Chapter 3
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Chapter 3

on

  • 212 views

Philosophy-realism

Philosophy-realism

Statistics

Views

Total Views
212
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
212
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Presentation Transcript

    •  - is an outgrowth of Berkeley’s views.  -The first chief advocate of phenomenalism was David Hume who is the father of the movement by virtue of his reaction to Berkeley.
    •  -1st Berkeley’s analysis of the knowing experience.  -2nd The view of Berkeley that “ to be is to be perceived” is accepted in one sense but rejected in another.  -when the phenomenalist says that something exists, he means that if you set up the right circumtances, you will have the sensation of experiencing the object.
    •  Differs from common sense data, or images, but not the object. It differs from dualism in that dualism involves a gap between the sense data and the object behind the sense data.  Defends only the sense data as the object and behind that there is no other object to be sought.
    •  IMMANUELL KANT- he published The Critique of Pure Reason I 1781.  - Kant argued that man’s knowledge of reality is limited to appearances or phenomena  -Kant accepted a dualism in the knowledge situation.
    •  -there is what we see in terms of perception and this is all we ever see.
    •  DING AN SICH- “the thing in itself” also called noumenon.  Noumenon- is never seen but is inferred from the senses related to the phenomenon.
    •  KANT WROTE:  Appearances are the sole object which can be given to us immediately, and that in them which relates immediately to the object is called intuition. But these appearances are not things in themselves, they are not only representations, which in turn have their object –an object which cannot itself be intuited by us, and which may , therefore, be named the non-emperical , that is, transcedental object.
    •  Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects. But all attempts to extend our knowledge of objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of concepts have, on this assumption, ended in failure. We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of metaphysics, if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge.
    •  Argued that perception is one rather than two in its make up
    •  A Phenomenalist will maintain that every emperical statement about a physical object, whether it sees to refer to a scientific entity or to an object of the more familiar kind that we normally claim to perceive, is reducible to a statement, or a set of statements, which refer exclusively to sense-data.
    •  Seems to bring considerable certainty to the matter of perception, for after all, a sense datum that I have appears to be quite certain and almost infallible.
    •  1st The precision of statements about sense data is totally lacking and there are varities of sense data-statements about same data in different people.  2nd Charge against phenomenalism is that it implies a continual regression from the statement about the sense data to other qualifying statements which in turn are in relation to other statements.
    •  If the phenomenalist is right ,the existance of a physical object of a certain sort must be sufficient condition for the occurrence, in the appropriate circumtance, of certain sense-data; there must, in short, be a deductive step from descrriptions of physical reality to decriptions of possible, if in actual, appearances.
    •  Up to this point we have been dealing often with extremes . There are two opposites.
    •  1st There is Descartes, of whom we have said little, who began with the inner itself, the cogito, and argued that “clear and simple ideas” are certain, but these are solely within the world of mind and reason.  2nd The other side is Empirical approach which may emphasize by Locke
    •  Merely looking at something does not reveal what it is. Judgement is required. In some experiences the mind must gather all the data and only then can it “see” what is before it, in a sense the mind projects meaning.
    •  This is complicated by one other twist. In Descartes view of the self and reason, knowledge was secure as long as it was confined to the inner mind. Because of the unreliability of the senses, there was no sure route to the world outside the mind.
    •  He published his work (The Phenomenology of Perception)  Modern philosopher who formulated an answer giving credibility to a body and a self.
    •  1. Knowing is much more than sensationism.  Sensationism is built on simple, pure sensations.  Ex. Picture from a camera  Sensationism- is meaningless apart from the process of interpretation which involves the idea oof mind or person.  No pure sensation, and sensationism is not the place to begin for an understanding of knowledge.
    •  2. Knowing centers around attention.  Attention plays no role in the two opposite views we have described, empiricism and rationalism.  Attention is related to a field . Many objects nay be in the visual field of the person that do not gain his attention.
    •  3. The body is “subjectivized” or subject filled.  The body is that “by which there are objects”My body however, is never an object to me.
    •  4. The body involves synaesthetic perception. This involves several things  Body synthesis that goes on between the senses helps to illustrate the meaning involved in a phenomenal field.  My bodily being is the means to knowing things.
    •  5. The visual field makes sense out of sense.  The problem of depth in perception was a difficult one for traditional explanations of knowing.
    •  6. The body subjectivized restores integrity to the knowing experience. The attack upon the senses led to skepticism. The past experience o philosophy has revolved around the game of being absolutely ignorant.
    •  We have traced the issue of knowledge particularly as it relates to perception from common sense realism to a phenomenology of perception.
    •  What is seen? Problems  Common Sense Objects see Error is difficult to Realism directly explain; senses  deceivable
    • Representational Objects seen Skepticism because Realism indirectly ; of the senses; Primary and skepticism Secondary qualities world behind Of Locke Images
    •  Immaterialism See objects or requires God for  Ideas directly; foundation of  See only ideas known
    •  Phenomenalism See Indirectly Skepticism about  Because of Ideas; the world behind  Ideas reflect images or Ideas;  The world rejects God as  Cause of Ideas
    •  Phenomenology of See directly Error is possible,  Perception but correctible;  Confidence in knowing the world
    •  We have seen problems in each position. Any theory of knowledge must give credence to the senses, the knowing subject, and provide a synthesis of the different facets of man’s experience. A study of perception along the lines developed by Merleau-Ponty seems to do this with the greatest advantages. While this may not be completely without questions, his view helps to remove the shadowy world of unknown behind sense data and the same time give credibility to our knowledge of ourselves as well as