Here’s an interesting question: Are there “events” of which we are aware that do not come to us via sense perception? It seems to me sense perception pertains only to material phenomena. But there are phenomena, or movements in consciousness, of which we are aware – our thought processes – completely independently of sensory experience. How do we know about such phenomena, if the only knowledge we can have is mediated by sense perception?
You wrote: “Since elsewhere Plato’s cave has been dragged in: why should the one who recognizes the shadows on the wall for what they are not also question the reality of the light that casts them?”
It seems to me that we recognize the shadows on the wall, and understand them as such, only because of the illuminating source that casts them. That is, the shadows are a fleeting image of a more substantial reality that only becomes visible to us by virtue of the Light. If we “question the reality of the Light that casts them,” and find it an illusion, then how could we know anything at all?
In other words, Plato associates the Light with the truth of reality; he maintains that truth is accessible to human reason, but not solely by means of sensuous experience. In short, it appears Plato thinks man knows a great deal about reality from purely “internal” resources. And this is especially so in cases, not so much of knowledge acquisition per se, where intentionalist consciousness/sense perception are the proper “tools”; but in cases regarding reflections of the great (we might say perennial) questions of human existence, the human condition, our place in the world, our history, our destiny, and so forth, luminous consciousness seems to be the proper method or “tool.” This seems to be a source of knowledge acquisition, too -- of "non-phenomenal" aspects of reality that truthfully bear on human existence, and what we call wisdom (in contradistinction to knowledge). Such experiences are "events" in consciousness only.
You wrote, “Recognizing one appearance as mere appearance, why not all appearances?” As Alamo-Girl has already suggested, perhaps everything we see is “appearance,” or as Einstein put it, an “illusion, albeit a persistent one.” This insight seems closely to fit Plato’s meaning in his great myth of “ascent” and “descent” – i.e., that of the Cave with its “shadow play” that the prisoners are bound to watch….
You wrote, “The natural sciences work … depending on prior knowledge to extrapolate further knowledge.” Oh, most definitely! We all must build on what we already know. But how do we know that what we think we know is truthful? Especially if what we think we know is based on appearances in this sense (i.e., on a “persistent illusion”)?
Anyhoot, clearly I have more questions than answers here!!! I’d be interested in your thoughts. Thank you so very much for writing. (And welcome to FR!)
It seems to me sense perception pertains only to material phenomena. But there are phenomena, or movements in consciousness, of which we are aware – our thought processes – completely independently of sensory experience.
I'm not sure that consciousness itself is not a sensory experience, or if it is not, that it occurs independently of sensory experience. It seems to me that where there are questions of phenomena existing beyond our ability to perceive them sensorily, that what experience we may be said to have of these phenomena is nonetheless quite intricately knotted to our sensory perceptions. In any case, I don't think we should be too hard on ourselves if we don't manage to resolve this one...
...the shadows are a fleeting image of a more substantial reality that only becomes visible to us by virtue of the Light.
First, thank you for the further explanation of Plato's cave. I haven't actually read the text itself in several years, and clearly it would be worth going back to. Now, I am interested in this phrase of yours: "a more substantial reality". I wonder whether, without admitting to a knowable "First" reality, it would nonetheless be tenable to acknowledge degrees of reality more or less "substantial." My intuition is that it would be (the question has actually been a little project of mine for some time), but I am far from having thought it all through. Your question, "If we “question the reality of the Light that casts them,” and find it an illusion, then how could we know anything at all?" is quite a valid one, of course - and in my opinion it has never been sufficiently dealt with. To me, it seems philosophically necessary to "question the reality of the Light," and, at the same time, it seems philosophically bankrupt to deny the possibility of knowledge. However incompatible the two may appear, I believe we must hold to both, and closely, as to reject either would be akin to giving ourselves a (philosophical) break. And I don't think we should do that. But how do we deal with the contradiction? Well, there it is... On the one hand, we are "prisoners, bound to watch"; on the other, there is much to look at.
Here is a possible way of looking at the problem: Consider a person who wants to be a painter; how is he to know whether his work is any good? How do we know a good painting when we see one? Well, already we're in murky waters. But there is a certain grammar that we may agree to, that we recognize as the skills necessary to making good paintings. Now, Picasso may not always have created realistic, figurative works, but he exercised a certain (extremely advanced) degree of control over the movements of his brush, and this was a quality he shared with all of the old masters. Similarly, in the physical world, in "reality," we come to certain agreements. If a friend tells me his mother is dead, and then the next time we meet he is with his mother, who is very much alive, then I know something is amiss. If my friend continues to insist, in spite of the obvious, that his mother is dead, then if nothing else it will be clear that my perception of reality is in conflict with what my friend tells me is his perception of reality. Which reality, in this case, is the more substantial? We would need a great deal more information to make such a judgment from the outside, of course, but I have little choice but to privilege my own perceptions. If the "substance" of a reality has to do with a certain degree of coherence among its aspects, then the reality I perceive does not need to be the reality in order for it to be the more substantial one. It only needs to be the more coherent one. This is, granted, far from being a fully developed position, but it is one I am still just beginning to explore. In any case, it seems compatible with Musil's idea and Voegelin's reading of it; as the latter wrote, "the universe of rational discourse collapses... when the common ground of existence in reality has disappeared."
Putting analysis aside for a moment, it seems to me that the more substantial reality allows for contradiction. As any reader of Borges or Kafka or the Old Testament knows - or, for that matter, anyone who has been through a war or been in love or believed in anything at all; anyone who has fought with his parents or with a friend, or who has lied or stolen or come home drunk to his family in the middle of the night, who has had to apologize for his actions or express regret for his shortcomings - as any person, that is, must know: a human being manages often (and often, it seems, miraculously) to keep within him a great union of opposing forces and possibilities, the cohabitation of which our rational faculties may have a difficult time accounting for. Still, it is not our reason which perceives reality but which processes the reality we perceive; deficiencies of reason may imply deficiencies of perception, but the inverse does not hold: reason is not reality. Rather it is a means by which we keep reality coherent for ourselves. The gaps (often chasms) only indicate, for me, a cracked surface; they are not erasable, to my mind, and I don't see why they should necessarily be unwelcome.
That's all I have for the moment, but thanks for your comments and for your kind welcome...