This week we answer skeptics like Descartes with empiricism. Hank explains John Locke’s primary and secondary qualities and why George Berkeley doesn’t think that distinction works — leaving us with literally nothing but our minds, ideas, and perceptions.
—
PBS Digital Studios wants to get to know you better! If you have 10 minutes, we’d really appreciate it AND you’ll be entered for a chance to win a t-shirt! https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/pbsds2016
—
Images and video via VideoBlocks or Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons by 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
—
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: http://youtube.com/pbsdigitalstudios
Crash Course Philosophy is sponsored by Squarespace.
http://www.squarespace.com/crashcourse
—
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook – http://www.facebook.com/YouTubeCrashC…
Twitter – http://www.twitter.com/TheCrashCourse
Tumblr – http://thecrashcourse.tumblr.com
Support CrashCourse on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/crashcourse
CC Kids: http://www.youtube.com/crashcoursekids
source
soo if you´re blind, does that mean the world does noot exist for you?
If you dont see, hear, feel, taste, smell god, therefore you dont perceive it, therefore it doesnt exist
A part of this episode reminded me of Rascal does not dream of bunny girl Senpai (it’s an anime)
The argument that we can't know if anything is real disregards the evolution of the senses through natural selection. If our senses have allowed us to survive as a species for this long, then they must accurately represent the world to a certain degree. The things we cannot perceive are those that pose little to no threat to us, or at least not as commonly. Like individual bacteria, infrared and ultraviolet light, radiation, etc.
The problem as I see it is that secondary qualities are due to the interaction of primary qualities of two objects. Like what you call taste depends on the chemical composition of the apple and your taste buds and how they interact. I know this is an oversimplification and it's just not the taste buds that determine the different tastes different people might attribute to the same apple but you get my point.
And if secondary qualities are dependent on primary qualities then it doesn't make sense to say that they are not real.
Of course they are not real 'properties' of one object like the apple, but why can't you say it's a 'property' of two or more objects interacting with each other. If it interacts in one way we can it A. If it interacts in a different way we call it B and so on. A and B could be anything like spicy, crunchy, etc. They're just labels on different ways of interaction. And so it seems to me that what are called secondary qualities in this video are just as real.
I'm not an expert, but talking about Berkeley's "to be is to be perceived" really made me think of Sartre's "hell is other people" and the Other
This type of philosophy is like science for lazy people
7:21 this reminds me of something i learned at the mosque ; ''beautiful things on this world are to have an idea of heaven because Allah made us without such capacity.'' ( this is not a quote from the quran but the explanation of my teacher from a part of the quran.)
Our brains don't have the capacity to imagine things that are not based on things we have already seen. For example unicorns are based on horses and horns.
This is to give us motivation to stay on Allah's path and go to heaven.
This just something i found interesting.
The quarantine brought me here.
I can't seem to understand can someone explain to me how can a perceiver only exists when he is perceived
Really, perceiving is just interactions. No matter how hard you try not NOT be perceived, you are still perceived by the air hitting you, by the charge building up in your nerves, by the change of shape of space-time as the earth moves. There is no way to not be perceived except before the big bang (or any other explanation of creation), which is when there is no you, or any self at all.
I agree with plato even though we don't sense something it still exist that is the truth. It can't be changed.
ny philosophy teachers shows us these videos to accompany our lessons and it’s so helpful!!
Playdough's alligator of the navel.
why does it feel like he is drunk?
is the red you see the same as the red I see ?
Berkeley never saw into the future of the [School of Post Moderism], who can't perceive anything, anyway, anyhow.
The video stops before presenting Berkeley's argument on how he came to accept the existence of God. Everything exists through perception. God is the ultimate perceiver which is what maintains all things into existence. OK, for someone who has to perceive in order to "believe", how did Berkeley perceive God.
I DO NOT WANT TO BE PERCEIVED
I’ll admit I used to believe that the actors and characters in tv shows stopped what they were doing when I changed the channel and only began to perform again if/when I returned to that channel.
Shout out to Nick for helping make these crash course videos!
god is TJ eckleberg
Azathoth is the reason we don't snap out of existence when we are not being perceived.