This article compares the philosophical views of John Locke and George Berkeley. The differences between the two men began while they were both alive and has continued to present day. The viewpoints of both men is examined and distinguished. A choice is made to argue that Locke's views are more firmly based and have more relevance to modern day life.
Locke v. Berkeley
The philosophers John Locke and George Berkeley offer stark contrasts on the issue of various matters. Locke's whose viewpoint can best be classified as based in relativism. He believed that all knowledge come from the senses. As every man's senses are unique, no two individuals will sense the same experience the same and, therefore, all knowledge is different in each individual. By extension, there is no such thing as better beliefs or true beliefs. Everyone's beliefs are their own and based on their individual experience. George Berkeley's viewpoints offer a sharp contrast to those of Locke. In fact, their individual careers ran concurrently and they spent most of that time being contrasted and possessing viewpoints that were diametrically opposed. Berkeley's was an empiricist but one who also possessed a certain idealist twist. Berkeley viewed experience as the source of most knowledge. According to Berkeley's form of empiricism, objects, regardless of what they are, are only ideas in the minds of those observing them and, as a result, do not exist without being perceived.
Of the two viewpoints, those of Locke seem to have better application. Locke's view that everyone's mind is a blank slate (tabula rasa) at birth and that all knowledge is acquired thereafter through one senses provides a logical explanation for the differences between individuals. As our senses are the source of all knowledge and understanding, it is clearly logical that everyone's sense experiences differ and, therefore, everyone's knowledge is also different. Unlike Berkeley, Locke did not believe that there was anything innate in anyone and that all concepts, ideas, and thoughts were the result of sensory experience. According to Locke, there is no such thing as innate knowledge.
Locke's greatest contribution to the field of philosophy and to generalized knowledge is his development of the idea of relativism. Because he believed that all human knowledge is sensually based there is no thing as perfect knowledge or understanding. Each person's experience is relative and there is no true or perfect knowledge. This is not to say that certain ideas or knowledge are more objectively sound but, unlike the empiricists who would argue that there are absolutes that everyone must obey or believe, Locke would argue that truth and rightness are based upon what has experienced through their senses and not through some form of innate factor.
Locke's ideas and concepts had a profound and lasting influence on the development of the field of behavioral psychology. Psychologists in such field argue strongly that because it is not possible to share the same sense experiences of another individual it is also not possible to understand the nature of their mental state. Although behaviorism does not enjoy the level of popularity that it once did, it continues to be a viable field of psychology and Locke's relativist's views still maintain some application.
Modern science has poked some holes in Locke's arguments. Work in the area of brain physiology and anatomy has established that all humans possess certain abilities that are the same among all individuals and that, therefore, Locke's claim that everyone is born with a blank slate is not accurate. Locke's concept, however, that our senses are the source of most of our knowledge remains viable. More importantly, his view that everyone's experience is different explains how diversity can develop among individuals whose life's sensory experiences are nearly identical. The reality is that no two individual's sensory experience can be classified as being identical and that, therefore, knowledge should have no absolutes.
Locke believes that man is capable of obtaining a great deal of knowledge about the world around him and that there is a difference between what we believe and what we know. It is our senses that provide man with the ability to distinguish between the two. In Book II of his essay, Existence of Real Things, Locke articulates the distinction between knowledge and opinion and he explains the importance of evidence in the formation of beliefs and knowledge. He strongly argues that it is not enough to want something to be true one must search for reasons to make sure that something is indeed true. Again, Locke would point out that everyone's experience in this search would be different and relative to what their individual senses revealed to them.
Berkeley's philosophy can be best understood by examining his famous quotation, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" According to Berkeley, the answer is no. Because Berkeley denied the existence of an external world he adopted the position that ideas are the only real things that exist and this is the reason that his views have become to be known as idealism. He challenged the concept that ideas can be traced to objects and that because physical things are constantly changing there is no way that ideas can be based on objects. We do not perceive things as they are but rather as we perceive them. This is where he takes issue with Locke who believed that it is through our senses that we understand what an object is and not through our preconceived perceptions or ideas. For Berkeley there was no external world. Everything was dependent upon the collection of ideas in someone's mind. Interestingly, Berkeley believed that our senses are not interrelated. For instance, he argued that touch and sight have nothing to do with each other and that it is only through experience that we come to associate each with the other. Similarly, this is how we come to associate the appearance, the taste, and the smell of an apple with each other. According to Berkeley, there is no reason to suppose that these three qualities are related to the apple as an object.
Where Berkeley's views fail is in their inability to understand relativity and apply it to objects. The essence of objects is not determined by their being able to be perceived. Berkeley would argue that size can only be determined through the sense of touch and that touch is the only way that we can begin to understand the real size of anything but sight can provide the same information but the determination of size will be dependent on how far away from an object one is standing while viewing the object so that relativity becomes important.
You’re 87% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.