贝克莱关于机械论观点的标准以及他对机械论观点的攻击

Joshua Ben Itamar
{"title":"贝克莱关于机械论观点的标准以及他对机械论观点的攻击","authors":"Joshua Ben Itamar","doi":"10.53555/ssh.v9i6.2251","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An attempt will be made to present the criterion of a mechanist view that Berkeley adopted, as well as his uniqe attack on the mechanist view. According to the criterion of a mechanist view as implied from berkeley's writings, a mechanist view is one that explains the natural phenomena, assuming material causes only. Berkeley claims that the material world as perceived by us is a collection of sensual ideas. These ideas exist in our mind. Berkeley also claims that the ideas are passive. An idea is merely a sign for another idea, and not the cause of the formation of another idea Berkeley claims that the term \"Force\", which many physicists think that it represents a cause of phenomena as velocity changes, dose not represent a real quality. Berkeley is defined as an empiricist. But in order to preserve scientific achievements and the ability to connect between phenomena and to predict, he claims that we have to use the term \"Force\" although it dose not represent a real quality. The term \"Force\" represents in his opinion a mathematical fiction. This view of Berkeley is called \" Scientific Instrumentalism\". Science does not deal with material causes according to Berkeley's view. The universal mind (God) is the real cause of natural phenomena, \"planting\" the regular ideas referred to as '' nature''. Still minds and God should be dealt with in metaphysics. Therefore Berkeley's attack on the mechanist view is the result of his view that only in metaphysics we deal with real spiritual causes. Since Berkeley attacks the mechanist view, he is defined as an anti mechanist. In Berkeley's opinion, there is no difference between the picture of the world which follows from his philosophy, and the common sense picture. Moreover, no scientific achievement suffers as a result of his philosophy","PeriodicalId":199287,"journal":{"name":"International Journal For Research In Social Science And Humanities","volume":"05 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"BERKELEY'S CRITERION OF A MECHANIST VIEW AND HIS ATTACK ON THE MECHANIST VIEW\",\"authors\":\"Joshua Ben Itamar\",\"doi\":\"10.53555/ssh.v9i6.2251\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An attempt will be made to present the criterion of a mechanist view that Berkeley adopted, as well as his uniqe attack on the mechanist view. According to the criterion of a mechanist view as implied from berkeley's writings, a mechanist view is one that explains the natural phenomena, assuming material causes only. Berkeley claims that the material world as perceived by us is a collection of sensual ideas. These ideas exist in our mind. Berkeley also claims that the ideas are passive. An idea is merely a sign for another idea, and not the cause of the formation of another idea Berkeley claims that the term \\\"Force\\\", which many physicists think that it represents a cause of phenomena as velocity changes, dose not represent a real quality. Berkeley is defined as an empiricist. But in order to preserve scientific achievements and the ability to connect between phenomena and to predict, he claims that we have to use the term \\\"Force\\\" although it dose not represent a real quality. The term \\\"Force\\\" represents in his opinion a mathematical fiction. This view of Berkeley is called \\\" Scientific Instrumentalism\\\". Science does not deal with material causes according to Berkeley's view. The universal mind (God) is the real cause of natural phenomena, \\\"planting\\\" the regular ideas referred to as '' nature''. Still minds and God should be dealt with in metaphysics. Therefore Berkeley's attack on the mechanist view is the result of his view that only in metaphysics we deal with real spiritual causes. Since Berkeley attacks the mechanist view, he is defined as an anti mechanist. In Berkeley's opinion, there is no difference between the picture of the world which follows from his philosophy, and the common sense picture. Moreover, no scientific achievement suffers as a result of his philosophy\",\"PeriodicalId\":199287,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal For Research In Social Science And Humanities\",\"volume\":\"05 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal For Research In Social Science And Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53555/ssh.v9i6.2251\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal For Research In Social Science And Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53555/ssh.v9i6.2251","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们将尝试提出贝克莱所采用的机械论观点的标准,以及他对机械论观点的独特攻击。根据贝克莱著作中暗示的机械论观点的标准,机械论观点是解释自然现象的观点,只假设物质原因。伯克利声称我们所感知的物质世界是感官观念的集合。这些想法存在于我们的脑海中。伯克利还声称这些思想是被动的。一个观念仅仅是另一个观念的标志,而不是另一个观念形成的原因。柏克莱声称,“力”一词并不代表一种真实的性质。许多物理学家认为,“力”代表了速度变化等现象的一个原因。伯克利被定义为经验主义者。但是,为了保护科学成就以及联系现象和预测的能力,他声称,我们必须使用“力”这个术语,尽管它并不代表一种真实的质量。在他看来,“力”一词代表了一种数学虚构。贝克莱的这种观点被称为“科学工具主义”。根据伯克利的观点,科学并不处理物质原因。宇宙的心灵(上帝)是自然现象的真正原因,“种植”被称为“自然”的规则思想。心灵和上帝应该在形而上学中讨论。因此,柏克莱对机械论观点的攻击源于他的观点,即只有在形而上学中,我们才能处理真正的精神原因。由于柏克莱攻击机械论观点,他被定义为反机械论。在贝克莱看来,从他的哲学中得出的世界图景与常识的图景没有区别。此外,没有任何科学成就因为他的哲学而受到影响
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
BERKELEY'S CRITERION OF A MECHANIST VIEW AND HIS ATTACK ON THE MECHANIST VIEW
An attempt will be made to present the criterion of a mechanist view that Berkeley adopted, as well as his uniqe attack on the mechanist view. According to the criterion of a mechanist view as implied from berkeley's writings, a mechanist view is one that explains the natural phenomena, assuming material causes only. Berkeley claims that the material world as perceived by us is a collection of sensual ideas. These ideas exist in our mind. Berkeley also claims that the ideas are passive. An idea is merely a sign for another idea, and not the cause of the formation of another idea Berkeley claims that the term "Force", which many physicists think that it represents a cause of phenomena as velocity changes, dose not represent a real quality. Berkeley is defined as an empiricist. But in order to preserve scientific achievements and the ability to connect between phenomena and to predict, he claims that we have to use the term "Force" although it dose not represent a real quality. The term "Force" represents in his opinion a mathematical fiction. This view of Berkeley is called " Scientific Instrumentalism". Science does not deal with material causes according to Berkeley's view. The universal mind (God) is the real cause of natural phenomena, "planting" the regular ideas referred to as '' nature''. Still minds and God should be dealt with in metaphysics. Therefore Berkeley's attack on the mechanist view is the result of his view that only in metaphysics we deal with real spiritual causes. Since Berkeley attacks the mechanist view, he is defined as an anti mechanist. In Berkeley's opinion, there is no difference between the picture of the world which follows from his philosophy, and the common sense picture. Moreover, no scientific achievement suffers as a result of his philosophy
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信