Dialogue ~ 25

In my previous blog, I wrote, “Plato’s Theaetetus proposes that ‘knowledge is nothing other than perception”. This concept has generated debate through the ages (and still does), notably around such concerns as if perception (and therefore knowledge) is infallible, how would we know the difference between our waking and dream state, is anyone wiser than anyone else, how are we able to remember things (i.e. to know them) if we are not directly perceiving them and how do we differ from Gods or animals? Plato suggested that it is not about whether perception in itself is infallible, but rather it is opinions or judgments which we form on the basis of our perception which are fallible. 

Clearly, we can ‘change our mind’ about things on the basis of persuasion, learning and contemplation; we can recognise ‘snap judgments’ and make adjustments accordingly. We can even take our perceptual mechanism for granted and neglect to question what it is or how we are using it, let alone its content. 

The Greek philosopher Protagoras argued that since there are no false beliefs (all perception is valid), his model of teaching or persuasive discourse was purely therapeutic or beneficial; that he enabled a person to move from feeling bad about something to feeling good about it instead. Clearly, this raises a question about the nature of perception, in that it can be an instrument by which to move into knowledge about reality, but it can equally be circumvented as a means to bring about consensus in a group as well as an experience of well-being that is based solely upon belief (as a proposition of truth and justice).

Was Plato pointing towards discernment when he suggested that it is the power of judgment about perception which varies from person to person? Can we define or measure that power (what would be valid), given that it appears to be a crucial component of knowledge, of one’s experience of reality and of what is just? Is it possible to construct a theory of knowledge? How would it influence an experience of the past (recollection) and inform the future?

In response to the Greek geometrician Theodorus asserting that the followers of Heracleitus had been drumming up support for the doctrine of flux, Socrates replied, ‘All the more reason… for considering the doctrine of being-in-motion from its first principle, as they themselves set it out’. Socrates went on to say that there are other philosophers who have declared the opposite view to the Heracleiteans. They say that ‘all things are one and that the One is stationery in itself, there being no place for it to change or move in’. Socrates asked, ‘what are we to make of all these thinkers? Inadvertently, we have inched our way forward into a position that is right in between their battle lines’. 

To explore this position further, Socrates asked ‘what kind of change’ had the Heracleiteans in mind when they said that ‘everything is always changing?’ Did they claim that there is one form of change or two? Socrates suggested that there are two forms of change: alteration and motion. Further, would the proposition that everything is always changing apply to both forms of change or one? Flux doctrine would say both, as otherwise one form would be changing whilst the other was at rest. It followed that everything must always be changing in every sense of change (given as there could be no rest).

Socrates pointed out that in the moment of perception of any ‘suchness’ as heat or whiteness for example, that thing will be in motion between the active element and the passive element; the passive element comes into a state of ‘perceiving’ (although it does not become a perception as that would be a thing in itself) whilst the active element becomes ‘such and such’ e.g. hot or white (but not a ‘suchness’, in other words it does not take on any given quality of that which is being perceived).

In summary: nothing at all is one in its own right, not even the active or passive element. What happens is that the active and passive elements bring forth, from their union with each other, a ‘perception’ which becomes an act of perceiving something and a ‘perceptible’ which comes to be perceived as ‘such and such’. 

This is fascinating to consider in terms of what it means to be human. Is it possible that we are a vehicle of perception, literally building our world view of ‘what is’ from one moment to the next, as we alternate between perceiving and perception? What do we mean by knowledge, in that by the time we (being transitory or process) could say anything about anything, aspects of it (and ourselves) would have changed? Knowledge (and for that matter science) would be nothing other than story (identifications, impressions or fragments which have been pieced together, much as in the construction of language); its only cohesive element would be meaning.

We continue to appear as ourselves however, as if everything about us is changing and we are stationary in some respect (albeit whilst ‘perceiving’); certainly we are a paradox!

What is the purpose of our perceiving? What is it that we are becoming attentive of (are we awakening to reality?) and how does that correlate with our discernment (or judgment) of knowledge and meaning?