Introduction
Simply put, perception is visualizing of a particular element in the mind. Arguments sometimes form the basis over which knowledge is derived. The root causes of arguments come from people’s perceptions. In the past, philosophers were the major pioneers for derivation of arguments. The basis of Perceptions and objects have always been a born of contention among thinkers (Bunnin et al, 7). While some philosophers argue that objects are established when there is a perception of an idea, others think otherwise about this notion. I disagree with this notion that objects are established when there is a perception of an idea.
Locke in his previous works wrote an essay that had to do with the philosophies of observation. In a rejoinder, Irish philosophers such as Berkley noted that Locke was not precise in the presentation of values of observation. Berkley was to some extent skeptical and reasoned that people had to have some form of perception with respect to ideas so as to be able to actualize the objects (Fogelin, 12). While Locke thought that the observations were a reflection of the objects outside the confines of the mind, Berkley was skeptical to a large extent (Hutton et al, 15). Under normal circumstances, there exist two distinct characters that include the perceiver and the perceived. Berkley argued that assumptions informed the basis over which issues were perceived in such a manner. In this argument it is evident people make assumptions with regard to what object they want to have in the final analysis. In reality, what one has in mind cannot directly be translated into an action. Beckley’s point does not hold any water to a large extent. When a person has an idea about a given phenomenon, it only becomes into being if transforming the idea into a potential object actualizes it. Berkley argued that there had to be a third element in order to bring something into being. In this case, the individual, perception and an action-oriented issue provides the basis over which a perception is brought into an object.
Consequently, Berkley notes that people think the way they do because of the general perceptions of the people (Fogelin, 12). Berkley goes to the extent of stating that people only perceive about sensible objects. In my opinion, there is a disconnect in the manner in which Berkley presents this argument (Fogelin, 12). Case in point is that not all the time people think about things that are sensible. At some point, people engage in thoughts that are of less quality to the extent that the thoughts can merely be left hanging without being transformed into objects. The perceptions of the individual are influenced based on what the experience dictates. Under normal circumstances, there is a general notion that thoughts come from a mere feeling. Perceptions do not transform into objects, but have to have some trigger to ensure something of significance happens.
A clique of philosophers argues that certain occurrences in the market occur as a result of peoples' perceptions. For instance, some philosophers argue that light might affect the manner in which we identify the colors. Consequently, there is an argument that states that a smell depend an individual's perception (Fogelin, 24). This line of argument is not sensible to a large extent. To start with, there are conventional elements that have distinct characteristics in them. For example, colors are distinct and cannot be affected by the effect of light. Similarly, a smell is experienced directly through a person’s respiratory system. The notion that perception can affect the way we smell or see is by far a fallacy. Perception does not affect the sensory elements. It should be noted that how a person thinks is independent of how the other parts of the body work.
Some group of thinkers also argues that objects are a direct creation of our perceptions when in reality there are no objects. Noting that acquisition of common sense is through logic and to some extent religion furthers the idea. I do not agree with the arguments presented by the philosophers (Bunnin et al, 21). Case in point is that objects are a reality. In a scientific sense, objects are basically matter. Matter is anything that occupies space and has mass. All around the environment, there are objects that exist in real time. One does not need perception to notice the existence of an object. Consequently, common sense has no specific derivation. In fact, science and religion only influence people’s thinking and acts a basis over which knowledge is derived. Common sense is inherent in every human being and therefore cannot have a specific origin outside the body’s jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Philosophers keep asking the question whether objects can exist independent of some given perception. The answer to this question is that objects exist and continue to exist independently of in form of thinking. How a person thinks only influences the surrounding and personal view, but not the wellbeing of the objects. Perceptions do not influence the existence of objects in any way. When people perceive some issues, they are able to transform them into real time objects and not in a virtual sense. I, therefore, disagree with the notion objects are established when there is a perception of an idea.
Works Cited
Bunnin, Nicholas, and E P. Tsui-James. The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell, 2003. Internet resource.
Fogelin, Robert J. Routledge. Philosophy Guidebook to Berkeley and the Principles of Human
Knowledge. London: Routledge, 2001. Internet resource.
Hutton, Sarah, Paul Schuurman, and G A. J. Rogers. Studies on Locke: Sources,
Contemporaries, and Legacy: in Honour of G.a.j. Rogers. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2008. Print.
