and the alternative is.....

but a theologian can answer 'indeed there are such limits, but fortunately God has chosen to reveal himself in Holy Scripture, which enables the knowledge of things which would otherwise not be known'. This is the meaning of the word 'revelation'. (I am not saying I believe it, but it is something that should be considered.)

But isn't that a "resort to god"?

I said, in the post above, 'Humanity' said that Einstein and Newton 'resorted to God'. I am interested in what he (or she) meant by that remark. Let's see if s/he answers.

but a theologian can answer 'indeed there are such limits, but fortunately God has chosen to reveal himself in Holy Scripture, which enables the knowledge of things which would otherwise not be known'. This is the meaning of the word 'revelation'. (I am not saying I believe it, but it is something that should be considered.)

I am also interested to know how Einstein is supposed to have 'resorted' to God. I know that Einstein was not an atheist, but to my knowledge, his statements about God had nothing whatever to do with his scientific work.

Very good analysis.

and the alternative is.....

Very good analysis.



and the alternative is.....

I really don't see that what Stove says here implies that Johnson did not understand Berkeley, and was not rebutting him. Berkeley's theory implied that Johnson kicked his own sensations and not a stone. I don't know what kind of non-fact (factoid) that is. Some, I guess, would call not call it an empirical factoid but, rather, just a factoid. A fact need only be a truth. It need not be an empirical truth, but a conceptual truth. (Stove called himself a neo-positivist. If that means he was a verificationist in the old style, I disagree with him about that).

None of the things that Johnson demonstrated when he kicked the rock conflict in any way with what Berkeley said. And since Johnson seems to have thought otherwise, that is prima facie evidence that he misunderstood Berkeley.

In addition and as Ughaibu mentioned, we have to acknowledge and accept that there are limits on what human beings can know, understand, conceive, etc.

Thus the aim of the book is to draw a limit to thought, or rather--not
to thought, but to the expression of thoughts: for in order to be able
to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides of the
limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what cannot be
thought).

What Stove says is that Berkeley and others like him did not fail to notice the normal empirical things that pretty much everyone notices. What Johnson did was just something that is the ordinary sort of thing that Berkeley knew about. So what Johnson did was fail to get at what is wrong with what Berkeley was saying, because what Berkeley was saying was not incompatible with Johnson's behavior. Please reread the paragraph from Stove carefully, that I quoted above.

I agree. Kicking the rock meant nothing. It just suggested that Johnson didn't care much for philosophy.

---------- Post added 03-06-2010 at 06:01 PM ----------

Kant's noumena is problematic. Here's Witt:

I think there are many people, Johnson included, who just don't get Berkeley's argument at all. It is a matter of perspective which requires a gestalt shift. But then, if you don't understand Berkeley, it is unlikely that the term 'gestalt shift' will mean much, either.

But was their trouble that they were ignorant of, or that they denied, some empirical facts or other, of which we are apprised? (Stove)

The problem here is how we should understand "empirical facts". When G.E. Moore displayed his hands in that famous lecture at the British Academy, and said, "Here is one hand, and here is another hand" and explained that he was displaying objects in the external world and thus refuting Kant's complaint that no one has proved the existence of "external objects" was Moore too simply misunderstanding Berkeley? We could ask what, if what Johnson and Moore did, was to misinterpret Berkeley, then what could they have done that would have correctly interpreted Berkeley? Anything? That Berkeley already knew that Johnson could do what he did, and was not fazed by it, does not seem to me a good argument for the conclusion that he should not have been fazed by it. It is, of course, never impossible to make your view impervious to refutation "come what may" by making enough assumptions to fend off the evidence. But that fact does not show that you have shown your position has not been refuted. It shows more about the capacity for a philosopher to be caught in the grip of a theory, than that he is able to defend his theory successfully. The anthropologist, Evans-Pritchard, who lived among the Azande in Africa pointed out how they believed that disease was caused by witches, and had ready, and ingenious explanations for the empirical objections to their theory, so that when Evans-Pritchard immersed himself in their theory, he nearly got rid of his doubts about it. It is always open for anyone to argue, "You did not refute me, you just misunderstood me", and argue for it. That is why Moore's proof was constantly criticized as having begged the question.

then what could they have done that would have correctly interpreted Berkeley?

Instead people like Stove et al just shot from the hip into the air without proper understanding on the ideas they are disputing.

I suppose then that since I think that Johnson (and Moore) did refute Berkeley, I don't get Berkeley's argument at all. Do you think it is at all even possible that B's view can be refuted, or are all alleged refutations really misunderstandings? That seems peculiar attitude, doesn't it? ("When you disagree with me, that means you misunderstand me").

When anyone gets an ******** (sound like election with an r), there is nothing much to refute at all. It is just something that is realistic.

Berkeley and Kant were on to something more realistic re how humans interact with reality from a more refined perspective.
They were only limited as the various neurosciences and other modern fields of knowledge of what we get today were not available to them.

With their sort of thinking abilities and intelligence, I am quite sure, Berkeley and Kant would naturally adopt all this new knowledge if they are alive now.

Your post does not seem to have anything to do with what I wrote which was that I don't think that we should say that just because a philosopher disagreed with Johnson, the philosopher must have misunderstood him. Berkeley's theory was hardly realistic. Indeed it was Idealism. Berkeley denied there were real objects. That was why Johnson kicked the stone. To illustrate that the stone was a real object, and so, refute Berkeley's theory which implies that is was not.

I think to pigeon-holed Berkeley's ideas simply as 'idealism' is just similar to branding someone as a witch years ago and burn them on the stake.
It is the same psychology.
Many philosophers branded Berkeley's ideas as 'idealism' as something that would lead to solipsism, nihilism and if they accept it, they would go bonkers and mad.

Currently, some people have claimed Kant as the godfather of intellectual cognitive science.
They would not stupidly give him that title if there is no substance in Kant ideas.
Berkeley ideas shared a common thread with Kant.

I am not crazy about Berkeley or Kant, but they have my respect with the abilities to think 'out of the box' relative to his period when unconventional thinking risk deaths.

... (I thought that Pyrrho's quote from Stove was supposed to show that Johnson did misunderstand Berkeley, by the way).

But was their trouble that they were ignorant of, or that they denied, some empirical facts or other, of which we are apprised? (Stove)

The problem here is how we should understand "empirical facts". When G.E. Moore displayed his hands in that famous lecture at the British Academy, and said, "Here is one hand, and here is another hand" and explained that he was displaying objects in the external world and thus refuting Kant's complaint that no one has proved the existence of "external objects" was Moore too simply misunderstanding Berkeley? We could ask what, if what Johnson and Moore did, was to misinterpret Berkeley, then what could they have done that would have correctly interpreted Berkeley? Anything? That Berkeley already knew that Johnson could do what he did, and was not fazed by it, does not seem to me a good argument for the conclusion that he should not have been fazed by it.

It is, of course, never impossible to make your view impervious to refutation "come what may" by making enough assumptions to fend off the evidence. But that fact does not show that you have shown your position has not been refuted. It shows more about the capacity for a philosopher to be caught in the grip of a theory, than that he is able to defend his theory successfully. The anthropologist, Evans-Pritchard, who lived among the Azande in Africa pointed out how they believed that disease was caused by witches, and had ready, and ingenious explanations for the empirical objections to their theory, so that when Evans-Pritchard immersed himself in their theory, he nearly got rid of his doubts about it. It is always open for anyone to argue, "You did not refute me, you just misunderstood me", and argue for it. That is why Moore's proof was constantly criticized as having begged the question.