Introduction
For centuries, philosophers have debated the nature of the universe and knowledge of reality. Plato and George Berkeley, two well-known philosophers, have approached the investigation of this subject from various angles. As outlined in his famous book “The Republic,” Plato’s philosophy provides intriguing insights into the nature of reality. I fully agree with his notion that reality is a result of perceptions. This idea proposes that what people observe with their senses impacts their perception of the world, so Plato highlights the universe’s interconnectivity and interdependence (Plato, 2023).
However, I disagree with Berkeley’s viewpoint on the appearance-reality dichotomy regarding human experience and cognition. Berkeley believes that everything people observe is only a mental construct and that no objective reality exists beyond their subjective perceptions. While I agree with Plato’s focus on perceptions creating reality and recognizing interconnection throughout the cosmos, I disagree with Berkeley’s denial of an objective reality owing to human perception’s limits.
Agreement with Plato’s Idealism
I agree with Plato’s ideas about the nature of the universe and reality. Plato’s work delves into the notion of Forms, which he believes are everlasting and unchangeable thoughts outside the physical world. These Forms, according to Plato, are the fundamental core of existence. Still, the material world we see via our senses is only a defective mirror or copy of these flawless Forms.
Plato’s thought appeals to me because it provides a meaningful explanation for life’s intricacies and mysteries. It implies the existence of a higher dimension where ultimate truths reside, laying the groundwork for comprehending the essence of being. This viewpoint enables me to go beyond the restrictions imposed by physical senses and explore more significant areas of knowledge.
Plato contends that physical objects are just imperfect copies or reflections of their ideal forms in thoughts. This idea coincides with my conviction that depending exclusively on our senses to interpret reality has an inherent weakness. Human sensory experiences can be deceiving because they are limited and biased (Kraut, 2004). By recognizing this limitation, people might embrace a more comprehensive perspective by pursuing information beyond the obvious.
Furthermore, Plato’s reliance on reason to achieve complete knowledge is consistent with my convictions. He contends that knowledge can only be obtained through rational reasoning and logical inference rather than sensory awareness. This idea contradicts conventional wisdom, which frequently depends primarily on empirical data to discern truth. Plato, on the other hand, advises the use of intellect to distinguish between appearances and reality.
In terms of human perception and knowledge, however, I disagree with George Berkeley’s concept of the appearance-reality divide. Berkeley contended that all objects exist solely as minds or spirits see them. He believes that if any mind does not observe something at any one time, it ceases to exist entirely. While Berkeley’s viewpoint contradicts traditional concepts of objective reality, I find it difficult to believe his claim that external things exist purely via subjective perceptions. This approach is highly solipsistic and dismisses the possibility of a shared reality independent of individual experiences. It also raises concerns about the continuity of existence since objects would always come and go.
The Appearance-Reality Distinction as it Relates to Human Perception and Knowledge
One of the main points where I disagree with Berkeley’s philosophical school of thinking is his rejection of material substance. Berkeley contends that actual substance does not exist and that all observed objects are essentially collections of ideas or mental representations (Downing, 2011). He claims humans’ view of the physical world is wholly based on their mind and its concepts. While I see the significance of admitting the role of perception in creating knowledge of reality, I find Berkeley’s entire rejection of material existence challenging to believe.
Berkeley’s argument is predicated on the assumption that all people ever experience are feelings or perceptions. He contends that humans never view objects directly but rather their traits or attributes. When people see an apple, for example, they sense its color, form, and flavor rather than any underlying material reality (Downing, 2011). While it is true that perception is mediated by senses and filtered via subjective experiences, I do not entirely agree with Berkeley’s assertion that there is no objective reality beyond human perception.
In my opinion, denying the reality of material stuff ignores essential aspects of human experience that cannot be attributed purely to mental representations. Considering the concept of causality, which states that occurrences in the physical world can cause other events to occur (Downing, 2011). How could people explain why certain occurrences constantly follow others if there were no material things with intrinsic qualities and causal powers? Imagining a universe composed of physical items appears more believable, each with its own independent existence and causal efficacy.
Berkeley’s rejection of material existence also raises questions regarding the source and origin of the senses. What accounts for the constancy of perceptions among various observers if what I view is only a mental picture formed by my mind? It is unclear why different people perceive an apple as red or its texture as smooth. It appears more logical to ascribe this shared experience to a shared external reality rather than individual minds creating similar representations.
Berkeley’s idealism is to disregard objective existence outside of human consciousness completely. It indicates that if no one witnesses an item or event occurring in isolation from any observer, the thing or event ceases to exist entirely, which violates common sense and empirical fact. Furthermore, Berkeley’s idealism promotes doubt about the consistency and dependability of human experience (Britannica, n.d.). For instance, how can people trust that their senses properly represent reality if all physical objects are contingent on brains seeing them? It appears to undermine the basic foundation of knowledge and scientific inquiry, based on the premise that there is an objective universe apart from our subjective perceptions.
Conclusion
While both philosophers provide great insights into understanding reality, I agree with Plato’s view of reality as a subjective construct impacted by perceptions. However, because I believe in scientific evidence indicating the existence of an objective reality outside of human perception, I disagree with Berkeley’s rejection of its existence. Plato’s idea that reality is a product of perceptions resonated with me because it coincides with my opinion that subjective experiences impact human’s knowledge of the world and the universe. Individuality and various viewpoints are allowed by the premise that people build their realities depending on how they perceive things.
References
Britannica. (n.d.). Idealism – Basic arguments. Web.
Downing, L. (2011). George Berkeley. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
Kraut, R. (2004). Plato. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
Plato. (2023). The Republic. Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd.