HomeAviationTravelPhotosMinistryResourcesBlogFunFilesXtraFilesResumeEmailTemp

History of Modern Philosophy
Azusa Pacific University
Dr. John Culp
February 20, 2004
"Berkeley & Hume Epistomology"

I.   Berkeley
A.   Esse est precipi - to be is to be perceived
B.   There aren't primary qualities - you can't make a distinction between primary and secondary qualities
C.   He denies it is impossible to know matter
II.   Hume
A.   Knowledge is limited which is based in specific, physical sensation - you can't know anything that you can't track back to a physical sensation
B.   It is impossible to know many common accepted ideas
1.   Causation
2.   Self
3.   Substance
4.   God
C.   Ethics are based on giving sympathy and the usefulness of actions - the reason I think killing is wrong is because I wouldn't want it done to me
III.   Development
A.   There is an increasing restriction on what can be known
B.   Epistomology
1.   Locke challenges the possibilities of innate ideas
2.   Berkeley believes what you know is your own ideas, but can't know primary qualities
3.   Hume believes all you can know is our physical sense
C.   Substance
1.   Locke sees substance as something you can't know clearly
2.   Berekely believes you can't know any physical substance but you can know spiritual substances
3.   Hume doesn't think you can know any type of substance
D.   Causal Relations
1.   Lock thinks you can talk about causal relations is a third power that comes through primary qualities
2.   Berkeley thinks causal relations as an idea, not a power
3.   Hume finds that causal relations simply happens, we are used to these events cause other events
IV.   Hume's
A.   We can know relationship of ideas
B.   We can know matters of fact through sensations
1.   Therefore the only thing we can know is what is in the present and what has happened in the past
C.   Knowing Cause & Effect
1.   4 Quantatives
a.   Why can't we look at, smell, touch, and taste the bread and know that it will cause nutrition?
b.   Well, but don't we know since when we've eaten bread in the past we have been nourished?
c.   But certainly, if it has happened is due past, it will happen to the same way in the future?
d.   Look, I've had bread hundreds of times and it has been nourishes
2.   There is no basis in the cause for the effect, because the cause is different from the effect, so you can't know the relationship between the cause and effect
D.   Knowledge begins with sense perception
Temp_SideAd3