There’s a lot going on in the act of perception. In addition to the actual data we receive from the external world, there are also syntheses, creative acts, reproductions, and responses that are part of each perception. Many of these go on unconsciously, and so like many parts of our minds, they remain either hidden or difficult to understand. Yet there are few phenomena as pervasive as perception, and so it affects almost everything we do. Philosophy as we know it would not exist without perception.
In many ways, perception is about our basic relationship to the external world. To what extent are we passive receivers from vs. active creators of it? How much of our knowledge can be traced back to the world, and how much of it is the product of our own thoughts? There have been some heroic efforts to respond to these questions, but many parts of them remain unanswered. While we may never fully know the nature of perception, we will hopefully continue to develop new ideas, methodologies, and technologies to explore it. Every new one we come up with enhances our understanding and experience of perception, opening new avenues for exploration. For those who see knowledge as a journey and not a destination, these should be considered victories.
- Brian Keeley, “Speculative Fiction and the Philosophy of Perception,” Midwest Studies In Philosophy, September 2015.
- Matt Bower, “Levinas’s Philosophy of Perception,” Southern Journal of Philosophy, December 2017.
- Eviatar Shulman, Rethinking the Buddha: Early Buddhist Philosophy as Meditative Perception, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
- Anil Gomes, “Perception and Reflection,” Philosophical Perspectives, December 2017.
- Bence Nanay, Aesthetics as Philosophy of Perception, Oxford Scholarship, 2016.
*
Have a suggestion for the What Are You Reading column? Contact us here.
Hi, Nathan. Thanks for the post: this topic is dear to my heart.
At the (extreme) risk of sounding like an arrogant bastard (I promise I am not), perception takes less than 2,000 words to completely explain. Have a look:
Your comment settings are flagging this as spam (or perhaps arrogance). I think it’s because of the link, so I’ll do it this way: deafInOneEye followed by the usual dot-and-com finale. (let’s see if this is allowed through now …)
Also, if you manage to suspend your suspicion that I’m trying to pick a fight long enough to take a peep, please leave a comment -I’d love to get your take.
Cheers,
e.
Hi Eoin,
Thanks for the comment. The philosophy of perception is a fascinating topic, and you have some interesting insights. In reading your reflections I saw several connections to other philosophies and philosophers: realism, idealism, empiricism, phenomenology, philosophy of mind, Kant, Hume, Locke, Spinoza, Merleau-Ponty, Reid, and McDowell.
I’m not a specialist in the philosophy of perception, so I don’t feel qualified to engage at length. I’ll just say that, were we do have a longer discussion comparing our respective ideas, we’d definitely find both points of agreement and disagreement. Good luck with your work! I hope you continue to explore the topic.
Hi, again, Nathan.
Firstly: thanks for allowing my comment, even though I snuck in a URL :-).
I just wanted to drop you a line and say that if you’re interested you can download the ebook for free. The details are on the site – I won’t try for a link :-).
All the best,
e.
Sounds interesting. If I can find the time, I’ll take a look (no pun intended).