sign in sign up
<<
Home , John Locke

FAURJ

The Illusory of the So-Called Objective World Aleksandar Vuc Nikolic and Simon Glynn Department of

Abstract: This paper investigates the human of the world around us and the way we per- ceive and it. Driven by curiosity about the “real world,” and if it truly exists, our as a way of interpreting world are explored. I also analyze theories about this topic present- ed by Rene Descartes and British empiricists: John Locke, and Bishop Berkeley, while ultimately disproving certain aspects of them. In this quest of exploring , like the , primary and secondary qualities and subjective are addressed. I ultimately argue that there is no way of knowing if the real world exists, because we can only know what we experience. Furthermore, if the real world did exist, it would by not be as it appears to us, because our senses can only interpret the real world-not perceive it as it truly is.

In the practice of skeptical of all wide- example he gave was looking at a wooden stick ly held beliefs, philosophers began to question in water. To a naked eye it appears bent, but if the of reality. They became interested we feel it with our hands it feels straight, mean- in the relationship between the mind, what we ing our senses can be unreliable and contradict- experience and the physical world. This type of ing. We cannot trust them since there is no way led philosophers to question if what we could know when they are deceiving us and we experience through our senses is what the when they are not. In other words, we can never physical world is really like, or are we victims of know if what we are experiencing is true. Anoth- our subjective illusions while assuming that our er concept that Descartes had about the physical perception is coherent with the real world. The world was the real versus the apparent world. In main philosophers who were concerned with his theory, the real world was what he referred these ideas were British empiricists John Locke, to as the mind, while the apparent was what and David Hume. Exploring he referred to as the world (Husserl 21). In my their theories lead us to conclude that we opinion, the problem with this theory is that he cannot prove that there is a real world, but if we referred to the mind as a material thing. Thus, an could, it would by definition be different than it that is experienced must be either in the appears to be. mind or in the world. If it was in the world, we would not be aware of it. Also, it is in the view of One of the first philosophers whose theories phenomenologists that since the mind cannot be touched on the of the real world and our experienced sensationally, it cannot be referred experience of it was Rene Descartes. Descartes to as a material object or place; we can only ex- was a 17th century philosopher who was inter- perience or awareness which is ested in experience, and . immaterial (Glynn, “European Philosophy and Searching for absolutely certain knowledge, he the Human and Social ” 110). If we take wanted to know if the physical world really exists a chair as an example, we do not experience the or if it is just an illusion. He concluded that the chair, but its constantly changing appearances. only undoubted fact that always had to be true , since all we can know is what we ex- was that one truly exists. In order to think about perience, we do not know what the real world existence, one must exist: “I think therefore I is like. am.” Moreover, Descartes realized that the only way we can know if the physical world is an illu- When it comes to ideas such as knowledge and sion or not is by our senses. However, our senses experience of the physical world, British empir- cannot be trusted since they can be deceiving; we icists were the leading philosophers in this field. can never know what the real world is like. An John Locke, a 17th century English philosopher,

36 Spring 2016 Volume 5 FAURJ was a pioneer of , a theory in philos- are no ears to interpret the sound waves, there is ophy that argues that all knowledge is acquired no sound. The real world reflects the sound of through sense experience. Locke believed that silence, which means that sound, just like color, all of our knowledge comes from the process is a subjective illusion. Furthermore, smell and of reflecting on our senses, which he called ex- taste are also our interpretations of the physi- perience (Locke). He suggested that we cannot cal world through our senses. For example, if have any knowledge independent from our sense we blindfolded someone, put a slice of an apple experiences. Building on this theory, Locke also under their nose and then fed them a slice of a concluded that we experience of our pear, he/she would experience the taste of an ap- environment. He defined substance as that which ple. In conclusion, everything that we experience has properties. He also believed that we do not through our senses can be labeled as a subjective see the actual substance, but we experience its illusion. properties, which are not independent from our experience. The problem with Locke’s theory is George Berkeley represents the second wave of his conviction that properties come from the real empiricism and is most known for challeng- world. In reality, we can never know where these ing John Locke’s theories. He did not agree properties come from because we are not able to with Locke that there are primary and second- perceive objects outside of our own experience. ary qualities, but he that all properties Trying to distinguish the real world and our are subjective, and in other words, secondary experience of it, Locke developed a theory that (Berkeley). In other words, he thought that even included of primary and secondary primary qualities are experienced subjectively, qualities. The primary qualities included actual and that they only exist in our experiences- not properties of an object, or the objective reality, the “real world.” For Berkeley, all sensations are which in represented . Thus, pri- included in ideas, which are mind dependent mary qualities consist of mass, number, exten- (Berkeley). Since we all have separate subjec- sion and shape (Locke). Since we can measure tive experiences, in the absence of God who these quantitative properties, Locke suggested experiences everything, we do not know if these these qualities are the only properties we can experiences of the world exist independently of be certain of. However, since all properties are our experience. Berkeley backs up his theory by relative to observation they appear to be second- claiming that we either experience something or ary. This concludes that Locke’s theory is wrong. we don’t; we are not aware of something that we When taking an elevator, we feel lighter while do not experience. An example that he used to going down and heavier while going up. This justify his theory is putting a cold and a warm example proves that primary qualities are also hand into water at room temperature. The water entirely subjective, and not objective as Locke will feel cold to one hand and warm to the other. theorized. Meaning, all properties are secondary. Without God, he claims that heat and cold are On the other hand, secondary qualities represent only sensations that exist in our (Berke- the power of the object to produce ideas in us, or ley). Even though he hypothesized that all these subjective appearances. The properties includ- experiences happen in our mind, he did not be- ed in these qualities are color, smell, sound and lieve that the mind is in our head. Essentially, he taste (Locke 30). Locke believed that secondary believed in awareness but did not know how to qualities are subjective. He also believed that describe it properly. colors do not exist in reality. Instead, he thought Building on his empirical theories Berkeley they are interpretations of light that are reflected concluded that what we experience is a series of by an object. Since light consists of wavelengths ideas instead of independently existing objects. it has no colors, meaning that our eyes create He concluded that objects need to be perceived them. This essentially makes colors a sub- in order to exist: to be is to be perceived (Berke- jective by-product of interaction between light, ley). This brings up a conflict that questions what objects and perceptual organs. It is the same with happens to objects that are not being perceived sound. Sound waves travel through a medium, by anybody. When one leaves their car at the which are interpreted by our ears and then man- parking garage, there is hope that the vehicle will ifested as sound in our minds. As a result, if there be there upon their return. In the meantime, we

Volume 5 Spring 2016 37 FAURJ assume that it still exists while we are not per- the other hand, the objective reality is always un- ceiving it. However, we can never be certain that interrupted, relatively unchanging and the same. our car is really there, because we are not expe- The objective reality serves as the definition for riencing it while we are away from it. This type the real world. The midline between subjective of thinking resulted in Berkeley’s conclusion that and objective reality is experience, which rep- there must be somebody who perceives that ob- resents similarity, continuity and unity (Glynn). ject while everyone else is away. Objects cannot Hume hypothesized that the we believe just disappear and appear again when we return, that the real world exists is that there must be so for Berkeley, that somebody is God (Berke- something that is causing our experiences. How- ley). Since God is the only one who can perceive ever, the problem with his theory is that he uses the whole physical world at the same , he is to back it up (Hume). Causality implies making sure that objects do not disappear while that the relation between two events is linked we are away from them. The problem with this by the cause, and a physical consequence of the part of his theory is that Berkeley uses the less first event called the effect. This theory has been probable, the existence of God, to prove the more disproved by the example of throwing a rock at probable existence of the real world. a window. If somebody throws a rock at a win- can perceive the world and make assumptions dow and the window breaks, it makes sense to us about if what we are experiencing is real or not, that the rock is the cause of the broken window. making its existence very probable. However, However, correlation does not imply causation. since we cannot perceive God, we cannot expe- Correlation is something that is made up in our rience him. This conclusion puts God’s existence mind, because there could also be a case when into question, making him the less probable to the window does not break when we throw a exist compared to the existence of objects in the rock at it. Internal conflicts like these disprove world, which are more probable to exist. the theory of causality. As a result, we cannot know if the real world is truly causing our ex- The last of the British empiricism legacy of phi- periences or not. Therefore, we cannot know if losophers was David Hume. His theory built on there is a real world at all. both Locke’s and Berkeley’s conclusions making it the closest one to the according to mod- In conclusion, the examples above have estab- ern empiricists. Hume believed that we do not lished that we cannot know if there is a real experience reality, but appearances instead. He world; we can only know what we are experienc- thought that even and extensions are ap- ing. What we are experiencing are appearances pearances, and that appearances are ultimately of the objects that are in the real world. However, subjective (Hume). In order to prove his theo- the appearances that we are constantly experi- ry he used an example of three different people encing are subjective, and do not tell us anything watching the same train in motion. One objective about the world as such. Moreover, is watching the train as it is becoming smaller the real world is by definition constant and un- while it is going away from him/her. For the interrupted, while appearances are continuous- person that is actually on the train, it stays the ly changing, different and interrupted. Even if same in size. Since the train is approaching the there is a real world, it cannot by definition be as last person, to him/her it appears that the train it appears to us. is getting bigger. This example proves that we only experience appearances, which are created in our mind by interpretations of the real world through our senses. The train is actually in the real world, but we are only experiencing its ap- pearance, which is created in our mind.

In terms of the real world, Hume divided reality into subjective and objective reality. According to him, subjective reality is always interrupted, changing and different from different angles. On

38 Spring 2016 Volume 5 FAURJ

References 1. Berkeley, George. “The of Human Knowledge.” (1710). Jonathan Bennet. July 2004. Web. 2. European Philosophy and the Human and Social Sciences, ed. Simon Glynn, (Aldershot: Gower, 1986), pp. xi + 229. 3. “Is there a real world?” Lectures, Florida At- lantic University, Boca Raton, FL, October, 2014 4. “Neurophenomenology and the Path from Quantitative Being to Qualitative Meaning” Lecture, 16th Annual Conference of the Con- sciousness and Experimental section of the British Psychological meeting at The University of , E n - gland, September 2012. 5. Hume, David. “Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.” (1748) Jonathan Bennett, July 2004. Web. 6. Husserl, Edmund. Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology. The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1960. Print. 7. Locke, John. “An Concerning Human Understanding.” (1690). Jonathan Bennett, July 2004. Web.

Volume 5 Spring 2016 39