Assess Idealism.

(15 marks)
I believe that idealism is not a very good theory of perception. Idealism is
the view that objects are not really real and that they only exist in the
mind. For this reason, it is an anti-realist theory. Berkeley believed that all
objects ceased to exist if they were not perceived and that the immediate
objects of perception are sense data, which he calls ideas.
There are many flaws with this theory. One flaw is the problem of illusions
and hallucinations. The problem is that Berkeley cannot explain the
difference between these things and genuine perceptions. An example of
an illusion is a stick bending in water everyone accepts that this is an
illusion and so there is a very big problem for idealists who dont think it is
an illusion.
Another problem with idealism is that when objects continue to exist even
when they are not perceived how do they do this? They must be being
perceived by a mind in order to exist, as Berkeley claimed. However, he
has a very convincing and clever response to this problem. He claims that
every object is being perceived all of the time by God and this is why
objects continue to exist when they are not being perceived.
In support of idealism there are two main arguments. The first argument is
known as the critique of Lockes distinction between primary and
secondary qualities. According to Locke, some properties of objects are
mind-independent (primary qualities) and other properties depend on
human perception and so are mind-dependent. However, if this were the
case then idealism would be shown to be wrong, since idealism claims
that all objects and their properties exist mind-dependently. For this
reason, Berkeley tries to collapse the distinction between primary and
secondary qualities and shoe that there are not really any primary
qualities. He does this by using the example of extension. Locke believed
that this is a primary quality that exists independent of the mind and is
not dependent on human perception. However, Berkeley points out that
this is not in fact true. He insists that extension of objects is dependent on

perception for instance, whether an object is big or small or how fast it is

moving alters according to how we perceive it. Therefore, even extension
is a secondary quality (exists only mind-dependently). Furthermore,
Berkeley shows that this is no real distinction between primary and
secondary qualities by claiming that it is not possible to imagine an object
with no secondary qualities and just primary qualities.
Then there is the master argument. Can you imagine an object existing
independent of it being perceived by the mind? Berkeley argued that it
was not possible to do this. Berkeley uses the examples of trees and
books: you might say that I can easily imagine a tree or a book existing
when nobody perceives them. However, all that is really happening here is
that you are bringing to your imagination the idea of a book and a tree
all the time you are doing this you perceive these things! So, in fact you
havent been able to imagine an object existing independent of
perception. To really imagine an object existing independent of perception,
you must be able to imagine them entirely outside of all human
perception. Berkeley claims that this is clearly impossible we can form
no concept of objects existing entirely outside of perception. Since we
cant form such an idea, this suggests that we cannot talk meaningfully
about the possibility of objects existing unperceived. This support the key
claim in idealism that all objects are mind-dependent.
Finally, there is the problem with solipsism. This is defined as the view
that all that exists is my mind and its ideas. Idealism and solipsism are
indistinguishable and because there is no good argument in support of
solipsism, this shows that idealism is flawed.
In conclusion, there are 2 good arguments to support idealism and there
are also 3 problems. Therefore, idealism should be rejected.