I find Ponty's view on the body interesting because you would think that people are apart of space or inside because the same laws of physics apply to us as it does to other objects and we can control things within our reach. But, Ponty claim that our bodies are separate from space since we have motion in the world without having instruments or something there moving us.
At one point Merleau-Ponty states that he wishes to “escape idealism without falling back into the naivete of realism.” After reading the few essays I don’t think I’m clear on how he thinks he’s able to do this. Is it because, to use his example, that even though the red I see is not the red you see we both intend the same object and that that’s enough to talk about red objectively?
In The Contemporary Philosophical Movement Merleau-Ponty talks about how he agrees with Heidegger that we are “in the world” and that “the role of philosophy is to make us rediscover this bond with the world that precedes thought itself.” How does one have a bond with the world that “precedes thought itself”? This is a question I've given a lot of thought to and cannot seem to get a grasp on a good answer.
Since Ponty believes that our senses doesn't give us a full understanding of the world we are experiencing. Which I agree with the example he gives with the 3-d cube example. We may not be able to see behind the cube but based on our understanding of geometry we believe theres another side.
1. I agree with Toadvine and lawlor stating we often allow ourselves to believe the perception of something is the truth, which is not always true. 2. "We choose our own judges proves we are not yet thinking for ourselves" it proves we still seek unneeded approval of others which we would not need if we had confidence in our thoughts/minds/ selves in general.
1) I agree with ponty view that we can never have a full understanding of the world because of our limited knowledge of the world. I see how this works in a praticle sense for examble how we talked about in class about the table. We can fill in the rest of what the table is because of past experiences or making assumptions. 2) I find it had to belive we cant know more information and we rely on our knowegde of math and science to fill in the rest of the information. I feel like this line of thinking brings us back to skeptisim or even nihilism.
I like that Merleau-Ponty sort of unifies Heidegger's conception of us being a being in the world with scientific findings of the time and seems to regard humans as vehicles for perception in a stimulus-rich 3D world. He also regards psychology as insufficient to describe our subjective experiences, however.
Given the emphasis he places on perception, I had a hard time following what Merleau-Ponty exactly thinks the role of consciousness is and how important it is.
I am not comfortable accepting, as Merleau-Ponty so eagerly does, that we are not an “automatic machine.” Although I certainly feel as though I am not automatic, today’s modern psychology suggests that humans can make decisions so quickly they must be arbitrary and then the conscious human explains the decision with a reason that could not have been the true influence. This implies that humans may be automatic machines reacting to outside influences that may have been overlooked by Merleau-Ponty. I am intrigued by the idea suggested on page 87 when Merleau-Ponty is discussing Sartre’s notion that there is no room between fatalism and complete freedom. I thought I agreed with Sartre on this issue, but disagreed on the preferred interpretation of that choice. However Merleau-Ponty suggests that there is a large area that exists between these philosophies. I would like to know even more about this idea, and what philosophies exist along this suggested spectrum.
"We never cease living in the world of perception, but we go beyond it in critical thought" - I may need to dig deeper into this, but I fail to see how our critical thought exceeds out perception of the world. I usually consider our thought to contained in the boundaries of our perception. That is, our thoughts, no matter how novel they are, are just mixtures of our perception.
"What seemed important to me in American thought is the idea of behavior." - I wonder now, what it is like to study philosophy from the roots of another culture. Dewey and Peirce seem natural to read as an American, and I wonder if this is much because my thoughts of philosophy are rooted in "behavior."
I think what Pontus has to say with regard to the subject object relationship to be extremely valuable, however why cleave the entire nature of reality in half to support this view? What if the object subject relationship was dialectical in nature?
Perhaps this would be possible with some kind of integrated information theory, such as the work done by Dr. Tononi. However I may be exposing my bias in favor of materialist monism.
I agree with Ponty's idea that our senses do not give us full understanding of the world around us because even other animals have more heightened senses tham us. an example is how a dog has a more advanced sense of smell than people do. they can smell sublet scents that people simple cannot smell. There perception of the smells of the world are different than ours.
I found the point about people choosing who can just us to be interesting. Everyone has at least select few people who opinions matter to them. They care what these people think despite the fact that what others think of you does not matter in the grand scheme of things.
I find Ponty's view on the body interesting because you would think that people are apart of space or inside because the same laws of physics apply to us as it does to other objects and we can control things within our reach. But, Ponty claim that our bodies are separate from space since we have motion in the world without having instruments or something there moving us.
ReplyDeleteAt one point Merleau-Ponty states that he wishes to “escape idealism without falling back into the naivete of realism.” After reading the few essays I don’t think I’m clear on how he thinks he’s able to do this. Is it because, to use his example, that even though the red I see is not the red you see we both intend the same object and that that’s enough to talk about red objectively?
ReplyDeleteIn The Contemporary Philosophical Movement Merleau-Ponty talks about how he agrees with Heidegger that we are “in the world” and that “the role of philosophy is to make us rediscover this bond with the world that precedes thought itself.” How does one have a bond with the world that “precedes thought itself”? This is a question I've given a lot of thought to and cannot seem to get a grasp on a good answer.
Since Ponty believes that our senses doesn't give us a full understanding of the world we are experiencing. Which I agree with the example he gives with the 3-d cube example. We may not be able to see behind the cube but based on our understanding of geometry we believe theres another side.
ReplyDelete1. I agree with Toadvine and lawlor stating we often allow ourselves to believe the perception of something is the truth, which is not always true.
ReplyDelete2. "We choose our own judges proves we are not yet thinking for ourselves" it proves we still seek unneeded approval of others which we would not need if we had confidence in our thoughts/minds/ selves in general.
1) I agree with ponty view that we can never have a full understanding of the world because of our limited knowledge of the world. I see how this works in a praticle sense for examble how we talked about in class about the table. We can fill in the rest of what the table is because of past experiences or making assumptions.
ReplyDelete2) I find it had to belive we cant know more information and we rely on our knowegde of math and science to fill in the rest of the information. I feel like this line of thinking brings us back to skeptisim or even nihilism.
I like that Merleau-Ponty sort of unifies Heidegger's conception of us being a being in the world with scientific findings of the time and seems to regard humans as vehicles for perception in a stimulus-rich 3D world. He also regards psychology as insufficient to describe our subjective experiences, however.
ReplyDeleteGiven the emphasis he places on perception, I had a hard time following what Merleau-Ponty exactly thinks the role of consciousness is and how important it is.
I am not comfortable accepting, as Merleau-Ponty so eagerly does, that we are not an “automatic machine.” Although I certainly feel as though I am not automatic, today’s modern psychology suggests that humans can make decisions so quickly they must be arbitrary and then the conscious human explains the decision with a reason that could not have been the true influence. This implies that humans may be automatic machines reacting to outside influences that may have been overlooked by Merleau-Ponty.
ReplyDeleteI am intrigued by the idea suggested on page 87 when Merleau-Ponty is discussing Sartre’s notion that there is no room between fatalism and complete freedom. I thought I agreed with Sartre on this issue, but disagreed on the preferred interpretation of that choice. However Merleau-Ponty suggests that there is a large area that exists between these philosophies. I would like to know even more about this idea, and what philosophies exist along this suggested spectrum.
"We never cease living in the world of perception, but we go beyond it in critical thought" - I may need to dig deeper into this, but I fail to see how our critical thought exceeds out perception of the world. I usually consider our thought to contained in the boundaries of our perception. That is, our thoughts, no matter how novel they are, are just mixtures of our perception.
ReplyDelete"What seemed important to me in American
thought is the idea of behavior." - I wonder now, what it is like to study philosophy from the roots of another culture. Dewey and Peirce seem natural to read as an American, and I wonder if this is much because my thoughts of philosophy are rooted in "behavior."
I think what Pontus has to say with regard to the subject object relationship to be extremely valuable, however why cleave the entire nature of reality in half to support this view? What if the object subject relationship was dialectical in nature?
ReplyDeletePerhaps this would be possible with some kind of integrated information theory, such as the work done by Dr. Tononi. However I may be exposing my bias in favor of materialist monism.
I agree with Ponty's idea that our senses do not give us full understanding of the world around us because even other animals have more heightened senses tham us. an example is how a dog has a more advanced sense of smell than people do. they can smell sublet scents that people simple cannot smell. There perception of the smells of the world are different than ours.
ReplyDeleteI found the point about people choosing who can just us to be interesting. Everyone has at least select few people who opinions matter to them. They care what these people think despite the fact that what others think of you does not matter in the grand scheme of things.