You know I keep hearing and even saying that real world does not work that but then how does the real world work? I am not sure if this is true or not but I find that it is almost relative to a person's experience as well as their individual perceptions of their surroundings. If that is the case then how does the real world work or should I say how does your world work? Why does have to be one world and not just six billion perceptions of it?
The Real World
- Thread starter Guernsey
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Good starting point. You see the problem; in the end, reality is defined by how we see it from our own eyes. In other words, it's the perception of reality that is itself reality in our minds. So how do we know if it's a true reflection of reality? Or does it matter at all? Is all that matters the perception itself?
Now what's the solution? There's already been a lot of discussion about this issue. If you're religious, you can take faith to what a divine entity says about the world. Then your own perception inaccuracies don't matter since the text is the truth. (Obviously this is a very curt analysis, but the technical justification of religion is not the point of this post). Or you can make do like a Zen Buddhist and get around this problem by eliminating your own perception. Zen Buddhists believe that our own desires and limited capacity for reasoning cloud the true reality of things. So they have methods of getting past all this to allow a person to reach "satori" (i.e., enlightenment) where the individual will be able to see the actual truth of the world. Or you can be like the man of reasoning. Since perception itself is dependent upon the individual's own knowledge of the world, only through a course of rigorous education and learning will your perception readily be uninhibited by ignorance and allow the individual to understand the real world. (Naturally this is just a limited scope of the value of knowledge in Western philosophy.) And people have said a whole mess of other stuff.
But for me personally, I'm a bit biased towards the side of the pursuit of knowledge. What good is your perception of the reality when your conclusion (or method of analysis itself) is undermined by ignorance? Through a greater pursuit of learning, not only will your own perception change, but will likely evolve into something more substantial. So in this stance, a view of the "real world" should never become static. Because your own perception of it should always be sharpening as time goes on.
That was a pretty roundabout answer, but it's generally the "means" of how I'd approach this answer rather than my actual "answer." Sorry, lol. But always be cautious when a person says something with absolute confidence...especially when it pertains to something as ambiguous as the "real world." I'd hardly take that as a good signal that the person has actually considered the subject matter to its full extent from all angles.
Now what's the solution? There's already been a lot of discussion about this issue. If you're religious, you can take faith to what a divine entity says about the world. Then your own perception inaccuracies don't matter since the text is the truth. (Obviously this is a very curt analysis, but the technical justification of religion is not the point of this post). Or you can make do like a Zen Buddhist and get around this problem by eliminating your own perception. Zen Buddhists believe that our own desires and limited capacity for reasoning cloud the true reality of things. So they have methods of getting past all this to allow a person to reach "satori" (i.e., enlightenment) where the individual will be able to see the actual truth of the world. Or you can be like the man of reasoning. Since perception itself is dependent upon the individual's own knowledge of the world, only through a course of rigorous education and learning will your perception readily be uninhibited by ignorance and allow the individual to understand the real world. (Naturally this is just a limited scope of the value of knowledge in Western philosophy.) And people have said a whole mess of other stuff.
But for me personally, I'm a bit biased towards the side of the pursuit of knowledge. What good is your perception of the reality when your conclusion (or method of analysis itself) is undermined by ignorance? Through a greater pursuit of learning, not only will your own perception change, but will likely evolve into something more substantial. So in this stance, a view of the "real world" should never become static. Because your own perception of it should always be sharpening as time goes on.
That was a pretty roundabout answer, but it's generally the "means" of how I'd approach this answer rather than my actual "answer." Sorry, lol. But always be cautious when a person says something with absolute confidence...especially when it pertains to something as ambiguous as the "real world." I'd hardly take that as a good signal that the person has actually considered the subject matter to its full extent from all angles.