Aquinas BTFO of Hume and all modern and postmodern philosophy:
>On the contrary, The intelligible species is to the intellect what the sensible image is to the sense. But the sensible image is not what is perceived, but rather that by which sense perceives. Therefore the intelligible species is not what is actually understood, but that by which the intellect understands.
>I answer that, Some have asserted that our intellectual faculties know only the impression made on them; as, for example, that sense is cognizant only of the impression made on its own organ. According to this theory, the intellect understands only its own impression, namely, the intelligible species which it has received, so that this species is what is understood.
>This is, however, manifestly false for two reasons.
>First, because the things we understand are the objects of science; therefore if what we understand is merely the intelligible species in the soul, it would follow that every science would not be concerned with objects outside the soul, but only with the intelligible species within the soul; thus, according to the teaching of the Platonists all science is about ideas, which they held to be actually understood [84, 1].
>Secondly, it is untrue, because it would lead to the opinion of the ancients who maintained that "whatever seems, is true" [Aristotle, Metaph. iii. 5], and that consequently contradictories are true simultaneously. For if the faculty knows its own impression only, it can judge of that only. Now a thing seems according to the impression made on the cognitive faculty. Consequently the cognitive faculty will always judge of its own impression as such; and so every judgment will be true: for instance, if taste perceived only its own impression, when anyone with a healthy taste perceives that honey is sweet, he would judge truly; and if anyone with a corrupt taste perceives that honey is bitter, this would be equally true; for each would judge according to the impression on his taste. Thus every opinion would be equally true; in fact, every sort of apprehension.
This is the main part:
>The intelligible species is to the intellect what the sensible image is to the sense. But the sensible image is not what is perceived, but rather that by which sense perceives. Therefore the intelligible species is not what is actually understood, but that by which the intellect understands.
Have we not realised that all of modern philosophy has committed this basic error of saying that what we sense is our own sensation, what we perceive is our own perception, what we understand is our own ideas? This ultimately leads to solipsism. If all I understand or perceive is my own mind, then ultimately my mind is cut off from everything outside of it.
This is the point though. We DON'T sense our own sensation, our sensation is that by which we perceive actual THINGS, realities, objects in the real world. I don't hear my own hearing, I don't see my own sight; my hearing is that by which I hear SOUNDS in the real world; and my sight is that by which I see VISIBLE LIGHT in the real world.
This simple realisation makes all of modern and postmodern philosophy obsolete.
sound, light, temperature, as we perceive them, don't actually exist. They are created by our brain so we can understand the world, but we don't actually percieved the world for what it really is.
>sound, light, temperature, as we perceive them, don't actually exist.
Yes they do. Just because our perception of them may not be perfect does not mean that they don't exist as we perceive them. Our brain does not create sound, light, or temperature, it perceives sound, light, and temperature in the real world. We don't perceive our own perception; our perception is that by which we perceive actual things in the world.
>we don't actually percieved the world for what it really is.
It's this bad "insight" that got us from Raphael to this pic.
Light is our interpretation of EM wawes, there's no difference between waves in the visible spectrum and outside of it, yet we are blind to some waves and see others. Colours are arbitrary too.
Same applies for every other thing we sense. Especially taste.
If we could wire our eyes to some extremely complicated machine that generates electric signals that our brain can read, we would be actually watching something inexistent
Suck my dick nigger
Understanding the way we experience reality has nothing to do with whatever the fuck happened to the arts in the last hundred years
>If we could wire our eyes to some extremely complicated machine that generates electric signals that our brain can read, we would be actually watching something inexistent
We wouldn't be watching something inexistent, we would be watching images generated by electric signals, e.g. television.
>Understanding the way we experience reality
That's the thing though, you aren't discussing the way we experience reality, because you are saying that we DON'T experience reality, that "reality doesn't exist", and that what we really experience is our own experience. This is exactly how the ancient sophists argued. It's what lead them into positions such as, "whatever seems to be true, is true", "man is the measure of all things (men determine what is good and evil, true and false)", "law and politics is simply the interest of the powerful", i.e. the exact same conclusions that modern and postmodern philosophers come to.
Or, to put the ancient sophistry into 3 simple terms:
1. Truth / Reality does not exist.
2. Even if Truth / Reality exists, it cannot be known.
3. Even if Truth / Reality can be known, this knowledge cannot be communicated.
Is there a modern or postmodern philosopher who does not affirm one of these 3 self-contradictory statements?
No. I mean it in a different sense, I'm not talking about generating a physical stimulus that can be interpreted by our brain. I mean that we can generate an interpretation without actual object. Like day dreaming
If that is not enough to convince you that no sensible image is needed to perceive, and that therefore perception is just an internal process, then suck my anus
Yes, our imagination can generate images, but only based on what we've seen passively by the senses.
If what you are saying is true there would be no use for the physical eyes. We could walk around in the world of our mind's eye without worrying about the physical world, because to you the world of the imagination is just as real as the physical world. When in reality, our imagination draws its ideas from the physical world, even when we imagine something that doesn't physically exist.
>mind-independent things exist
Nice assertion, faggot. Back it up.