Facts and Rebuttal of the Point of View of Philosophers About the Material World
Have you ever wondered how things such as objects or materials came about? Who brought them to where they are now, or even if they are real? What evidence is there that justifies these objects are indeed real ; and not creations of our imagination? All these are rhetorical questions , which many philosophers have tried to answer. Many have come close to explaining this, while others completely believe they are only there because we think they are there. In this essay I will explain that the external world does truly exist, and compare two philosophers George Berkeley and John Locke viewpoints on the external world. I will then decide if either one has the right answer and how would someone rebuttal their argument.
The first philosopher George Berkeley argued that “ existence is the thing that is perceived or the one who perceives it” . In order words he feels that what anybody knows about an object or objects comes from our knowledge of that object. He then talks about the belief of God. He expresses if there is no such thing as God then the materialistic objects appear just like God does : instantly come into sight when we call upon it, then slightly vanish when it is no longer needed. But instead, he states that even if we do not require an object, that object will still appear on its own. For example, just because a person can’t see danger doesn’t mean it doesn’t exists. But in fact we have the knowledge of how to react in a dangerous situation. Our mind and body goes in the flight or fight mode to defend ourselves in such situation. Another example would be that desk that was in the classroom would exist , regardless if anyone was there to see it or has encounter it some way.
As for philosopher John Locke, he argue that knowledge is developed through our senses, and we then take that knowledge we developed to bring about ideas. He explain that there are two ways in which our ideas are brought about first by sensation and secondly by reflection. He points out that there are certain properties of an object that resembles an object. He then separates the qualities of things in two groups; spatial properties and secondary qualities such as color, taste, and touch…etc. For example, According to Locke our observations are shape from external objects which he refers to as internal operations of our mind. And only theses two are the component that develop knowledge.
I agree with George Berkeley argument on the external world because of our perception aspect of life. If I walked in a room and we see a table then we walk out and came back in that same room but the table is gone we will assume that someone took the table , or it was just simply moved to a different location; because we just saw it, so we would perceive it’s still there. Someone would rebuttal his argument by giving example of a unicorn or leprechauns at the end of the rainbow. Yes, we know the rainbow is real because we can see it, but if we go searching for the pot gold that is supposed to be at the end of the rainbow and we never find it; should we still assume it’s there? And as for the unicorn part, hypothetically speaking someone says they see a purple unicorn in a corner or outside eating grass, but for some reason I can’t see what the person sees ; so should I allow myself to believe whatever that person see is true?