Locke's Master Argument

Bryan Magee discusses an argument by John Locke on the mind-body problem with Michael Ayers in a program on John Locke and George Berkeley. It is from an episode of the 1987 series on the Great Philosophers.
#philosophy #locke #bryanmagee

[@pooroldnostradamus]

My favourite flavour of philosophy is one delivered in a posh English accent

[@BrucknerMotet]

If I may be permitted to hazard a guess as to why the posh English accent seems to be a good catalyst for understanding in the context of oral explication of complex topics, I would suggest that it has something to do with the rather even and liesurely tempo the speakers with the posh English accent deliver their spoken lines. Not having to absorb too much too fast allows the lstener more time to absorb and connect the ideas being presented, and to analyze them a bit more comprehensively before the potentially distracting event of a new development in the oral presentation occurs.

[@BrucknerMotet]

I think of the great Geoffrey Warnock of Oxford when you mention the posh English accent. And im not entirely sure it is "posh" per se, and would love to have a discussion on how to identify the varying levels of "poshness", for lack of a better expression. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mp2wXomBr56Ja5o

[@raginbakin1430]

Mine is the one delivered in French

[@dire-decadence]

Such an economical argument. In the sense that economists often present ultimatums whilst drawing no particular conclusion.

[@OngoGablogian185]

I never knew Ray Lamontagne was so much more than just a great singer.

[@lor3999]

🤣

[@heycidskyja4668]

Ray who?

[@Kormac80]

Philos chuckling about dualism. Oh the inside jokes of philo-nerds. Adorable.

[@hossamgebeily]

Who’s the taxi driver?

[@darshanpatil7777]

Travis Bickle 😂

[@brionhausgeld2415]

perhaps a hybrid

[@babakkhalilvandian1856]

I never understood why there is the need for acknowledging an imaterial aspect of the world and self, I mean what does truly divide material from imaterial? As a person perceiving evey object in a subjective manner how can I assume there is material and imaterial in the world?

[@markrobertbb]

One piece of evidence is that one can think of an object even in the absence of that object

[@babakkhalilvandian1856]

@@markrobertbb my point is tht the object itself when it is present, is perceived subjectively. The perception's quality is similar to thinking of it. What I am saying is not grounds for idealism, in contrast it is directed towards mterialism with denying dualism alongside the evidences of materialism. In short i believe thought is material, as is the object

[@gk10101]

we cannot define the essence of self because that would be a circular reference: self defining self. therefore self exists outside the boundaries of knowledge. yes. knowledge has boundaries. all attempts at a theory are exactly equivalent to chasing rainbows. its more fun to chase rainbows than to admit they can't be caught.

[@cliffordhodge1449]

With the intersection between the one-dimensional world, with the objects that exist therein, and the three dimensional world, with its objects, you get a person.

[@BrendaCreates]

It is no longer that difficult to believe that we are material thinking things.

[@natanaellizama6559]

It is. It's entirely incoherent. It was never hard to imagine a connection between emotions and a mind

[@baskaisimkalmamisti]

What is the name of the tv program? Can we find it online?

[@juntus89]

I know the answer to that

[@heycidskyja4668]

@@juntus89 Me too.

[@juntus89]

@@heycidskyja4668 I have a degree in Philosophy.

[@Vingul]

@@juntus89 anything to not just give the answer.

[@juntus89]

@@Vingul would you like to know the answer?

[@harryanderson7282]

Or.... Matter is just the solidified version of consciousness. In which case both materialism and mysticism can then be harmoniously resolved into one single metaphysical "unified field theory".

[@HarbingeroftheNew]

So Panpsychism basically

[@harryanderson7282]

@@HarbingeroftheNew No. B/c panpsychism still preserves the idea that spirit animates an otherwise inert/unconscious form/shell. that of matter, like some remote controlled robot. As water falls from the sky and then freezes into ice... While the outward form of consciousness may seem to us to change according to the limitations of our senses its inner and eternal content remains just that, hidden and unchanging. Remove the artificially induced spirit/matter dichotomy and you sort of arrive back to the all-is-one mantra, but in this case, "from the one, many.'

[@alka9scottus]

@@harryanderson7282’s Comment is ghosted which is absurd

[@harryanderson7282]

@@alka9scottus A shadowban is the sincerest form of flatetry, no?

[@gerhitchman]

"Matter is just the solidified version of consciousness" what the fuck does that even mean. Only in philosophy would one find something so retarded

[@GDOrtiz]

Berkeley saw the problem in these two cases and solved the problem: idealism.

[@DaggerMan11]

Did he solve the problem, or did he give us a way to cope with a pseudo-problem?

[@GDOrtiz]

​@@DaggerMan11solved!

[@hashamkhan4220]

"I refute it thus." Dr Johnson's reply to Berkeley's weighty argument.😅😅😅

[@mamindhive]

Yes why we aren't like rocks, this is bigger than us

[@enekaitzteixeira7010]

We are like rocks in many ways. You mean why can we think and rocks can't. The reason are the brains we have evolved.

[@nosteinnogate7305]

Both seem to be intelligible. Though the materialism one makes more sense, since we only have evidernce of material things.

[@natanaellizama6559]

The opposite is true. Materiality is not a given. Our mentalism is. The first option is entirely incoherent. I find people who think materialism is not only coherent but natural and intuitive. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Alienated individuals

[@nosteinnogate7305]

@@natanaellizama6559 Try to move you car with your mind and tell me how thats working out.

[@natanaellizama6559]

@@nosteinnogate7305 What does that have to do with materialism? It is clear that my mentality is not absolute. How does that negate idealism? It seems you have a wrong view on the issue. Mentalists do not deny limitations or the exterior or make the ego absolute

[@nosteinnogate7305]

@@natanaellizama6559 Ofc they dont because they cant. That the material supercedes the mental is painfully obvious. One zap in your brain and a specific part or all of the mind is altered or gone. And without a brain there is no mind, but without a mind there still is a brain.

[@nedpickering5459]

Perhaps it’s both! Who knows!

[@Ryan-so4xl]

panpsychism kindof answers this

[@matterasmachine]

Matter are discrete machines. And we are robot to consisting of discrete machines.

[@5piles]

machine view of the world died with newton. youre merely carrying out a conditioning that every 10yo alive today becomes ingrained intuitively to.

[@apikmin]

Both are true. Non dual.

[@exercisethemind]

Yeah, Locke was stupid about a lot of stuff.

[@rodacoram]

Is his argument private property?

[@heycidskyja4668]

No, it's a public discussion.

[@kevinpulliam3661]

He does eventually get to private properly but that’s only after he uses his metaphysical skepticism to push the idea of a liberal state

[@chadkline4268]

Both views are wrong. If you want the truth, ask. I'm tired of explaining it.

[@hollagonzalez7954]

We’re material objects it’s not hard to grasp. I mean just look at everyone else ffs

[@Rabbitburnx]

Jesus answered this question.