Locke argued that primary qualities like size, weight, motion, etc., really existed in the material objects we perceive outside of us because our minds “find [primary qualities] inseparable from every...

Locke argued that primary qualities like size, weight, motion, etc., really existed in the material objects we perceive outside of us because our minds “find [primary qualities] inseparable from every particle of matter.” In other words, we cannot imagine a material object without these primary qualities. However, Locke said, secondary qualities do not really exist in objects outside of us. Berkeley replies that Locke is wrong because we also cannot imagine a material object without any secondary qualities. So if secondary qualities do not exist in objects outside of ourselves, primary qualities also do not exist outside our minds. Who is right, Locke or Berkeley? Why?