BQ7

Class Responses and Instructor Comments

>From Natalie:

It is against abstract ideas because it says that something has to have a certain quality to it and Berkeley argues that there is no one shape or size for a material object. For ex. a pen can not be classified as a pen just because it is blue.

>rm says: Go back to the way in which we form abstract ideas. Berkeley says that to have an abstract idea of a color like blue, we have to start with an idea of a particular blue object, and then take away all the other qualities of that object, leaving only the blue. But then he says, here, that this process is impossible. And thus we can't form abstract ideas.

>From jp:

This contradicts the commonality in the creation of abstract.

>rm says: Sort of. Can you be more specific? Where exactly is the contradiction?

>From eddie:

Berkeley is trying to say in this line, is that, even if we do imagine or think of something we never experienced, it will still have real qualities because it will have certain shapes and colors of real things that we experienced and sensed. I think this is an argument against it because he only believes in a mental world not a physical. But by making abstract ideas that is saying that their is a physical world.

>rm says: This is about ideas of specific things we have never experienced: the things which abstract ideas are supposed to represent. It's not about, say, a unicorn. In this context, your first sentence seems right. The next two, though, miss the mark. How does his idealism work as an argument against abstract ideas? I think this is backwards. And it's not clear here why abstract idaes entail the existence of a physical world (though Berkeley does make the connection.)

>From KAI YU and WAI YAN:

abstract ideas are not real physical objects. so when we imagine it would not require particular shape or color because they are all secondary qualities.

>rm says: But for Berkeley, the secondary properties are the real qualities! In fact, we can't imagine any object without them, as the quote says.

Berkeley Reading Guide 7. "But then whatever hand or eye I imagine, it must have some particular shape and color." (§10) Explain. Why is this an argument against abstract ideas?		Back to Berkeley Reading Guide Back to Philosophy 101 Home Next Question
Enter your response to the above question, or to a previous response, in the form below, or use this email link. I will post your response on the right, and comment if I think I can be helpful. When emailing, instead of using the form, please indicate the question number. When using the form below, if you neglect to enter your name or email, I won't know who you are.	Class Responses and Instructor Comments >From Natalie: It is against abstract ideas because it says that something has to have a certain quality to it and Berkeley argues that there is no one shape or size for a material object. For ex. a pen can not be classified as a pen just because it is blue. >rm says: Go back to the way in which we form abstract ideas. Berkeley says that to have an abstract idea of a color like blue, we have to start with an idea of a particular blue object, and then take away all the other qualities of that object, leaving only the blue. But then he says, here, that this process is impossible. And thus we can't form abstract ideas. >From jp: This contradicts the commonality in the creation of abstract. >rm says: Sort of. Can you be more specific? Where exactly is the contradiction? >From eddie: Berkeley is trying to say in this line, is that, even if we do imagine or think of something we never experienced, it will still have real qualities because it will have certain shapes and colors of real things that we experienced and sensed. I think this is an argument against it because he only believes in a mental world not a physical. But by making abstract ideas that is saying that their is a physical world. >rm says: This is about ideas of specific things we have never experienced: the things which abstract ideas are supposed to represent. It's not about, say, a unicorn. In this context, your first sentence seems right. The next two, though, miss the mark. How does his idealism work as an argument against abstract ideas? I think this is backwards. And it's not clear here why abstract idaes entail the existence of a physical world (though Berkeley does make the connection.) >From KAI YU and WAI YAN: abstract ideas are not real physical objects. so when we imagine it would not require particular shape or color because they are all secondary qualities. >rm says: But for Berkeley, the secondary properties are the real qualities! In fact, we can't imagine any object without them, as the quote says.
Write your comments here: Your Name: Your email: