Perceiving a Problem with Philosophy?
Even in Spring 2001, I could put out a 1,500 word article in a day or so. Rereading 10 years later still makes this paper feel like I’m spouting metashit.
Course, Philosophy on the Human Person, grade A-.
–
Here I sit by the window, at my desk surrounded by the basics of a student’s life. A large Macintosh monitor controlling the KPLU Real Player Jazz audio stream, a Compaq laptop to type this little paper on, and a lamp to shine light on the reference materials before me; sit close by to assist me in my ponder; all are a materialistic perception. Now, a simple question, I ask about philosophy, why all this fuss about a little thing called philosophy of perception? In philosophy of perception, we waste.
Why not discuss a matter that really matters, that really benefits humanity, and one that can bring about a positive change of global proportions. Why not put the efforts of such philosophical discussions into providing food, shelter, clothing, and warmth to those in need? Yes, philosophy is food for thought, but no food for the body means, no thoughts for philosophy.
Life is what you make it, do spend time for proper analysis and planning, but do remember our innate call to action not talk. Philosophy according to Random House in a nice, clean, simple definition: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. Perception according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy declares perception to be the complex method of obtaining information about our surrounding world. If philosophy and perception can be defined so succinctly, why then is so much irrational, puff your chest out effort put into deliberating about how we see things?
The problem before us is that philosophy has lost its way in answering the insights to knowledge, truth, and conduct. What went wrong? Man was man with desire to prove he was a man.
After 2,500 years of discussions, no answer has come through and the present ideas keep becoming mixed into the past. Why can’t fresh answers be found? According to Austen Clark, even upon review of nine essays of “contemporary analytic philosophy of perception” the questions under discussion remain ancient, but humorlessly the vigor of discussion remains. Just how much effort is being put forth to answer what businesses recognize as unsolvable problems? Must every time that philosopher’s confer, be a time to superimpose their “superior intellect and research skills” by falsely hiding questions in commentary and supposition?
I submit myself to the introspection that we each are individuals, generally with sound minds capable of unique rational thought. If we have such sound and rational thought capable minds, how can we find such extreme, perverse pleasure in discussing intricacies of how we perceive differently? It is true that enlightenment leads to happiness, but after more than 2,500 years why hasn’t a global enlightenment occurred?
One might accept the notion that to further know ourselves we must question our own selves with a why and how. Truly though, does that mean then that one persons answer of the why and how, really mean that they must apply and then be forced upon those who feel differently or even indifferently? These questions are sound, but I must ask do the real answers improve the life of a global culture?
Next, does one person’s enlightenment to the why and how of them lead to furthering the good of humanity? If it does, then I must contest that my feelings and own point of perception become moot.
Despite several thousand years of reign of being commended as a great, Plato’s own handy work, especially in Theaetetus 184-186, in regarding that perception cannot equate to knowledge since perception cannot bear being and being is required for judgment. Plato shows is inability to show full recognition of the whole human person, young and old. By this Plato places the perceiver to be the interpreter of being which wrongly removes children and animals from being judgment makers.12,
In Plato’s influence, a young man, one of Florence, Italy became jaded to make an assumption so thought to be basically true to all, but so vastly wrong because it was still an assumption. Marsilio Ficino decried from God, as unity, gives beauty to a physical world in multiplicity, only to return to God as love. Where is it shown that God truly exists and gives his beauty freely in order to be bathed in self-indulgent love? This doesn’t sound like a god, but a classification of delusional grandeur.
By going forth, dwelling, and preaching upon the prospect that God exists and donates beauty in return for eternal love, shows a basic assumption and belief that ignores the potential that God may not exist or not of the form as he may be commonly perceived.
Earth may be but a seed amongst the cosmos, derived to see who will call forth their father first to then rule over their brothers and sisters. How is beauty to be seen then in dominance of your brethren?
In Austen Clark’s Contemporary Problems in the Philosophy of Perception, a classic example of sense data is taken from a red tomato hanging on its vine as it exhibits qualitative properties into a mental state: red, bulgy shape, and so on.3 To further show evidence of no action in philosophy; a debate of five papers, over five years focused on color vision. Again, how much energy is being wasted, that could truly be used to better humanity? Leading into a quip, who cares how we perceive the red tomato, we agree it’s a red tomato.
Going on, Descartes plays a prominent role in shaping early modern philosophy according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy with his Meditations that seem to place “common sense” into the application of perception in ties with knowledge. Thankfully Descartes, being a Methodist, does believe in applying a method of reasoning into his own investigations about perception. Unfortunately though, Descartes doesn’t lead us unto a simplification of perception but a further divergence and multiplication of how we perceive through nominalism, realism, and idealism.
From within Descartes separations of the points from which perception can be followed, some respect is due to him for realizing that concurrence on an absolute in perception of philosophy is not, is encouragingly thankful. His case of nominalism examines how universals of measures or empiricism are names or an agreement by people. Next, realism exhibits how body independent externalities of sense datum or awareness demonstrate that universals are real. Finally, idealism epitomizes the relationships of space, time, material and immaterial substances to reveal that ideas are based upon the mind state.
Descartes recognition that perception philosophy will have divergent flows has probably encouraged some focus onto real problems at hand by related philosophers, but still no real betterment of human kind.
From here, as to add some relief from the good that philosophical discussion’s about perception isn’t adding to society, the real world looks upon “perception help society” with interesting results.
* National Space Society: …task that require human perception and common sense…
* Schizophrenia Society of Ontario: …disease that affects thinking, perception, mood and behavior…
* American Pain Society: “Politics is perception, and the perception up…”
* The Aetherius Society: The Goddess Perception of True Meditation.
* Augustine: Christianity and Society: … it claims that human perception and reason is for now impotent.
In reality, this isn’t a relief; it is a further testament to the problem that philosophy of perception is in such a disadvantageous mess, that society applies is without truly knowing where it should be used or really how. Some hope exists, but until this 2,500-year-old mess is cleaned up, can more than 402,000 disjoint associations about “perception help society” help society?
One might wonder why I can barely stand to participate in philosophical discussions. It’s really simple, what have those philosophical discussions done to improve humanity’s success in equal distribution of rights, food, shelter, clothing, and warmth. When was the last time a great philosophizer recognized for improving world trade, decreasing hunger, or simply playing with a sick child? I’m far prouder of the little girl who delivers a flower to her grandmother and the other elder lady next door than of Plato. Who places his old teacher Socrates as an ugly, lumbering old man forever hazarding his discussional ideas of knowledge unto bystanders in a Greek bathhouse as seen in Plato’s Theaetetus. Even worse to harm an already low esteem of suspect philosophy, hooligans flatten philosophies’ greats such as Plato with false dialogues and letters have been submitted under their names.
Recognize that this paper about perceiving a problem with philosophy of perception, also display’s properties of preaching of things of no great significance. Why then should so much effort be put forth into something, which was meant for people to recognize different points of view be so forthrightly pursued? A little philosophy is good, no philosophy is bad, the same as too much. Where is the line drawn to determine the points of enough enlightenment to individuals, but not too much to drown them in the pathetic abuse of intellect gone astray? Again, in philosophy of perception, we waste and this is no exception.
Recent Comments