So? — Snakes Alive
We need some sense of what veridicality means. Where can we come by such an understanding? — csalisbury
A more neutral descriptor might be 'need for a conceptual anchor' where the need is less a personal need of the thinker that something impersonally generated from within the conceptual game. — csalisbury
I do think the conceptual analysis holds, as a kind of historical-philosophical narrative, even if you strip out the desire stuff, but I'm not sure. — csalisbury
that helps us understand/cope with particular cases of perceptual error. — Aaron R
So we've generalized an explanation of the form "seems y because is x, in circumstance z" that helps us understand/cope with particular cases of perceptual error. Even if we posit something akin to desire as a prime mover within the dynamics of experience, why take the next step and universalize the formula to all possible experiences? Is it desire pushing us to look for an explanation where none exist? Or is it just bad metaphysics? — Aaron R
Descartes guarantees the validity of our perceptions by reference to our ability to conceive of infinity (this is what 'god' for him boils down to.) — csalisbury
That makes sense; the fact that we can conceive infinity can only be on account of the existence of an infinite being, a fact which, if true, guarantees the existence of God, and then God's benevolence guarantees the veracity of our perceptions. So strangely, it does look like our ability to conceive infinity, according to Descartes, guarantees the veracity of our empiric (finite) perceptions. It's curious; I'd never though about it like that before! :cool: — Janus
But more fundamentally, the fact of the matter is that it's just Pooh-Bear sitting on my couch, not John, and that's that. — Aaron R
I mean I disagree with him, but it's still a pretty exquisite thought-thing. Just aesthetically, :ok: — csalisbury
I don't think we 'come by' a sense of veridicality. It's just how we're hardwired to think about things. There can't ever be 'evidence' ultimately that a perception is veridical. — Snakes Alive
I need to think about this some more Aaron, but my immediate take is that the difference between seeing John instead of seeing Pooh, that is the perceptual error, is a difference within the context of perception between what I thought I saw and what I discover, on further investigation, that I had really seen. — Janus
I think it's the case because it just happens, in the same way that we see distances, and so on. It's in the structure of experience, if you like. — Snakes Alive
When we see distances, we understand that the thing we're seeing is 'there', not 'here but small.' — csalisbury
When we see veridically (building on your analogy) we understand that the thing is real instead of not-real? — csalisbury
It's not true that the sun is small and here. It's large and out there. etc — csalisbury
We adjust our perceptions — csalisbury
The point is that the Cartesian turn allows one to see it the other way – a way that one initially does not even understand that one can see it. In that sense, it's not like learning a new true proposition, but being able to see where once one was blind. You get a new ability. The Cartesian is also right that in some sense this is the way it was 'all along.' You can of course choose to ignore this new ability and have faith that it is just an aberration, and the old way of seeing things is the 'right way.' But it's just that – faith. — Snakes Alive
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.