Do we exist if we are not perceived ?

To exist = have a mind, to know

to perceived = to get informations from senses or sensation

No, because our perception is the only way to exist

In fact, Berkley justified this answer with the term « Esse est percipi » which means being is being
perceived. Indeed, perception come directly from senses and sensation, and we know that sensation
gives informations about ourself. As Descartes say « I think so I am » so as you know you have
perception, you know that you exist.

Finally for him there is no matter, only idea in our minds. In fact for him matter doesn't exist
because we can't actually feel matter but we can feel its qualities. For example you can't perceived a
wall because in reality you perceived its qualities which is cold, white and straight.

But when we are are sleeping, sometimes we make dream and in it we have perceptions, so does it
mean that we exist in our dream ?

So in reality perception and existence are separated because existence is an idea which supposed the
link with the mind and the reason but perception is related to the senses.

In order to conclude we can say that we exist only if you take conscious of yourself and the only
way to do that is to perceived, to have sensation.

Does our world truly exist?

Such as Berkeley declared that there isn't any matter we can wonder if our world truly exist ?

We can pretend that our world exist by saying that we can feel it. Sensation is a way to know if
what we live is true due to the fact that if it doesn't exist we couldn't feel it. But the important point
is that the world must exist in order to question it. We can take for example Descartes who claimed
that God exst because us, unperfect human being have the image of God who is perfect. So to have
this image God must exist.

But we can also decalred that our world is a pure illusion because sensation is different from a
person to another so sensation can be misleading. Such as the colour-blind ? Some will think the
sun is yellow and others green. But also the fact that when we dream we have the possibility to feel,
to have sensation. When we have a nightmare it can happen sometime that when you woke up you
are crying or sweating because you though that it was true.

Can science go against morality ?

The term of morality is always link with the religious topic but since science is always in opposition
with the religion we can wonder if science can go against morality ?

In our world science is considered as the truth and morality as what is good or not

Science must go against morality otherwise we would not progressed . Indeed we can see that for
example History is create due to all the violence that Menkind created. So without immorality there
wouldn't be many invention.

The only point in Science is to search the truth, no matter what it should cost the truth is more
important, it is in fact the aim of Science to go against morality.

But is it not dangerous for the humanity ?

Of course that is why Science should pay more attention to morality because the search of the truth
without any clue of morality can be the ost of the humanity. Such as during the Second world war,
the nazis were making experiences on twins or people with physical problems, at the end the
persons were dead.

Even the experience that we are making on animals in order to say if it is safe for human, this
experiences kill animals and later it will kill us too. The end of the world will also risk our end.

So to respond to that question Science should still search for the truth but with limits, if the limits
are exceed they need to stop.

Is Science a new way to rule ?

The governement has power that is why it organize our society but Science start to have more and
more power and utility in our society so we can ask if science is a new way to rule ?

We can assure that Science is safe, trusting and especially can be proved by research of
expermentation. It is not only an idea due to the fact that it is proved so we can qualifoied it as
something rational

But still Science can't be a way to rule because even if Science is safe the person who use it may be
not that's why it can be dangerous. Some scientist can risk human life in order to succeed what they
want in Science.
Such as Science is link with the truth it can also be a way to control people especially society so it
can lead to dictatorship for example in North Korea or in China where science is sused to torture
and to destroy.

Science is a possible way to rule but still it is not a good new because it depend on the person who
use it ans its intentions.