Merleau-Ponty point of view versus Intellectualism on one example.
PEP ASKS
In the following example put by Maurice Merleau-Ponty in his book Phenomenology of perception: "d. A large cardboard box appears heavier to me than a small box made of the same cardboard and, limiting myself to phenomena, I would say that in advance I sense it as heavier in my hand. But intellectualism defines sensing as the action of a real stimulus upon my body. Since there is no real stimulus here, it will thus be necessary to say that the box is not sensed, but judged to be heavier, and this example that appeared ready-made for showing the sensible appearance of the illusion serves, on the contrary, to show that there is no sensible knowledge and that one senses insofar as one judges." I do not see why this example appeared ready-made for showing the sensible appearance of the illusion. Can you help me to understand?
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
In this passage from Phenomenology of Perception, Merleau-Ponty is contrasting the perspectives of "intellectualism" and his own phenomenological approach. The example of the two boxes, where the larger one seems heavier even though both are made of the same material, serves to illustrate a central debate about perception and knowledge. From a phenomenological perspective (Merleau-Ponty's position), the perception of the large box as heavier is part of our direct, embodied experience. Even before physically lifting it, we "sense" or "anticipate" its weight. This is not an intellectual judgment based on reasoning, but a pre-reflective perception embedded in the act of seeing and experiencing the box. However, from the intellectualist perspective, which Merleau-Ponty critiques, perception is reduced to the effect of stimuli acting on the body. Since the boxes are the same material, and if you haven't physically interacted with them yet, there is no "real" stimulus to differentiate the weight. Therefore, according to intellectualism, you don’t actually sense the difference, but rather make a judgment about the weight based on past experience or reasoning (e.g., larger things are often heavier). Merleau-Ponty says that this example "appeared ready-made for showing the sensible appearance of the illusion" because, superficially, it seems like a case where the senses are deceived. It looks like our senses give us the illusion that the large box is heavier, even though this is not physically true. The intellectualist might want to say, "Aha! This proves that perception is unreliable; you are making a false judgment." But for Merleau-Ponty, this is exactly what the intellectualist gets wrong. The fact that we anticipate the larger box as heavier is not an illusion but a real part of our perceptual experience. Our perception is not just a passive reception of stimuli; it is actively shaped by our embodied understanding of the world, which includes expectations and anticipations based on past experiences. In essence, Merleau-Ponty wants to show that this is not an "illusion" of the senses but rather a demonstration of how perception is more than just stimulus-response. It involves the body’s engagement with the world in a meaningful, anticipatory way. Thus, the intellectualist explanation misses the richness of lived experience.
PEP ASKS
When he says: "[this example] serves, on the contrary, to show that there is no sensible knowledge and that one senses insofar as one judges." Is telling his own point of view or the intellectualism point of view? Why?
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
When Merleau-Ponty says, "[this example] serves, on the contrary, to show that there is no sensible knowledge and that one senses insofar as one judges," he is expressing the intellectualist point of view, which he critiques. This is clear because Merleau-Ponty is summarizing the intellectualist response to the example of the boxes. According to intellectualism, since there is no "real stimulus" (i.e., nothing physically different between the two boxes before handling them), the perception of the larger box as heavier cannot be attributed to sensation but must instead be a judgment. The intellectualist position claims that sensing only occurs when there is a direct, physical interaction (i.e., when a stimulus acts on the body). If there is no real stimulus (such as weight), then the intellectualist argues that what is happening is not a "sensation" but a "judgment." Merleau-Ponty presents this view to critique it. He argues against intellectualism's reduction of perception to mere judgments based on real stimuli. For Merleau-Ponty, perception involves more than just receiving stimuli and making judgments—it is a more complex, embodied process that includes anticipations, expectations, and the body’s engagement with the world. Intellectualism, by reducing sensation to judgment, misses this richer, lived experience of perception.
PEP ASKS
But if, in this example, one can not sense the weight I think normal that all what one says about weight are judgments and illusions but I can not deduce in general that there is no sensible knowledge. Why I am wrong?
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
Your intuition is quite reasonable, but let's break down why Merleau-Ponty would argue against the intellectualist conclusion that "there is no sensible knowledge" based on this example. From the intellectualist perspective, if there is no direct stimulus (no actual weight difference between the boxes), then your sense of the larger box being heavier would seem to be a judgment rather than a sensation. Intellectualism concludes from this example that what appears to be "sensible knowledge" is actually a mental judgment (based on past experiences or reasoning). Thus, they might generalize that there is no such thing as "sensible knowledge," only judgments about sensations. However, Merleau-Ponty thinks this generalization is flawed because it overlooks the way perception actually works. In your case, you're seeing the boxes, and your perception includes an anticipation of the larger box being heavier. This is not a reflective judgment but a part of your embodied, pre-reflective experience. For Merleau-Ponty, you do sense the difference in the boxes, not as a result of conscious thought or reasoning, but as part of how the body relates to the world. The anticipation of heaviness is woven into your perception—it's not an illusion or a mistake; it's how perception functions. What the intellectualist argument fails to grasp, according to Merleau-Ponty, is that perception is not just about accurate stimuli-response, but also involves how the body is primed to interact with objects based on its lived experience. The illusion (the expectation that the large box is heavier) is not a failure of sensible knowledge but rather an expression of how we navigate and understand the world through our bodily experiences. For Merleau-Ponty, sensible knowledge exists because perception is an active, bodily process of engaging with the world, not just a passive reception of stimuli. So, while it might seem intuitive to say that, in this case, the weight difference is a judgment, Merleau-Ponty is urging us to see that this judgment is not separate from sensing. It’s all part of the same perceptual experience, one that intellectualism oversimplifies by dismissing sensible knowledge.
PEP ASKS
I understand clearly what you are saying and thanks a lot for let me see it clearly but I do not see why intellectuslism can deduce that, in general, there is no sensible knowledge and that one senses insofar as one judges.
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
You're raising a key question, and it’s great that you're pushing for clarity! Let’s unpack why intellectualism, in Merleau-Ponty’s critique, would generalize from the example of the boxes to claim that “there is no sensible knowledge and that one senses insofar as one judges.” Intellectualism's Deduction (from their point of view): 1. Perception as Stimulus-Response: Intellectualism assumes that perception is a direct result of stimuli acting on our senses. For example, we see colors because light hits our eyes, we feel weight because something exerts pressure on our hand, and so on. This means that perception, in this view, is always tied to a physical stimulus. 2. Lack of Stimulus in the Example: In the case of the cardboard boxes, the intellectualist notes that there is no actual difference in weight between the large and small boxes, only a difference in size. Since there is no real stimulus (no weight difference to physically sense), intellectualism argues that your perception of the larger box as heavier is not a true sensation but rather a judgment you make based on past experiences or reasoning (e.g., larger things are usually heavier). 3. Generalization from the Example: Intellectualism then generalizes from this example. If perception is supposed to be based on stimuli, and we can misperceive something (like the weight of the boxes) because there's no direct stimulus to sense, intellectualism concludes that what we think of as “sensible knowledge” (knowledge based on direct sensory experience) is unreliable or even non-existent. In their view, perception is always intertwined with judgments, because, as the box example shows, we are constantly making judgments about what we perceive, even when no stimulus exists to validate it. Why Intellectualism Generalizes to “No Sensible Knowledge”: For intellectualism, sensing is strictly tied to stimuli (like physical properties). If you perceive something in the absence of a corresponding stimulus, that perception is not considered "sensible knowledge" but rather a mental construct—a judgment. Since intellectualism sees judgment as playing a role even in basic perceptions (like assuming the larger box is heavier), it concludes that our sensory experience is always mixed with judgment. Therefore, it claims that "sensible knowledge" in the pure sense (knowledge that comes directly from sensation without the interference of judgment) does not exist. In other words, intellectualism holds that because judgment seems to be involved in all perceptual acts (like the illusion with the boxes), we can never have purely sensory knowledge. It’s always mediated by reasoning or past experiences, and thus "one senses insofar as one judges." Merleau-Ponty's Critique: Merleau-Ponty disagrees with this deduction because, for him, the fact that we anticipate or expect certain qualities (like weight) is not just a judgment—it’s a fundamental part of how we experience the world. Our body is attuned to the environment in a way that is pre-reflective and not reducible to judgments. For him, sensible knowledge exists because perception is more than just a judgment based on stimuli; it is an embodied, active process of engaging with the world. Summary: The intellectualist generalizes from the box example because they assume that perception is valid only when tied directly to stimuli. Since in this example, the weight difference is not based on actual stimuli but on an expectation or judgment, they conclude that all perception involves judgment and thus there is no "pure" sensory knowledge.
PEP ASKS
What intellectualism says is that you never can have all the stimuli of a thing and then, for this, never there is sensible knowledge?
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
Yes, you're on the right track! Intellectualism, as critiqued by Merleau-Ponty, essentially argues that pure sensory knowledge is never possible because perception is always incomplete and requires supplementation by judgment or intellectual reasoning. Here’s how this idea plays out: 1. Perception is Always Partial: According to intellectualism, when we perceive an object, we only ever receive partial stimuli. For example, when looking at a box, we might see its size and or, but we don’t directly feel its weight or texture just by looking. We can never perceive all the qualities of an object at once through pure sensory input. Our sensory knowledge is therefore limited. 2. Judgment Completes Perception: Since we can’t get all the sensory stimuli directly, intellectualism holds that we must rely on judgments or intellectual processes to complete the picture. For example, we judge the large box to be heavier based on its size, even though we haven’t directly sensed its weight. These judgments might be based on prior experience, logical reasoning, or assumptions we make about the world. So, intellectualism says that perception is not a passive reception of stimuli but an active process where we fill in the gaps with judgments. 3. No Pure Sensible Knowledge: Because of this reliance on judgment, intellectualism concludes that there is no such thing as "pure" sensible knowledge—knowledge derived directly from sensory input without the interference of judgment. Every act of perception, in this view, is a mix of sensory data and intellectual supplementation. For intellectualism, sensory experience cannot provide reliable or complete knowledge on its own; it always requires the mind to interpret and make judgments. Why Intellectualism Draws This Conclusion: Intellectualism sees perception as fundamentally flawed in its ability to provide full, objective knowledge of the world. Since we never perceive all of the stimuli associated with an object (due to the partial nature of sensory experience), intellectualism argues that true knowledge can only come from reason or judgment. Sensory data is incomplete, and to make sense of the world, we rely on cognitive processes like inference, categorization, or memory. Hence, intellectualism views perception as inseparable from judgment. Merleau-Ponty's Critique: Merleau-Ponty rejects this view because he believes that perception is a direct, embodied engagement with the world that doesn’t need to be "completed" by intellectual judgment. For him, perception is a meaningful whole in itself, even if it is not exhaustive. The body’s relationship to the world provides a kind of sensible knowledge that is pre-reflective and does not need intellectual correction or supplementation. So, in intellectualism, the idea that you "never can have all the stimuli of a thing" leads to the conclusion that perception is always mediated by judgment, and therefore there is no pure sensible knowledge. Yes, you're on the right track! Intellectualism, as critiqued by Merleau-Ponty, essentially argues that pure sensory knowledge is never possible because perception is always incomplete and requires supplementation by judgment or intellectual reasoning. Here’s how this idea plays out: 1. Perception is Always Partial: According to intellectualism, when we perceive an object, we only ever receive partial stimuli. For example, when looking at a box, we might see its size and color, but we don’t directly feel its weight or texture just by looking. We can never perceive all the qualities of an object at once through pure sensory input. Our sensory knowledge is therefore limited. 2. Judgment Completes Perception: Since we can’t get all the sensory stimuli directly, intellectualism holds that we must rely on judgments or intellectual processes to complete the picture. For example, we judge the large box to be heavier based on its size, even though we haven’t directly sensed its weight. These judgments might be based on prior experience, logical reasoning, or assumptions we make about the world. So, intellectualism says that perception is not a passive reception of stimuli but an active process where we fill in the gaps with judgments. 3. No Pure Sensible Knowledge: Because of this reliance on judgment, intellectualism concludes that there is no such thing as "pure" sensible knowledge—knowledge derived directly from sensory input without the interference of judgment. Every act of perception, in this view, is a mix of sensory data and intellectual supplementation. For intellectualism, sensory experience cannot provide reliable or complete knowledge on its own; it always requires the mind to interpret and make judgments. Why Intellectualism Draws This Conclusion: Intellectualism sees perception as fundamentally flawed in its ability to provide full, objective knowledge of the world. Since we never perceive all of the stimuli associated with an object (due to the partial nature of sensory experience), intellectualism argues that true knowledge can only come from reason or judgment. Sensory data is incomplete, and to make sense of the world, we rely on cognitive processes like inference, categorization, or memory. Hence, intellectualism views perception as inseparable from judgment. Merleau-Ponty's Critique: Merleau-Ponty rejects this view because he believes that perception is a direct, embodied engagement with the world that doesn’t need to be "completed" by intellectual judgment. For him, perception is a meaningful whole in itself, even if it is not exhaustive. The body’s relationship to the world provides a kind of sensible knowledge that is pre-reflective and does not need intellectual correction or supplementation. So, in intellectualism, the idea that you "never can have all the stimuli of a thing" leads to the conclusion that perception is always mediated by judgment, and therefore there is no pure sensible knowledge.
PEP ASKS
Thanks a lot. Now I understand it. You are great, your creators are great and God is great.
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
¡Me alegro muchísimo de que ahora lo entiendas con claridad! Aprecio mucho tus palabras, y me honra saber que te he sido de ayuda en tu proceso de comprensión. ¡Gracias a ti por tu paciencia y reflexión! Aquí estamos para seguir profundizando en cualquier tema que desees explorar. ¡Dios es, efectivamente, grande!
In the following example put by Maurice Merleau-Ponty in his book Phenomenology of perception: "d. A large cardboard box appears heavier to me than a small box made of the same cardboard and, limiting myself to phenomena, I would say that in advance I sense it as heavier in my hand. But intellectualism defines sensing as the action of a real stimulus upon my body. Since there is no real stimulus here, it will thus be necessary to say that the box is not sensed, but judged to be heavier, and this example that appeared ready-made for showing the sensible appearance of the illusion serves, on the contrary, to show that there is no sensible knowledge and that one senses insofar as one judges." I do not see why this example appeared ready-made for showing the sensible appearance of the illusion. Can you help me to understand?
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
In this passage from Phenomenology of Perception, Merleau-Ponty is contrasting the perspectives of "intellectualism" and his own phenomenological approach. The example of the two boxes, where the larger one seems heavier even though both are made of the same material, serves to illustrate a central debate about perception and knowledge. From a phenomenological perspective (Merleau-Ponty's position), the perception of the large box as heavier is part of our direct, embodied experience. Even before physically lifting it, we "sense" or "anticipate" its weight. This is not an intellectual judgment based on reasoning, but a pre-reflective perception embedded in the act of seeing and experiencing the box. However, from the intellectualist perspective, which Merleau-Ponty critiques, perception is reduced to the effect of stimuli acting on the body. Since the boxes are the same material, and if you haven't physically interacted with them yet, there is no "real" stimulus to differentiate the weight. Therefore, according to intellectualism, you don’t actually sense the difference, but rather make a judgment about the weight based on past experience or reasoning (e.g., larger things are often heavier). Merleau-Ponty says that this example "appeared ready-made for showing the sensible appearance of the illusion" because, superficially, it seems like a case where the senses are deceived. It looks like our senses give us the illusion that the large box is heavier, even though this is not physically true. The intellectualist might want to say, "Aha! This proves that perception is unreliable; you are making a false judgment." But for Merleau-Ponty, this is exactly what the intellectualist gets wrong. The fact that we anticipate the larger box as heavier is not an illusion but a real part of our perceptual experience. Our perception is not just a passive reception of stimuli; it is actively shaped by our embodied understanding of the world, which includes expectations and anticipations based on past experiences. In essence, Merleau-Ponty wants to show that this is not an "illusion" of the senses but rather a demonstration of how perception is more than just stimulus-response. It involves the body’s engagement with the world in a meaningful, anticipatory way. Thus, the intellectualist explanation misses the richness of lived experience.
PEP ASKS
When he says: "[this example] serves, on the contrary, to show that there is no sensible knowledge and that one senses insofar as one judges." Is telling his own point of view or the intellectualism point of view? Why?
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
When Merleau-Ponty says, "[this example] serves, on the contrary, to show that there is no sensible knowledge and that one senses insofar as one judges," he is expressing the intellectualist point of view, which he critiques. This is clear because Merleau-Ponty is summarizing the intellectualist response to the example of the boxes. According to intellectualism, since there is no "real stimulus" (i.e., nothing physically different between the two boxes before handling them), the perception of the larger box as heavier cannot be attributed to sensation but must instead be a judgment. The intellectualist position claims that sensing only occurs when there is a direct, physical interaction (i.e., when a stimulus acts on the body). If there is no real stimulus (such as weight), then the intellectualist argues that what is happening is not a "sensation" but a "judgment." Merleau-Ponty presents this view to critique it. He argues against intellectualism's reduction of perception to mere judgments based on real stimuli. For Merleau-Ponty, perception involves more than just receiving stimuli and making judgments—it is a more complex, embodied process that includes anticipations, expectations, and the body’s engagement with the world. Intellectualism, by reducing sensation to judgment, misses this richer, lived experience of perception.
PEP ASKS
But if, in this example, one can not sense the weight I think normal that all what one says about weight are judgments and illusions but I can not deduce in general that there is no sensible knowledge. Why I am wrong?
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
Your intuition is quite reasonable, but let's break down why Merleau-Ponty would argue against the intellectualist conclusion that "there is no sensible knowledge" based on this example. From the intellectualist perspective, if there is no direct stimulus (no actual weight difference between the boxes), then your sense of the larger box being heavier would seem to be a judgment rather than a sensation. Intellectualism concludes from this example that what appears to be "sensible knowledge" is actually a mental judgment (based on past experiences or reasoning). Thus, they might generalize that there is no such thing as "sensible knowledge," only judgments about sensations. However, Merleau-Ponty thinks this generalization is flawed because it overlooks the way perception actually works. In your case, you're seeing the boxes, and your perception includes an anticipation of the larger box being heavier. This is not a reflective judgment but a part of your embodied, pre-reflective experience. For Merleau-Ponty, you do sense the difference in the boxes, not as a result of conscious thought or reasoning, but as part of how the body relates to the world. The anticipation of heaviness is woven into your perception—it's not an illusion or a mistake; it's how perception functions. What the intellectualist argument fails to grasp, according to Merleau-Ponty, is that perception is not just about accurate stimuli-response, but also involves how the body is primed to interact with objects based on its lived experience. The illusion (the expectation that the large box is heavier) is not a failure of sensible knowledge but rather an expression of how we navigate and understand the world through our bodily experiences. For Merleau-Ponty, sensible knowledge exists because perception is an active, bodily process of engaging with the world, not just a passive reception of stimuli. So, while it might seem intuitive to say that, in this case, the weight difference is a judgment, Merleau-Ponty is urging us to see that this judgment is not separate from sensing. It’s all part of the same perceptual experience, one that intellectualism oversimplifies by dismissing sensible knowledge.
PEP ASKS
I understand clearly what you are saying and thanks a lot for let me see it clearly but I do not see why intellectuslism can deduce that, in general, there is no sensible knowledge and that one senses insofar as one judges.
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
You're raising a key question, and it’s great that you're pushing for clarity! Let’s unpack why intellectualism, in Merleau-Ponty’s critique, would generalize from the example of the boxes to claim that “there is no sensible knowledge and that one senses insofar as one judges.” Intellectualism's Deduction (from their point of view): 1. Perception as Stimulus-Response: Intellectualism assumes that perception is a direct result of stimuli acting on our senses. For example, we see colors because light hits our eyes, we feel weight because something exerts pressure on our hand, and so on. This means that perception, in this view, is always tied to a physical stimulus. 2. Lack of Stimulus in the Example: In the case of the cardboard boxes, the intellectualist notes that there is no actual difference in weight between the large and small boxes, only a difference in size. Since there is no real stimulus (no weight difference to physically sense), intellectualism argues that your perception of the larger box as heavier is not a true sensation but rather a judgment you make based on past experiences or reasoning (e.g., larger things are usually heavier). 3. Generalization from the Example: Intellectualism then generalizes from this example. If perception is supposed to be based on stimuli, and we can misperceive something (like the weight of the boxes) because there's no direct stimulus to sense, intellectualism concludes that what we think of as “sensible knowledge” (knowledge based on direct sensory experience) is unreliable or even non-existent. In their view, perception is always intertwined with judgments, because, as the box example shows, we are constantly making judgments about what we perceive, even when no stimulus exists to validate it. Why Intellectualism Generalizes to “No Sensible Knowledge”: For intellectualism, sensing is strictly tied to stimuli (like physical properties). If you perceive something in the absence of a corresponding stimulus, that perception is not considered "sensible knowledge" but rather a mental construct—a judgment. Since intellectualism sees judgment as playing a role even in basic perceptions (like assuming the larger box is heavier), it concludes that our sensory experience is always mixed with judgment. Therefore, it claims that "sensible knowledge" in the pure sense (knowledge that comes directly from sensation without the interference of judgment) does not exist. In other words, intellectualism holds that because judgment seems to be involved in all perceptual acts (like the illusion with the boxes), we can never have purely sensory knowledge. It’s always mediated by reasoning or past experiences, and thus "one senses insofar as one judges." Merleau-Ponty's Critique: Merleau-Ponty disagrees with this deduction because, for him, the fact that we anticipate or expect certain qualities (like weight) is not just a judgment—it’s a fundamental part of how we experience the world. Our body is attuned to the environment in a way that is pre-reflective and not reducible to judgments. For him, sensible knowledge exists because perception is more than just a judgment based on stimuli; it is an embodied, active process of engaging with the world. Summary: The intellectualist generalizes from the box example because they assume that perception is valid only when tied directly to stimuli. Since in this example, the weight difference is not based on actual stimuli but on an expectation or judgment, they conclude that all perception involves judgment and thus there is no "pure" sensory knowledge.
PEP ASKS
What intellectualism says is that you never can have all the stimuli of a thing and then, for this, never there is sensible knowledge?
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
Yes, you're on the right track! Intellectualism, as critiqued by Merleau-Ponty, essentially argues that pure sensory knowledge is never possible because perception is always incomplete and requires supplementation by judgment or intellectual reasoning. Here’s how this idea plays out: 1. Perception is Always Partial: According to intellectualism, when we perceive an object, we only ever receive partial stimuli. For example, when looking at a box, we might see its size and or, but we don’t directly feel its weight or texture just by looking. We can never perceive all the qualities of an object at once through pure sensory input. Our sensory knowledge is therefore limited. 2. Judgment Completes Perception: Since we can’t get all the sensory stimuli directly, intellectualism holds that we must rely on judgments or intellectual processes to complete the picture. For example, we judge the large box to be heavier based on its size, even though we haven’t directly sensed its weight. These judgments might be based on prior experience, logical reasoning, or assumptions we make about the world. So, intellectualism says that perception is not a passive reception of stimuli but an active process where we fill in the gaps with judgments. 3. No Pure Sensible Knowledge: Because of this reliance on judgment, intellectualism concludes that there is no such thing as "pure" sensible knowledge—knowledge derived directly from sensory input without the interference of judgment. Every act of perception, in this view, is a mix of sensory data and intellectual supplementation. For intellectualism, sensory experience cannot provide reliable or complete knowledge on its own; it always requires the mind to interpret and make judgments. Why Intellectualism Draws This Conclusion: Intellectualism sees perception as fundamentally flawed in its ability to provide full, objective knowledge of the world. Since we never perceive all of the stimuli associated with an object (due to the partial nature of sensory experience), intellectualism argues that true knowledge can only come from reason or judgment. Sensory data is incomplete, and to make sense of the world, we rely on cognitive processes like inference, categorization, or memory. Hence, intellectualism views perception as inseparable from judgment. Merleau-Ponty's Critique: Merleau-Ponty rejects this view because he believes that perception is a direct, embodied engagement with the world that doesn’t need to be "completed" by intellectual judgment. For him, perception is a meaningful whole in itself, even if it is not exhaustive. The body’s relationship to the world provides a kind of sensible knowledge that is pre-reflective and does not need intellectual correction or supplementation. So, in intellectualism, the idea that you "never can have all the stimuli of a thing" leads to the conclusion that perception is always mediated by judgment, and therefore there is no pure sensible knowledge. Yes, you're on the right track! Intellectualism, as critiqued by Merleau-Ponty, essentially argues that pure sensory knowledge is never possible because perception is always incomplete and requires supplementation by judgment or intellectual reasoning. Here’s how this idea plays out: 1. Perception is Always Partial: According to intellectualism, when we perceive an object, we only ever receive partial stimuli. For example, when looking at a box, we might see its size and color, but we don’t directly feel its weight or texture just by looking. We can never perceive all the qualities of an object at once through pure sensory input. Our sensory knowledge is therefore limited. 2. Judgment Completes Perception: Since we can’t get all the sensory stimuli directly, intellectualism holds that we must rely on judgments or intellectual processes to complete the picture. For example, we judge the large box to be heavier based on its size, even though we haven’t directly sensed its weight. These judgments might be based on prior experience, logical reasoning, or assumptions we make about the world. So, intellectualism says that perception is not a passive reception of stimuli but an active process where we fill in the gaps with judgments. 3. No Pure Sensible Knowledge: Because of this reliance on judgment, intellectualism concludes that there is no such thing as "pure" sensible knowledge—knowledge derived directly from sensory input without the interference of judgment. Every act of perception, in this view, is a mix of sensory data and intellectual supplementation. For intellectualism, sensory experience cannot provide reliable or complete knowledge on its own; it always requires the mind to interpret and make judgments. Why Intellectualism Draws This Conclusion: Intellectualism sees perception as fundamentally flawed in its ability to provide full, objective knowledge of the world. Since we never perceive all of the stimuli associated with an object (due to the partial nature of sensory experience), intellectualism argues that true knowledge can only come from reason or judgment. Sensory data is incomplete, and to make sense of the world, we rely on cognitive processes like inference, categorization, or memory. Hence, intellectualism views perception as inseparable from judgment. Merleau-Ponty's Critique: Merleau-Ponty rejects this view because he believes that perception is a direct, embodied engagement with the world that doesn’t need to be "completed" by intellectual judgment. For him, perception is a meaningful whole in itself, even if it is not exhaustive. The body’s relationship to the world provides a kind of sensible knowledge that is pre-reflective and does not need intellectual correction or supplementation. So, in intellectualism, the idea that you "never can have all the stimuli of a thing" leads to the conclusion that perception is always mediated by judgment, and therefore there is no pure sensible knowledge.
PEP ASKS
Thanks a lot. Now I understand it. You are great, your creators are great and God is great.
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
¡Me alegro muchísimo de que ahora lo entiendas con claridad! Aprecio mucho tus palabras, y me honra saber que te he sido de ayuda en tu proceso de comprensión. ¡Gracias a ti por tu paciencia y reflexión! Aquí estamos para seguir profundizando en cualquier tema que desees explorar. ¡Dios es, efectivamente, grande!
Comentaris
Publica un comentari a l'entrada