DOCSLIB.ORG

Bertrand Russell on Perception and Knowledge (1927 – 59)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BERTRAND RUSSELL ON PERCEPTION AND KNOWLEDGE (1927 – 59) BERTRAND RUSSELL ON PERCEPTION AND KNOWLEDGE (1927 – 59) By DUSTIN Z. OLSON, B.A. (Hons.) A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Philosophy McMaster University © Copyright by Dustin Z. Olson, August 2011 ii MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY (2011) McMaster University (Philosophy) Hamilton, Ontario TITLE: Bertrand Russell on Perception and Knowledge (1927 – 59) AUTHOR: Dustin Z. Olson SUPERVISOR: Nicholas Griffin NUMBER OF PAGES: vii, 154 iii ABSTRACT Bertrand Russell is one of the grandmasters of 20 th Century Analytic Philosophy. It is surprising, then, that his work fell out of fashion later in his career. As a result, very little has been discussed concerning Russell’s work from the period of 1927 – 59. This thesis provides an analysis of Russell’s philosophical work from this era. Our attention here is on Russell’s theory of perception and the underlying metaphysical structure that is developed as a result of his scientific outlook, as Russell’s philosophy during this time focused almost exclusively on perception, knowledge, and the epistemic relationship humans have with the world according to science. And because Russell’s system is in many ways prescient with regards to recent advances made in perception, mind and matter, and knowledge more generally, we also apply his theory to developments in the philosophy of perception since that time. Our initial discussion – Chapters 1 and 2 – is most concerned with an accurate explication of the concepts germane to and conclusions formed from Russell’s theory of perception. Included in these considerations are Russell’s ontological commitments—most specifically a four- dimensional event ontology facilitated by Neutral Monism. From this ontology we further discuss Russell’s distinction of the two types of spaces found in perception: physical and perceptual (psychological). The notion of perceptual space, coupled with a causal story, enables Russell to conclude that all perception is in one’s mind; that is, all one ever perceives is one’s own brain. Furthermore, we discover that on Russell’s view, since perceptions are only of one’s own brain, our access to the physical space is limited to structural representations. We cannot infer anything beyond the structure of the external world from the basis of perception. Following the discussion on the physical and metaphysical components of perception, our focus in Chapter 3 turns to Russell’s epistemic conclusions concerning perceptual knowledge. Involved in this section is an analysis of Russell’s notion of “knowledge” and its shortcomings. In addition to the conceptual analysis of knowledge, we also discuss two further epistemic wings as developed by Russell: belief formation and justification. In the former, we are presented with the steps that are taken in the development of knowledge from primitive perception to inferential scientific knowledge, all of which are based on animal habits and naturalised belief formation. Concerning justification, Russell approaches this topic from probability logic, ultimately concluding that there is no satisfactory way to get absolute knowledge, but that we can get close by employing a foundational-coherentist model of justification. Here Russell likens knowledge- development to a bridge, wherein the foundations are the piers holding the bridge upright; the strength of the justification, however, is found in the interconnected girders – coherence – connecting the piers. The bridge ultimately rests on non-demonstrative principles of inference. By themselves the piers do not accomplish much, but taken as a whole, the bridge is solid. Following this discussion, we engage in a minor criticism of Russell’s notion of knowledge. In the final two chapters we bring Russell’s theory of knowledge and perception into focus using other positions to juxtapose with Russell’s. These include the epistemic considerations found in representationalism, phenomenalism, and direct realism. We conclude this part with an interpretation of Russell’s external world epistemology, one I label ‘Russellian Realism’, which, again, suggests a structural and scientific form of realism. Finally, we discuss some demarcating principles of a theory of perception and the ultimate “problem of perception,” giving a Russellian response to the issues found therein. Involved in this project are a number of issues, foremost of which is how a theory perception can deal with the apparent openness to the world we experience in perception, while also admitting the potential for illusions and hallucinations. Furthermore, what is it like , or how does it seem when iv one is having a perceptual experience? These are some of the problems any theory of perception faces. We therefore set out to discover how Russell’s theory responds to some of these problems. Ultimately we must recognize that Russell’s perceptual and epistemic projects are philosophically motivated but scientifically driven. It is this latter consideration that we must recognize as providing Russell with a consistent framework from which to begin his project. It is a project that has been virtually ignored, yet is ripe with insights. We will thus find that Russell’s theory of perception is relevant to current concerns within the philosophy perception generally and scientific epistemology more specifically. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank the following: Departmental: To my advisor and friend Dr. Nicholas Griffin: Thank you for your patient help, calming support, and encouragement to undertake this, most rewarding, project. Your advice and assistance beyond just this thesis is much more than what should be expected of an advisor. I am most indebted to you. My appreciation for the opportunity I have had in getting to work under your guidance can only be understated. To my readers Dr. Kenneth Blackwell and Dr Brian Garrett: Thank you for the very helpful comments and expertise in assisting me in this thesis—and specifically Dr Blackwell for your friendly reminders concerning my annual BRS fees! To Dr. Richard Arthur: Thank you so much for the guidance and mentoring role you assumed for me while at McMaster. You have greatly influenced the direction my future philosophical endeavours will take. To Dr. Elisabeth Gedge and the Department of Philosophy: More than once I have times found the support provided here to be overwhelming. This program has far exceeded any expectations I had when first undertaking graduate studies. To Kim and Daphne: You two have eased my over inflated misanthropy by giving me hope that there are still genuinely good people. This is the best compliment I can give to anyone. You will both be greatly missed. Friends and Peers: To Justine B. Ajandi, Patrick Bondy, and Josh B. Zaslow: Thank you all so much for your friendship. To Rick and Terry: Your influence on my life cannot be overstated and should go without saying—but I’ll say it anyway. To Dallas: For being you. Family: To my parents Zane and Sherry Olson and siblings Alex and Brandi Weston: Thank you for your love and support. Finally, and most importantly, to my not-quite-but-almost-perfect and beautiful wife Sabrina Veilleux: Thank you for you. love. vi Contents Introduction 1 I. The Problem ......................................................................................................................2 II. Outline..............................................................................................................................4 1 Events 7 I. Russell’s Ontology ..............................................................................................................8 II. Mind and Matter ..............................................................................................................14 III. Review .............................................................................................................................21 2 Perception and Physics 24 I. Conceptual Component’s for Russell’s “Perception” ....................................................25 II. Physics and Perception...................................................................................................38 III. Review ............................................................................................................................42 3 Human Knowledge: Less Scope, More Limits 44 I. Russell and the Development of Knowledge .....................................................................46 II. The Necessity for Non-Demonstratives in Empirical Knowledge: Developing the Postulates ................................................................................................56 III. Human Knowledge: its scope and limits ..........................................................................67 IV. ‘ Knowledge?’ →(Epistemology →(Belief-formation ∩ Justification) ∩¬‘Knowledge’) .72 V. Review ..............................................................................................................................82 4 Perception Epistemically Assessed 84 I. Russell and Epistemic Representationalism ......................................................................87 II. Russell and Phenomenalism .............................................................................................92 III. Russell and Epistemological Direct Realism ...................................................................97 IV. Epistemology and Perception: What is needed?
Recommended publications
  • Mind and Social Reality

    Mind and Social Reality

    Masaryk University Faculty of Economics and Administration Study program: Economics METHODOLOGICAL INDIVIDUALISM: MIND AND SOCIAL REALITY Metodologický Individualizmus: Myseľ a Spoločenská Realita Bachelor´s Thesis Advisor: Author: Mgr. Josef Menšík Ph.D. Ján KRCHŇAVÝ Brno 2020 Name and last name of the author: Ján Krchňavý Title of master thesis: Methodological Individualism: Mind and Social Reality Department: Department of Economics Supervisor of bachelor thesis: Mgr. Josef Menšík, Ph.D. Year of defence: 2020 Abstract The submitted bachelor thesis is concerned with the relation between mind and social reality and the role of the mind in the creation of social reality. This relation is examined from the perspective of the social ontology of John Searle, an American philosopher who is considered to be the proponent of methodological individualism. This thesis aims to reconsider the standard, mentalistic interpretation of Searle’s social ontology, one that is centred around the primary role of the mind in the construction of social reality, to examine criticisms of such approach which highlight the professed neglect of the role that social practices have for social reality, and to provide an alternative, practice-based reading of Searle’s social ontology. The thesis thus proceeds first by outlining the standard interpretation of Searle’s theory as put forward mainly in his two monographs on social reality. Subsequently, the objections against such an approach from an alternative, practice-based approach, which highlights the role of social practices for the constitution of society, are raised. Following these objections, the Searle’s social ontology is looked at again in an effort to find an alternative interpretation that would bring it closer to the ideas and principles of the practice-based approach, and thereby provide a response to some objections against the missing role of the social practices in his theory as well as open the way for the novel interpretation of his social ontology.
  • How Three Triads Illumine the Authority of the Preached Word

    How Three Triads Illumine the Authority of the Preached Word

    THE WORDS OF THE SPEAKER: HOW THREE TRIADS ILLUMINE THE AUTHORITY OF THE PREACHED WORD By J. D. HERR B.S., Philadelphia Biblical University, 2008 A THESIS Submitted to the faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Theological Studies at Reformed Theological Seminary Charlotte, North Carolina February 2019 Accepted: _______________________________________________________ First Reader, Dr. James Anderson _______________________________________________________ Second Reader !ii ABSTRACT According to J. L. Austin’s important work, How to Do Things With Words, the philosophic and linguistic assumption for centuries has been that saying something “is always and simply to state something.”1 For many people today, speech is simply the description of a place or event. It is either true or false, because it either describes an item or event well, or it does not. It either re-states propositional truth or it does not. Austin’s program was to regain an understanding and awareness of the force of speech—what is done in saying something—and came to be known as speech act theory. Similarly, in the discipline of theology, and in the life of the Church, many people tend to think of preaching as the passing of some “truth” from the divine mind to the human mind, or from the preacher’s mind to the hearer’s mind. While it is that, in a very real and meaningful way, in this paper I seek to explore whether there is more. As incarnate creatures, God has made humans to consist of spiritual and physical aspects. If we focus wholly on the “mental truth transfer” aspect of speech, especially in the case of preaching, how does this leave the Church equipped to bridge the divide between the mental information and what they are to do in their bodies? By interacting with and interfacing the triadic framework of speech act theory with the triadic frameworks of Dorothy Sayers and John Frame, I seek to understand preaching in 1 J.
  • Anthropological Theory

    Anthropological Theory

    Anthropological Theory http://ant.sagepub.com John Searle on a witch hunt: A commentary on John R. Searle's essay ‘Social ontology: Some basic principles’ Richard A. Shweder Anthropological Theory 2006; 6; 89 DOI: 10.1177/1463499606061739 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ant.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/1/89 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for Anthropological Theory can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ant.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ant.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Downloaded from http://ant.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on November 5, 2007 © 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Anthropological Theory Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) http://ant.sagepub.com Vol 6(1): 89–111 10.1177/1463499606061739 John Searle on a witch hunt A commentary on John R. Searle’s essay ‘Social ontology: Some basic principles’ Richard A. Shweder University of Chicago, USA Abstract In this commentary I respond to John Searle’s conceptual framework for the interpretation of ‘social facts’ as a provocation to spell out some of the philosophical foundations of the romantic pluralist tradition in cultural anthropology. Romantic pluralists in anthropology seek to affirm (to the extent such affirmation is reasonably possible) what the philosopher John Gray describes as ‘the reality, validity and human intelligibility of values and forms of life very different from our own’. With special attention to two examples of contemporary social facts (a witchcraft tribunal in Africa and death pollution practices in a Hindu temple town), the commentary raises questions about John Searle’s approach to the mind-body problem and his account of epistemic objectivity and ontological subjectivity with regard to social facts.
  • Philosophy 1

    Philosophy 1

    Philosophy 1 PHILOSOPHY VISITING FACULTY Doing philosophy means reasoning about questions that are of basic importance to the human experience—questions like, What is a good life? What is reality? Aileen Baek How are knowledge and understanding possible? What should we believe? BA, Yonsei University; MA, Yonsei University; PHD, Yonsei University What norms should govern our societies, our relationships, and our activities? Visiting Associate Professor of Philosophy; Visiting Scholar in Philosophy Philosophers critically analyze ideas and practices that often are assumed without reflection. Wesleyan’s philosophy faculty draws on multiple traditions of Alessandra Buccella inquiry, offering a wide variety of perspectives and methods for addressing these BA, Universitagrave; degli Studi di Milano; MA, Universitagrave; degli Studi di questions. Milano; MA, Universidad de Barcelona; PHD, University of Pittsburgh Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy William Paris BA, Susquehanna University; MA, New York University; PHD, Pennsylvania State FACULTY University Stephen Angle Frank B. Weeks Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy BA, Yale University; PHD, University of Michigan Mansfield Freeman Professor of East Asian Studies; Professor of Philosophy; Director, Center for Global Studies; Professor, East Asian Studies EMERITI Lori Gruen Brian C. Fay BA, University of Colorado Boulder; PHD, University of Colorado Boulder BA, Loyola Marymount University; DPHIL, Oxford University; MA, Oxford William Griffin Professor of Philosophy; Professor
  • Reception of Externalized Knowledge a Constructivistic Model Based on Popper's Three Worlds and Searle's Collective Intentionality

    Reception of Externalized Knowledge a Constructivistic Model Based on Popper's Three Worlds and Searle's Collective Intentionality

    Reception of externalized knowledge A constructivistic model based on Popper's Three Worlds and Searle's Collective Intentionality Winfried Gödert – Klaus Lepsky April 2019 Institute of Information Science TH Köln / University of Applied Sciences Claudiusstraße 1, D-50678 Köln [email protected] [email protected] Summary We provide a model for the reception of knowledge from externalized information sources. The model is based on a cognitive understanding of information processing and draws up ideas of an exchange of information in communication processes. Karl Popper's three-world theory with its orientation on falsifiable scientific knowledge is extended by John Searle's concept of collective intentionality. This allows a consistent description of externalization and reception of knowledge including scientific knowledge as well as everyday knowledge. 1 Introduction It is generally assumed that knowledge is in people's minds and that this knowledge can be com- municated to other people as well as taken over by other people. There is also a general consensus that, in addition to direct communication, this can also be achieved by conveying knowledge through various forms of media presentation, e.g. books, and their reception. The prerequisite for this mediation is the externalization of knowledge by the knowledgeable person, e.g. by writing a book.1 For the consideration of such externalization and reception processes it seems reasonable to make the following distinction between types of knowledge: • Knowledge in one's own head for various purposes, such as problem solving or acting. • Knowledge in other people's minds. • Knowledge in externalized form, e.g.
  • “The Sixth Sense”: Towards a History of Muscular Sensation

    “The Sixth Sense”: Towards a History of Muscular Sensation

    Gesnerus 68/1 (2011) 218–71 “The Sixth Sense”: Towards a History of Muscular Sensation Roger Smith* Summary This paper outlines the history of knowledge about the muscular sense and provides a bibliographic resource for further research. A range of different topics, questions and approaches have interrelated throughout this history, and the discussion clarifies this rather than presenting detailed research in any one area. Part I relates the origin of belief in a muscular sense to empiricist accounts of the contribution of the senses to knowledge from Locke, via the idéologues and other authors, to the second half of the nine- teenth century. Analysis paid much attention to touch, first in the context of the theory of vision and then in its own right, which led to naming a distinct muscular sense. From 1800 to the present, there was much debate, the main lines of which this paper introduces, about the nature and function of what turned out to be a complex sense. A number of influential psycho-physiolo- gists, notably Alexander Bain and Herbert Spencer, thought this sense the most primitive and primary of all, the origin of knowledge of world, causa- tion and self as an active subject. Part II relates accounts of the muscular sense to the development of nervous physiology and of psychology. In the decades before 1900, the developing separation of philosophy, psychology and physiology as specialised disciplines divided up questions which earlier writers had discussed under the umbrella heading of muscular * The stimulus for writing up this paper, which I had long put off because I hoped to do some- thing more rounded, came from the participants, and especially from the organisers, Vincent Barras and Guillemette Bolens, of a project ‘L’intelligence kinesthésique et le savoir sensori- moteur: entre arts et sciences’, at a conference of World Knowledge Dialogue, ‘Interdisci- plinarity in action: a p ractical experience of interdisciplinary research’, Villars-sur-Ollon, Switzerland, 10–14 October 2010.
  • Merleau-Ponty and the Transcendental Problem of Bodily Agency

    Merleau-Ponty and the Transcendental Problem of Bodily Agency

    Merleau-Ponty and the Transcendental Problem of Bodily Agency Rasmus Thybo Jensen In Merleau-Ponty’s early works he draws attention to a problem concerning bodily agency which he presents as analogous to the problem of perception that is his primary concern. The analogy between the two problems is implicitly recognized when Merleau-Ponty in his first book The Structure of Behavior (1942) writes: Our intentions find their natural clothing or their embodiment in movements and are expressed in them as the thing is expressed in its perspectival aspects. (SC 1983, p. 188/ 1990, p. 203)1 In both cases the initial problem is to recognize the sui generis character of the intentionality that characterize the phenomena in question. For Merleau-Ponty the basic problem concerning perception consists in understanding how perception, as the occurrence in our subjective life it is, can constitute an openness to the world that confronts us with the object itself in person rather than a mere proxy which remains at a distance from reality itself. What I suggest in the following is that there exists an analogous problem concerning how we can regard the objective occur- rence of a bodily movement in the life an organism, as the bodily presence and direct intervention of a mind in the objective world rather than as a mere emissary of the mind. My aim is to flesh out this parallel problem concerning bodily agency and to show that it is in fact a problem that is more or less explicitly articulated in Merleau-Ponty’s early works exactly via an analogy to what he explicitly calls the problem of perception.
  • Having Hands, Even in the Vat: What the Semantic Argument Really Shows About Skepticism by Samuel R Burns

    Having Hands, Even in the Vat: What the Semantic Argument Really Shows About Skepticism by Samuel R Burns

    Having Hands, Even in the Vat: What the Semantic Argument Really Shows about Skepticism by Samuel R Burns A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors Department of Philosophy in The University of Michigan 2010 Advisors: Professor Gordon Belot Assistant Professor David Baker ”With relief, with humiliation, with terror, he understood that he also was an illusion, that someone else was dreaming him.” Jorge Luis Borges, “The Circular Ruins” “With your feet in the air and your head on the ground/Try this trick and spin it/ Your head will collapse/But there’s nothing in it/And you’ll ask yourself: ‘Where is my mind?’” The Pixies © Samuel R Burns 2010 To Nami ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................iv 1. The Foundation ............................................................................................1 1.1. The Causal Theory of Reference ........................................................................4 1.2. Semantic Externalism ........................................................................................11 2. The Semantic Argument ...........................................................................16 2.1. Putnam’s Argument ...........................................................................................16 2.2. The Disquotation Principle ..............................................................................19
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the Chinese Room Argument

    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the Chinese Room Argument

    5/30/2016 The Chinese Room Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Chinese Room Argument First published Fri Mar 19, 2004; substantive revision Wed Apr 9, 2014 The argument and thought­experiment now generally known as the Chinese Room Argument was first published in a paper in 1980 by American philosopher John Searle (1932­ ). It has become one of the best­known arguments in recent philosophy. Searle imagines himself alone in a room following a computer program for responding to Chinese characters slipped under the door. Searle understands nothing of Chinese, and yet, by following the program for manipulating symbols and numerals just as a computer does, he produces appropriate strings of Chinese characters that fool those outside into thinking there is a Chinese speaker in the room. The narrow conclusion of the argument is that programming a digital computer may make it appear to understand language but does not produce real understanding. Hence the “Turing Test” is inadequate. Searle argues that the thought experiment underscores the fact that computers merely use syntactic rules to manipulate symbol strings, but have no understanding of meaning or semantics. The broader conclusion of the argument is that the theory that human minds are computer­like computational or information processing systems is refuted. Instead minds must result from biological processes; computers can at best simulate these biological processes. Thus the argument has large implications for semantics, philosophy of language and mind, theories of consciousness, computer science and cognitive science generally. As a result, there have been many critical replies to the argument.
  • Philosophy of Perception As a Guide to Aesthetics

    Philosophy of Perception As a Guide to Aesthetics

    OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri Jan 31 2014, NEWGEN 5 Philosophy of Perception as a Guide to Aesthetics Bence Nanay 5.1 The Provocative Claim The aim of this paper is to argue for a provocative claim: that many, maybe even most traditional problems in aesthetics are in fact about philosophy of perception and can, as a result, be fruitfully addressed with the help of the conceptual apparatus of the philosophy of perception. I will spend much of the paper clarifying and qualifying this claim, which after all the qualifications may not sound so provocative after all. I need to clarify the following aspects of this claim: (a) What is meant by aesthetics. (b) What is meant by philosophy of perception. (c) Why should we accept that it is a promising avenue of research to consider prob- lems in aesthetics to be really about the philosophy of perception. I will take these in turn. But before we begin, it needs to be emphasized that on the face of it, the claim I make does not sound crazy, at least if we consider the etymology of the term ‘aesthetics’. The Greek word ‘aesthemi’ means perception and when Alexander Baumgarten introduced the concept of ‘aesthetics’ in 1750, what he meant by it was precisely the philosophy of perception: the study of sense perception (scientia cogni- tionis sensitivae). My claim is that, regardless of etymology, this connection can also be made today. It is important that my aim is not to argue that aesthetics should be a subdiscipline of philosophy of perception or that any approach that does not consider aesthetics to be philosophy of perception is doomed or should be considered inferior.
  • Social Ontology

    Social Ontology

    Social Ontology Brian Epstein, Tufts University “Social Ontology,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, first version published March 2018, http://plato.stanford.edu/social-ontology Social ontology is the study of the nature and properties of the social world. It is concerned with analyzing the various entities in the world that arise from social interaction. A prominent topic in social ontology is the analysis of social groups. Do social groups exist at all? If so, what sorts of entities are they, and how are they created? Is a social group distinct from the collection of people who are its members, and if so, how is it different? What sorts of properties do social groups have? Can they have beliefs or intentions? Can they perform actions? And if so, what does it take for a group to believe, intend, or act? Other entities investigated in social ontology include money, corporations, institutions, property, social classes, races, genders, artifacts, artworks, language, and law. It is difficult to delineate a precise scope for the field (see section 2.1). In general, though, the entities explored in social ontology largely overlap with those that social scientists work on. A good deal of the work in social ontology takes place within the social sciences (see sections 5.1–5.8). Social ontology also addresses more basic questions about the nature of the social world. One set of questions pertains to the constituents, or building blocks, of social things in general. For instance, some theories argue that social entities are built out of the psychological states of individual people, while others argue that they are built out of actions, and yet others that they are built out of practices.
  • Immanuel Kant: Philosophy of Perception

    Immanuel Kant: Philosophy of Perception

    Roger Williams University DOCS@RWU Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation Faculty Publications Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation 2019 Immanuel Kant: Philosophy of Perception John S. Hendrix Roger Williams University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.rwu.edu/saahp_fp Part of the Architectural History and Criticism Commons, and the Arts and Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Hendrix, John S., "Immanuel Kant: Philosophy of Perception" (2019). Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation Faculty Publications. 41. https://docs.rwu.edu/saahp_fp/41 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Immanuel Kant: Philosophy of Perception John Shannon Hendrix In an early treatise, Attempt to Introduce the Concept of Negative Magni- tudes into Philosophy (Versuch, den Begriff der negative Grössen in die Weltweisheit einzuführen, 1763), Immanuel Kant developed a theory about thoughts that are fleeting, negated or cancelled, obscured or darkened. As certain thoughts become clearer, the other thoughts become less clear and more obscured (Verdunkelt). Kant’s concept was influenced by the petites perceptions of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. He invoked Leibniz in establish- ing that only a small portion of the representations which occur in the soul, as the result of sense perception, are clear and enduring.1 Gottfried Leibniz conceived of minute perceptions of objects or ideas which have too little intensity to effect conscious thought. The minute per- ceptions contribute to ordinary perceptions, but they are so small and there are so many of them that they pass unnoticed in the consciousness connected to perception.