You evidently do not get the point of the magician example. Johnson did not prove that he kicked a material object, or even that there was a material object to be kicked. In order to refute Berkeley, he needs to do that. Kicking a stone proves nothing, just like my magician example does not prove that he can turn water into wine, even if he really has that ability. You do agree, don't you, that if you saw a magic act, you would not simply believe the appearance was real, right? But suppose it was real. It being real would not prove it is real, and that is the point; that is why kicking a stone, material or otherwise, is insufficient to prove anything about what Berkeley was saying.

I don't know how well that comparison works though. If I saw a magician kick a stone, I would believe the stone is real. We don't believe he turned water into wine because we have other knowledge about the world that would contradict it.

There are certainly cases where we have observed something fantastical, that seems impossible. But after going over it, it turns out it is indeed possible.

And I think you are still hung up on proof. You don't need to disprove someone to refute them.

1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
   
   
2. to prove (a person) to be in error.
   

If you claimed that the glass I was holding contained no water, and to refute you I dumped it over your head, I wouldn't have proved you wrong (it could all be an illusion, yes?) but you would be unreasonable to persist that you had been correct.

You seem confused:


Refute | Define Refute at Dictionary.com

Without proving something, there is no refutation, by definition.

No, ken, it isn't.
Samm

What constitutes proof of something depends upon the nature of the thing to be proved. This is why measuring a triangle is not usually done in geometry class, but is done when working with wood. In the case you describe, since ordinarily the dispute would not be about whether material objects exist or not, the demonstration would be adequate. Likewise, with the stone, if the dispute had been about the strength of Johnson's leg and whether or not he could move the stone by kicking it, then kicking it would be appropriate. But if the dispute was about the properties of marble, but the stone was not known to be marble, kicking it would be beside the point, even if it turned out to be marble. The reason is, one would previously need to prove that it was marble for it to be relevant. Likewise with Johnson kicking the stone; he would previously need to prove it was material for it to be relevant to the issue of whether or not Berkeley was right. And in this case, establishing that would be enough to show Berkeley was wrong, so the kicking of the stone is entirely beside the point no matter what.

• overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof; "The speaker refuted his opponent's arguments"
  
• prove to be false or incorrect
  

• refutation - the speech act of answering an attack on your assertions; "his refutation of the charges was short and persuasive"; "in defense he said the other ...
  
• refutation - disproof: any evidence that helps to establish the falsity of something
  
• refutation - falsification: the act of determining that something is false
  

How did Johnson mean it? As I said, how can you show that he misunderstood Berkeley and not the meaning of "refute"? Although in googling him I find he wrote a dictionary, lol.

Most likely I will read something of Berkeley before replying to the rest of your post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samm
No, ken, it isn't.
Samm

Quote Originally Posted by Samm: Unlike Berkeley, I believe that everything that is (materially?) real in this universe IS a conscious being, some sentient and some not.

If this is an effort by you to clarify the mistaken understanding you earlier posted, I appreciate it. Thank you.

Samm

I don't really think that Berkeley denied the existence of material objects

I don't really think that Berkeley denied the existence of material objects, insofar as material objects are commonly described, e.g. made of matter, occupying space and having weight. Rather, he saw materialism as a shallow observation of reality that did not penetrate to the core of reality. The world we know certainly appears material, but its fundamental, underlying reality is that it is an image or idea in the mind of God. Because our perceptions, our consciousness, is from God, no other form of reality is required than the reality of idealism.

When we create the belief that reality is extended, external, and material, we are only creating an erroneous idea of reality based upon our shallow observations. Materialist realism works adequately for as far as it goes, science being based only upon what appears to be, but Berkeley declared it not only wrong but unnecessary to create such a fallacious view of reality since all our knowledge of reality comes through our perceptions which are ideas in our minds. Ockham's Razor therefore argues that we ought not create an unnecessary secondary kind of reality when a reality of ideas and images in the mind of man and God is adequate to explain reality.

One reason we sometimes do not understand that reality is idealist is that we fail to understand that our bodies are a part of that idealist reality. The foot with which Dr. Johnson kicked the stone is as much an idealist reality at heart as is all the universe, all heaven and earth as created by God in the mind of God. The "surface" appearance of all this idealist reality is material, solid, scientific. The underlying reality of that "surface" appearance however is idealist (it is ideas and images in the mind of God).

I try to explain this to kennethamy all the time, with little hope of penetrating his preconceptions, but I hope to find better understanding from you. I don't agree with Berkeley 100% or even 50%, although I found his idealism to be an inspiration for looking past the surface of things. But I think, if we understand that his is the philosophy of a bishop of the church, that we can see how the philosophy made good sense to Berkeley and at least some of his contemporary philosophers.

Samm

Another point is that the subjective reality within which everything appears, is not itself an object of perception. We cannot actually envisage of conceive of the mind(s) in which all of this occurs because it is not a thing or object.

I don't understand your point. Johnson refuted (not just rebutted, refuted) Berkeley by showing that the stone was a material object by kicking it, and the foot not penetrating the stone, and (supposing the stone was small enough-we are not told whether it was) the stone moving when Johnson kicked it. That is exactly what material objects do when they are kicked.

Yes, he was the editor, and substantially wrote, the first English dictionary. You really ought to read Boswell's Life of Johnson. I found it an absorbing and entertaining and instructive book. I reread parts of it to this day. Johnson own work is terrific, Especially his, The Lives of the Poets. His portrait of Savage is a gem.

However, Berkeley never doubted that reality appears to be material. Not at all.

Samm

That's true. But then, of course, not everything just "appears". Many things just are. For instance, the stone that Johnson kicked did not just appear. It also existed. It was. (Not everything is an hallucination, many of the things you see are real-in fact, unless I am mistaken about you, very few things you see are hallucinations).

Kennethamy is right about that point. Berkeley denied the reality of material substance. That was his claim to fame.



Question: one point that Berkeley makes about the object is that to beings with different types of visual systems, the object appears differently.

How does it REALLY appear?

But I don't see what the question is. That just sounds like a description of eyes and lenses and light and receptive fields. What's the significance?

Let me assure you that he not only doubted it, he vociferously denied it. He proclaimed loudly that the belief in a material world was the work of Satan, and a snare and a delusion, for it concealed God from people. It was Satan's great lie. You ought to read some Berkeley.