0

Hello fellow philosophers!

I'm currently in the process of reading about George Berkeley's Idealism.

At one point, it is mentioned that Berkeley's Master Argument fails due to a conflation of representation versus what is represented. It is stated

"That is, when we imagine a tree standing alone in a forest, we (arguably) conceive of an unthought-of object, though of course we must employ a thought in order to accomplish this feat.Thus (as many commentators have observed), this argument fails."

My question is what exactly is an unthought-of object in this context? Is it simply refering to an object that is currently not occupying our minds?

Would appreciate a simple clarification. Thank you!

Conifold
  • 42,225
  • 4
  • 92
  • 180
Abraham
  • 473
  • 1
  • 3
  • 6
  • 2
    If the tree is standing *alone* in the forest then no one is perceiving it or thinking of it. So it is an unthought-of object that we are, nonetheless, able to conceive, contrary to the master argument. The obvious objection that it *is* thought of, namely by us in that conception. But, under Pitcher's distinction, we only think of the *tree's representation*, not of the tree itself, and so it remains an unthought-of, but conceived, object. – Conifold Sep 18 '21 at 12:19
  • 1
    you might want to see - https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/85918/what-is-the-role-of-mental-images-in-the-perception-of-absence/85939#85939 – Swami Vishwananda Sep 20 '21 at 06:51

0 Answers0