) are ultimately in the mind of God then what about things like pain or discomfort? If we perceive these in the world then does this mean God is in pain? If so, surely this means God is not perfect?
If God is the cause of all ideas, and these ideas and sense experiences are within him, then he must suffer from sensations such as pain and thus be imperfect.

19. Response – God Creates he doesn’t feel
Berkeley responds by saying the way we suffer pain and other sensations is very different to the way that they are in the ‘mind’ of God…
We suffer these sensations against our will, as a result of the natural, regular laws of the universe that God has instituted, but he himself is not subject to these laws (he created them). He understands pain, he is omniscient after all, but does not passively experience it. Rather he creates the sensations we experience, and governs the order and manner of their experience.

20. Whiteboards
Quickly summarise the three issues we’ve highlighted with God:
Cop-Out
The basic theory of idealism
Issue with God being the source of ideas
Ensure you include why each is a problem for God / Berkeley.

21. What have we covered?
This lesson then we’ve identified a number of criticisms and responses to the theory of idealism.
We’ve looked at issues concerning:
Illusions / Hallucinations – If idealism is true aren’t they just as real as veridical perceptions? (Response: We should look out for those things that don’t fit into our normal regular perceptions)
Solipsism – How can we know the existence of anything beyond ourselves including other people?
Continuity and Regularity – Why does the world seem to behave in a consistent regular way?
The main response for these latter issues is God, but by appealing to God Berkeley faces some further issues:
Is it not just a cop-out? - Appealing to God to shore up a philosophical theory is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
Basic theory of idealism - If idealism says we only know our minds how can we know a God exists?
An Imperfect God - If God is the source of our ideas does that mean he feels pain and suffers?
To these issues Berkeley believes he can successfully argue that God is not a cop-out and remains perfect, but whether he is successful is a matter of debate.

22. Lesson Objective / Summary
To clearly identify the main criticisms of idealism.
To discuss whether there are any effective responses.

23. Homework
Complete the idealism summary sheet, this will be marked and checked the first week back so ensure it is done to the best of your abilities.