Epistemology
For those interested (those who aren't may feel free to skip this).
From time to time, I'll post some of the homework I am required to do in my epistemology class. This is my summary of an argument for the conclusion that what we cannot perceive external material objects. This comes from Musgrave's book, Common Sense, Science and Skepticism.
The Time-Lapse Argument
(1) A person S, sees a material object O at a time T. [Supposition for the argument]
(2) There is an interval of time (T + v) through which light must pass after reflecting off of O and entering the eye. [The current physics of vision]
(3) It is possible that between T and (T + v), O has ceased to exist. [Supposition for the argument]
(4) Therefore, it is possible that S sees O, despite its having ceased to exist between (T + v). [1, 3]
(5) If O has ceased to exist, then it is impossible to see O. [Supposition for the argument]
(6) But (4) contradicts (5).
(7) Therefore, S does not see O. [4-6]
The argument is valid, it just remains to be shown whether it is sound. It's difficult to decide which premise to give up, but in order to avoid the conclusion, one of them must go. If you can't give up a premise, you must grant the argument. But this isn't the whole story; the proponet of this argument will push further and add to this argument the doctrine that the only things we do in fact perceive are our ideas of external material objects, not the objects themselves. And from here it is only a short step to a Berkelean idealism, wherein not only do you deny the ability to perceive external material objects themselves, but you deny the existence of external material objects all together (at least you deny the philosopher's conception external material objects).
From time to time, I'll post some of the homework I am required to do in my epistemology class. This is my summary of an argument for the conclusion that what we cannot perceive external material objects. This comes from Musgrave's book, Common Sense, Science and Skepticism.
The Time-Lapse Argument
(1) A person S, sees a material object O at a time T. [Supposition for the argument]
(2) There is an interval of time (T + v) through which light must pass after reflecting off of O and entering the eye. [The current physics of vision]
(3) It is possible that between T and (T + v), O has ceased to exist. [Supposition for the argument]
(4) Therefore, it is possible that S sees O, despite its having ceased to exist between (T + v). [1, 3]
(5) If O has ceased to exist, then it is impossible to see O. [Supposition for the argument]
(6) But (4) contradicts (5).
(7) Therefore, S does not see O. [4-6]
The argument is valid, it just remains to be shown whether it is sound. It's difficult to decide which premise to give up, but in order to avoid the conclusion, one of them must go. If you can't give up a premise, you must grant the argument. But this isn't the whole story; the proponet of this argument will push further and add to this argument the doctrine that the only things we do in fact perceive are our ideas of external material objects, not the objects themselves. And from here it is only a short step to a Berkelean idealism, wherein not only do you deny the ability to perceive external material objects themselves, but you deny the existence of external material objects all together (at least you deny the philosopher's conception external material objects).
posted by Josh at 8:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home