If the rationalist deduces what is logical based on their empirical experience then their reasoning is flawed. We have to accept the axiomatic truth that our senses are limited and cannot account for an absolute truth.
To separate valid perceptions from invalid ones, a person first must assume that the world can be known through the senses. They must also assume that the world is objectively real. These assumptions do not get along well with one other. To say the world is objectively real is to say it is independent of and indifferent to sense perception. Then what in the world can we know? We can know only the effects of the parmesan cheese upon our senses, not the cheese itself.
You jest, but some actually do often confuse objective perception with objective reality.
Fact is though, the pursuit of a perfect vessel with which to observe reality is silly and impractical, so we make due with common shared characteristics.
In other words, the cheese itself is not cheese, we only perceive it as cheese
How would you define objective perception? If empiricism is equally problematic for all humans, then what could possibly qualify as objectivity in perception?
We experience a world through the senses. We have no other way to experience any world that may or may not exist. The world experienced through the senses is apparently consistent, and if we do not deal with it, we have bad sensory experiences, or cease to be experienceable to each other entirely. So, since this is the only world we can interact with, and how we do so matters to our happiness, all we can do is take this world on its own terms and deal with it.
The objectively real world may be separate from and indifferent to sense perception, but sense perception isn’t indifferent to the objective world. Sense perceptions are caused by an interaction of our sense organs and the world. Surely from repeated patterns of sense perception we can draw some correct inferences about the external world?
If the rationalist deduces what is logical based on their empirical experience then their reasoning is flawed. We have to accept the axiomatic truth that our senses are limited and cannot account for an absolute truth.
To separate valid perceptions from invalid ones, a person first must assume that the world can be known through the senses. They must also assume that the world is objectively real. These assumptions do not get along well with one other. To say the world is objectively real is to say it is independent of and indifferent to sense perception. Then what in the world can we know? We can know only the effects of the parmesan cheese upon our senses, not the cheese itself.
Rofl
You jest, but some actually do often confuse objective perception with objective reality.
Fact is though, the pursuit of a perfect vessel with which to observe reality is silly and impractical, so we make due with common shared characteristics.
In other words, the cheese itself is not cheese, we only perceive it as cheese
Ceci n’est pas fromage.
There is no cheese.
Only Zuul
Lmao
The only truth is that there is no truth
I aspire to your level of philosophical ascension
Are even our eyes real?
How do they taste?
But mightn’t we perceive it as cheese because it is cheese?
Also maybe not, but I don’t think we can say it is not cheese.
How would you define objective perception? If empiricism is equally problematic for all humans, then what could possibly qualify as objectivity in perception?
There is no spoon
Twas a joke
We experience a world through the senses. We have no other way to experience any world that may or may not exist. The world experienced through the senses is apparently consistent, and if we do not deal with it, we have bad sensory experiences, or cease to be experienceable to each other entirely. So, since this is the only world we can interact with, and how we do so matters to our happiness, all we can do is take this world on its own terms and deal with it.
The objectively real world may be separate from and indifferent to sense perception, but sense perception isn’t indifferent to the objective world. Sense perceptions are caused by an interaction of our sense organs and the world. Surely from repeated patterns of sense perception we can draw some correct inferences about the external world?
How can we be sure that those inferences are correct? Any appeal to empirical evidence would be circular reasoning.
“correct” is a heavy word there. Would reproducible and predictable suffice?
And don’t call me Shirley.
Surely you can’t be serious