Which side wins?

Which side wins?

Leibniz > Spinoza > Hume > Descartes > Locke > Berkeley

Leibniz, most of his writings are waiting to be categorized

Give an argument for why Berkeley's subjective immaterialism is wrong.

Not fair. Anglos lost from the very start since they are anglos.

evolution

things continue to exist when were not looking at them

etc

but gods looking at them

In what?

You can only know that by looking at them, though.

lol hume a beefy nigga

got 3 jaws to support that massive C R A N I U M

What things?

Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are all massive figures in their own right. Locke's just an Anglo, Berkley is a spectacular meme, and Hume is only famous for waking up some Prussian goblin

local realism has been ruled out by loophole-free Bell tests, so no

They all provided ideas which were valuable and essential to our modern understanding

and their societies produced them vis-a-vis a metamorphosing and growing system of shifting incentives independent of any one person

dick measuring contests are for plebs obsessed with the great man theory of history

garcon, coffee!

Its just a fancier version of solipsism which can only be refuted in the same way the omphalos hypothesis (that God created the world recently but implanted false memories/objects to make it look old).

That said the role Berkeley's God plays is quite heretical both biblically and by the Church Fathers. It almost wholly destroys free will and makes God directly responsible for evil.

there is no free will and God is directly responsible for Evil and goes out of its way to do Evil

The non-'glos.

I refute it thus *kicks stone*

Which is heretical in both Apostolic and biblical Christianity.

>which can only be refuted in the same way the omphalos hypothesis
Which is how? I would think the omphalos hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

Yes
heretical
meaning it went against church consensus
not God

Perceiving in your brain that you kicked a stone doesn't mean you kicked a stone.

> I would think the omphalos hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
Which is my point and highlights that just because something cannot be proven wrong it must therefore be correct.

* just because something cannot be proven wrong its not reasonable to think it therefore must therefore be correct.

Of course I don't think that something being unfalsifiable means that it is correct. But I don't think that something being unfalsifiable means that it is incorrect either. I don't see a reason to think that everything true must be falsifiable. Which is why I was asking how it was that this is "refuted."

>Of course I don't think that something being unfalsifiable means that it is correct
Good to know.

>Which is why I was asking how it was that this is "refuted."
I never said it was refuted, the point I am getting at is that its a line of inquiry which there can never be a definitive answer and which it being correct or incorrect doesn't really have much impact.

Its just one of those navel gazing exercises that entertain and entangle philosophers of a certain bent. Accordingly even though I not that original user that is why I would place Berkerly at the bottom of the list.

etc.,etc. - they learn to fetch books, sit in armchairs, etc.,etc.
Later, questions about the existence of things do of course arise, "Is there such a thing as a unicorn?" and so on. But such a question is possible only because as a rule no corresponding question presents itself. For how does one know how to set about satisfying oneself of the existence of unicorns? How did one learn the method for determining whether something exists or not?
477. "So one must know that the objects whose names one teaches a child by an ostensive definition exist." - Why must one know they do? Isn't it enough that experience doesn't later show the opposite?
For why should the language-game rest on some kind of knowledge?
478. Does a child believe that milk exists? Or does it know that milk exists? Does a cat know that a mouse exists?
479. Are we to say that the knowledge that there are physical objects comes very early or very late?

Do you see any bridges built with rationalism?

what if bridges are just an illusion made by an evil demon no less powerful than deceitful?

Berkeley didn't think it was heretical. It just requires a panentheistic conception fo God. I'm not aware of any church doctrines that dismiss such a conception as heretical. If you know of any, I'd love to read them. Berkeley used to cite Acts 17:28 in order to syncretize subjective immaterialism with Christianity. It states "For in him we live, and move, and have our being."

Leibniz built the first fucking computer

>quantum woo
stop this

Leibniz was a diplomat who used paper and horses to build a huge social network all over Europe and reaching as far as China.

Hi

Kant won

Empiribabies blown the fuck out of existence

TAKE A LOOK AT THESE HANDS

Berkeley is the greatest of all of them.

He built it with empiricism.

You don't know that

Mooreanism isn’t rational at all its abusing the mechanics of lower level logic to beguile stupid people. its useful for making pseud sollipsists and skeptics shut up. relying on it is like relying on positivism or “you can’t prove a negative” to argue for atheism.