Everyone Ive met or read gets a cheeky laugh out of Berkeleys view that God saves objectivity.

Everyone I’ve met or read gets a cheeky laugh out of Berkeley’s view that God saves objectivity. Its like a running joke at this point. I think its a perfectly valid argument to say that God preserved objectivity
>to be is to be perceived
>if there’s an omniscient observer, then everything is perceived and therefore that’s why everything is.
I think it follows rather well and isn’t ad hoc like people say it is.

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    they hate him because they ain't him

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheists have no nous

  3. 6 months ago
    xtard

    I allways has haved the impression that Berkeleys Philosophy is perfect motivated by his Christian apology.

    Lets explain that very short:
    The materialists viewpoint was based of certain premisses. He analyzed them and tries to disproved this premisses:
    1.) The modern, newtian physics based of the new mathematics with h.
    He write a whole tract about this called "The Analyst" in which he tries to disprove the calculemus. Because h is infnit small, it is there as very very smal quantity and isn't there at the same time.
    2.) The modern worldview is based on materialism and needs a substance called matter.
    He just make a essay about how unclear and strange his substande called matter is and just claimed that matter doesn't exist.
    At this point, he says, to avoid subjectiv idealsm (only my mind exists) you need a greater, more perfect mind. You need, with one word: GOD.

    Maybe, I'm just a uneducated moron.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    He's wasn't a role model
    He wasn't paid to be a role model
    He was paid to wreak havoc on Western philosophy

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >wreak havoc
      *save

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        frick you zoomer

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    That whole bullshit is based on a misunderstanding of how our visual perception works. People think the world really is as their naive realist intuitions describes - pre-existing, all I'm focus, like a photograph

    I reality our visual perceptions are wildly different to our conception of them. We have massive blindspotts, change blindness, our peripheral field is colour blind, we constantly have saccades and any time our attention shifts to eg sounds of feeling our visual field dissolves beck into access consciousness and isn't perceived. All of this is proven by science

    Then Berkeley comes along and thinks God's mind is like a constant visual perception keeping everything in place and existence because, he's moronic and misunderstands how visual perception even happens.

    Does the mind of God have a blindspot? Does he too suffer saccades?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      It is worse so based on the retransmission republishing problems at scale in our controlled tech for having a presigious position like BISHOP Berkeley. If he was random relatable dude bro of simple science he would be a nobody and have no loose university named after him.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >loose university named after him.
        wait wut?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          University of Berkeley, California state of fornication mastering in bation and californication studies with a double major double blowjob certification in piña coladas

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Does the mind of God have a blindspot?
      >the word was God
      >implying man learns language from heaven above having Jesus himself teach Sunday School
      >okay class now let's discuss acceleration, coldness, and centripetal force
      Fiction
      Fantasy
      But by God does it make the hollow NPCs behave their best

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Does the mind of God have a blindspot?
      The fiery holy grace of God overseeing our freewill makes no discerned distinctions

      This goes along with
      "Depart from me for I never knew you"

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, Berkeley himself says empirical perception is confused, illusory.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Does the mind of God have a blindspot? Does he too suffer saccades?
      No you fricking moron.

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The progressive/revolutionary/scientistic/bugman M.O. is to mock contrary arguments as a method of applying social pressure in lieu of discrediting them. If they can't prove something false or kill it outright, they resort to the law, social shaming, or economic deprivation.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I simply steal Berkeley's conclusions and rescaffold them into a Dharmic/Aryan framework while the left naturally rots the leftist roots of Christendom

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >if there’s an omniscient observer
    Seems paradoxical to call God both omniscient and an observer.
    An observation or perception implies limitation--it remains a p.o.v only in so far as it is not total but limited (you are seeing one thing and not an other)
    Therefore if there was an omniscient entity it would not be an observer or have perception as we conceive of it.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Trinity is a paradox

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Total observation is the same as no observation.
        It would be truer to say God is both all knowing and all ignorant.
        In that sense the existence of a God both preserves and annihilates objectivity

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *