My Philosophy Blog

Can we really distinguish between primary and secondary qualities?

Locke thinks yes.

Berkeley thinks that primary and secondary qualities are ideas in the mind, and neither are mind independent objects. This means he thinks they are both as ‘real’ as each other, unlike Locke who thinks that primary qualities are more ‘real’. Berkeley thinks that secondary qualities cannot resemble properties in the real object since they depend on the perceiver in SOME way e.g water seeming hot to one hand and cold to the other. He argues that the same is true for primary qualities as we can argue that shape and size are not resemblances of qualities existing in matter as different people see the same object in different ways (perceptual variation). Also, he thinks we can’t conceive of an object without primary qualities but neither can we imagine it without secondary qualities.

Does representative realism lead to skepticism about the world?

Representative realism could lead to skepticism about the world as if we have never seen the world directly, everything could be sense data. Russell thinks that this is true because if it didn’t exist then everything would be all jumbled up. He gives the example of if you leave a cat at home, it will still get hungry, independent of whether or not you are perceiving it.

Primary qualities of an object are properties which the object has independent of us. Secondary qualities of an object are the powers that object has to produce ideas in us such as colour, taste etc. 

Locke argues that only primary qualities are ‘real’ as we can never actually grasp what secondary qualities are. For example, the taste of something is going to be slightly different for everybody, whereas the mass of an object can be calculated, and is common no matter who is perceiving it.

Untitled: Essay Plan

Does art need to represent, imitate, illuminate or tell the truth?

One argument is that ‘great art imitates’. For example, photorealistic art is often considered great art because it requires great skill to imitate it to such accuracy. However, a counter example to this would be work by Jackson Pollock:

This piece of art is called ‘Number 8’. It is not intended to represent, imitate, illuminate or tell the truth. It is purely for aesthetic purposed. I think that this does stand alone as a piece of art as I would happily look at it or hang it in my house. It is interesting without having to represent something from reality.

Similarly, art which represents Mary Magdelene often portrays her as being the evil which Eve created, which we might not necessarily believe, but we can still appreciate the skill of the artwork:

The Value of Art

Art as an imitation - For example, Chuck Close Big Self-Portrait is a photo-realistic piece of art, which is credited for being art because it is so realistic and close to the truth. I agree to an extent with this because it takes skill to copy something so realistically, however I think that it takes more imagination to create, for example, an impressionist piece of art, or a piece of art like the Guernica which makes you really think.

Art as a representation - I think that this is a great for of art because it allows the artist to express themselves through the art, whereas photorealism allows no room for exagguration or interpretation. For example, the Raindrop Prelude by Chopin has a faling motif which represents rain. Also, impressionist painting is a representation of the subject.

Art revealing truths - When art tells tells us something about reality it can be appreciated through revealing moral/universal/psychological/religious/practical truths. This type of art is interesting because it allows the viewer to reflect on real situations. For example the Guernica reflects on the war.

Art illuminating our experience - This is the final type of art which is based on self reflection. For example, Mark Rothko’s Chapel which is a room which is designed to let you relfect on yourself. I think that this type of art is good because it allows interraction with the art itself, rather than just looking at a painting.

Rational Intuition

Descartes uses a priori knowledge to prove that the world must exist. He starts with the example of common sense; we can experience the world through our senses, so it must exist. However, sometimes we are tricked by our senses, which leads us onto the illusion phase. He comes to the conclusion that usually his senses do not decieve him, therefore he continues until he gets to dreaming. How do we know that we are not dreaming? He decides that dreaming would not be so regular as life. He then says that there may be an ‘evil deceiver’ who is creating an illusionary world around us. From this, he concludes that he cannot know anything at all. He finally decides that it is immediately rationally obvious that he exists through ‘I think therefore I am’.

What he is ultimately trying to prove, unlike empiricists, is that we cannot trust our senses to tell us whether or not the world exists. David Hume, an empiricist, argues that introspection does not reveal yourself, only your thoughts. He thinks that you can have thoughts without existence, therefore it cannot possibly be known through rational intuition. I agree with Descartes that we must know that we exist simply through the fact that it is rationally obvious.