-To 'perceive' means to let the senses work.
-A thing is an object, whereas a person is a subject.
-Without numbers has a double meaning simultaneously:
(a) without singularity; (b) without plurality.
-Note: the question has bearing(s) on the famous Husserlian 'Wesenschau'.
-Please your answers. Thanks! Marc.
Dear Sobhan,
-For the concise explanation, see my description. But you might have stumbled on the -Note about the Husserlian 'Wesenschau'. Translated in my own words it runs as follows: .
?
-I hope this short explanation may suffice. If not, please get back to me!
-Many thanks for your question! Marc
I've clearly had too much caffeine before bed time, so I'll throw in a few ideas.
What does it mean to see "only neighbor"?
What if you made a list of the properties one must have to be considered a neighbor, and wrote these properties down on a page? The properties would include
Human,
lives
nearby
within 1 mile
Perceiving this page, with the properties so listed,are you seeing 'only' neighbor? Or to see "only" neighbor, must one or more neighbors be physically present within your sight?
If the latter, then, it would seem, you can only perceive one or more neighbors--that is a singularity, or plurality. If you close your eyes, you could imagine singularity, or plurality, in the presence of zero neightbors... But zero is neither singularity, or plurality, but seems still a number. What if you have many neighbors but you are not sure how many, and you've not decided what radius counts, and the ambiguity in that radius leads to an undetermined value? Is it still a number?
If you only require acknowledgment of the properties that make one a neighbor, then how many properties are required? Is there one property? "nearby" or do you require a "living" thing to be a neighbor? How many properties, and how far can each of these properties be broken down? Countable, or uncountable?
(P.S. in my philosophy, if you observe a physical thing, you observe one of that thing. Once you determine what defines a neighbor, there are definitely going to be a number of them around you... zero or more. They'll be a distance from you, which is some ratio of your own height or arm's length, or step-length, which is a number of sorts.... There's always some kind of scale--the scale of the observer vs. the distance to or size of the perceived object. You can always pick out some numbers in every possible scenario, if you look for things you can measure with them, but you don't have to think about them or calculate them. But even if you don't think about the numbers, you can decide... "Can I catch it if I chase after it, or is it not worth my time?")
Dear Jonathan,
-Re: is my own interpretation of Husserl's 'Wesenschau', so it could be not true. (Accordingly I ask all Husserl-experts to correct me). Well, by I mean the sheer 'Wesen' (essence), i.e. without singularity or plurality. I know, using analytical philosophy, this is factually impossible. That is the reason of my question. In other words, there should be a logic, other than the logic grounding the current analytical philosophy (which in principle is a prolongation of mathematics). Which logic? That is the question teasing your scientific imagination.
-Please keep correcting me. Thanks! Marc.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude