Empiricism and great philosophers Berkeley, Locke and Humé
‘No human knowledge can go beyond your experience’. (Locke j. , 1632-1704).
The issue of empiricism generates interest for the people who like it, knowing how the theories of knowledge of modern philosophy were given, so it would not be bad to include a discussion on this subject, the only problem is that it puts the doubt of whatWILL BE TALKED.
When talking about empiricism we refer to experience and knowledge. And not only about that, but we also talk about the point of view that these empiricists gave to the origin to this by guiding the three substances that Discardes plata that over time are discarding or modifying. And that is where we begin to talk about the theories of the following empiricists, starting with John Locke who talks about the theory of knowledge, that knowledge is creator for our experience, we can also see the origin of ideas and qualities, also alsoThis Berkeley that gives a turn to the theory of others with its immaterialism, where it discards the material substance and only stays with spiritual substances. And finally, but not least we will talk about Humé that discards the three substances and criticizes the substance. It also talks about ideas and impressions, chance etc.
We are going to start with this topic that is very interesting and important, since we will talk about three great empiricists
John Locke, Berkeley, Humé that over time they gave a turn to philosophy. In this essay I want to highlight several important points of which I will highlight the contribution that one of them gave. But to start with all this we have to explain what is English empiricism? It is a philosophical current that considers "experience" as a valid source of knowledge. The characteristics of this says that "the origin of our knowledge is in experience". For empiricists there are no innate ideas (which are those that we have without having experience). They say that "the human mind is a blank sheet" (Locke J. , 1632-1704) that we fill it thanks to the experience. Another characteristic is that the knowledge of man is reduced by experience. Also that they are based on the inductive method to be able to know the phatic sciences. As the observation and registration of the facts, analysis and classification, inductive derivation of a generalization of the facts, contrast.
John Locke (1632-1704)
John Locke is an English philosopher, father of modern empiricism his essay on the human understanding of 1960, feels the bases on which later authors such as (Berkeley, 1685-1753) and (Hume, 1711-1776) will develop his thinking. I humble what he does is that he leads to Locke’s empiricism to the extreme by taking out the conclusions that Locke could not take. For Locke we cannot correctly face a philosophical problem without having answered the question, what can we know?, This prioritizes knowledge theory, Locke gives much importance to this theory, to locke knowledge theory is the foundation of philosophizing as an instrument. But what is Locke’s starting point? Radical criticism of Cartesian innatism. For Locke all our knowledge is acquired if we had innate ideas, all men should accept them universally but this is false, since to have an idea in my mind I have to be aware of it, understanding means being aware of what is understoodTherefore there are no innate ideas, there is no mental content prior to experience our mind is like a blank paper or a dark room. So we say where all our ideas come from? Of experience, which can be bone internal of ourselves, or external of things. From this type of external or internal ideas come all our experiences. Ideas can be of two types, simple or compound. Simple ideas refers to the fact that our mind is passive is limited to receiving them directly from experience. On the other hand, to talk about the compounds, the mind is active that it forms them with the union of simple ideas, composite ideas move away from experience, but are connected to them dare of simple ideas, it is simple comings that are the ones thatThey cannot be divided into parts, some of the simple ideas derive from external experience and receive the name of sensation ideas that leads us to a single meaning that are the secondary qualities that are color, taste, smell, temperature. Other simple ideas of sensation are come in several ways that are the primary qualities, which are the extension, form, movement, the impenetrability of the bodies. The difference between these two is that the primary qualities are objective and the secondary qualities are subjective. Therefore we can say that primary qualities are really in bodies, and secondary qualities are not in the bodies but only has the ability or power to produce those sensations in us. Other simple ideas come from the internal experience that are those of reflection, are ideas of psychic facts such as knowing, wanting, thinking, doubt. Composite ideas are the combination of simple ideas. An example to be able to understand this more, imagine that we have an orange, I have the idea of orange as a substance that is the result of a whole series of combinations of simple ideas that always go together. The idea of orange color, the idea of the taste of orange, the idea of a rounded form of a movement. "Not imagining how those simple ideas can exist for themselves, we get used to assuming some substrate in which they exist (…) to which, therefore, we give the name of substance". (Locke j. , idea of the substance).
George Berkeley (1685-1753)
He won a place in the history of philosophy thanks to one of the extravagant theories about immaterialism, Berkeley thought that his immaterialist theory was much more adjusted to the common sense of the ordinary people than the rest of the theories of other philosophers. As we know, Descartes established the existence of three substances: the material substance, the finite spiritual substance and the spiritual or infinite substance to what Berkeley comes to do is deny the material substance remaining alone with spiritual substances, in effect as the father of the father ofEmpirismo had defended the three substances, instead David Humé goes a step forward and denies the existence of the three, Berkeley is using the material substance developed by Descartes and more specifically by Locke, he understands that the material substance as pure extension without any way, this idea of material substance has given a series of problems that Berkeley wants to solve, and does it but denies its existence … Recapitulating Locke had said that what we perceived of sensitive things are a series of qualities as in the orange I perceive a color, a flavor, a movement but I do not perceive a substance. The qualities must inherir in something must exist in a substrate and that is material substances, Berkeley believes that the material substance is incomprehensible, unnecessary and source of errors of all kinds. That things existed or ceasing to exist according to me. Berkeley guarantees that God is the continuity of the real, to end the intermittency of reality, there must be an infinite mind that can always perceive it in act, that is, a spirit that perceives everything and does not cease to perceive, an example of an example of an example of an example of an example of This as I am not a spirit that perceives sometimes yes and sometimes not, in my perception the reality will come from God, although there is no material substance for Berkeley that did not mean that sensitive things were not real and how it is All that, it is already becoming something confusing good we can say that I am not the creator of my perceptions, they impose it or not, therefore the material things are real because the idea of the senses do not depend on my will and These composed of liveliness and coherence, if being is being perceived, will have to appeal to a consistent perception of the perception of an infinite spirit God dares many of the perceptions that I have means the persistence of God. In the Berkeley System there is no substance that changes our perceptions because it is God through its current perceptions causes reality so that we perceive it. The material substance does not exist, and that being is to be perceived.
David Humé (1685-1753)
And finally we will explain a little of the criticism that Hume makes to the idea of substance, to begin. For Hume, mental contents can be of two types, they can be "ideas or impressions" and are distinguished by their degree of lightness, the impression is stronger instead the idea is weaker, it is like the memory of the impression. And there we realize the difference with Descartes, since for him the sensitive impression is somewhat dark and confusing and we had to doubt the senses, clarity and distinction The experience were characteristics that could only be given in ideas, HumeHe turns all this and says that they are the ideas that are dark and confusing in most of the time and that the evidence comes to us from the senses of impressions. And this is very important since for Hume all our knowledge derives from the sensitive experience, for Hume all our ideas come from impressions are copies of impressions. This deals with an unusual empiricism rather than that of the other authors for example Locke because here in Hume we only have knowledge when we just receive what the senses give us, the sensitive experience is the only source of knowledge. So if we want to prove that the idea is true, what we have to show is that it comes from an impression, example if in case we found in our mind an idea that does not refer to any impression we would have to rule it out as false. A clear example of this is what I can have the idea of a dragon that is not associated with any impression therefore it is not an idea is something that I invent a fiction. Only if we start from this empiricism we can understand the criticism that Hume makes to the substance, let’s take the three substances of Descartes and that Hume to build these three substances starting that we have no impression of any substance. Let’s start with God, the idea is because of invisible and intangible essence, God cannot be captured by experience and therefore is an unbdic idea, it means that it has no associated impression. We have no impression of God therefore the idea of God is a false idea a fiction. Let’s talk a little about the self with the soul, its characteristics can be that it is invisible and that I cannot capture it for the senses so I have no impression of the soul. So we can say that the idea of a self or you, which receives impressions is nothing more than a fiction. As Hume says that there is no knowledge beyond the senses because all knowledge derives from experience. (Aristotle) . We will see how chance applies implies a necessary connection of the cause and effect. And this is how Hume applies chance in the criticism of the substance, when we talk that something is the cause of something else we can refer to a necessary connection between the cause and the effect. Whenever the cause we necessarily think the effect will be given. Humé criticized the validity of induction, the fact that something has happened in the past is not proof that the future continues to happen the same this time can change, say the opposite that is to say that in the future the same continues to happen, the sameeven if not. And so we think of all the reasoning based on chance, as well as if you go to the street, if you get on this bus you get to school. Humé tells us that we cannot really assure 100% that these effects always follow these effects.
Finally we realize that each empiricist gave their point of view on substances. Where only the residue of Cartesian metaphysics was, and that the debates of the great empiricists like Locke and Berkeley entered the concept of material substance with their immaterialism, which was still a survivor of Cartesianism in Locke’s philosophy and is the same as it doesHume attacks the concept of spiritual substance, which was still alive in Berkeley. In this essay you could know and learn many things. With "John Locke we realized that innate ideas do not exist because we are a blank role that we create our ideas based on experience" (Locke J. , Empirism, 1632-1704) with "Berkeley that our reality is created by the perception of God since there is a material substance and the sosas are real because they do not depend on my will" and by "Hume we saw that ideas are the memory of theimpressions and if an idea has no impression is not an idea but a fiction ”(Hume, 1711-1776).
Bibliography
- Fernández, J.L / Soto Bruna, M.J. (2012). History of modern philosophy. EUNSA. Pamplona.
- García Morente. M. (2020). PRELIMINARY LESSONS OF PHILOSOPHY. Fenix S Student Editorial.A.
Leave feedback