A perception is always a generalization. It lifts the object, whether in material or moral nature, into a type. The animal, the low degrees of intellect, know only individuals. The philosopher knows only laws.
A perception is always a generalization. It lifts the object, whether in material or moral nature, into a type. The animal, the low degrees of intellect, know only individuals. The philosopher knows only laws.
We should not seek for this definition of perception in a textbook or a dictionary. It is Emerson’s own. In perception we “see” an object. We combine a sensory stimulus and thought so that the object becomes less inert and more real. This is what Emerson means by perception.
All people make this combination. We would not recognize that oddly rectangular object with “leaves” as a book if we did not. The recognition of the object creates the object in our experience. It did not exist for us as that object before we recognized it. — Think of a time when you could not identify something; a vaguely distinguishable object low in the sky, perhaps. It only became the moon seen through clouds when you linked this concept with what your senses revealed. It could have been, and was, anything. Perhaps you played a guessing game with yourself before your “saw” it: water tower, plane, flying saucer (!) — For the man or woman who values their intellect, for the philosopher, these links are rich with meaning. They lift the object from its mundane relations to those that have universal importance.
This page is the commentary on Page 33