(November 17, 2018 at 10:01 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: The only problem I would have with this is the idea that there exists such a thing as direct perception independent of interpretation. As Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” And that thought is underwritten by the observation that all observation is theory dependent, whether underdetermined by theory or not. One might argue that such things as direct qualitative experience such as the color red do not suffer this flaw, but that would simply be shifting the source of interpretation from conscious to unconscious processes and constraints. As Kant argued rather forcefully, our perceptions of the world are highly structured and not in any sense a mirror of reality. So unless Adam and Eve were some sort of alien species, I don't see this suggestion as particularly tenable, though in some quarters, notably modern pragmatism, it may carry some weight. But then again, that's just my interpretation of things.
Yes, very much agreed. And not just because I have to be civil.
What you describe is the human condition. The interpretation of the Bible that I mention is a kind of thought experiment, designed to make us wonder "what if"?
If we had direct perception, what would the world be like? If language were essential and not contingent, how would things be different? If a perfectly good human existed, what would happen to him?
And I don't think it makes all those things true or possible, but in practice it becomes a kind of challenge or limit-case. Like in epistemology class people mention God not because they believe in him, but because the concept is a marker for what full perception would entail.
Nietzsche sees chaos behind our interpretations, which he likens to dream images. Blake, in a surprisingly similar structure, also says our normal perceptions are just images, but behind them is Oneness -- which is God.
