Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Macbeth's Dagger and Other Illusions
Hylas objects to Philonous' idealism by claiming that on his view there is no way to distinguish between veridical appearances and illusions. In other words, idealism implies that the danger than Macbeth sees before his eyes but cannot clutch is just as real as the dagger he uses to kill Duncan. Is this a valid objection? How successful is Philonous' response?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is an entirely valid objection to idealism. If we accept that all our perceptions are real, then we have to accept that the matrix is real. Berkeley tries to argue that we can use reason to determine what is a hallucination and what is not. However, someone in the matrix would have no way of knowing whether or not what they perceived was real. Berkeley's response also contradicts that something is real just because we perceive it. Berkeley also fails to explain why schizophrenics often think their hallucinations are real. Ultimately, they have no way of knowing whether or not what they see is real. Under Berkeley's beliefs, every illusion is real.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley's claim that everything we percieve is true is plainly false. While most things we see, touch, or hear are true, it does mean that everything is true. Hallucinations, by definition, are things we sense that are imaginary. While people may believe that their individual hallucinations or delusions are true, the majority of people would point those out as being false. As for Macbeth, its just coincidental (or just plot)that he sees a dagger before him only a few scenes before he uses a real dagger to kill his King. His perception of a dagger is clearly false, and Berkeley's argument falls flat And later, with Lady Macbeth's line "out out black spot", she is seeing imaginary (metaphorical)blood on her hands, not real blood. Berkeley's proof that everything is true does not account for any actualities that prove the rule wrong. Whether it be from mental illness, drugs, or even a psychotic break, things we percieve can be flase.
ReplyDelete(Ps. Typo:...the *dagger that* Macbeth...)
Hylas' argument that idealism makes it impossible to distinguish between illusion and reality is an astute one. Thus it would make sense that a perceived danger such as the one’s Macbeth sees would be just as dangerous as a physical danger. Obviously Macbeth was written for dramatic effect and thus the perceived dangers end up becoming realities, but in real life this is almost never so. Is would seem obvious that a sensed danger could have no real danger when compared to one that is truly happening. Idealism clearly promotes a false idea. Berkely’s response to the attack on idealism is that people have the ability to distinguish between illusion and reality because illusion, such as a dream will always have several major differences from reality, thus he states that we cannot truly be deceived by our perceptions because we will identify the false one’s to be illusions. He doesn’t take into account the fact that we may not know what reality is to begin with, and thus what we judge to be an illusion may be based off of false pretences. Berkeley’s entire argument is based off of unproven arguments. Berkeley states that what we perceive must be true because our ability to perceive must have been given to us by a benevolent god who would not deceive us. This is a bold statement that he “proves” by stating that a benevolent god must exist because we have the idea that it is true, and the only way we could have the idea of a benevolent god is if there was one to plant the idea in our head. This argument is completely ridiculous and has absolutely zero proof. This is the section in his book where it seems that the entire book begins falling apart.
ReplyDelete