I Refute Berkeley Thus
- Report Post
- Posted: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 02:38:55 +0000
And what is the origin of the sound? Me, or whatever is at the origin of the wave? At the moment you receive the wave, I am no longer at the point in space from which I generated the wave. That's what I mean by the present being an echo of the past.
Describing it as an echo of the past doesn't go any further than explaining how the sound was heard, as well as predicting how other things will be experienced in conjunction with it.
No, though there is nothing to objects that exceeds their constitution in consciousness. Or at least, I'm not sure what meaning there could be in claiming there is.
Ok, so you agree with Berkeley. Fair enough. 3nodding
Not entirely. I don't think objects are identical with ideas. There is no idea one can point to as being the sound waves, for instance - to speak of sound waves implies a realist sort of language that's extraordinarily complex and unfortunately almost impossible to unpack because of cultural, linguistic, scientific, and most importantly metaphysical prejudices. The same is true of Berkeley's own naive adoption of the term "idea."
What's important is that there's nothing about what is described as happening in the past that exceeds consciousness or implies the existence of the past as "moments bygone." The problem is that words such as "time" and "past" are loaded in their commonsense meaning, such that if people think you've admitted the existence of time in experience, they think you've admitted the metaphysical prejudices that accompany it. What these prejudices are is my current interest - as well as why it leads us to believe, for instance, in things like determinism, which I think are strictly speaking nonsense.
The Willow of Darkness
Which means the past exist, as otherwise reality(since it would be inaccurate to the conception of the past) would be more than what is constituted in consciousness(reality is not equivalent to what is in consciousness).
What makes you say that?