'we See and Understand Things Not As They Are But As We Are.
Posted: Tuesday, April 12, 2011
by Aaratrika
“We see and understand things not as they are but as we are” This claim shows the great influence of our beliefs and experiences on our view of the world. This is because our beliefs and experiences, the things that make us who we are, are an influence on our ways of knowing. Since our ways of knowing are the ways that form our views and understanding of the world our beliefs and experience indirectly affect our view and understanding. Emotion and Sense perception, in particular, are greatly effected.
The typical description of a nice day outside includes lush green grass and clear blue sky. Everyone can relate to it, we see the colour, we can smell the scents and we can feel the texture. Yet do we see colour and smell the scents? Or does colour and scent exist in the world and all we as humans do is simply comprehend them? Is the day really a nice day? Or are we just in a good mood resulting in the day being nice? Seeing and understanding things as they are, can be completely different according to the way we are. A chair for example when we look at it is brown, wooden and shiny. When we feel it, it is hard, smooth and comfortable to sit on. We see it as a chair, yet a chair is actually particles upon which light reflects that we through our senses, interpret the way we do.
Science has been called a human endeavor because humans have always tried to discover and learn more about the natural and outside world. But people understand things the way they see it, which may not always be accurate in understanding the actual nature of it. Through perception, subjectivity can play a part by giving people different viewpoints and therefore making them perceive something that way. And language can also help determine the grasp on a subject because it can be manipulated in many ways. As people try harder to understand ideas, patterns form and things start to be more understood by how humans see it and less by what it actually is.
This concept, “We see and understand things not as they are but as we are,” is very easy to support in literature. One example is that of comes to the scene in “Tom Sawyer”(source: literature.com) when Tom has to whitewash the fence. He understands this to be interference in his day’s plans. He turns this “punishment,” into a chance for the other boys in the neighborhood to have some fun as he acts like he is enjoying himself. Because of the perspective of the other boys, they want to white wash the fence too. Tom knows from his perspective what is happening, and the boys who end up doing the work see the situation from their perspective.
Another example is from the novel “The Fountainhead” by Ayn Rand. Roark, the protagonist is a self-made man yet he is held down by society because he is deemed too selfish. From his view he is strong, independent and has great integrity because he won’t bow to altruism, but from others he is ridiculed because he won’t bow to altruism. Sacrifice of self is held in high esteem in some societies while self reliance is honored in others.
Imagine a "polar bear" for example, which anyone may see in the wild, in a zoo, or in those old "Coca Cola" commercials, as a seen and "understood" thing.
Consider a wild life biologist's "seeing and understanding" of a polar bear, an experienced eskimo hunter's "seeing and understanding" of a polar bear and a wild life tourist's "seeing and understanding" of a polar bear after a polar bear has killed and eaten one of her fellow "wildlife tourists", in her visual field?
Could they all, possibly "see and understand" polar bears in the same way? Wouldn't the "seeing and understanding" of the hapless wildlife tourist, be more emotional than either perceptual, rational or linguistic?
Say that the wildlife biologist has most of his experience with animals in Africa or in the everglades of Florida? Would his "seeing and understanding" of polar bears be more "linguistic" and "reasonable" than either perceptual or emotional?
Finally "the eskimo hunter", who has actually and successfully hunted such animals and also rationally understands that these animals are as much "hunting him" as he is "hunting" them, since polar bears have successfully hunted some of his acquaintances or even his own friends or relatives?
By going through such a list, we might, at first, be tempted to say that all are 3 kinds of "seers and understanders" see and understand polar bears not as they are, but as are?
But, Doesn't the eskimo hunter see and actually understand the "polar bear" in all the ways of the other "partial understanders", in that he knows and understands the polar bear as "killer of those he knows" (perceptually, rationally and emotionally) and "killed by him" (perceptually, rationally and emotionally) perceptually, in all the ways a hunter perceives a bear (by tracks, spoor and behaviour), linguistically, in his own native language, which is probably more "rich" in talk about polar bears than any other persons' languages and, arguably, even "spiritually" if he understands polar bears, according to the legends and myths of "tribal elders" --- such as a "Great Spirit's" provider of warm pelts, sinews and bones (for making snow shoes), food (for eating) and bear grease for ointments and eskimo lamp .
It is still a "they are" and "we are" seeing and understanding. But isn't the eskimo hunter's "seeing and understanding" much richer and deeper because both his "life" (if he is successful) and his "death" (if a bear wins) are so closely intertwined with the lives and the deaths of those polar bears who were hunting him just as he was hunting them? Isn't his "seeing and understanding" of polar bears much more objective and profound than that of people who really do not know polar bears as he knows them, since their ways of knowing ( time perception and emotion, linguistic and theoretical) do not really involve multiple experiences with actual polar bears?
For a greater understanding of this concept we should consider this statement “The needs of the many out way the need of the few”(source : Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan). Assuming that you believe people to be equal this statement is logical. The combined needs of a large number of people must be larger than the needs of a smaller amount of people. Now consider this idea “that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (source: John 11:49-50).If you accept the logic of the first sentence then this situation is also logical. The needs of the many, or the nation to live should out way the needs of the few or in this cases the one to live. However a dilemma occurs when we look at this situation using our emotion rather than our reason. Our emotion cause us to believe that people needs no matter how few should not be ignored and that the majority should not always have its way. Also it causes us to ask in the case of the second quote “How should this person be chosen and who is this “man”" because who ever is chosen to die is being sentenced to death. It also causes us to question whether or not every body’s needs should be considered “equal”.” What if the “few” was a few innocent children and the many were old serial killers? “The way that you answer these questions can greatly affected by our emotions and beliefs. If we view life scared then we may greatly frown upon sentencing somebody to death. If we believe that the elders should sacrifice themselves to protect the young then the old serial killers should die not the child. If we believe that the innocent and pure are more important then those who have sinned then you could consider the child’s life to be more important than those of the two serial killers. If we do not hold these views however we many consider the opposites to be true. Therefore, we can see our emotions and beliefs have a great influence on how we view each of the elements involved.
This Article has been viewed 603 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)cool
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.