Has anybody ever successfully refuted him?

I hope you disintegrate. Every day I come to this shithole to escape my miserable life, and every day you are here to make even those moments of escapism unbearable, to poison everything I have left. I was an atheist all my life, but recently I started praying to God, only in vain hope that he will make you disappear - turn you into a salt pillar or something. That's all I ask from this wretched life, that's all I need to die peacefully.

well you can't argue against dubs

Attached: 1546561532520.jpg (500x375, 31K)

>but recently I started praying to God
Was it Berkeley's ontological proof that convinced you in His existence?

So why does your god torment you?

To make me stronger so I can destroy you

Peirce who was a huge Berkeley fan, refuted him good in ontology.

Can you expand on that or direct me to any relevant books/papers?

he was an honorary easterner

Here is one hand,
And here is another.
There are at least two external objects in the world.
Therefore, an external world exists.

Attached: 1428843764390.gif (200x200, 1.19M)

>bodies don't exist
>you need to drink tarwater for a healthy body

Attached: 1549668907355.gif (1921x1833, 1.12M)

The debate:
>Barkley
or
>Berkley
?

Berekeley never denied the existence of bodies.

The idea of bodies within the ideas of God are such that they are aided in their health by the idea of tarwater

Attached: 1534697159074.jpg (460x320, 45K)

I say Borkley

Does Stirner have the most to lose from Berkeleyan idealism? Designating something a spook no longer carries weight if everything is a spook and spooks are ontologically real.

Attached: 1496074825606.png (700x419, 52K)

Can't I just think about tar water instead of drinking it to have the same effect?

They're spirits, not body.

They are bodies as they're represented in the mind, they just don't have any matter, or exist outside of any kind of perception.

T H U S

I closed my eyes and refuted him, yes.

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

I closed my eyes and refuted God too lol

Also if you could share me this poem that didn't came from Berkeley's ass, that's be swell.

So why can't I just think of tar water to have it effect my body then? Why do I have to drink it? Thinking of tar water would give tar water more direct access to the thought of my body.

Reality exists independently from observation. It is intrinsic. It does not require a God to prove its maintained existence. Our observation of reality is that which is objective. You may subjectively close your eyes and ears, be unaware of reality subjectively, but it will exist nonetheless.
The general problem with nominalist is that the source of their idiocy comes from the fact that senses are somehow flawed and cannot accurately and objectively interact with reality. To Berkeley, God was the one that made it so that everything exists once you close your eyes. It's generally the same principle of the mind body dichotomy Descartes had but more pronounced. Although the real problem is that Berkeley took the position that the intrinsic is the objective, that only that which is seen objectively, objectively exists. In the end, the solution is epistemological.

Attached: Ayn-Rand-.jpg (402x402, 58K)

Because there are separate types of ideas, you can control what you think etc, you can combine different representations into novel ideas (like a centaur, for instance), but there are also passive ideas in which you have no control over. The things you see in front of you with your eyes aren't thought by you, they are just given to you in perception, and are therefore a stronger kind of idea, one that you can't shed. Things are like this because God perfectly ordered the universe. When you imagine tar water, you are just getting a weaker idea or impression of it.

"Secondly, it will be objected that there is a great difference betwixt real fire, for instance, and the idea of fire, betwixt dreaming or imagining one's self burnt, and actually being so: this and the like may be urged in opposition to our tenets. To all which the answer is evident from what hath been already said, and I shall only add in this place, that if real fire be very different from the idea of fire, so also is the real pain that is occasions, very different from the idea of the same pain: and yet nobody will pretend that real pain either is, or can possibly be, in an unperceiving thing or without the mind, anymore than its idea."

>Can't I just think about tar water instead of drinking it to have the same effect?

Your idea are not on the same level as and don't have the same effects as God's

"The connexion of ideas does not imply the relation of cause and effect, but only of a mark or sign with the thing signified. The fire which I see is not the cause of the pain I suffer upon my approaching it, but the mark that forewarns me of it. In like manner, the noise that I hear is not the effect of this or that motion or collision of the ambient bodies, but the sign thereof. Secondly, the reason why ideas are formed into machines, that is, artificial and regular combinations, is the same with that for combining letters into words. That a few original ideas may be made to signify a great number of effects and actions, it is necessary they be variously combined together: and to that end their use be permanent and universal, these combinations must be made by rule and with wise contrivance. By this means abundance of information is conveyed unto us, concerning what we are to expect from such and such actions, and what methods are proper to be taken, for the exciting of such and such ideas: which in effect is all that I conceive to be distinctly meant when it is said that by discerning the figure, texture, and mechanism of the inward parts of bodies, whether natural or artifical, we may attain to know the several uses and properties depending thereon, or the nature of the thing."

Ideas in the world are God's way of speaking or communicating with us.

If pure ideas are separated from empircal experience by degree, then say ideas are 1/100th as potent in their representations as empirical experiences in their representations; thinking about being burnt is 1/100th as painful as actually being burnt.

If I imagine myself drinking 1L of tar water, would this be the therapeutic equivalent of drinking 10mL of tar water? In the end they're both representations, the pure idea is just less vivid, but we can scale the degree of the idea to match the degree of the empircal experience if degree is what separates them.

This board will evitably love him now.

Dude read kant

Whats he pointin at?

The idealism Berkeleya represents is a spook, which instantly discredits everything within it. That's the beauty of Max; you can't win him in the game he has created

Attached: 1530543469997.jpg (613x771, 49K)

No. Leibniz tried, but his logicized thinking led him to accept it and he pushed it even further.
Radical idealism is the conclusion of all minds that rate epistemology first, metaphysics second (Augustine, Descartes, Leibniz, Bolzano, Husserl, Godel to name a few) . It is the ultimate in autism technology. I'd go further and say it is a natural development of 'in the beginning was the word'.

Uhhhhhhh I forget. Maybe try his early series in the journal of speculative philosophy. Peirce refuted the idea of direct perception. He also defended the reality of potential. You need to be familiar with how Peirce handles the problem of universals and nominalists over the course of his life. Even in writing a review on a new addition of Berkeley's writing, Peirce uses the majority of his space talking about scholastic philosophy and the problem of universals. You might get more still out of Peirce's rebukes of Hume and Locke.
I was actually doing some searching on Berkeley unrelated to Peirce and this was the first paper that popped up. google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://philarchive.org/archive/DEWTRI-2v1&ved=2ahUKEwj4xu2qxc_gAhUH7awKHQXVD78QFjALegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2WUXBQfBAhJ2EaLvMbF14C
what a coincidence huh? I'm definitely going to read this one.

Kant continuously lapses back into Berkeleyan idealism, he never offered a successful refutation imo

can't snark the bark

Let me note that Peirce understood that metaphysics was epistemologically incapable of *Positively* knowing anything about actuality (matter), but we know what is real(universal) about it through the logic of semiosis. Keep in mind Peirce was an antirepresentationalist. Peirce maintains that perception is interpretive, that preception is a re-presentation which gets it's ontological/epistemological ground from the process of meaning-making.

But if everything is a spook then Berkeley is right! Max needs some non-spooks to posit the spooks.

How do they differ, by degree as Berkeley suggests? See

>you have knowledge, from which you imply being (of the sort implied by the kind of knowledge, whether mathematical or empirical or whatever)
Idealism
>being simply is, causes knowledge sometimes
Non-idealism

Any further disagreement is unreconciliable from there. Of course if you are not a pleb you take path one.

Is there anything worse than epistemoautism? They hijacked the Platonic academy for four hundred years, destroyed Indian philosophy, infected the early modern Western mind which still maims us. An absolute blight on the human race.

Attached: 1549978985447.jpg (900x900, 349K)

>implying
It's the best thing that ever came. It gave use all of the logicized views we have. It completely sidelined all the 'philosophy' bullshit about meaning of life (or even worse absurdity of life). It is the affirmation of the self and of God.

Berkeley is an empircisist, he believes in the veracity of our senses, he's simply saying that everything we sense couldn't exist without being perceived. If you put your hand in the fire, it will burn, if you think about fire you might be able to simulate a sensation of burning, but it's not really a difference of degree, nobody can set themselves alight simply by thinking of fire, this is what I believe Berkeley's response would be.