Empiricism, knowledge and existence
Empirism is one of the philosophical currents that opposes rationalism within modern philosophy, empiricism arises in England and has as main representatives David Hume, Berkeley and John Locke. We define empiricism as a philosophical current that considers that experience is the only valid source of knowledge, rationalism unlike empiricism considered reason as a source of knowledge, for empiricists the origin of our knowledge is in experiences then it is achieved thenCharacterize that in empiricism there are no innate ideas which gives power to experience as the only criterion of truth, but the knowledge of man is limited by experience and seen from an empiricist point means that man only has a relative knowledge. To learn more about the empiricism of the factual sciences, the inductive method is made, which contains general conclusions from particular data and empirical verification is extremely necessary. Hume from his position indicates from his theory of knowledge that empiricism starts from the experience studying the facts of experience which take as name perceptions of the spirit or states of consciousness, to sensitive perceptions are received directly sinceThey are the product of the sense of man, that is, how man knows the outside world on the other hand, we find the perceptions of reflection, that is, from the interior of man which differs from the derived perceptions that Hume gives them the name of ideas since they are derivedof an impression which are directed by the vivacity or intensity that they possess, ideas can be simple or complex together with the different association laws. (Aparcence, 2005). David Hume’s empiricist theory indicates that empiricism is summarized in the following basic principles:
There are no innate knowledge and therefore human beings come to life without previous knowledge or any awareness about the way we should look at reality. All the knowledge we acquire along the way are the product of the multiple experiences that we live. There are two types of mental content Hume indicates the effects, which are those thoughts that are based on things that we have all experienced through our senses, they are replicas of the above and their nature is somewhat more uncertain and inconcreta by not havinglimitation or details of something that corresponds to a sensation originated by the sensory organs and that there are two types of statements in which it distinguishes the demonstrative statements and the probable. The demonstratives, as the name implies, are which whose validity can be demonstrated by evaluating its logical structure. The probable statements, on the other hand, refer to situations that occur in a certain time and space. The limitations of inductive thought
For Hume, our lives are characterized by the beliefs that we adopt as variables or invariable, which we assume from the experiences then it emphasizes that there is nothing that justifies it. From the occurrence of many similar experiences in the past, it is not logically derived that that will always happen so that there are a variety of statements that explain the functioning of the world since for Hume these truths are not entirely accurate, but we assume themBecause they are part of our routine. Since the human being is first exposed to the experience of various experiences and then we assume them as a reality. (Torres, 2015)
We started with the philosopher Berkeley, an empiricist and idealistic, that although (a teacher, who I do not remember the name) told me that Berkeley never became idealistic, there is no way to deny that it is … key character of what isKnow how subjective idealism or idealistic empiricism and with arguments so entrenched in the ‘idea’ and that deny so much the existence of something out of the mind and field of perceptions, I do not know how it cannot be an idealist. On the part of empiricism, he nourishes and bases to propose and argue his ideas, because, according to empiricism, all knowledge is obtained only based on experience, and nothing can even be out of it, it is then, through experiencethat we manage to be, and understand … to which the author adds with pleasure, and conviction, idealistic properties and concepts … Here we can see the favorite phrase and foundation of the entire concept proposed by Berkeley, ‘being is being perceived’And we started with this premise, which, of first moment, seemed simply absurd, but now that I have read the author’s work, it sounds not so unacceptable and even logical sometimes. And even having read it, I must admit that I do not understand it in its entirety … but I am still forced to argue something, an idea, with which I am against.
The first point that concerns us is that of knowledge, according to the author, matter as such does not exist, but all that there is a set of perceptions that occur in the mind. The reality does not have its own reality (as we had mistakenly thought of the ignorant) ‘being is to be perceived’ so what exists is only the perceptions of ‘x’ thing, which, to meet the requirement of existing, must be perceived,And of course … perceive does not separate from the experience, for the author it is necessary to experience things, conceive of perceptions, to exist, that the rest exists. I like to think, to understand it a little better, which is as if we were really in absolute darkness, and that only when we turn on the flashlight (in fact, we ourselves are the flashlight) is that we exist and everything that the light canIlluminate, so we all unlock ‘a part of that dark, the part we managed to perceive, the address in the pointed, out of it, there is nothing. It is then, so we managed to access knowledge, based on the experience and the sensations we receive with the act of existing. ‘I cannot doubt that what I see, I hear and touch is perceived by me, that is, there is, nor do I doubt my own existence. What I cannot admit or understand is that the testimony of the senses is adduced as proof of the extraordinary existence of a thing not perceived by them ‘is definitely curious and complex first, since the author tries to break that’ mold ‘ofThat an apple exists by itself, the famous and popular example … that of whether a tree in the middle of a desert forest falls, and causes noise, noise that is not heard by anyone, does the sound really exist? For Berkeley, there is neither sound, no tree, nor forest, but there is someone who perceives it, who experiences it, these manifestations, do not exist, ah! But yes … said forest and said tree if they exist if we turn to memory to produce an idea of them, the same happens if we imagine them, as you have done. (You’ll see why I disagree). The bishop, and I do not say it, other authors say it, I was crazy when exposing such thinking, they even catalog it as normal, and that is that the subject is complex … he affirms the following: ‘The roughness or softness,The color, smell, taste, temperature, figure, aspect and other qualities that are differently combined constitute the various kinds of food and dresses, it has already been shown that there are only in the mind that perceives them, and this is what we imply whenWe call them ideas;And if this word was as common as the word thing, it would not seem strange or ridiculous to say that we feed on ideas and with them we dress ’. It has fabric … but it begins to make sense when you break down and think that the taste only exists when your gustatory papillae feel it, not before … and that if you have an idea of what is the taste it is because of the knowledge obtained by the experience. The same logic can be applied in a lot of ‘phenomena’, the sweet taste does not exist until it is tested, for example. *They know … it is much more shocking when even science seems to support this idea and I mean the area of quantum physics … we have the phenomenon of Zeno or Zenon, in which it tells us that the particles behave differently when there isAn observer, that is, particles seem real only when someone observes them, perceives them ..
But as if that were not enough, your idea does not end there, because one can consider, if I leave my apple on the table and leave the room, the apple ceases to exist, the table ceases to exist, the room ceases to exist? Of course, because you are not perceiving, in principle, but no, it is not so … Berkeley tells us about the permanence of things with a tenacious argument, the existence of a god. He tells us: “As great as the domain that I have over my own thoughts, I observe that the ideas currently perceived by the senses have no equal dependence on our will. If in a clear day we open our eyes, it is not in our power to see or not see, nor determine the particular objects that have us present in front. And analogously in terms of the other senses: the ideas in them are not creatures of my will. Therefore: there must be another will or spirit that produces them ’. With this (the bishop) refers to God, and now it sneaks it to us as undoubted, and opposite to materialism, because if we accept it (to materialism) it is not necessary that there is a God, because in fact, if laten would exist, it isitself can explain its origin. But returning to what concerns us, the author tells us that there is a God who maintains reality, which in fact, we are living a simulation, in real time always present;What we see, what exists, is the idea and thought of a god. WE LIVE IN LA MATRIX,
It is not, therefore, necessary the existence of matter as a substance, but is God, and its always active perceptions that builds and maintains reality. In a nutshell, everything that exists is ideas of a subject, finite (we) or infinity (God). Berkeley makes us the favor of answering a lot of doubts and arguments that we could, in a direct talk with him, to raise him, possessor of a rather enveloping dialectic and entertaining. Now the sense of man, as far as I could understand what I read, is to perceive things, experiment with them, and thus live and exist, forming ideas. After carrying my text on top, I can say that your recommendation is quite practical: ‘You have to enjoy good perceptions before they stop being perceived.’Of course, this results if we neglect that the author was a religious of the period, and that the end of all that was to proclaim the kingdom of the Lord God, fight atheism and promote good works
To conclude adhThink like us: we see only a set of ideas that necessarily leads us to think that there is a principle of action and thought, different and at the same time analogous to us, which is represented and accompanied by that group of ideas.
References
- PARK, R. L. (2005). Empirism review David Hume works from Sergio Rabade Romeo. The Diogenes Lamp.
- Berkeley, g. (1710). Principles of human knowledge. England: folio.
- Torres, a. (2015). Psychology and mind. Obtained from https: // psychologiaymente.com/Psychology/Empirista-David-Hume
Leave feedback