This is my graded final paper for Philosophy. I have inserted the professor's objections. What do you think?
The Problem of Perception
The problem I have chosen is the issue of perception and how its ignorance imposes restriction on our ability to see life clearly, thus leading to all conflict and suffering.
Although how perception arises is a complex issue, we may simplify it for the requested brevity of this assignment. Perception arises from our mind, which is filled with unconscious and conscious thoughts, memories, and other accumulated conditioning factors. A narrow example is given by A.D. Smith as “any perceptual situation in which a physical object is actually perceived, but in which that object perceptually appears other than it really is” (Smith 2002: 23). For example, a white wall in yellow light can look yellow; a sweet drink can taste sour if one has just eaten something sweeter.” My position on this is to provide evidence and reasoning which shows the wide-spread ignorance in perception, and how it is the highest priority for humanity to address.
Objection 1: How in the world could we do this if we are subject to systematic and widespread error in perception?For sake of argument, let us use the simile of a pool of water. The pool is the mind. Perception is what a human sees when they attempt to view life through the reflection of that mind pool of water. The unconscious mind and its activity are currents at the bottom of the pool, which affect the subconscious and conscious mind currents near the surface of the pool. Thoughts are waves upon the surface. As a human views life through the reflection of this pool, it will naturally be skewed by any undercurrents in the unconscious and subconscious.
For example, let's say we have many negative and painful experiences with religion and spirituality when we are young. These experiences are deposited in our unconscious memory at the bottom of the pool. When later on in life we experience (become conscious) of something religious, this will cause the unconscious conditioning factors, like those memories, to create disturbances from the currents of the unconscious mind. Ordinarily, these disturbances will rise to the surface, and mingle with our conscious mind, eventually giving rise to ripples or waves of thought at the surface. The surface of the pool is now filled with disturbance, and is reflecting our distorted perception of this experience involving religion in a negative way.
To put this even simpler, let’s assume you see me and I appear to be agitated. You ask what is wrong, and I punch you in the face. We eventually resolve the issue amicably and leave each other in good moods. The next day when we first meet, I appear to be agitated as I spread my feet, and begin to generate momentum. Your initial perception is that I’m going to punch you. You may flinch or even cover yourself with your arms. But all I was doing was attempting to pop my back by swinging my arms and torso. The pain from it was causing the agitation on my face.
Objection 2: OK...but aren't you describing that perception can be complex...why is that philosophically significant?We spend our time studying the world around us, trying to “figure life out”, and sustain ourselves, but the greatest source of danger and area of the need for development is the mind and its faculties which we’ve discussed so far. The Buddha said “Mind is the forerunner of all things.” We’re drowning in the pools of our own minds.
An objection to my position is that I am relying on perception (the reflection of my mind pool) to form my argument. Thus, it could be said that I am a victim of my own argument. My argument could then be considered self-destructed. This objection is not as critical as it may seem. It still shows the problem of perception by creating a conflict in the form of disagreement based on perceptions.
Objection 3: I'm not sure I understand your response here....it isn't clear how this refutes the objection. The objection you refer to simply states if perception is riddled with errors and is systematically wrong then we can't use it to argue against it, right?One might then form an objection and state it is based on “fact.” Let’s consider this further. As often as I have used this example, it is like the one-time held fact that the world is flat. Individuals walked the earth, and it seemed flat, save some mountains and canyons. They walked as far as they could, and it continued to seem flat. Almost everyone on the planet had conditioning memories in their mind of the planet being flat. So it became "fact" since their perceptions, formed both by experience and critical thinking, coincided with the majority. We later discovered the world to be round, through critical thinking and direct experience. This then became “fact.” How soon before we have new “facts” about the Earth?
Objection 4: But the analogy fails doesn't it...? After all, we changed beliefs because of empirical study. In fact, historically we exaggerate the extent to which people thought the world was flat.So, basing an objection to my argument on "fact" is still an attempt to object through limited perception. The only difference is it is a commonly held perception, but as we saw in the "earth is flat" example; that doesn't mean it is accurate. Friedrich Nietzsche said “All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”
Objection 5: I think you are misunderstanding the objection...it is showing your view is internally inconsistent (or trying to)...your response would only possibly work if they were showing your view was externally inconsistent.The point is this; ignorant perception causes conflict. Wherever there is conflict, there will be a limited perception. How could it not be? If a reader objects to what was just said, then it just proves the problem again. Unless of course they are objecting, yet agree with the argument.
Objection 6: So is your view then supposed to be irrefutable by definition? That seems odd.Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha) re-affirms this by explaining conditioned experience to be a hindrance in seeing the world as it actually is. What he taught was a gradual and comprehensive process of bypassing, unlearning and eventually eliminating the conditions and conditioning which cause ignorant perception.
I can’t prove the problem of perception and the mind through intellectual means because what I’ve written must first be perceived by the reader. That’s like attempting to explain deafness over the phone to someone who is deaf and doesn’t know it. To be successful would require the persons to have access to other sensory experience, like vision.
Final Comments of Professor: I think you have a good idea for a paper here. But it seems clear you grossly misunderstand the nature of the objection you mention being raised to your view.My response to his objections: That's a limited perception.What about you? Remember, this is a philosophy paper. And my effort is to just barely stay within the confines of Philosophy, but gently nudge the reader's mind toward realizing the mind needs to be trained. Had I not been concerned with grade, I would have written much more, like giving examples of how our minds lead to wars, famines, and other insanity. I also would have mentioned meditative absorption.
I think I give other readers too much credit. I presume, if they are of high enough discernment, they will be able to connect the dots. That, or I need to write a book length paper to make it clear.
And why does any of this matter? The same reason why it's important to have ads in commercials, on busses, and the internet. The more branches available, the easier a tree is to climb. In other words; providing stimulating or unusual content from various fields, like anthropology, philosophy, and chemistry, will bring others closer to discernment and Dhamma. Fortunately, we don't have to use any religious or spiritual teachings or teachers. We can just point inward, like I attempted in my paper. I mean, if everything in your life experience literally had "Look inside your mind" written on it, maybe that would work?
