Mmmmmh. Philosophy is wonderful, isn't it?
Let's end the year with a little thoughtful consideration of a recent point of disagreement. Mind you, there is no wrong answer, and this has been a question asked as far back as Plato (and the old thinker could have taken it from someone else himself).
"Perception is reality."
The immediate point to be made and considered is that if people can misperceive something, then their reality is skewed. A sensible response. That's a criticism of the term "perception", however, and the weakness of the human mind. It assumes a uniform reality that is perfect and under ideal conditions impossible to misperceive.
Unfortunately, I don't believe that is the case that any ideal world exists at all. I believe this because it is surprisingly easy to misperceive the world; we do so every day. One can merely glance into the world of politics and see that, how smart and rational people can look at the same situations (poverty, crime, war, economic instability) and come up with totally different solutions, both with facts to back them up.
But I think I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's step away from the phrase itself and take it into the very important question, raised by Plato himself.
What is more real, the chair, or the idea of chair?
The chair, essentially, constitutes reality. It exists, and is available to be perceived by anyone who sees it or wants to rest their legs and sit down. Without the existence of this object, of what purpose would the idea of it be? It would be a meaningless thought (the sort of which occupy my brain most of the time).
The idea of chair is perception. Because we can perceive the chair and comprehend what it is, the reality has meaning. Without the idea of chair, or chair-ness, the reality of the chair could not exist. It is only because it exists within our minds that we can see, understand, use, or even talk about this idea of chair.
As a side note, when I say chair, I think of a simple wooden chair with a spindly back. Other people may think of a fancy recliner, or a throne, or a stool. A peculiar point, worth its own discussion.
Back to the main question. What is more real, the chair, or the idea of chair?
Perhaps you could look at the invention of the very first chair to find an answer. Much like we may look at future technology, the first people must have looked at the chair and cursed the maker for wasting good firewood. It had no meaning to them, beyond that it was a strange wooden thing. But in the inventor's mind, it was something entirely different-- a tool for relaxing while keeping his fanny out of the mud. Eventually, the inventor must have explained the purpose to all his fellows, changing their perception and their realities. They no longer had to put their fannies in the mud. Hurrah!
So, what is more real? Chair, or the idea of chair?
Let's hear thoughts, questions, and opinions! There isn't a wrong answer, so go ahead and throw out what you think.
For further reading, check out Plato's Cave Allegory. Really fantastic stuff. I think it even comes in a youtube.com video these days.
Happy New Year!
Addendum: Just looked it up, the "idea" of something and its significance is called Plato's Theory of Forms. I had forgotten it's name.
tl;dr
:P
The Chair, obviously.
The original? version of the debate.
The Cave from OP-
Inside the cave
Socrates (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates%22) begins by describing a scenario in which what people take to be real would in fact be an illusion. He asks Glaucon (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaucon%22) to imagine a cave (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave%22) inhabited by prisoners who have been chained and held immobile since childhood: not only are their arms and legs held in place, but their heads are also fixed, compelled to gaze at a wall in front of them. Behind the prisoners is an enormous fire (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire%22), and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkway%22), along which people walk carrying things on their heads "including figures of men and animals made of wood, stone and other materials". The prisoners watch the shadows cast by the men, not knowing they are shadows. There are also echoes off the wall from the noise produced from the walkway.
Socrates suggests the prisoners would take the shadows to be real (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being%22) things and the echoes to be real sounds, not just reflections of reality (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality%22), since they are all they had ever seen or heard. They would praise as clever whoever could best guess which shadow would come next, as someone who understood the nature of the world, and the whole of their society would depend on the shadows on the wall.
Release from the cave
Socrates next introduces something new to this scenario. Suppose that a prisoner is freed and permitted to stand up. If someone were to show him the things that had cast the shadows, he would not recognize them for what they were and could not name them; he would believe the shadows on the wall to be more real than what he sees.
"Suppose further," Socrates says, "that the man was compelled to look at the fire: wouldn't he be struck blind and try to turn his gaze back toward the shadows, as toward what he can see clearly and hold to be real? What if someone forcibly dragged such a man upward, out of the cave: wouldn't the man be angry at the one doing this to him? And if dragged all the way out into the sunlight, wouldn't he be distressed and unable to see "even one of the things now said to be true," viz. the shadows on the wall (516a)?
After some time on the surface, however, Socrates suggests that the freed prisoner would acclimate. He would see more and more things around him, until he could look upon the Sun (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun%22). He would understand that the Sun is the "source of the seasons and the years, and is the steward of all things in the visible place, and is in a certain way the cause of all those things he and his companions had been seeing" (516b–c). (See also Plato's metaphor of the Sun (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor_of_the_sun%22), which occurs near the end of The Republic, Book VI)[2] (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave#cite_note-1%22)
Return to the cave
Socrates next asks Glaucon to consider the condition of this man. "Wouldn't he remember his first home, what passed for wisdom there, and his fellow prisoners, and consider himself happy and them pitiable? And wouldn't he disdain whatever honors, praises, and prizes were awarded there to the ones who guessed best which shadows followed which? Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn't he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? Wouldn't it be said of him that he went up and came back with his eyes corrupted, and that it's not even worth trying to go up? And if they were somehow able to get their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead up, wouldn't they kill him?" (517a)
Didn't bother to read entire posts because I'm drunk, but-
If "perception is reality" then the uneducated masses would dictate most things, and I'm simply not in agreement with that.
You can't answer this question without defining what constitutes "real."
How each of us 'perceives' something determines our reality.
You may see just a chair, I may see a comfortable place that can be used for many things, to sit, to stand upon to reach the top shelf so on and so forth.
Our reality is shaped and molded by how we perceive things. It is what defines us and our 'reality'.
What constitutes real varies depending on the person who's perceiving, it's why you would need to set conditions on the definition to begin with.
I can speak on this as an artist, because as an artist we learn how to trick and manipulate peoples' perceptions. This is a lot of what art is because the eye is only a camera lens, it's the brain that defines the input it receives.
The eye only sees light, it's all it's capable of. The eye does not define if something is solid, near or far, it can't tell texture, you need other senses for this. It doesn't even see things right side up as the images projected onto the back of your eye are flipped. It's your brain that rights it without effort or even without the person's willing cooperation.
Distance is judged by the eye using relative input, perspective. The basic, known size of other objects which are intuited as compared to the object you're looking it. It's why it's not difficult to fool the eye with tricks (such as trompe l'oeil) (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trompe-l%27%C5%93il%22) if you know what you're doing.
I mentioned texture, which is determined by touch and not sight. But through learned experience that when something looks a certain way it then feels a certain way. You can create an expectation for the viewer that what they're seeing will feel a certain texture. But think about it, if someone photographs a realistic tree and you then touch the surface it won't feel like a tree no matter how convincing the effect is.
This is why perception can be so easily manipulated to the point that it becomes reality. People do it all the time, just look at politicians, actors, artists, musicians, countless other professions...it's what they do. This is because people are generally easy to predict, and by feeding the correct information, while limiting the things that will sway them in the undesired direction, they can be led into seeing things in the way that's wanted. It's really just the way we're built.
Anyone with so much schooling that they get into this should do 4 things.
1) Get a girlfriend
2)Try to satisfy her
3)Bring her to me to get satisfied
4) Ask her the difference the next morning
Once you guys get out of school and get 15 or 20 years of real world experience, you will know what I am talking about.
Quote from: Underbard;215940Anyone with so much schooling that they get into this should do 4 things.
1) Get a girlfriend
2)Try to satisfy her
3)Bring her to me to get satisfied
4) Ask her the difference the next morning
Once you guys get out of school and get 15 or 20 years of real world experience, you will know what I am talking about.
LOL..just...lol..
Having color blindness, or I should say that I can see some colors correctly but not all, what I perceive is quite different than many others.
My reality is skewed.
Both are real, from a certain point of view.
[waves hand] You did not read that sentance.
Nothing is real, we are in the Matrix, we are just batteries for the Machines!
*cackles*
All I know is I know nothing. =]
Quote from: Underbard;215940Anyone with so much schooling that they get into this should do 4 things.
1) Get a girlfriend
2)Try to satisfy her
3)Bring her to me to get satisfied
4) Ask her the difference the next morning
Once you guys get out of school and get 15 or 20 years of real world experience, you will know what I am talking about.
amazing post
as for the original topic, perception, ideas, and materials all are nouns and exist. i don't think reality constitutes a single variable, it's as if asking if an apple or orange is more 'real.'
not to mention the thought of what is real isn't clearly defined and likely differs from person to person
i have little schooling and have done half of the four things
if you can go past...can you go future?
lol ontology
If you see the definition of "Real" changing your take on which of the two is more so, please elaborate on the difference between definitions that hinges the argument towards one side or the other.
The common reality we all agree upon is one we all share, though we all have our own skewed ideas of this reality, which is based on perception. How do we agree upon this common reality? We communicate, through various means, and in the case of human beings, this is primarily done through language. The idea of the chair is passed between the two subsequently.
If we look at the example of the chair, let's say we have two individuals perceiving it. One says to the other "I see a chair". The other might say "I see a piece of shaped wood". Both are correct in a sense, yet even though they might disagree on reality, how would they even get to this point without communicating the idea? Based on this theory, the idea means nothing without a way to relate our own perceptions. Therefore, a common shared reality is shaped by language. If you don't have a word to describe a feeling, does it exist, is it truly understandable, to the next guy?
Language is reality.