For instance, but not limited to: without historical, socio-cultural context of perception. So that we could say “’the world’ is not simply indisputably 'out there' but is to some extent constructed in the process of perception; that reality is to some extant created either from the existing, or from the imagination.” :)

I think reality has a lot to do with perception whether imaginary or real.
Are you asking in the context of existing in a void?
Without the historical,socio-cultural context there would be very little left:)

I think reality has a lot to do with perception whether imaginary or real.
Are you asking in the context of existing in a void?
Without the historical,socio-cultural context there would be very little left:)
Hi FB

What I am wondering in other words is, whether a meaning in a group of propositions has some 'essential' or intrinsic nature that is not in relation to a historical, socio-cultural context of perception or personal context.

For instance, I know what makes a boat a boat and not a floating island because of my personal experience, but someone who lacked historical or personal experience could conceivably believe the boat was indeed a floating island. :)

You do have a point there.

As sometimes what we think we see and what is reality changes when we have some knowledge of what we are seeing.

For instance, like the three blind men describing an elephant (have you heard of this one?).One is holding the leg and the other a trunk and the third if I remember right was holding the tail.So you can imagine how each one would describe the elephant.

They did not have the right knowledge or perception of really seeing to know an elephant from another animal.

I think we could say we would be a little blind without our socia-cultural and historical influence.

I wish someone else could contribute a philosophical thought to this thread.
I would love to hear some more views on this topic.:)

Have you ever heard of Mike May? He is a man that was blind for forty years. Then underwent a new procedure using stem cells that regained his sight. There is a book titled Crashing Through about his experience. After regaining his sight he found it hard to interpret what he saw. For instance stairs looked just like a bunch of vertical lines. He had a hard time knowing what gender people were. Looking in a mirror was very difficult for him. He got around a lot better with out sight. It would seem to him, seeing wasn't necessarily believing.

Have you ever heard of Mike May? He is a man that was blind for forty years. Then underwent a new procedure using stem cells that regained his sight. There is a book titled Crashing Through about his experience. After regaining his sight he found it hard to interpret what he saw. for instance stairs looked just like a bunch of vertical lines. He had a hard time knowing what gender people were. Looking in a mirror was very difficult for him. He got around a lot better with out sight. It would seem to him, seeing wasn't necessarily believing.
Interestingly enough Robert Kurson did a study and found only 20 people in history in which a person gained vision after a lifetime or near lifetime of blindness.
The example, I believe, of Mike May goes to show how mediated our experience of the world is.
Sight apparently dominates the way we 'see' the world; even dominating our descriptive vocabulary.
Aristotle had it wrong it appears when he said, “'Of all the senses, trust only the sense of sight,’ as Philosophy has since. Even today most people seem to privilege sight for truth. We are the ‘meaning makers.’ We seem to make meaning of everything we come in contact with.

Interestingly enough Robert Kurson did a study and found only 20 people in history in which a person gained vision after a lifetime or near lifetime of blindness.
The example, I believe, of Mike May goes to show how mediated our experience of the world is.
Sight apparently dominates the way we 'see' the world; even dominating our descriptive vocabulary.
Aristotle had it wrong it appears when he said, “'Of all the senses, trust only the sense of sight,' as Philosophy has since. Even today most people seem to privilege sight for truth. We are the 'meaning makers.' We seem to make meaning of everything we come in contact with.

Does truth have to be tangible?

Does truth have to be tangible?

We have looked at perception from the viewpoint that observation; that ‘seeing’ is not a reliable test of truth. However, in the terms of science ‘observation’ included the identical tests that can be repeated time and time again by different individuals.

It is in that sense of the word ‘observation’ that I suggest that what you are asking is:
Does truth derive from observation or ideology?

Which of course is a philosophical question and reflects a core issue that divides America politically and that fuels much media criticism today.

One obvious way that this particular question plays out in the United States is in skirmishes between certain religious faiths and science.

We have looked at perception from the viewpoint that observation; that 'seeing' is not a reliable test of truth. However, in the terms of science 'observation' included the identical tests that can be repeated time and time again by different individuals.

It is in that sense of the word 'observation' that I suggest that what you are asking is:
Does truth derive from observation or ideology?

Which of course is a philosophical question and reflects a core issue that divides America politically and that fuels much media criticism today.

One obvious way that this particular question plays out in the United States is in skirmishes between certain religious faiths and science.

Science and religion always have skirmishes except for myself;)

I find my faith goes along well with science, unless we are talking about "non-tangible"(if there is such a word)things like after death and souls and an Almighty being.
Then the debate is ongoing.:rolleyes:

For me truth consists of both in observation and ideology(my ideology I believe is the TRUTH).

About Americans, I can only talk about what I hear /read about America.

For instance, but not limited to: without historical, socio-cultural context of perception. So that we could say “’the world’ is not simply indisputably 'out there' but is to some extent constructed in the process of perception; that reality is to some extant created either from the existing, or from the imagination.” :)
I think reality is simply a matter of perception AND perspective. What tools you have on hand can either change the way you perceive it or make it fit what you think you perceive.

For instance, but not limited to: without historical, socio-cultural context of perception. So that we could say “’the world’ is not simply indisputably 'out there' but is to some extent constructed in the process of perception; that reality is to some extant created either from the existing, or from the imagination.” :)
Does meaning exist without context? Take context out of meaning and what do you have? Man... a whole lotta BS.