Guest guest Posted November 28, 1999 Report Share Posted November 28, 1999 dear greg, i have pasted here a part of your message of a few days(about 2 weeks) back--on the perception discussion.: You say that "What 'exists' (the thing in itself) is not perceived," and a bit later, "We don't perceive reality but the impression that it makes on the internal instrument and, the internal instrument as it's fitness may be shows us the picture of reality.." Let me boil these down into very simple terms: (a) There exists an X. (b) But we don't percieve X. (b) X makes an impression on the internal instrument. (d) The impression is not X but rather a picture of X. This is the classic realist position, and is taught and reinforced throughout Western society. The trouble is, from the standpoing of not going beyond our experience and logic, what evidence do we have for the truth of (a)-(d)? Can we establish any one of these statements? >>now ,the basic q. is how do we know (a)-(d)?in my limited understanding >>---does'nt this conclusion(a-d) follow from perceptual relativity?.also,as >>long as we feel "our" consciousness is connected/limited to the body,we >>have to admit 'things' apart from 'us' and our perception of them through >>some perceptual process/mechanism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.