Reaction Paper

I choose to discuss and react on this article, Perception. Honestly, it is very hard for me to discuss and to give thought on something that I am not familiar with. Not only because of that, I also have weakness in understanding on things and to write it back in my very own words. But, I still have to force myself to do it; otherwise, I will remain ignorance forever.

Based on the article, the author states that most of our knowledge made through our senses. But not all of it is true because what we perceived sometime can be deceived. But that is not a main problem, because we can always know when our senses are not to be trusted. The main concerned is the perceptual experience (error) resulted from argument of the illusion. From this, the idea or concept that related with the argument of the illusion is indirect realism. Through indirect realism, we can interpret the world using indirect experience. In other words, we only experience how the world appears to us but not how the world really is. Using this as a foundation, we then can assume or guess how the world really is; because direct experience of the world is something that cannot be done. This is different with the realism concept that believes there is objective world out there, that rely directly on our experience through it. The author also added that there is other concept called idealism which supports the idea that the world is build up by appearances and does not expand beyond it or there is no external world. Besides that, there is another concept that the author highlighted; the transcendental idealism. This concept claimed that if we unable to experience the knowledge of the external world, we can depend on the reasons to show that there must be an external world that gives something to our experiences.

During my summarization process, I am trying to get a better understandings regarding on what the author trying to deliver. I am a little confused about the on how peoples view the worlds. Is it the way people thinking or viewing the world can be divided into these four concepts? If so, how we are going to know which one is a better way? Or we will never know it since we 'thought' our way to view it is already okay. I am also wondering why the author keeps saying about this and that 'external' world? Is the 'internal' world does not exist? If it does not exist, why the author keeps using the 'external' word?

Through the article, the author mentioned that our knowledge made by the perception through our senses and what we perceived sometime can be deceived. But we do not have to worry about that because we can always know when our senses are not to be trusted. If we can detect there is something wrong with our senses, how is the perceptual error can become a matter? This is really confusing for me to understand. Talking about the indirect realism, is it true that peoples can view something just by assuming? If

...