V
Vico
Guest
Both are idealists, but Leibniz is a rationalist whereas Berkeley is a empiricist. The empiricist premise is that the mind does not possess innate ideas but acquires them only through sensory experience.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
We know that light itself travelling at the speed of light is affected by gravity. So the answer is yes. Just think about a black hole where the gravity is so intense that nothing can escape it, not even light.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
What happens is that time is relative to your position and speed with respect to an outside observer. This is why they have to use Einstein’s general relativity equations to calculate the position of satellite’s in order to account for this time relativity. If I was in a space ship orbiting Earth there would be a relatively small time dilation. As I increased my speed to near the speed of light that time dilation would increase. If I spent 7 years travelling at this speed the Earth would have experienced millions of years. Whereas I would have only experienced 7 years.The speed of light traveled is all relative to time outside the speed of light. It’s continuous. Time inside and outside the speed of light is the same. If light belongs to the same space/time continuum then there is no difference.
Time slowing down is just a theory. It cannot be proven or disproven at this time. Yea the physics add up but common sense says that it cannot be true; for if it was true Space within this continuum would be ripped apart by time. Even in a black hole this is true, yet, I think its gamma radiation that escapes violently from black holes.
Look a human being cannot survive the speed of light nor the ripping of black holes. If we look from an outside perspective we can see that it all happens within time. The passage of time is a constant it doesn’t change no matter what physical reality works upon it. Perhaps, the perception of time passing plays tricks.
Let’s say we have a photon that has to go hundred meters. When the photon hits the hundred meter mark it has done so through the same passage of time whether within the speed of light or without the speed of light. We can perceive this to be true in either perspective; otherwise it becomes paradoxical because even though the photon hit the hundred meter mark, in your theory it would still be travelling to hit the mark because time slows. Time relates to time inside and outside of the speed of light. its all the same.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
A photon appears to travel the speed of light regardless of perspective because the speed of light is constant regardless of an outside observer’s speed. The photon will always be travelling at the speed of light with respect to you even if you are moving toward or away from it.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
The reason why gravity effects light even though it has no mass is because large objects that have a lot of mass actually warp space time around them. Light which is travelling through space time will be warped along with it.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Even kant was not an idealist. Why would you say Liebniz is? This is pertinent to understanding what empiricism means in this context btwBoth are idealists, but Leibniz is a rationalist whereas Berkeley is a empiricist. The empiricist premise is that the mind does not possess innate ideas but acquires them only through sensory experience.
V
Vico
Guest
Leibniz clearly espouses the doctrine of idealism, where idealism is defined as the thesis that the only things that truly exist are minds and their ideas.Even kant was not an idealist. Why would you say Liebniz is? This is pertinent to understanding what empiricism means in this context btw
Kant wrote in Prolegomena on idealism which he attributed to Plato, Parmenides, Zeno, and to Berkeley. (Ak 4:374)
The dictim of all genuine idealists, from the Eleatic school to Bishop Berkeley, is contained in this formula: “All cognition through the senses and experience is nothing but sheer illusion, and only in the ideas of the pure understanding and reason is there truth.”
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Then how is Berkeley an empiricist?
T
thinkandmull
Guest
I don’t think Berkeley was an idealist. He basically said “it doesn’t matter if things exist or not, it is just the sensation that matters. If you sense it, consider it there”. To say someone is an idealist and an empiricist at the same time is a contradiction
V
Vico
Guest
Idealism is based on the idea that our perceptions of objects are in us for example when saying an object is red, its redness is part of our perception of it, not in the object.Then how is Berkeley an empiricist?
I don’t think Berkeley was an idealist. He basically said “it doesn’t matter if things exist or not, it is just the sensation that matters. If you sense it, consider it there”. To say someone is an idealist and an empiricist at the same time is a contradiction
If one cannot imagine what the perception of something must be like, one cannot really say that it exists, per Berkeley.
Read some about Berkeley:
George Berkeley was one of the three most famous British Empiricists.
…
In the Principles and the Three Dialogues Berkeley defends two metaphysical theses: idealism (the claim that everything that exists either is a mind or depends on a mind for its existence) and immaterialism (the claim that matter does not exist). His contention that all physical objects are composed of ideas is encapsulated in his motto esse is percipi (to be is to be perceived).
iep.utm.edu/berkeley/
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Than he would be an idealist, not an empiricist. I don’t believe Berkeley was an idealist. He was refuting those who say that world may not exist by saying it didn’t matter, that just perception mattered
V
Vico
Guest
Berkeley is the most famous proponent of subjective idealism (or empirical idealism) in the west.Than he would be an idealist, not an empiricist. I don’t believe Berkeley was an idealist. He was refuting those who say that world may not exist by saying it didn’t matter, that just perception mattered
Berkeley and Leibniz are idealists, but Leibniz is a rationalist idealist whereas Berkeley is a empiricist idealist. The empiricist premise is that the mind does not possess innate ideas but acquires them only through sensory experience.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
There is no sensory experience in idealism because everything is an idea in that system
S
STT
Guest
Experience is an ability of mind.There is no sensory experience in idealism because everything is an idea in that system
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Experience is different from the senses. There is mental experience for example
S
STT
Guest
Of course sense is different from experience. Mind however has the ability to experience thoughts and stimulus (what senses carry) indirectly.Experience is different from the senses. There is mental experience for example
T
thinkandmull
Guest
All i am saying is that there is no true sense learning in idealism
V
Vico
Guest
Per Berkeley, subjective (or empirical) idealism, an object has real being as long as it is perceived by a mind. The sensory qualities pertain to ideas. Matter is at best a completely empty notion. Berkeley presupposes that all direct or immediate perceptions are ideas.There is no sensory experience in idealism because everything is an idea in that system
T
thinkandmull
Guest
It is best to read his works to see if he really said that instead of articles written about him
V
Vico
Guest
See for yourself, from*** A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge*** by George Berkeley (lived 1685-1753)It is best to read his works to see if he really said that instead of articles written about him
“38. But, say you, it sounds very harsh to say we eat and drink ideas, and are clothed with ideas. I acknowledge it does so–the word IDEA not being used in common discourse to signify the several combinations of sensible qualities which are called THINGS; and it is certain that any expression which varies from the familiar use of language will seem harsh and ridiculous. But this doth not concern the truth of the proposition, which in other words is no more than to say, we are fed and clothed with those things which we perceive immediately by our senses. The hardness or softness, the colour, taste, warmth, figure, or suchlike qualities, which combined together constitute the several sorts of victuals and apparel, have been shown to exist only in the mind that perceives them; and this is all that is meant by calling them IDEAS; which word if it was as ordinarily used as THING, would sound no harsher nor more ridiculous than it. I am not for disputing about the propriety, but the truth of the expression. If therefore you agree with me that we eat and drink and are clad with the immediate objects of sense, which cannot exist unperceived or without the mind, I shall readily grant it is more proper or conformable to custom that they should be called things rather than ideas.”
gutenberg.org/files/4723/4723-h/4723-h.htm
- Status
- Not open for further replies.