A Nod To The Bishop
Berkeleianism the idealistic system of philosophy of Bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753),
idealism a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason
A familiar question that can give rise to endless speculation is this: if a tree falls crashing to the ground in a forest, and there is no one present to witness it, no ear to hear the crash, does the event make noise? If the answer is yes, how can it be proven? If the answer is no, how can it be proven? The impact of the crash will cause ripples in the air (potential sound waves), but lacking a listener, those waves will diminish and fade silently. Or will there be sound regardless of the presence or absence of an observer?
Bishop George Berkeley might have had an answer. He maintained that things (matter) cannot exist unless perceived by some mind. One of his peers attempted to prove to him that matter exists by kicking a large boulder until he rebounded from it, in order to prove reality. The Bishop retorted that matter is a notion added to what the senses actually report. And so far there has been no rebuttal to Bishop Berkeley's argument.
What is your reaction to the problem of the tree that crashed in the forest? If you have an opinion, you are indulging in one of philosophy's great occupations - that of speculation. Will you read more about Bishop Berkeley's theories? Do you know of other unanswerable situations that invite argument?
Thomas Stearns Eliot wrote
idealism a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason
A familiar question that can give rise to endless speculation is this: if a tree falls crashing to the ground in a forest, and there is no one present to witness it, no ear to hear the crash, does the event make noise? If the answer is yes, how can it be proven? If the answer is no, how can it be proven? The impact of the crash will cause ripples in the air (potential sound waves), but lacking a listener, those waves will diminish and fade silently. Or will there be sound regardless of the presence or absence of an observer?
Bishop George Berkeley might have had an answer. He maintained that things (matter) cannot exist unless perceived by some mind. One of his peers attempted to prove to him that matter exists by kicking a large boulder until he rebounded from it, in order to prove reality. The Bishop retorted that matter is a notion added to what the senses actually report. And so far there has been no rebuttal to Bishop Berkeley's argument.
What is your reaction to the problem of the tree that crashed in the forest? If you have an opinion, you are indulging in one of philosophy's great occupations - that of speculation. Will you read more about Bishop Berkeley's theories? Do you know of other unanswerable situations that invite argument?
Thomas Stearns Eliot wrote
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
posted by marguerite louise at
8:28 PM
10 Comments:
I would maintain that humans are not the most important force on the planet. The idea that a human needs to perceive a sound in order for there to have been a sound is ridiculous. Probably a MAN came up with this theory? Good grief.
By
Anonymous, at 9/10/2005 10:38 AM
Thank you, Carrie. It is not known who originated the problem of the tree. Odysseuse tried to make it clear that "no ear to hear..." was neutral, and did not necessarily pertain to a human or humans!
By
marguerite louise, at 9/10/2005 11:36 AM
Having come from a four-hour investigation of Berkeley's theories (which I conducted specifically for the purpose of housework avoidance), I'm going to have to respectfully put the man in the Crackpot Category and tackle the dishes in the sink, the dust bunnies under the bed and the laundry pile by the washer even though they're all just "a collection of ideas and notions" since the prevailing "notion" in this house is that they represent a very tangible health hazard.
Sorry, Bishop. I think God and the Health Dept. would agree with me. ;D
By
Anonymous, at 9/10/2005 4:36 PM
Yeah, I think I'll stop "perceiving" my dirty house, and my credit card bill...sounds like the way to go to me...
By
Anonymous, at 9/10/2005 6:59 PM
Funny you should mention the bills, C. I was going to throw that in myself.
Maybe we can just start "reframing" our perceptions so the whole world looks rosy and perfect and we can fold our hands and do nada to improve it. I'm sure we must be wrong about, say, global warming and man's inhumanity to man, just to mention two of my personal hot buttons.
Sheesh....I'd better not get started...
By
Anonymous, at 9/10/2005 7:32 PM
...And, if my phone rings, but no one is home to hear it, it didn't really ring? What sort of nut thinks that could possibly be true?
Good grief.
By
Anonymous, at 9/10/2005 9:43 PM
Using Berkeley's theory, if your phone rings and you're not home to hear (perceive) the ringing, then you're also not perceiving the phone itself, so it doesn't exist, either. But the instant you step into the room, the phone rematerializes. Presto!
Ain't Philosophy grand? ;^)
By
Anonymous, at 9/11/2005 12:20 AM
Your comments are much appreciated!
Odysseuse is neutral on crashing trees (noise?No noise?) and on Bishop Berkeley; however, it would be interesting to hear other points of view in addition to those already expressed.
By
marguerite louise, at 9/12/2005 1:43 PM
Hi,
I'm not sure about tree. I do believe perception is reality. However, I do want to say that I love your blog and read it faithfully! Thank you!
By
Pamela, at 9/15/2005 1:26 AM
So, if I believe that nothing is real unless I percieve it and jump off the balcony, I may be quite surprised at what I'll percieve next.
By
Anonymous, at 9/19/2005 7:54 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home