forum for week of 2 October

René Magritte a surrealist artist in the 1920s painted a piece entitled "The Treachery of Images" -

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"

A paradox, where the painting is a clear depiction of a pipe - with the text underneath translating 'this is not a pipe'. René believed it was not a pipe - but a representation of a pipe. If his text was to say 'this is a pipe', he would have been lying.

To relate this example to the argument of Argle and Bargle, I can clearly see Argle's point. Do we always come to a conclusion when there is perceptive proof of it - be it touch, smell, visual or auditory responses? How sure are we to use our perception as a tool to decipher and formulate our beliefs.

I think it is easier to succumb and accept our perception than to try and dispute it. Many great discoveries and theories are all formulated from not agreeing with our general perception of things.

The conspiracy theory if "Did man really land on the moon?" is a fine example if we should trust on our perception. We read and watch videos of man landing on the moon - and not physically experience it ourselves - is that sufficient empirical evidence for us to believe or disbelief it?

Perception is also highly susceptible to the influence of others - human's opinion and their perception. Our ability to make decisions and formulate beliefs are unconsciously influenced by various factors such as personal moral beliefs ( things that we were repetitively told that was "true" ) and/or considering another opinion ( the majority ). How then can we trust on our perception when it is already been conditioned?

Although Bargle did say perception is a starting point. "sort out the mess about what to believe and what to doubt" - is a vital information to comprehend the use and purpose of perception. It does not always point to our beliefs, but it is a foundation in which we create our beliefs from.