Reality vs Perception of Reality (A Philosophical View)
Reality is what actually is; Perception is what we think it is.
To that end, we cannot know reality. We can, however, become more refined and objective in our perceptions through learning, awareness and re-evaluation, etc.. Thus we (sometimes unwittingly) gain the opportunity to diminish the gap between perception and reality.
People often take a self-centric approach which gives more credence to our ability to know reality through thoughts and senses than humans deserve.
While we may agree on shared understandings (agreeing it is an apple, for example), and have the capability of reaching a general hypothesis with which to work from (it is a green, edible fruit, from a tree, etc.): Ultimately, we are limited by our senses and fallible minds which interpret them.
When we see the apple, we may believe it to be snapshots of reality.
More correctly, however, we only think we see what we've learned to understand as being partially-reflected light from a collection of molecules we've remembered to identify as "apple" actively subjected to what we understand to be the laws of physics. We will still have not necessarily gained a sliver of the reality of it; merely one perspective of a tiny morsel of the measureable worldly interactions on it (sunlight, heat, air.. in themselves more common finite interpretations).
Our memory, education, and other senses, such as touch, will seem to support that interpretated finite thought. It does not mean we are able to grasp the reality of it, merely that we roughly agree on a commonality to work from in order to facilitate a workable intelligent thought we can communicate and act on.
If we, as humans, were universally blind, we'd still have the capability of reaching a common understanding of what constitutes an apple. However, we'd be lacking visual interpretations, and thus have less assumed data to comprehend.
So take that, and go a level (or a billion) beyond our present senses and assumptions and we can begin to understand one aspect of our limitations in interpreting that 'apple', and thus our inability to comprehend the reality of it, let alone the all-encompassing 'reality' of everything into a workable thought.
Just because we can't know reality, doesn't mean we should stop learning, or working with useful tools of understanding.
Rather, that in comprehending some of our limitations, we can seek to understand ourselves better, and perhaps, try to overcome some of those limitations or at least take them into account where applicable.
To that end, we cannot know reality. We can, however, become more refined and objective in our perceptions through learning, awareness and re-evaluation, etc.. Thus we (sometimes unwittingly) gain the opportunity to diminish the gap between perception and reality.
People often take a self-centric approach which gives more credence to our ability to know reality through thoughts and senses than humans deserve.
While we may agree on shared understandings (agreeing it is an apple, for example), and have the capability of reaching a general hypothesis with which to work from (it is a green, edible fruit, from a tree, etc.): Ultimately, we are limited by our senses and fallible minds which interpret them.
When we see the apple, we may believe it to be snapshots of reality.
More correctly, however, we only think we see what we've learned to understand as being partially-reflected light from a collection of molecules we've remembered to identify as "apple" actively subjected to what we understand to be the laws of physics. We will still have not necessarily gained a sliver of the reality of it; merely one perspective of a tiny morsel of the measureable worldly interactions on it (sunlight, heat, air.. in themselves more common finite interpretations).
Our memory, education, and other senses, such as touch, will seem to support that interpretated finite thought. It does not mean we are able to grasp the reality of it, merely that we roughly agree on a commonality to work from in order to facilitate a workable intelligent thought we can communicate and act on.
If we, as humans, were universally blind, we'd still have the capability of reaching a common understanding of what constitutes an apple. However, we'd be lacking visual interpretations, and thus have less assumed data to comprehend.
So take that, and go a level (or a billion) beyond our present senses and assumptions and we can begin to understand one aspect of our limitations in interpreting that 'apple', and thus our inability to comprehend the reality of it, let alone the all-encompassing 'reality' of everything into a workable thought.
Just because we can't know reality, doesn't mean we should stop learning, or working with useful tools of understanding.
Rather, that in comprehending some of our limitations, we can seek to understand ourselves better, and perhaps, try to overcome some of those limitations or at least take them into account where applicable.
posted by Flackrum | 02:29
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home