Perception Without Reason Is Mere Experience, but Reason Without Perception Is Nothing Essay Example

Perception Without Reason Is Mere Experience, but Reason Without Perception Is Nothing Essay Perception without reason is mere experience, but reason without perception is nothing. In order to comment on the statement given above, we must first understand what is meant by the terms perception and reason. One of the most commonly used definitions, from the most trusted source of definitions, of perception is the ability to become aware of something through our senses and to understand/interpret it in a particular way, whereas reason is commonly defined as the ability to think and draw logical conclusions?.However, I believe that to perceive something in our mind is to interpret the sensory input received from our immediate surroundings, whereas reason is associated with logical thought and rationale. Therefore the statement above can be rephrased to say that Interpretation of the outside world without the interference of a logical thought is what we call experience, but logical thought and rationale without any interpretation of the world does not exist. But how can one be a ware of something if ones brain does not think about it? How can one interpret something without the interference of thought? Since in my opinion, thinking is just using ones mind to process the information input from our senses, how can that information be interpret without having ones brain process it? Thus, put in another way, how can perception exist without reason? It cannot, because to perceive something would mean to unconsciously think.However, others may argue that by mentioning reason the statement refers to a stream of conscious thought instead of something as instinctual as unconscious processing of sensory data. However, keeping in mind the counter-argument, the second half of the statement could still be challenged. I believe that our mind is capable of thinking of abstract thought without the interference of senses. Our mind is able to comprehend concepts and platonic ideas such as goodness and can think about them without the need of an interpretation of the world.Go odness is not something that can be touched or tasted or seen. However, one may argue that such abstract trail of thought and understanding should not be classified as reason as it is just a concept that can be understood, but does not relate to any sort of rationale. One could also argue that in order to understand and comprehend goodness, we need to relate the concept to an appropriate context from the real world that we become aware of through our senses. That is why children are always told fables and fairy tales so that they would develop the understanding of good and evil.Therefore, the ability of our mind to grasp the very concept of goodness, along with all other examples of such abstract thought, is based upon perception. However, one cogent example as a proof of reason existing without perception is mathematical reasoning. Abstract numbers and abstract concepts of addition and subtraction cannot be seen or touched or felt. They are something that only the mind can grasp. T he fact that we are able to say that 2 + 1 = 3 does involve rationale and logical thought but does not need any basis of perception.The concept of numbers is understood without the interference of any senses. A baby born deaf and blind would still know the number of limbs it has. As Roger Penrose says? , You cannot understand atomic particles and structures, such as gluons and electrons except with mathematics. Our whole perception of particle physics is based upon mathematical reasoning and logic, and in order to be the basis of perception in this case, such reasoning and logic should exist separately from perception. Thus, I conclude that I disagree with the statement above as I believe that reason can exist without perception.