Is the Perception of Objects Relative to Our Senses?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Werg22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Perception
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of objects and their perception, questioning whether the understanding of objects is relative to human senses. It explores philosophical perspectives on objects, the implications of sensory limitations, and the relationship between perception and reality, touching on concepts from physics and philosophy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Philosophical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that an object is defined as a coalition of matter and energy, suggesting that perception plays a crucial role in this definition.
  • Others reference Kant's idea of the 'thing-in-itself', arguing that direct knowledge of objects is impossible due to human perceptual limits.
  • It is suggested that our understanding of objects may be inherently limited by our senses, raising questions about the possibility of achieving an ultimate understanding of the universe.
  • Some participants note that certain languages do not conceptualize objects in the same way, viewing reality instead as a constant process of change.
  • There is a discussion on the properties of objects, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics, where wave-particle duality complicates traditional definitions of objects.
  • One participant challenges the interpretation of properties in physics, asserting that properties such as wavelength and charge are well-defined and not obscure.
  • Another participant highlights the paradox of something being both localized and nonlocal, describing it as a significant point of obscurity in understanding objects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of objects and perception, with no clear consensus reached. Some agree on the philosophical implications of perception, while others contest interpretations of properties in physics and the implications of language on object conceptualization.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to philosophical texts and concepts that may not be universally agreed upon, indicating a reliance on specific interpretations of philosophical arguments. Additionally, the complexity of quantum mechanics introduces unresolved questions regarding the nature of properties and objects.

  • #61
wuliheron said:
... a number of sciences including psychology and linguistics used to be considered purely philosophical pursuits.

All forms of inquiry used to be considered philosophy and many people still consider scientific method merely an extension or tool of philosophy.

FYI logic is a tool of philosophy, not a philosophy in and of itself.

FYI, Actually, one can choose to look at the world through logic, or not... in this way, it very much is a philosophy.

Religion, for instance, relies on revealed truth, and sometimes embraces logical contradictions, which obviously doesn't demand or even require a logical structure, merely belief. And it is still considered wisdom.

I think you are talking outside your expertise.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
JoeDawg said:
All forms of inquiry used to be considered philosophy and many people still consider scientific method merely an extension or tool of philosophy.

Actually, the Chinese have traditionally not distinguished between philosophy and religion, however, westerners do make this distinction. In addition, the vast majority of philosophers do consider the scientific method to be a philosophical tool. In fact, philosophy forms the foundations of all practices, hence, everything we do is ultimately an expression of our philosophy. Nonetheless, most people prefer to make distinctions for the sake of practicality if nothing else.

JoeDawg said:
FYI, Actually, one can choose to look at the world through logic, or not... in this way, it very much is a philosophy.

Religion, for instance, relies on revealed truth, and sometimes embraces logical contradictions, which obviously doesn't demand or even require a logical structure, merely belief. And it is still considered wisdom.

I think you are talking outside your expertise.

Philosophy is not looking at the world through logic, philosophy is the reason you choose to look at the world through logic.
 
  • #63
wuliheron said:
Actually, the Chinese have traditionally not distinguished between philosophy and religion,

If you have studied the history of philosophy you know that the 'western' philosophical tradition, which began with the pre-socratics, dealt very much with religion. Philosophers love arguing about god. Its not a Chinese thing.

In addition, the vast majority of philosophers do consider the scientific method to be a philosophical tool.

Many scientists don't. They see science as separate.
In fact, philosophy forms the foundations of all practices, hence, everything we do is ultimately an expression of our philosophy.
If you say so.

Philosophy is not looking at the world through logic, philosophy is the reason you choose to look at the world through logic.

Or choose NOT to look at the world through logic. Many philosophies embrace irrational elements, and some specifically because they are irrational, the Tao, Kierkegaard...etc..
 
  • #64
JoeDawg said:
If you have studied the history of philosophy you know that the 'western' philosophical tradition, which began with the pre-socratics, dealt very much with religion. Philosophers love arguing about god. Its not a Chinese thing.

This is not true in Taoism, for example. Part of the Taoist tradition is to never argue about anything.

In addition, the modern western philosophical tradition owes its origins to the ancient Greek philosophers who invented metaphysics as a covert way of criticizing the increasingly bizarre stories of their religion. Overt criticism of their religion was punishable by death.
 
  • #65
wuliheron said:
This is not true in Taoism, for example. Part of the Taoist tradition is to never argue about anything.

Pity you're not a taoist.

You're wasting my time.
 
  • #66
JoeDawg said:
Pity you're not a taoist.

You're wasting my time.

For only $9.95 you too can know the secrets of the universe!


These include:

1) How to encourage others to argue!

2) How to make other people waste their time!

Send cash or money order to:

Lao_Tzu@2500bc.net
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
10K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K