Which philosopher first articulated the fact that every human being perceives reality differently?

Which philosopher first articulated the fact that every human being perceives reality differently?
Are there any works concerning this idea?

Attached: 49F88DCB-4543-4D76-9F2E-6D528A70A351.jpg (402x275, 14K)

Yeah it’s called postmodernism

I know that but they took it to it’s logical extremes. It’s not exactly a unique idea, and anyone who spends some time thinking about life is going to reach that conclusion. In a way it’s kind of paradoxical I guess. I’m just looking for the first person to write this down on paper

I guess it was Leibniz with his monadic view of reality. I should go after his works again, but from what I remember, Monads are points of perspective within reality itself - every with its own reach.

Plato attacks the view, as he sees articulated by Protagoras, in Sophist. Dunno if Protagoras has any extant works

If you take your dumb question at surface level, it was probably some unknown early hominid adolescent. If you follow that 'fact' to its full nominalist implications, it is probably a gross bastard of Ockham's nominalism and Cartesian dualism.
Actually every human, animal, lifeform, and mind of every habit of organization down to the quantum level(in other words every sign) experiences reality in exactly the same way. perception differs because reality can not be viewed from the same vantage. Different aspects of the same reality are interpreted in the same way. Someone sees the trees and another sees the forest, both are perceiving the same thing in the same way.

Attached: cs-peirce.jpg (1325x1532, 744K)

It wasn’t a philosopher it was a cat who had a hat

Despite you unnecessarily insulting me I thank you for articulating what I was thinking better than I could.
I don’t think what we are talking about is really postmodernism since as far as I understand the French postmodernists would say that the trees in your tree/forest example don’t really exist.
I will look up Ockham. Thanks user

Attached: no they are NOT both right.jpg (884x1024, 109K)

I wouldn't say they are the first ones, or that they directly address your question, but Husserl and phenomenology deals with the subject and his perceptions of things. This is from a very cursory, hazy knowledge of what that school of thought is about. Maybe they can give you a lead?

literally the presocratics; everyone knew this

t. STEMfag

>French postmodernists would say that the trees in your tree/forest example don’t really exist.
I'm not sure if they would, postmodernism is about denies grand narratives, I don't think that necessarily means that they deny the reality of universals. Ockham would definitely say that the trees and forest do not really exist, he would maintain that their existence is nominal, a mere designation.
What I articulated is the Peirceian view, who is an ultra-scotist realist, fundementally opposed to nominalism, and Cartesianism. The reason I insulted you in fair jest, is because the way you asked the question and the image posted implied that perceptions are nominal and the perceiving thing(res cogitans) is separate from the thing perceived (Res extensa). I am vehemently oppose that. Read Peirce for the realism I articulated, and Duns Scotus rather than Ockham for it's medieval origins.

Imagine if you will, such a simple idea as subjective experience of reality flew over the heads of supposedly "geniuses" for centuries. The answer was right there in front of them the whole time, but they insisted on complicating it.

Based pragmatist. Just remembered that although only one can be correct, neither of them are necessarily correct and both conclusions are fallible.

Attached: insert-3925465.jpg (800x513, 50K)

Your point is invalid in anything that involves social realities such as the discourses on certain identities of things, people, events etc, but in autistic stem reality, you are right. Stem never manages to describe any social phenomena and its nots it purpose either.

Cringe. An epistemologist that doesn't practice science is like a pianist that studies music theory but doesn't play piano.

cringe and irrelevant comparison, not the fag you responded to

The point is that you can not be an epistemologist if you can't into wissenschaft, and in particular if you can't into empiricism you are a pussy shit dilettante.
Ffs tell me you are the next retard I am replying to. I can only handle so many idiots at once.
>Your point is invalid in anything that involves social realities such as the discourses on certain identities of things, people, events etc
What do you mean by this vague nonsense? care to give an example? I'm confident in it's validity given this qualifier>but in autistic stem reality, you are right. Stem never manages to describe any social phenomena and its nots it purpose either.
First of all, saying something like "Stem reality and social reality", or using bureaucratic administration jargon like the 'STEM' acronym to describe anything beyond school curriculum or enrolement statistics immediately betrays you as an unredeemable retard. Now please tell me how "stem" never manages to describe social phenomena, and enlighten us to its purpose.

Youre too dense

If you can't be exact in communicating what you intend to communicate, practically, you mean nothing.

all meaning is interpreted, it has no ontological reality

As an user said above, probably some prehistory dude. For the first recorded, my guess would be Protagoras, as Plato often references his "man is the measure of all things" principle when referring to subjectivity.

Based user providing me with more detail than I even knew existed. I have some reading to do

Read the presocratics and then Plato. Most of the ideas we struggle with today are as old as philosophy itself.

A big factor in ignoring the obvious is due to the insistence that things-in-themselves or substance is the foundation of existence. This is exactly similar to describing motion from the perspective of motionlessness, which is a good description of the Cartesian-Newtonian world. Compounding the problem is that this perspective is incredibly useful for some things, and was good enough for the required calculations to get us to the moon; it isn't completely false, but isn't universally applicable (as modern physics discovered.)

Read Murasakiiro no Qualia.

Heraclitus, and anacharsus the scythian before him