{"id":195,"date":"2025-10-01T23:29:52","date_gmt":"2025-10-02T06:29:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/?p=195"},"modified":"2025-10-01T23:30:17","modified_gmt":"2025-10-02T06:30:17","slug":"do-we-sense-the-world-or-does-it-sense-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/archives\/195","title":{"rendered":"Do We Sense The World\u2026 Or Does it Sense Us?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

As we navigate the world, our perception is shaped through our touch, taste, sight, sound, and smell.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But how do we understand these experiences and how does mediation play into this interaction?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the chapter Senses<\/em>, Caroline Jones explores two contrasting answers to this question. Through Friedrich Kittler and Marshall McLuhan, we can begin to understand the complexities of how our senses interpret media and the surrounding world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Starting with our first theorist, Kittler believes that our senses are radically shaped by<\/em> the media around us. His idea is fairly synonymous with ideas about technological determinism. On the opposite end of the spectrum, McLuhan insists that human senses are grounded in the body and simply extend<\/em> their reach through or using media. By dissecting these opposing ideas, Jones extends these ideas to explain how media and the senses interact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jones\u2019s main argument is that the senses are not natural or unchanging, but are always shaped and reshaped by media. As she puts it: \u201cThe senses both constitute our \u2018sense\u2019 of unmediated knowledge and are the first medium with which consciousness must contend.\u201d (p. 88) While Media delivers content to our existing senses, they actively reorganize how we experience the world through touch, taste, smell, hearing, and sight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Building on the work of the two earlier thinkers, Friedrich Kittler and Marshall McLuhan, Kittler argued that media fundamentally produce and change the senses. We see this currently when smartphones reshape our attention span and even eye movement patterns from the constant flicking and scanning our eyes do, while also restructuring how we process information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To compare, <\/strong>McLuhan argues that media are extensions of our senses. Take for instance, the telephone extends hearing, but our senses remain grounded in our body. Jones takes this further by showing that, across history, from ancient philosophy to modern capitalism, our senses have always been shaped by outside forces. For example, we have been conditioned to associate smell to the terms \u201cPine Forest\u201d and \u201cCountry Fresh\u201d to a clean, hygienic home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for vision, society has often treated sight as the most important path to truth. According to Jones, vision became privileged because philosophers, starting with Plato, saw it as the most objective sense that could reach truth from a distance. Over time, philosophy and art reinforced this by treating sight as the \u2018pure\u2019 path to knowledge, while pushing touch, taste, and smell aside as “too bodily” or “animal”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this ranking of sight above touch, smell, and taste is not natural because it\u2019s something created by media and culture. Her main point is that the media are not solely neutral tools that show us the world. Instead, they actively change our senses, reshaping what we know is true and also how we actually experience reality through our bodies. And to study media, we need to perceive senses as the very ways of shaping our sense of reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Through the course of philosophy\u2019s historical developments, we\u2019ve seen a lot of fluctuations as to what counts as knowledge and the ways in which one may truly \u201cknow\u201d something. From the philosophers of Ancient Greece – Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, who regarded philosophical reasoning as the way to gain a true sight of reality. to modern-day thinkers, most infamously Hume, who rejected the concept of \u201cuniversal laws\u201d, favouring sensory experience to understand the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Plato\u2019s Allegory of the Cave, Plato presented prisoners shackled to the walls of a cave, where the prisoners perceive the projected shadows of objects as the objects themselves, for they can not turn around, and thus, they are unaware of the illusion being carried out. In this case, the eyes are seeing, yet the prisoner is effectively blind to the truth of reality. Their \u201csenses\u201d have effectively failed to distinguish between a representation of reality, its fabrication and reality itself.\u00a0 Plato attributes this blindness to a lack of philosophical reasoning. Critiquing the dependency on the five senses to understand reality, and as a means to achieve true knowledge. He then proceeds to provide the remedy for this, in which the prisoner is required to be willing to be blinded once again, this time by the volitional blinding light of reality. Shown in the allegory as the eyes having to adjust to the bright sun after spending a whole life in the darkness of the cave.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fast-forwarding into the Enlightenment period, we have John Locke and, famously, David Hume, with his Problem of Induction, arguing that we can not know for sure that something has happened until it has happened; his idea of reality is one which can only be validated by our senses, such as the eyes or ears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hume argues that it is only a force of habit and custom that we assume to \u201cknow\u201d things. For example, we do not have all the empirical data of history and the future to accurately claim that a sound is produced when we clap our hands. Human reasoning, consequently, is argued to be a cumulative process based on data from sensory experience, and this is the primary way in which we understand the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In concluding the chapter\u2019s philosophical basis, Jones\u2019 main idea that \u201cour senses are not fixed\u201d is strongly reinforced by a modern thinker, Karl Marx and his argument that the way our senses interact with technology and political economies form us as humans. This idea of technological determinism claims our senses are formed externally by the historical development of the world rather than internally within ourselves. Our senses are in a constant state of change and adaptation, in relation to our experience of the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taking a step back to Hume, which considers media as a tool for gathering or promoting information for the senses, and is not only \u201cthe bridge in the middle\u201d but also something that shapes and influences how people use and reconsider their senses and the world experienced through them. Media not only \u201coutputs\u201d, but also \u201cinputs\u201d through our senses. The chapter shifts our understanding of media as solely information we consume but also the force that transforms our human senses that we use to experience the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the media shapes people’s perception of reality and the way we interpret our own senses, the media itself is also ever changing and replaced by new inventions and technologies. Our senses, when mediated, shift with it, and so does our conversation with the world around us. In such a context, the ability to independently think while understanding how our senses interact with media is the key of guiding us out of the cave.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maxine Gray, Betty Liao, Nam Pham, Aubrey Ventura<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As we navigate the world, our perception is shaped through our touch, taste, sight, sound, and smell. But how do we understand these experiences and how does mediation play into this interaction? In the chapter Senses, Caroline Jones explores two contrasting answers to this question. Through Friedrich Kittler and Marshall McLuhan, we can begin to … Continue reading Do We Sense The World\u2026 Or Does it Sense Us?<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":103705,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[7,42,8,44,41,43,31],"class_list":["post-195","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-critical-concept-explication","tag-mass-media","tag-mcluhan","tag-media-theory","tag-platos-allegory-of-the-cave","tag-senses","tag-sight","tag-technological-reliance"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/103705"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=195"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":203,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195\/revisions\/203"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}