Margaret Atherton does however, explore Berkeley’s argument as one in which is stated reasonably and coherently color does exist as a part of objects, or in other words that “snow is actually white”, and that this theory is better than previous philosophical theory. I will give a summary of her arguments before asserting my opinion that Berkeley’s argument far more beneficial to objectivists than to the whole of color theory
In the world of color existing, Atherton describes two dichotomous perspectives on the matter. An objectivist opinion in which color exists as a part of external things (that also exist) and is mind-independent, meaning the color and the object exist without the mind of a human somehow viewing it (whether through sight, smell, feel, or any of their senses). Then the opposite subjectivist view in which color is dependant on the viewer. In this view, external objects may or may not exist but the colors people see are dependant on the the impression they receive as the color. In this way the color exists only in the mind as a part of perception.
Berkeley writes a dialogue between two men, Hylas (a materialist believing in an …show more content…
collection of data or ideas from sense impressions that consistently follow the law of nature according to that family or grouping) in mind we conclude that consistent predictability then is the true test of whether a sense impression or idea belongs to the family or nature of a grander idea (like that of snow). The simple question of “can I predict that this idea I have of a thing will work consistently with other ideas I have of the thing?” leading to the conclusion. Let us apply that to color. Color exists only as a grand family or nature of things. A human being thinks of color as the collection of data collected through the senses. The problem with color is that it can only be taken in through the sense of sight, we can only predict it through the sense of
In the world of color existing, Atherton describes two dichotomous perspectives on the matter. An objectivist opinion in which color exists as a part of external things (that also exist) and is mind-independent, meaning the color and the object exist without the mind of a human somehow viewing it (whether through sight, smell, feel, or any of their senses). Then the opposite subjectivist view in which color is dependant on the viewer. In this view, external objects may or may not exist but the colors people see are dependant on the the impression they receive as the color. In this way the color exists only in the mind as a part of perception.
Berkeley writes a dialogue between two men, Hylas (a materialist believing in an …show more content…
collection of data or ideas from sense impressions that consistently follow the law of nature according to that family or grouping) in mind we conclude that consistent predictability then is the true test of whether a sense impression or idea belongs to the family or nature of a grander idea (like that of snow). The simple question of “can I predict that this idea I have of a thing will work consistently with other ideas I have of the thing?” leading to the conclusion. Let us apply that to color. Color exists only as a grand family or nature of things. A human being thinks of color as the collection of data collected through the senses. The problem with color is that it can only be taken in through the sense of sight, we can only predict it through the sense of