Theories of knowledge MWF-Jazpur Leigh

Locke supports representationalism.
We never see external material objects directly, only indirectly through ideas (formed through perception) which represent them.

Locke's argument for substance doesn't seem very empiricist: We can't conceive of disembodied qualities, so we suppose a material substance in which they exist. (more rationalistic)

Locke-most moderate empiricist
Berkeley
Hume-most thorough empiricist

HUMAN PERCEPTION:
-only medium sized material objects(or large ones at a distance.)
-can't see atomic/quantum world. can't see macro world when too close.

At what distance do you see an object as it truly is? From what angle or vantage point? We can only perceive certain frequencies of light and sound.

PROBLEMS WITH HUMAN PERCEPTION:
poor sense of smell
can't see cosmic rays
not aware of magnetic fields
no sonar like bats, whales

Locke: see a fragment of reality, and think "tree"
Berkeley: see nothing at all, but God puts tree image in your mind.

"To be is to be perceived" -Berkeley
x exists=x is perceived by some mind, someone is having an idea of x.

Objection: It's ridiculous to think that things pop out of existence when no one sees them.
Reply: God always perceives them.

God creates the impression of a table for all to see...
or
God makes a special table for everyone.
"Material Substance" is an unproven, contradictory concept created by philosophers.
"Real things" are collections of ideas. It isn't a material object which produces the ideas.