jump to navigation

Tasteless Philosophy November 21, 2011

Posted by Dwight and Lynn Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, Philosophy.
Tags: , ,
trackback

Despite being preoccupied with analyzing sensory experience, philosophers have ignored taste, smell, and touch, focusing instead on vision (and to a degree sound) as the most important sense.

Hans Jonas’s “The Nobility of Sight” is a representative example. Only vision, he argued, points us in the direction of the eternal, universal truths, which have been philosophy’s concern throughout most of its history. Vision puts us in mind of the eternal because time is not essential to its functioning. When we view a landscape we see the visual field displayed all at once, in no time; and an object can be visually identified immediately without a sequence of appearances over time, in contrast to sound, touch, or taste that need time to reveal the character of their objects. And visual objects have stability. We can view an object, look away, and then return to the very same object as if nothing has changed unlike the fleeting, ever-changing objects of taste, smell, and sound.

Furthermore, Jonas argues, with vision we can see things better if we maintain a distance from them. Touch, smell, and taste require that we be intimate with the object thus increasing the chances of personal bias might influence our understanding of it.

Despite their illustrious pedigree, these are very bad arguments. We learn nothing of the eternal through vision, or any other sensory mechanism, and vision without the opportunity for subsequent confirmation, in time, would be the source of constant error. Furthermore, our sense of the stability of objects is as dependent on the sense of touch as on vision. The stability of our visual field is dependant on the body’s orientation is space, which is maintained, in part, by our tactile contact with solid objects.

As to the alleged objectifying distance of vision, science shows that vision involves intimate contact with physical objects–swarms of photons. And we seem just as capable of misinterpreting those photons as we are the signals from taste buds. Recent psychological research is demonstrating the unreliability of eye-witness testimony. If anything introduces subjective bias into perceptual judgments it is the fact that objects are often seen at a distance or under conditions otherwise unsuitable for reliable identification. Apparently seeing is misbelieving.

At best, vision’s distance and the illusion of simultaneity allow us to spin metaphors about the eternal and universal. But misleading metaphors are bad metaphors.

There is an important contrast between vision and the other senses however. Through vision we do gain a sense of an horizon, an area beyond our present space. This is surely important for the development of our imagination.

By contrast, sound, touch, taste, and smell root us in the here and now. Objects must be spatially and temporally present for them to effect these sensory modalities. But why should experience rooted in the here and now be uninteresting to philosophy?

If taste is philosophically uninteresting, perhaps it is because philosophers lack taste.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Paul J. Moloney - November 26, 2011

Time is essential to vision if all we see is in time and therefore measured by time. Even if a landscape were presented at once, it takes time to visually focus on the whole landscape. Also, because of the limitation of vision we cannot see that it has taken time to display something at once. The landscape did not come about at once, although in a manner of speaking we say we see it at once. Also, sight has to do with particulars rather than with universals. We can say that Plato saw this particular person Socrates, but we cannot say that Plato ever saw the universal person. On the other hand, seeing can put us into contact with the eternal if the universe is eternal.

Sight might be a greater source of personal bias than the other senses. It is through sight that the desire to touch sexually can be aroused. Things can look good before they taste good. Our desire to taste can also be aroused by what we see to eat.

The thing seen is just as stable or unstable as the thing heard if the thing heard and seen is the same thing. The bell heard is just as stable as the bell seen.

Philosophy begins in the here and now, so anyone who has no taste for the here and now will never begin to philosophize. These are the people who have no taste for philosophy. Those who live only for money say that those who do philosophy are out of touch with the here and now. Those who live only for money live for a future that never comes. They are out of touch with the future because they do not confront the questions concerning the the here and now, which means they put themselves out of touch with the here and now.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: