The question in question:
“If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound.”
The answer of course, is all based on how you define the word sound.
But what I want to know is info. on the origin of the question. Who first started asking this and when?
Serious answers only, please.
Thanks,
Lowlyservant
Like “What is the sound of one hand clapping,” this question is a koan, which Webster’s Dictionary says is a paradox to be meditated upon that is used to train Zen Buddhist monks to abandon ultimate dependance upon reason and to force them into gaining suden intuitive enlightenment.
Of course, if you’d like to disregard philosophy for a moment and look at it as a purely scientific question, then yes, it does make a sound.
Bear in mind, it does not make any noise.
I’m defining “sound” as the disruption which creates sound waves, “noise” as our interpretation of sound waves on a litening device (ear, tape recorder, etc.)
My definitions might not be entirely Websterian, but I’ve always found them sufficient.
:o
I guess I should’ve read the question before responding.
It just goes to show, despite my astounding knowledge of answers to all questions philosophical, metaphysical and metaphoric great and small, give me something literal and I make a fool of myself every damn time.
The site
[Quote-Unquote]
(http://www1c.btwebworld.com/quote-unquote/p0000046.htm) is also looking for the first use but gives some suggestions in the meanwhile…
"Q182 ‘If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, it makes no sound’ - Bishop Berkeley, Kant, Descartes? But a precise citation, please. "
well, thats sorta true. Yes, you’re supposed to meditate on the koan and find an answer for yourself. But there IS a clear and obvious answer.
In the book “Lost Japan” by Alex Kerr (one of my favorite books) he describes how one of his friends, a zen priest, used to tease him by telling him there was an easy answer to the question. So he got the priest really drunk one night, and then grilled him until he gave the answer. And then, frustratingly, he does NOT give the answer in his book.
I myself don’t believe in Zen, I belong to a different buddhist sect, but I meditated long and hard on this question once I heard Kerr’s tale. I don’t think I have the answer, because the answer is supposed to be so obvious that you KNOW when you have the right answer. Maybe its TOO obvious. So here are my possible answers.
The sound of one hand clapping is:
Nope, I don’t think I’ve got it yet. Someone SURELY knows the answer and is willing to tell. IIRC, Kerr said that just hearing the answer is about as good as having reached the answer on your own accord.
The proper response to the question is for the apprentice (or what ever it’s called 
) to hold out his hand to the master. Or that’s what I’ve heard.
Close, it is to thrust your palm out vigorously. There is a book, something like “101 Zen koans, with answers”- I love that sort of stuff. 
“Does a Dog have Zen nature?”
Cecil’s column:
Some sources I’ve read said the OP question {“If a tree…”) was suggested by Bishop Berkeley’s works, although he did not actually quote it directly. From A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710): “But, say you, surely there is nothing easier than for me to imagine trees, for instance, in a park, or books existing in a closet, and nobody by to perceive them…[and later]…The objects of sense exist only when they are perceived; the trees therefore are in the garden, or the chairs in the parlour, no longer than while there is somebody by to perceive them.”
My guess would be a later (or contemporary) critic of Berkeley came up with the question as a quick summary of his ideas on reality.
You are all really missing the point of a koan. There isn’t an answer; at least, not in the western philosophy of black/white distinction. The point of a koan is not to keep an aspiring buddhist in the dark. It is not a philosophical practical joke.
A koan is meant to be considered. That’s it. There is no hidden “right” answer to any of them. And any book that claims to have some smart ass answer to “101 Zen Koans” is a perfect example of why western culture cheapens everything it touches.
Zen is about becoming one with the cosmos, not nitpicking over answers to obscure riddles.
The Berkeley angle sounds pretty good, especially if you combine it with his ideas on sound, as explained in the First Dialogue (between Hylas and Philonous) –
Phil : Then as to sounds, what must we think of them: are they accidents really inherent in external bodies, or not?
… Phil. continues in Socratic fashion, and elicits :
Hylas : I tell you, as perceived by us, it is a particular sensation in the mind.
… although Hylas wants to keep both types of sound, that which is heard, and the “philosophical” motion of air type.
To serve Berkeley’s ends, then, Philonous declares :
Phil : … to say that real sounds are never heard, and that the idea of them is obtained by some other sense.
Of course, since he wasn’t the one to actually formulate the question, the above discussion is immaterial.
panama jack
I’ve always hated the question “if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”
When taken literally, it’s annoyingly anthropocentric. I can’t think of a single forest where there aren’t any animals. Unless I’m making false assumptions, the word “nobody” in that sentence means “no humans.” At least, that’s the way it’s typically used. If a tree fell in a forest, many animals would hear the sound.
Here’s an alternative to the question: “If a tree had fallen late in the night at that party I was at in June of '95 when everybody was in a near-death alcohol induced coma, would it have made a sound?”
It’s still not perfect, but it’s better. 