[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 15 KB, 220x296, bb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12047413 No.12047413 [Reply] [Original]

Where were you when Berkeley ended materialists forever?

>> No.12047425
File: 390 KB, 780x520, HUME_Getty_599991495.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12047425

>>12047413
chillin with my boy david

>> No.12047428

>>12047425
just look at the size of him

>> No.12047430

Why does he wear the hat?

>> No.12047572

>>12047413
STILL IN THE FUCKING WOMB YEE YEE BUBBA

>> No.12048093

>>12047572
Nobody who is alive today was alive back when Berkeley was alive. Your mother couldn't have been alive back then. Your grandmother was almost definitely not alive back then. We'd have to go at least 7 generations further up to find anybody who could've been alive back then.

>> No.12048826

>>12047428
hume more like huge hahha

>> No.12048845

>>12047413
On Tlön, hröning my twelfth Berkeley

>> No.12048853
File: 227 KB, 750x1334, hume.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12048853

>>12047425
This is now a Hume thread.

>> No.12049194

>>12048853
Not even Kant could fully go past Hume

>> No.12049218

>>12048093
"The womb" here refers to the feminine, specifically insofar as it is potential, which is fitting to speak of, since he was at that point mere potential.

>> No.12051029

>>12047413
Where were you when Berkeley ended free speech forever?

>> No.12051474

Why are you STILL posting this meme thread in current year?

>> No.12051484

>>12047413
this guy is actually based as fuck. I read his Treatise last night while imbibing my customary 40s of malt liquor and I could find no problems with his argument at all

I had literally never even considered that you could just do away with matter entirely, and that that was actually strictly speaking the most logical and coherent position.

Going to read his Three Dialogues tonight, which is supposedly the same thing reiterated because I want to further bask in this idealist glory

a question though, when he says the world exists without humans perceiving it so long as something perceives it, he means God here right? He's not talking about random other spirits which perceive all of reality constantly?

>> No.12051512

>>12051484
yes, I started reading his SAP entry just for kicks and he uses arguments that I've considered myself, ie differences in taste perception for the same food can only be a mind-dependent difference, but then he still goes on to thoroughly btfo materialists who still cling to "primary" qualities like solidity and size

based Berkeley, you could almost see him picking materialists out of his teeth as he's writing this stuff

yes, he thinks it's God, he thinks the regularities of nature can only be divinely upheld, it's interesting that Berkeley thinks something outside the idealist closure maintains it, while Kant internalizes it completely