I think there is often a discrepancy between the experience of seeing and the knowledge or expectation of what we are seeing.
That being said, I believe the assertion that both fact and perception or valid forms of knowledge, I don't believe there is a consistent way of discerning between the methods of internalizing said knowledge. Meaning that, if you could prove ( I don't believe you can, hence the nature of my response) beyond any reasonable doubt that a "fact" is actually a truth of the world that proven truth would be no different then if you were to state that a red balloon is actually blue. To the person claiming the balloon is blue that balloon is blue, end of conversation. No amount of intense influence by way of scientific fact or rigorous rhetoric would prove otherwise to this person. So whilst both forms of discovering knowledge are legitimate there is no way to differentiate between which is which.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
do you want to debate a red or blue balloon? or god? haha we assign words to tangible objects though new evidence can make us question the extent to which the label fits the objects we experience. think of darwin's finches, he thought they were 3 different birds, someone told him they were finches so he then thought they were 3 differently evolved variations of finches, they might not have been finches, there are descriptive features of finches, but because we made the words up there are no rules that cannot be broken (or at least stretched) to what extent is a finch not a finch? surely a bald eagle isn't a finch, yet they share vast similarities.
ReplyDeletebut i am glad you used color as an example because it is something everyone understands as a natural spectrum. at a finite point, there is a difference between red and blue, if we divide the spectrum only into the 3 primary colors, but there is an infinite number of places we could draw a line between red and blue and create a name to define that specific shade on the spectrum whether we can perceive it from our basic understanding or not.
i have developed an internal method, perhaps an attitude towards discerning perception and reality, though i can only communicate the reality that i have perceived. by observing objective reality without seeing how it fits into what we know or how we feel about it, the stimuli can appear to us in its natural state of existence (this may involve removing the ego).
the objectivity of aesthetics can be applied to the complexity of thought in the sense that if we limit ourselves to the 3 primary colors we will get bored easily, but the appreciation for complexity pushes the limits to which we can discern color, sharpening our perception and therefore evolving our language rather than relying on the past.