Another great piece Kurt! This is a subject that has been on my mind lately, but because I haven't studied it too much I haven't formed a proper opinion of it. For example, when I read certain texts (I think Locke comes to mind regarding this) that posit that what we see is actually not objective reality itself but images, or limited perceptions, of reality, like the rose you mentioned, a part of me goes "no, that's not right to me." But I don't have the words or concepts yet to understand why. To me, if I believe I can only know an image of reality, not reality itself, that sets a dangerous precedent. Does this have to do, at least in part, with what your essay is covering? It's hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that only my brain exists, or that only the brain, and no other facets of existence, can have a tie to reality—and even then it's not directly experiencing reality, only an image (or facade?) of it... Sorry I'm rambling! This topic is very confusing to me. Your essay has offered me some guidance on the matter!
Locke was walking in Descartes' footsteps when it comes to this issue. Descartes held that the mind is an immaterial thing removed from the material body where the senses are. The mind ends up watching "inner TV" transmitted by the body. In modern philosophy, the mind is replaced by the brain, which is also removed from the senses. In both cases, the body is more or less dispensable. Thank you for reading!
The problem I see is people identifying themselves with their ideas, and words; first, with their conscious thinking, and more specifically still, with propositions about the world — mostly composed by others — which they have heard and adopted, often only because others have said and repeated them, implicitly regarding these word-propositions as important and valuable.
Another great piece Kurt! This is a subject that has been on my mind lately, but because I haven't studied it too much I haven't formed a proper opinion of it. For example, when I read certain texts (I think Locke comes to mind regarding this) that posit that what we see is actually not objective reality itself but images, or limited perceptions, of reality, like the rose you mentioned, a part of me goes "no, that's not right to me." But I don't have the words or concepts yet to understand why. To me, if I believe I can only know an image of reality, not reality itself, that sets a dangerous precedent. Does this have to do, at least in part, with what your essay is covering? It's hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that only my brain exists, or that only the brain, and no other facets of existence, can have a tie to reality—and even then it's not directly experiencing reality, only an image (or facade?) of it... Sorry I'm rambling! This topic is very confusing to me. Your essay has offered me some guidance on the matter!
Locke was walking in Descartes' footsteps when it comes to this issue. Descartes held that the mind is an immaterial thing removed from the material body where the senses are. The mind ends up watching "inner TV" transmitted by the body. In modern philosophy, the mind is replaced by the brain, which is also removed from the senses. In both cases, the body is more or less dispensable. Thank you for reading!
Thank you for clarifying, Kurt! I appreciate it!
The problem I see is people identifying themselves with their ideas, and words; first, with their conscious thinking, and more specifically still, with propositions about the world — mostly composed by others — which they have heard and adopted, often only because others have said and repeated them, implicitly regarding these word-propositions as important and valuable.
Thanks for reading! Can you give me an example of the ideas and words people identify with?