Keith Russell

Skepticos said:
"But, I recognize that the totality of perceptions may be nothing more than the production of some (unknown to me) faculty of the mind. So, the question of whether or not my perceptions are caused by, and resemble, an external universe cannot be answered by reason."

But, unless there is at least some evidence for this hypothesis, would you agree that entertaining it to any serious degree is, ultimately, irrational?

No, reason will not provide a final answer to the question, but it can help you figure out whether it is wise to spend much time worrying about such things...

Keith.

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Skepticos

Keith Russell writes:

"But, unless there is at least some evidence for this hypothesis, would you agree that entertaining it to any serious degree is, ultimately, irrational?"

No, I would not agree. Reason cannot answer the question of whether or not my perceptions are caused by, and resemble, an external universe. But I believe in this independent and external universe anyway. Thus, my belief is non-rational, meaning that it is neither a product of, nor verifiable by, reason.

To make the claim that the act of entertaining one over the other is opposed to reason is to assert that reason can make some type of determination in this regard. An assertion I reject.

I see nothing irrational (asuming you and I agree on what that means) about entertaining the notion that my perceptions may not correspond to an external world. But such entertainment will be ephemeral, to say the least.

- Skepticos

butlerk

Good points, thanks for your post.

Sort of in line with the quoted paragraph...
I'd been toying around with the idea that one could potentially use the sum of all subjective perceptions to build an image of an objective reality. Obviously, I'm assuming nature hasn't inserted some screwed up factor in our ability to assess the "real" world. My point is, if we all perceive the same things, in general, does that not indicate something independent of individual perception (that something then being an objective reality)?

So, in a way, the totality of similar subjective view points builds an image of what we consider to be the "real" world. sound logical?

abe smith

You might suggest that they have the option of jumping out the um, 3rd story window.....

strongstevesaint

Skepticos,

So are you saying that all we can ever rationally understand is what we collectively (and objectively) perceive and that we can never directly experience anything?

I take it you view all ontological speculation as meaningless? Since, from my current (and perhaps unclear) definition, the ontological reality of something is defined as "the thing in itself apart from any sense-able or perceivable aspect of it."

Have I misunderstood?

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: strongstevesaint ]</p>

Skepticos

strongstevesaint writes:

"So are you saying that all we can ever rationally understand is what we collectively (and objectively) perceive and that we can never directly experience anything?"

What do you mean by "perceive" and "directly experience" in this context?

- Skepticos

strongstevesaint

By "perceive" I mean experiencing through the use of the five senses either directly or indirectly.

By "directly experiencing" I mean experiencing the thing in itself without the use of the physical senses either directly or indirectly. In other words, experiencing the reality of the thing (or it's true nature) rather than our own (or collective) perception of it.

I was under the impression that our perception of reality meant we had no direct access or experience to it, in that it must always be filtered through the physical senses in some manner. This reality which then exists apart from our perception of it is what I had understood to be it's true, or ontological, nature.

However, my grasp of these concepts is fairly recent and perhaps still very unclear, but I'm wondering if this "ontological reality" that we seem to have no direct experience to (through the use of our perceptions) is what the question of this thread was hoping to answer.

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: strongstevesaint ]</p>

Skepticos

strongstevesaint writes:

"By 'directly experiencing' I mean experiencing the thing in itself without the use of the physical senses either directly or indirectly. In other words, experiencing the reality of the thing (or it's true nature) rather than our own perception of it...This reality which then exists apart from our perception of it is what I had understood to be it's true, or ontological, nature."

I have not studied much of Kant, but you seem to be expressing a sentiment somewhat similar to the distinction he drew between the noumenal and phenomenal realities (please help me out here, Kant scholars).

Essentially what I am stating is that we experience perceptions, and we hold particular beliefs concerning these perceptions, viz., that they are caused by, and resemble, an external universe. But, we cannot step outside of our perceptions in order to determine whether or not they are truly caused by, and resemble this external universe in which we believe. Thus, to reference your post, there is no *means* by which we can determine if there is a noumenal world, or an "ontological reality" as you call it.

Thus, reason cannot answer the question of whether or not our perceptions correspond to this putative external world. But we all believe in it nonetheless; and such a belief is non-rational.

BTW, most of what I am talking about here is found in Hume's epistemology, a philosopher Kant was greatly interested in.

- Skepticos

John Page

Skepticos:

Disagree. Reason can tell us that there is something rather than nothing in order for us to rational/irrational about it. The argument then moves on to "what do we call it?", reality, external world etc. and, after taking into account the characteristics of human perception, what actually is it?

Answer - well, that depends on your perception!

Cheers, John

Skepticos

John Page writes:

"Disagree. Reason can tell us that there is something rather than nothing in order for us to rational/irrational about it. The argument then moves on to 'what do we call it?', reality, external world etc. and, after taking into account the characteristics of human perception, what actually is it? Answer - well, that depends on your perception!"

Well, I never said that reason cannot tell us that there is something rather than nothing; and I am calling this something a perception. I see, hear, taste, touch, and smell; these are clearly something, and are identified as perceptions. But whether or not this something is merely a perception arising out of some faculty of the mind, or a perception which has been caused by, and resembles, an external universe is a question reason cannot answer. Thus, the belief in the independence and externality of the objects of perception is a non-rational belief.

Cheers!

- Skepticos

P.S. - I am not saying that the belief in the independence and externality of the objects of perception is an irrational belief, but a non-rational one. This belief is not opposed to reason, but merely outside of the province of it.