George Berkeley: Perception and Existence - Essay Sample

Introduction

George Berkeley was an Irish philosopher who had a good understanding of the theory of perception which he saw a great sense in. To Berkeley, being in existence and perceiving of being in existence all come down to the same thing. The things we see with our eyes only exist because we perceive them at the back of our minds. The vivid images we see are the fruits of our mind's perception of things (David 1969). In as much as things exist and we believe they come to being, it's only a realization of the images in our minds interpreting ideas of what we would want them to be or appear. Research may argue differently, but, indeed, things can only exist for as long as we can perceive them in our minds.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The general common sense will depict that there can only be two elements involved during perception. One the must be a perceiver and what is being perceived. What we see creates the bigger picture in our minds. The only real ideas are one that we can directly perceive with our thoughts. Berkeley argues that if we eliminate the third absurd conceived element of the image, then it would be correct to say that material objects do not exist and the only real things are those we directly see.

Things only exist because we perceive them. The physical matter that we see around us can only be if we perceive them. If we would consider a scenario in which there is a tree along the road, then the image of the tree only exists after perceiving it. Berkeley argues that to come in existence and to perceive are all but the same (David 1969)

It is a common sense that we would say a particular building exists even without necessarily seeing it. But if we were to argue from a reality or ideality point of view, then that building cannot exist for as long as we cannot see it. We may also attach different sensations to physical objects. Consider a scenario where one describes the building as a colorful post-modern house. The color is just but a feeling in the perceiver's mind, which may be different from the view of the wide world. As such, I agree with Berkeley on the theory that things exist because we perceive them (Malet 1962).

Berkeley argues that material things are non-existent as they are only but perceptions of the mind. He says that it is not possible to conceive an object that exists independently of a perceiver. It may be hard to understand this but consider a scenario in which a building exists in such a remote area that no one has an idea. If we conceive of this building, then the picture becomes present in our minds, and the perception becomes a reality. The building stops to be independent of our perception. Berkeley says that the idea of material things as objects existing independently of our perceptions remains unclear, and thus, we cannot conceive material substances (Malet 1962).

Berkeley has a view on the existence of religion as a result of things we perceive in our minds and what we believe in. The typical believing that our bodies do exist even outside our minds is proof of the existence of a higher realm of power whose influence is independent of influence by spirits. He adds that the existence of God is only perceived through the daily instances happening in our lives. If one was in a tragic scenario such as a hijack and miraculously saves out of danger, then one believes that to be God's doing and as such we perceive the power of God in our minds which brings religion to being (Dennis et al., 2003).

Berkeley continues to say that those sensible things that we perceive are mind-dependent. Then it must follow that there is a higher power is sees them (the master perceiver) who is God. He adds that these objects are always in the mind of the master perceiver and thus the beauty and uniqueness that we see in our world is as a result of the perceptions of the divine mind. He argues that this has led to the traditional conception in which human view God as deserving all worship as a result of his beautiful works of nature from what we can see. It is particularly true as religion is only based on beliefs and faith in which people believe in what they cannot perceive or see (Malet 1962). It makes it right to say that the master perceiver who is God exists as a perception in our minds, and only those who perceive can believe in God.

Berkeley argues of a world in which science convinces us of the presence of matter while the matter is just but perception in our minds. He argues that science would still be if we stopped viewing bodies as material substances that existed outside our minds. In Berkeley theory of vision, he says that the distance we see between places is just our mental inventions that can be explained with the content of visual ideas without referring to existing material substances, whatever things that we see and touch have nothing in common but are just a reflection of what we have trained our minds to perceive (Dennis et al., 2003). Example if a scenario where we came across a mango fruit along the road it would be possible to identify it since we have learned how to associate the smell, touch, and appearance of mango in our minds. The things we learn give vivid pictures of what we see, and it would be right to say that things remain to be the way they are just as a result of our perceptions for them.

The things that we see to be sensible only exist in the minds of those who are ready to perceive them. In a typical scenario where one applies common sense, it would be right to say that the sensible things are in existence even without us seeing or perceiving them. Berkeley argues that even as one blinks his eyes and the visual images appear and reappear it would have no consequences saying that the things pop out of existence and reappear when one opens their eyes (Erich and Casell, 2006)

Berkeley says that the existence of the things one sees is not solely dependent on one seeing it. He argued that those things which were sensible could not be seen without perceiving them. In this case an individual is not the sole perceiver and as long as other minds can perceive those sensible objects and qualities of something, then it would be right to see that those substances exist (Erich and Casell, 2006) It is especially real if you consider a scenario where you see a car on the road. If I look at that car and at some time close my eye that I no longer see it, then the car will still be in existence for as long as another person is looking at it.

Berkeley says that the things, whether imaginary or real that we perceive in our minds continue to be so long as they are in our minds. If one was to imagine a mango fruit, then the perception of that mango will remain constant in mind for as long as they think of it. He adds that the real objects continue to exist because they are perceptions in many peoples mind and for this case continues to exist for as long as it still presents in one's mind if even it is absent in the rest (Dennis et al., 2003). I find this particularly true especially when you consider a case scenario like this, in a group of people and a car passes by, if some fail to see the vehicle, then they cannot perceive it and the existence of such a thing in their minds cannot be it only remains sensible to those who perceived it

All things come into reality to the human mind because they can perceive them. The persistence and occurrence of the sensible objects occurring in our natural world are but a perception of what we visualize in our minds. To sum it up, real things and objects exist only at the moment that we can visualize them in our minds.

Works Cited

Armstrong, David Malet. "Berkely's Theory of Vision: A Critical Examination of Bishop Berkeley's Essay towards a New Theory of Vision." (1962).retrieved from, https://philpapers.org/rec/ARMBTO-5

Berman, David. "An early essay concerning Berkeley's immaterialism." Hermathena (1969): 37-43.

Lehmann, Erich L., and George Casella. Theory of point estimation. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006. Retrieved from, https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4f24CgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR18&dq=george+berckeley+&ots=K7SZdYXQr7&sig=Ld377DLQHmfA3TAyeyiFk7QYJmc&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=george%20berckeley&f=false

Proffitt, Dennis R., et al. "The role of effort in perceiving distance." Psychological Science 14.2 (2003): 106-112. Retrieved from, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01427