If I looked up whether or not Tokyo existed, what I would find is some persons description of their understanding of Tokyo. He/she would give me information which was previously unknown to me, thus expanding my understanding of Tokyo.

If it were the case that previous to that action both mine and the other persons experience of Tokyo was the same, then I would not have gained any greater understanding from hearing his/her perspective.

I know that your experience of the computer differs from others because if everyone's experience was the same, then there would be no need for arguments. Everyone would posses the same level of understanding about everything. We would in fact be all the same person, we would all be God. People are not all the same person, and we in fact argue about quite a lot, outlining our differing experiences and our lack of divinity. The mere existence of countering opinions proves that our understandings of certain realities are quite inherently different, and due to our unique situations, we can never truly experience anything the same as another person.

You can be quite certain that Tokyo exists, but you can't be certain of what doesn't exist. The only caveat a phenomenologist would have, is to not discredit the existence of something based on pure empiricism, which is prone to uncertainty due to the faultiness of human senses.

What I am claiming is, Tokyo exists to me and you, just differently from how it may exist for someone else. To try to claim that Tokyo exists one way, may also be true, but due to our unique perceptual inabilities, we can only get a restricted representation of the noumenal existence.

Arguing for the existence of some entity outside the perspective sphere of individual perception is not within the frame of what phenomenology is attempting to accomplish.

.

True enough. But neither can it argue that there is nothing outside perception either. If it cannot do the one, why should it do the other. That is what bracketing is all about.

I understand your point now. I'm sorry if I made the impression that what was perceived was all that was possible.

More than restricting what is possible, phenomenology attempts to break free from the restrictions that modern science has already placed upon reality. It's purpose is to liberate consciousness, not rule over what may or may not be real.

For this reason, perception is reality, but understanding of certain realities can be expanded. Therefore perception can be radically changed, thus allowing, quite literally, for anything to be possible.

But perception is not reality, since perception may be wrong. And sometimes is wrong.

You seem to be suggesting that a perception can be verified outside of ones subjective experience. You are right that one can become aware of the faultiness of a perception, thus what was once considered real changes, but to claim that a perception is inherently wrong or right is what phenomenology is trying to avoid.

I have my perception of Tokyo, which is influenced by movies, books, hearsay, et cetera. I have never been there but have seen photos and so on.

Now, even if someone out there in the world had been exposed to all the same media relating to Tokyo as I, their perception would remain different, since they relate in to their own lives in a different way. Their context is different than mine. It is different even for people who actually live in Tokyo itself.

If you want proof of that read the massive amounts of books debating what America is, or even just one single city or state is. It goes on forever. Words superficially mean the same thing to everyone, but in the dirty details they actually mean a variety of different things depending on who you are.

I can try to expound the entirety of my perception of Tokyo through well-thought-out words here, but when you read them, you will still not understand MY perspective, since you are not me. The words I wrote are perceived by you, not by me. So your perception may change but it is still YOUR perception at the end of the day.

---------- Post added 02-06-2010 at 08:07 PM ----------

Yes. There is never any way to tell if a perception is wrong, since when you may think you have been proved wrong, this is still inside your perception. Since you will never know if your perception is actually right or wrong, one may assume it is effectively right, though a mistake may later show itself. Even then though, this is inside your perception so you are assuming a level of accuracy. You have to.

An age old problem facing the philosopher is how to discern that what we experience is real. You say you experience a computer or stars, but all you really experience is a representation of those things.

If you want proof of that read the massive amounts of books debating what America is, or even just one single city or state is. It goes on forever. Words superficially mean the same thing to everyone, but in the dirty details they actually mean a variety of different things depending on who you are.

"large" "city" "capital" "Japan" "island" "Honshu" and all the other words you used have slightly different meanings to me than to you, in my perception versus yours.

What meaning does "Honshu" have to you that it doesn't to me? I don't see how you could know that, since you don't know what meaning it has for me. So far as I go, Honshu island is the largest island in the archipelago off the Asian coast known as Japan. The capital city of Tokyo is located on Honshu. Perhaps you have been to Honshu, and you had a love affair there, and had pleasant memories ot the island. That is wonderful. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of the term,"Honshu". That would be a private association the term has for you, but not for me.

When you say meaning, you are using the denotative definition. By doing this, you assume that all other people share the same denotative meaning of Honshu as you. Which may be correct. As far as denotative meanings go, most people do have quite similar concepts for words.

Meaning, as it is understood today, is constituted out of denotative, connotative, and operational definitions of words. Connotative and operational definitions vary greatly depending upon the word's significance to individual persons. As far as having a love affair in Honshu, the connotative meaning of the city would be greatly effected by this experience.

In my opinion, these distinctions between types of meaning are only necessary because of the loss of meaning that has occurred to language in the recent centuries. If you study the history of language, these distinctions arose around the same time as modern scientific objectivity. Language and meaning became objectified, which created walls between the natural flow of meaning.

the loss of meaning that has occurred to language in the recent centuries.

It all depends on whether you think proper names denote any linguistic meanings at all--or if their function is purely objectually referential.

So assuming that names like "Tokyo" do have linguistic meanings (which I don't think it does), then it is enough that people share the meaning of "Tokyo" as "the capital of Japan" to guarantee successful communication about the same object when using the proper name. But it is not necessary that someone knows "Tokyo" means "the capital of Japan" for his use of the word "Tokyo" to always and only refer to Tokyo. And if someone thought "Tokyo" meant "the capital of China" then his associated description with the word would clearly be the wrong meaning of the word, irrespective of his other private associations with it.

As John Stuart Mill pointed out, the name, "Dartmouth" does not mean that the city need be at the mouth of the Dart river. Dartmouth, New Hampshire is not, but that does not mean that the city is not Dartmouth.

But if Tokyo is the capital of Japan, and the capital of Japan is on Honshu island, then it follows that Tokyo is on Honshu island.

What a word means "to someone" and what a word means, may be two very different matters. To confuse these is just asking for confusion.

What meaning has language lost? Your syntax has made it the victim of some terrible crime of which you yourself are guilty!

I'm sorry to tease you with this, but it is such a funny, unconscious example of the relationship between perception and reality.

You believe that language has lost meaning, and therefore unconsciously offer a statement which is direct proof of the statement. I can only wonder if you might have constructed a more precise, meaningful statement if you believed otherwise.

Your belief, which forms your perception, is made manifest in your expression of that belief.

I contend that one absolute reality exists. Our experience is determined by our belief, and subsequent perception, of this reality. Although perception informs our experience of reality, reality is unalterable.

We are responsible for distinguishing between perception and consciousness. Reality is not an illusion of consciousness, it is the manifestation of consciousness; and being of consciousness, only consciousness can alter reality.

The use of syntax itself has been defiled and people have come under the illusion that the use of language is a secondary effect of consciousness, when it is my belief that language is necessary for consciousness to occur.

Reality only becomes absolute once it is agreed upon through language, otherwise it is very relative.

Words cannot be made to mean one thing or the other.

Words must represent what is being expressed subjectively and then the meaning of the words must be agreed upon inter-subjectively.

Many are under the assumption today that all words are forced to have one concrete meaning, and all people use words the same way.

Reality is only realized once it can be talked about, therefore I wouldn't consider what trees and many animals experience reality.

To say that one reality exists is to imply that their is some one perspective that is always watching everything everywhere.

An absolute reality may exist in some form, but since we can never reach it, it is much more functional to agree that we each experience a different reality.

Ok, yes. But I disagree with Mill that the meaning of "Dartmouth" just is Dartmouth. Mill equivocates reference and meaning of proper names when he ought to have kept them separate.



True.



I agree.