(Wiki)The mere possible presence of another person causes one to look at oneself as an object and see one's world as it appears to the other. This is not done from a specific location outside oneself, but is non-positional. This is a recognition of the subjectivity in others.
If you think that perception does not produce just knowledge, but also emotions, choices, answers, art, action, life, communication, progress, spirituality, meditation, history, dream, love...yes, perception is something very limited, but great enough to fill our life with the whole infinite universe of inner life.
Since perception is human, involves our human condition and happens over human time, we can even connect the idea “to be is to be perceived” to Heidegger’s philosophy of being and time. — Angelo Cannata
For a realist, perception (sense-and-instrument-based detection) is the sine qua non of being/existence. — Agent Smith
Emotions, choices, answers and so on are not always joyful things. Even love includes experiences of suffering.perception does not produce just knowledge, but also emotions, choices, answers, art, action, life, communication, progress, spirituality, meditation, history, dream, love... — Angelo Cannata
am coming from a perspective that we live in a objective world but cannot experience it, we just experience perceptions of it — Tusmuertos3
Sartre'sThe Look:
The mere possible presence of another person causes one to look at oneself as an object and see one's world as it appears to the other. This is not done from a specific location outside oneself, but is non-positional. This is a recognition of the subjectivity in others.
(Wiki)
I have found this to be a profound truth. Especially in certain dangerous activities. — jgill
"To be, is to be perceived"
— chiknsld
If so and if, however, it doesn't make sense to say "perceiving is perceived", then "perceiving" cannot be; therefore "to be" has to be other (more) than "to be perceived". :eyes: — 180 Proof
↪chiknsld The problem with Esse Est Percipi is that it is too passive. One also acts upon the world. While jgill's look shows that others exist, it's what you do that makes you who you are. — Banno
Even for realists, existence is predicated on perception (seeing is believing kinda deal). For a realist, perception (sense-and-instrument-based detection) is the sine qua non of being/existence.
Question to realists: How do you all tell the difference between nonexistent things and unperceived things? Perhaps your explanation will state that there's a world of a difference between unperceivable (nonbeing) and unperceived (hidden being).
Here things start getting interesting (re: unperceivable →→ nonbeing i.e. esse est percipi) — Agent Smith
This sounds like a profound idea! Berkely seems to avoid this trap by saying that there must be an ultimate, omniscient perceiver who perceives all. If we get rid of this ultimate perceiver, we would still have trouble proving that anything exists beyond perception. — chiknsld
1. To be is to be perceived
2. To be perceived is to be. — Agent Smith
To be is to be and to be perceived is to be and be perceived — jgill
Perception is the sense awareness of the environment that starts within the mind and then pushes outward. — chiknsld
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against alarge stone, till he rebounded from it, ‘I refute it THUS.’
Hardly. To be is to be and to be perceived is to be and be perceived while in the state of perception allowing one to realize one is being perceived, even as perception - being uncaused - shifts from one being perceived to another awaiting perception in order to be.
What you need is evidence that being does exist outside perception, but such evidence is seemingly impossible to produce. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Idealism does not entail anti-realism. Berkeley thought rocks and chairs existed. They were just mental objects. Thus, idealism can work fine with science. Science is just the description of how phenomenal objects relate to one another. Its predictive power is in no way reduced in idealism. — Count Timothy von Icarus
... it shows an ontology based on modern science that avoids solipsism, is realist about external objects, and retains idealism. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Not having read this work yet, I wonder if you might shed a little more light on this idea. Is it just another attempt to rename "matter" as "mental"? — Real Gone Cat
The problem with Esse Est Percipi is that it is too passive. One also acts upon the world. While jgill's look shows that others exist, it's what you do that makes you who you are. — Banno
What is this matter you speak of? — Tobias
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.