We Merely Percieve…

Why can’t we confidently declare that logic is the lens through which reality is universally discerned? Because that’s all it is. A lens. A complex system of measurements, premises, and rules based on perception. Yes, it’s really only perception, and science itself proves it. Our brains perceive. Perception is not reality. Perception embraces reality in its own way. Logic is the arbiter of parts of the truth. But the truth as a whole? Now that’s a leap of FAITH. 

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “We Merely Percieve…

  1. It makes sens to me that logic is actually just another word for (personal) perception as what might be logical to me may not be to you

    • Indeed. Very true. Semantics can change. Even further than that, the framework of “logic”, as in the stuff that is based off of mathematics and such, is even based off of perception once you assert that your conclusions argue for ALL of reality.

      • I’m not sure yet. As of now, I believe there is one objective truth in the end..objective reality, and all that can be proven is that we percieve it… Does that answer your question?

      • Sort of. I am now contemplating the notion of objective reality and what that actually means (subjectively) to me.

      • hmm. expound? I love thinking/talking about this. What about it are you contemplating? Do you mean you hold a certain worldview and now you are considering it may be further from the truth than you thought?

      • By contemplating I meant working out exactly what that means (for me). I’m sure you have an understanding of what you mean but I need to make sense of it for myself before I can assess my “reaction” or response to those words

      • Oops – missed the second part of your comment. No – it is not that I am questioning my worldview so much (although that IS always open for questioning) but more me wondering how others perceive the notion of subjectivity. From my perspective I don’t understand how any perception or belief can not be subjective – yet if I found new information which caused me to question that I would be happy to consider it

      • May I also say it is always refreshing to converse with others who are willing to admit they are unsure or still learning or simply no not purport to “know”

      • 🙂 I appreciate the affirmation.

        All makes sense.

        It definitely hurts my brain to think everything is ENTIRELY subjective… a good hurt 🙂 I’m not used to it.
        Because to claim that everything is subjective is an objective claim.

        Or is it?

        🙂

      • Good question. I do not know if it is possible for one to be truly objective. But if one is not entirely subjective then perhaps a foot in both camps is possible? I do tend to get hung up on the semantics a bit but to me – since I am the subject where my own thoughts are concerned I am not sure anything but subjectivity is possible

      • I see..so overall subjectivity is all there is. That makes sense.

        But the Minute I agree with a set of your thoughts, it becomes objective reality in the premise of our conversation 😛

        So what is objective to a body of people is based on many common subjective claims?

      • Ok, I thought about it – while I got (yet another) cup of coffee..
        Given that objectivism is supposedly uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices, I have to say that I doubt it is possible for a human.

      • lol. Interesting thought indeed. I think objectivity states that there is some truth that stands in the end regardless of what emotions any sort of being may encounter in perceiving that truth.
        Impossible for a human maybe…
        But not necessarily an impossible phenomena in general?

  2. The moment we introduce the idea of “truth” I then have further problems. Are we talking about your truth, my truth or THE truth (as a concept – I mention it only because many seem to believe in it)?
    Plus, truth is, I think, also subject to subjectivity (no pun intended)

  3. While science can tell us that we perceive; it has no ability to discern that what we perceive is rightness or wrongness. I find it saddening that naturalism is a predominant philosophical school of thought among many in the discipline. In other words, anything beyond what science can get at it via the five senses is not worth looking at.

    I digress, but I too agree that there exist a capital “t” Truth out there beyond our own subjectivity. We definitely do not want to suggest matters of rightness and wrongness pivot upon our own subjective perception. Not only is that highly problematic morally, but it downgrades our humanness. That is, the whole point of “discovering the Truth” is to do so together; it’s not a solitary endeavor.

    Maybe it’s semantics, but I immediately locked in on the “leap of faith” ending to your post. I don’t see it as a leap of faith but rather a dialogue between people to discern what is right and what is wrong. In doing so, one provides logical reasons and support for why they think this is right or this is wrong. Not to ramble on too much, but that’s not to suggest either that morality is a matter of majority consensus.

    Anyhow, good post and thanks for getting my noggin roaring with thought this morning. Reblogging!

    • Thanks for your response!

      Indeed, it seems a bit presumptuous to assert that anything beyond our five senses is not worth considering in assessing reality, as you have said.

      Humanity is unified in her ability to seek the truth in some way. How that manifests itself differs between every person, but the minute we claim that the manifestation we experience one ups another’s, we discover a lot less together than we have the capacity to.

      I see why the word “faith” especially would put up a red flag. Let me clarify what I mean by it, in context with my post. I said “. Logic is the arbiter of parts of the truth. But the truth as a whole? Now that’s a leap of FAITH. ”

      Faith, by definition, does not have to do with what most people claim it does in our culture–this idea that some “irrational” spiritual belief is intertwined with faith. Faith simply means one believes in something that is not warranted by evidence.

      Bearing in mind that all we can do is PERCEIVE the world around us, logical thinking arises merely from perception (because thinking arises from the mind, and the mind merely perceives). Our own perception. Therefore, to assert that logic is the arbiter of the whole truth is a leap of FAITH because it cannot be warranted by evidence.

      Proper evidence would mean that the person who claims logic determines all truth must prove that his or her perception of reality is universally “accurate” in the first place. I don’t just mean with moral matters and philosophical discussions. I mean even the five senses. Somehow proving that his own five senses accurately perceive the WHOLE truth. Because this cannot be proven, there is a premise in his argument that is accepted without evidence. Hence, it’s an assertion of faith.

      Like you said, logic is about communication. About proving a point within a given set of premises that two people agree on. But if two people agree on a given premise it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true in the end.

      Does that clear up the whole “faith” thing?

  4. Reblogged this on Ginger Musings and commented:
    Short, but potent blog post about philosophical matters. It got me thinking in the morning and here was my response therein:

    While science can tell us that we perceive; it has no ability to discern that what we perceive is rightness or wrongness. I find it saddening that naturalism is a predominant philosophical school of thought among many in the discipline. In other words, anything beyond what science can get at it via the five senses is not worth looking at.

    I digress, but I too agree that there exist a capital “t” Truth out there beyond our own subjectivity. We definitely do not want to suggest matters of rightness and wrongness pivot upon our own subjective perception. Not only is that highly problematic morally, but it downgrades our humanness. That is, the whole point of “discovering the Truth” is to do so together; it’s not a solitary endeavor.

    Maybe it’s semantics, but I immediately locked in on the “leap of faith” ending to your post. I don’t see it as a leap of faith but rather a dialogue between people to discern what is right and what is wrong. In doing so, one provides logical reasons and support for why they think this is right or this is wrong. Not to ramble on too much, but that’s not to suggest either that morality is a matter of majority consensus.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s