Idealism, for what purpose?

I’ve been trying to compose a nice line of argument, but it is getting late so instead I will only throw out this blunt statement to you: There is no difference in saying the world concists of only mind or of only matter.

I have drawn this from Berkley’s idealism. I cannot see why his arguments leads to the conclusion that “to be is to be perceived”. It could just as well have been “our mind is nothing but chemical reactions”.

My main thought is that the name you put on the substance does not matter if that is all there is. Mind exists only in relation to matter.

Erik

Advertisements

~ by uwcphilosophy on September 24, 2006.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: