|
There was a psychologist named Kant who used the Wizard of Oz as an analogy when discussing this question. In the book the emerald city is called the emerald city because everyone wheres green tinted glasses in it (Hence everything looks green). NOw propose that a sneaky operation went on where green tinted contact lenses were surgically put in everyone was sleeping and they never knew about it. They would percieve the world only in shades of green. Now does this mean that is is green? No. It just means that they as individuals can only describe their world in terms that they can understand. It is quite possible that stuff exists that we just cant percieve eg ghosts. But it is just as possible that stuff doesnt exist at all and our perceptions are completely wrong. If our perceptions of the universe is wrong then how can we prove or disprove its existence? But if we adopt the naturalist view and stand by the common philosphy that everything exists just as I perceive it, then we would have trouble explaining sensory illusions. If our senses are tricked by whatever reason (eg after images, funny taste in our mouth when we are sick etc) then how can we validate the naturalist assumptions.
There was a philosopher called Berkely who coined the term "Esse est percipi" (to exist is to precieve) which keys into what an earlier philosopher had said "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefor I am". What they were saying is that the only thing I can be sure of is my own existence because I have the ability to doubt my own existence. I cant be sure of any other existence in the universe if it exists at all. Now Berkely was the first to say such an egoist philosophy is madness but he had to admit that the possibility that everything existed only because he could perceive it was valid.
|