Perception

I think if there’s any point in my life that you’d ever like to pinpoint on when I started becoming really insane, this article could be a good bookmark on that. Also, as usual, I’d like to say - I don't even have half the brains or knowledge to write something like this and Thanks for reading :)

If a tree falls and there’s no one to see it, did it really fall? Let's say some tree fell in an isolated forest, there was no one around to see it, no one around to feel the vibration or hear it fall. So there is no way you could ever really prove that - that tree fell. The tree might be absorbed by the earth and a new tree could take its place, so did that tree really exist? Of Course, this is from a purely philosophical point of view. I think what I’m trying to understand here is, how important is the perception of things for them to be considered real? First, we talk about, does our perception of things make it real and does not perceiving it make it unreal or non-existent? So - if I don’t see something happening, is it happening? Second I think we try to understand if the tree exists at all?


I think the rather famous question that resembles this is if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound, with no one around to hear it? Because sound is the vibration of the air that the ear senses. So if no one heard it, did it make a sound? I feel like the main question we’re asking here is, do our existence and perception determine the reality or existence of other things? If no one heard it, then it must not make a sound (of course scientifically it does). I also feel that we may be putting ourselves in a very high throne here by saying that we are important to determine the existence of other things around us. But we are, most probably, the only species that is trying to understand what’s happening around us. So if we were to agree on the idea that human perception is important, on the grounds of the presumption, that we are the only ones trying to understand the mystery that surrounds us, so should we be taken as a focal point in demystifying things around us, in relationship to us? But haven’t we argued so many time’s that even though human beings think they’re important to the creation of reality, we very well might not be and maybe from the start - our measurements of the world have been wrong. But if we don’t measure things in relation to us, then in relation to what? Also, I’m at that point in life where I ask more questions then I can possibly answer!


Perception itself isn’t very scientific. Perception is the ability to see, hear, understand or become aware of something through our senses. It seems to me that perception can be flawed in so many aspects. If we were to go in deep and talk about how we convince things in the first place, we’re going to be having many problems. But if Philosophy has taught us that, is that perception may be flawed but still could be very important in the least, gathering basic information. And what is even more debated is the topic is - Is our perception even right and can we even use it to identify anything properly? Before I start rambling about this, let's get to the point.


As Plato famously supported and Kant not so much, is that Knowledge isn’t Perception or rather Perception shouldn’t be taken as knowledge. (Plato) Just because we see something, doesn’t make it real and just because we don't see something, doesn’t make it unreal. So if we did see the tree fall, that probably doesn’t make it real but just because we didn’t, doesn't mean it did not fall. Because if we make the fault of making our presumptions on what we are perceiving to Knowledge, then we are very flawed (also something we do daily). But I think Kant is also right, all we have is perception! And why not trust our perception to do better things than to speculate. Because even though Science may sound very solid, it is just a bunch of theories (experimented and studied) that is true every time it is repeated, which also seems to make sense. I think Berkeley would have freely said that if the tree fell and no one saw it, it didn’t fall at all because he supported the idea that things exist solely and truly, just as ideas and perception. This also seems like a good theory to prove God’s existence or God’s nonexistence. I really wonder how philosophers never felt bipolar.


So did the tree fall? I would say of course it did, prove to me it didn't! Which not surprising won't be hard. Of course, we could go into an hour-long debate about what is a tree? Is it just leaf, or just wood? How do you define falling? Even if you do properly define a tree or falling with the limited view we have of everything, we would be stuck and probably fail each other.


So... Do you really exist outside of people’s or your own perception? Where did I lose you?