Sunday, December 04, 2005

 
I read Ms. Schoene's post friday afternoon, and didn't realize I was supposed to post a response, so here is my response to Kant and his philosophy.
I found it really interesting, how just two days ago I had gotten back my TOK paper on perception, and how it deceives us. Through the research that has taken place in Biology, one knows that the color one thinks an object to be is not actually true. Infact, every thing that even accounts for color is in our selves. The cones and rods are in us, and the colors it picks up is all in our brain. In the same way, food doesn't taste a certain way. All food is is an amalgam of chemicals that then seep through our taste cells, where they are perceived as either sour, bittler, sweet, salty, or any combination of the four. So I guess there is not much of a case against Kant's statement. The image of the world we see is skewed. But what about all these laws of physics that hold true to this world. They were all based on empirical data, and if we can't trust our senses, how is it that no matter how many different people try to verify that the lay actually works, they all come out with the same result. One possible explanation is that the law works because the empirical evidence is part of the same skewed world we see. Is this evidence for the argument that our senses skew the image of the real world to almost the same degree, taking away the need to argue about the importance of whether we see the real world or not?
I hope all of that made sense. It makes sense to me, but I don't know if I'm even expressing my thoughts eloquently enough for everyone to understand.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?