Realityand perception are things that exist and can be viewed in many ways. Manyphilosophers have their own theories about reality and existence. In thisdiscussion we will look at the theories of Descartes, Locke, Berkeley and Humeand their views on what reality is. We will look at what perception means toreality and how everyone’s view on reality is different. As we question whatreality may be, we take in more about ourselves and our view of life. We start to address ourselves and wegradually realize what reality intends to us as people. All of us haveconfidence in there being one reality which is free from all sentiments.Something that simply is.
Something which is valid; undisputable. We see thisreality to be something which we can’t change in any capacity. The interestingaspect is this reality may not by any means exist. The reason we think on oneunmistakable truth is that we just observe our side of the story.
Clearly,there must be one reality which is valid and undisputable. Consistently weconfide in our faculties to disclose to us reality. We accept what we see, notice, touch, hear,and taste. However, do we ever addresswhether our faculties are misleading us? Do we ever stop to assess whether our faculties are being controlled? Ifby chance we could question if our senses reveal to us reality; how would weknow what truly exists? An individual’s judgement is totally their own. One individual’s views might not be the same wayanother individual views things.
Atthe point when a conscious being recognizes that they “exist in a universeof physical items”, they additionally confirm that their sense observationcapacities to a degree which enables them to reason, even to a little degree,their physical presence. One philosopher David Hume had an idea about natureand where things in the world come from. His reasoning was there is no God butthere is universal casualty that holds everything together. Hume believes thereason people believe in human nature is because they have becomepsychologically accustomed to a habit of when one experience has happened andthen it happens again then it must be real. Skepticism appropriately prohibitsus to theorize past the substance of our present involvement and memory, yet wediscover it completely normal to trust greatly more than that. Hume thoughtthese unjustifiable beliefs can be disclosed by reference to custom ortendency. That is how we learn new things from our experiences. When I watchthe steady conjunction of occasions I would say I became adapted with connectingthem with each other.
Though numerous past occasions of the sunrise don’tensure the fate of nature, my experience of them gets me used to the thoughtand creates in me a belief that the sun will rise again tomorrow. I can’tdemonstrate that it will, however, I feel that it must.Beforehand,we must take a gander at what perception and reality mean.
The meaning of perception is, “what we sensein our environment from what our senses and mind tells us. The definition ofreality is the state or quality of being real (dictionary.com)”. Each philosopherhas searched inside themselves to figure out the response to what is reality,and how we recognize what is genuine and real. Yet every philosopher has their own perspectives on reality.
To start, idealist Renee Descartes proposedthat sensations and experience can be questioned, so it is absolute reason thatmust frame the evidence of truth and what reality is. Next, the idealist Plato,who stated the universe of thoughts; for instance the perfect nature orsubstance of a tree or a circle or a shading, was more important, even more”real,” than physical reality, and that physical reality, a tree forexample, appears as a flawed occurrence of the ideal. Plato believed the truthwas as two separate universes; he shaped a contention that something was anindividual protest, however could be assembled into a bigger gathering.
For instance,there are numerous types of cats, however they all fall under a bigger groupthat combines lions, tigers, and numerous others. John Locke an empiricist saidthe mind begins with no learning and all one knows is developed as a matter offact through the faculties. So, who is correct? Is there any restriction toknow what reality truly is? WithDescartes in his first and second observations he asserts that every one of ourbeliefs can be questioned on the grounds that our abilities could basically beonly a dishonesty. He also states that althoughevery one of our beliefs can’t be sure, in light of the fact that we think andexperience, our minds must exist. Descartes argued that our standard encountersand perspectives of the world can’t give us the sort of affirmed founding onwhich all other information and convictions can be based. We are frequently depressedto recognize that what we have discovered is essentially impairment, or thatwhat our senses let us know isn’t sure. That should influence us to think aboutwhether the many things we accept may likewise be unverifiable. So, is thereanything that we can know for sure no ifs ands or buts? We can question whetherthere is a physical world and whether we have a physical body.
We may likewisequestion whether our own thinking can be trusted, so then what would we be ableto totally know for sure? Descartes gives a case that regardless of whether ahigher power betrays us about all our different claims, there is one beliefthat we can be sure about, which is that we are considering. Indeed, even toquestion this conviction is demonstrating that we are suspecting something.Since thinking can’t happen without there being something that does thethinking, this demonstrates we truly do exist. When we think, it demonstrateswe have a brain, paying little respect to whether we have bodies.
The body weencounter as our own isn’t a basic piece of our self since we can question its realityin a way that we can’t question the presence of our brain. Anotherrelationship that Plato thought of was the story of the cave. Here the physicalworld is as a cave, in which the people are trapped from the beginning of ourlife, where we are stationary and can’t move our heads, so we see just shadowsand sounds. Without a motive, one of us is released and is urged to ventureupward to the entrance of the cave. At that point he is pulled to thepassageway of the cave, where the light is harming his eyes that are familiarwith the dark, which dangers the main security his life has known. The universeof sunshine signifies the realm of ideas. His eyes become familiar with thelight and he can admire the sun, and understand what an absolute source oflight and life is.
This slow procedure is an illustration of education, andenlightenment. However, the genuine lesson of Plato is that the enlightenedindividual now has a moral accountability to the unlucky people, still in the cave,to safeguard them and bring them into the light. Finally,John Locke expressed that we characterize objects by primary and secondaryproperties; primary properties being unquestionably objective structures, forexample, size and shape, and secondary properties being subjective, forexample, shading and taste. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dQpDNtsIAE)Locke’s theory on the truth is called Representative Realism, the view of senseinformation (a quick question of judgement, which isn’t a material object; asense impression) by one means or another speaks to the articles and that theseitems are causally associated with our creation of the sense information.
Ourimpression of items is along these lines oblique; henceforth, representative realismis a sort of unusual realism. (A Prologue to Epistemology, second version, 277)This view argues that we experience reality by perceptions that embody the realworld. Along these lines, on the off chance that we see a darker table, what weare really seeing isn’t simply the table however a picture of it.
This way, differencesof perception which happen because of changes in light conditions, position ofwatcher, and so forth., can be effectively described: it isn’t the questionwhich is changing, just its view. Theseare only three unique perspectives on reality out of huge amounts of different philosopher’sideas, but is there no way to know which philosopher’s idea is correct overanother? One way these theories are alike is our perceptions of reality, how wesee things through our senses and the different items we see, may not be whatis positively genuine, they recommend that what our view of the truth are, arenot by any stretch of the imagination what the truth is. This means for thenormal individual living, their existence depends on numbness towards differentcertainties.
All through the span of mankind, we as a species have viewed theworkings of the universe through the viewpoint of religion, applying it toclarify the unexplainable. Be that as it may, secularized sciences started tosurface and along these lines, logical clarifications started to supplantreligious convictions. Be that as it may, as the sciences and innovationdeveloped further developed, past logical hypotheses have started to be discreditedby newfound ones. Once more, the numbness changes into truth; in any case,greater part of the time the obliviousness believers to truth new obliviousnessshows. Reality is a cycle of truth and obliviousness, and will keep on being soconstantly. Unless one is smart, there will always be a reality, a truth, inpresence that will convey the possibility to discredit all that we know.
Ashumanity keeps on battling understanding why we exist and what the truth is,however a significant number of us are excessively perplexed, making itimpossible to surrender the solace of accepting what we see to be consistentwith find the responses to what the truth is, because of this there are selectcouple of people who question their life and what it implies, these peopleoffer knowledge to others and can instruct different people about questioningour reality and discernments. Despite the fact that for a lot of us thespeculations of rationalists, for example, Descartes, Plato, Locke, and Humemay appear to be uncontrollably improbable, the more we question what the truthis, the more we ourselves make new hypotheses about reality, and theythemselves may appear to be outlandish to different people. We may take agander at what different philosophers have hypothesized before, yet for us, aspeople, to find what reality intends to us, we should think deeply ourselves;we should speculate and question ourselves until the point that we are so confusedby our inquiries we never again comprehend existing. We can’t depend ondifferent hypotheses of reality on the grounds that everybody sees reality inan unexpected way, what one individual may see is not quite the same as whatsomeone else may see, and as a result of this not every person can have similarperspectives and speculations on what reality is and what really exists.Someof us may see God as an important influence in what reality is and some of usmay not. Others may think nothing really exists and that everything is just anillusion while others may think that everything they see is real. Not oneperson is wrong; our different views on reality are personal, and ourperceptions of things are not the same. Personally, I think God is a big partof how we view what reality is.
I believe that he made all things and that itsnot just a science. Yes, I agree with the idea that we learn new things throughexperience and repeated experiences makes us believe that these things are infact real. But I also do think that none of the philosophers is wrong in theirpoints. They all have their own view on reality, perception, and human nature.
Thinking strongly about reality inspires people to realize that there is moreto the world than we may see.
