We cannot judge that we perceive is hallucination or real…
It is essentially true that this argument cannot be proved wrong completely and it therefore that the ‘critique of reason’ came into being. Undoubtedly as brought forward by Kant human reason in itself has certain limitation of judgement.
I am presenting my arguments only to show certain anomalies and contradictions in this Kantian idea and not refute it because unfortunately it can’t be done.
Our problem with dismissing our sense perception as mere hallucination or an idea/construct starts with the basic question that if what we perceive is not real then what is real? Does there exist anything in this world independent of our mind?
To answer lets take an example of an empty room with only a table inside. Though I thoroughly agree that no two people may describe the table exactly same way, that is the properties of the table that are perceived by different minds tend to be subjective. It is however irrelevant when dealing with the basic existence of the table as irrespective of the subjective difference of opinion almost everybody accepts existence of the table.
Now to claim that the table is a mere hallucination we have to consider following arguments
1. Does the table continue to exist when no one is looking/perceiving it?
2. Suppose the table is covered after completely after you have seen the table such that it cannot be made out what is there beneath. In such a case is it that other people entering the room are looking at a cloth hanging in air?
In order to counter these arguments we have to incorporate some more assumption into the theory. This was first proposed by Bishop Berkeley and of course later made quite famous by the movie matrix. These assumptions are
1. All minds are interconnected and are not independent of each other/ has limited independence
2. To maintain the continuation of the hallucination, a universal mind (God in case of Berkeley/ and Hindu philosophy of Maya and Machine main frame in case of Matrix) is always perceiving/ projecting the things as they appear to us.
In such a case it can be safely assumed without any logical contradictions that all that we see is a veil pulled over our eyes. This argument however severely undermines human mind. If this be the case then we are practically incapable of acquiring any knowledge and our sense tools are mere input devices for a dream. Science or any other stream of knowledge too cannot exist because they all are based on systematic observation. So no electricity, no magnetism, no gravity, no matter, nothing remains but just illusion.
Such idealism I don’t hold as rational. Presence of logic alone cannot hold an argument rational. It has no proof whatsoever to support it neither there is a direct cognitive evidence or authentic historical evidence to support the argument. Presence of a universal mind controlling all minds making us perceive things cannot be proven so as to conclude it as true.
It is the way of philosophy one may argue. To accept red as red has never been defining attribute of philosophy. It is however to be kept in mind that in order to proceed with our quest of knowledge, we need to accept dependence of our consciousness on the sense perception and its input. If we have a reality it is from what we perceive and without it our consciousness will simply relegate into a chaos.
It is essentially true that this argument cannot be proved wrong completely and it therefore that the ‘critique of reason’ came into being. Undoubtedly as brought forward by Kant human reason in itself has certain limitation of judgement.
I am presenting my arguments only to show certain anomalies and contradictions in this Kantian idea and not refute it because unfortunately it can’t be done.
Our problem with dismissing our sense perception as mere hallucination or an idea/construct starts with the basic question that if what we perceive is not real then what is real? Does there exist anything in this world independent of our mind?
To answer lets take an example of an empty room with only a table inside. Though I thoroughly agree that no two people may describe the table exactly same way, that is the properties of the table that are perceived by different minds tend to be subjective. It is however irrelevant when dealing with the basic existence of the table as irrespective of the subjective difference of opinion almost everybody accepts existence of the table.
Now to claim that the table is a mere hallucination we have to consider following arguments
1. Does the table continue to exist when no one is looking/perceiving it?
2. Suppose the table is covered after completely after you have seen the table such that it cannot be made out what is there beneath. In such a case is it that other people entering the room are looking at a cloth hanging in air?
In order to counter these arguments we have to incorporate some more assumption into the theory. This was first proposed by Bishop Berkeley and of course later made quite famous by the movie matrix. These assumptions are
1. All minds are interconnected and are not independent of each other/ has limited independence
2. To maintain the continuation of the hallucination, a universal mind (God in case of Berkeley/ and Hindu philosophy of Maya and Machine main frame in case of Matrix) is always perceiving/ projecting the things as they appear to us.
In such a case it can be safely assumed without any logical contradictions that all that we see is a veil pulled over our eyes. This argument however severely undermines human mind. If this be the case then we are practically incapable of acquiring any knowledge and our sense tools are mere input devices for a dream. Science or any other stream of knowledge too cannot exist because they all are based on systematic observation. So no electricity, no magnetism, no gravity, no matter, nothing remains but just illusion.
Such idealism I don’t hold as rational. Presence of logic alone cannot hold an argument rational. It has no proof whatsoever to support it neither there is a direct cognitive evidence or authentic historical evidence to support the argument. Presence of a universal mind controlling all minds making us perceive things cannot be proven so as to conclude it as true.
It is the way of philosophy one may argue. To accept red as red has never been defining attribute of philosophy. It is however to be kept in mind that in order to proceed with our quest of knowledge, we need to accept dependence of our consciousness on the sense perception and its input. If we have a reality it is from what we perceive and without it our consciousness will simply relegate into a chaos.
No comments:
Post a Comment