In order to explain what the red-tinted glasses represent, I'm going to have to modify Gaarder's metaphor slightly. Instead of glasses with just red lenses, I visualized those 3D glasses which have blue cellophane over one eye and red over the other (like the picture in the prompt).
So lets say rationalists have the blue side and empiricists have the red. When they look at the world, they keep one eye closed and only look through their designated color. At a movie theater, this would only allow you to see one of the two images projected on the screen, thus "limit[ing] the way you perceive". Kant believed that we needed elements from both rationalism and empiricism - reason and sensory perception. It's kind of like they are two parts of the same whole. Opening both eyes, looking through both the blue and red, you get the full movie picture - seeing more than you did before.
Why do we need to have this balance between these two extremes? To answer this, we need to explore the pros and cons of each of their arguments:
Rationalism
Here, more importance is placed on the non-physical world of ideas. Plato believed that ideas are innate, and already existed in the world of ideas before it became material in the physical world. Whether you agree with this or not can depend on whether you believe in the existence of God or not. For those who do, this statement is plausible as God is omniscient and omnipotent, everything on earth is predetermined. A creator must have ideas first before they set about creating something. However, it is arguable that ideas are actually induced by the material world (see 'Empiricism').
Descartes, another rationalist said: "we cannot even trust what our senses tell us...maybe they are deceiving us". Since our senses are triggered by chemical or electrical signals, how can we be sure that what they're sensing is actually there? Therefore, the "thinking I [is] more real than the material world". On the other hand, I believe this statement contradicts everything he said previously. Isn't the act of thinking in it itself the result of physical reactions in the brain? When you put someone through a CAT scan, it is obvious that there is brain activity when one is thinking. It doesn't happen out of thin air.
Empiricism
In contrast to Plato, Aristotle was an empiricist, believing that "nothing exists in consciousness that has not first been experienced by the senses". For example, if dinosaur bones weren't discovered, no one would know that they used to exist. It's impossible for a child to recall the existence of everything on the planet, let alone things that are still in the world of ideas and haven't "existed" yet. However, I don't believe that this can apply to every aspect of our lives. So far, I've been referring to "ideas" as knowledge, but if you look at "ideas" in terms of perception, I think it is something one is born with.
Back to the 3D glasses analogy - even if we are all wearing the same pair of glasses, watching the same movie, we will all interpret the "data" differently. Basically, the only thing that is innate is the fact that we perceive, but what we perceive is not. Though the environment we were brought up in can shape the way we think, it doesn't have total control over our mind's development. Say you were a twin, raised up in the same family with the same lifestyle, school and friends; would that mean that the way you both think would be completely the same? No.
To conclude, the main reason why we need to take heed of both sensory perception and reason is that whilst some things can be proved through observation others can only be determined through reasoning. We cannot completely ignore the physical or non-physical. If you were completely concerned about the non-physical, you'll be missing out on all the answers that are staring at you in the face. Likewise, being obsessed with the physical limits your perception beyond the senses.
So lets say rationalists have the blue side and empiricists have the red. When they look at the world, they keep one eye closed and only look through their designated color. At a movie theater, this would only allow you to see one of the two images projected on the screen, thus "limit[ing] the way you perceive". Kant believed that we needed elements from both rationalism and empiricism - reason and sensory perception. It's kind of like they are two parts of the same whole. Opening both eyes, looking through both the blue and red, you get the full movie picture - seeing more than you did before.
Why do we need to have this balance between these two extremes? To answer this, we need to explore the pros and cons of each of their arguments:
Rationalism
Here, more importance is placed on the non-physical world of ideas. Plato believed that ideas are innate, and already existed in the world of ideas before it became material in the physical world. Whether you agree with this or not can depend on whether you believe in the existence of God or not. For those who do, this statement is plausible as God is omniscient and omnipotent, everything on earth is predetermined. A creator must have ideas first before they set about creating something. However, it is arguable that ideas are actually induced by the material world (see 'Empiricism').
Descartes, another rationalist said: "we cannot even trust what our senses tell us...maybe they are deceiving us". Since our senses are triggered by chemical or electrical signals, how can we be sure that what they're sensing is actually there? Therefore, the "thinking I [is] more real than the material world". On the other hand, I believe this statement contradicts everything he said previously. Isn't the act of thinking in it itself the result of physical reactions in the brain? When you put someone through a CAT scan, it is obvious that there is brain activity when one is thinking. It doesn't happen out of thin air.
Empiricism
In contrast to Plato, Aristotle was an empiricist, believing that "nothing exists in consciousness that has not first been experienced by the senses". For example, if dinosaur bones weren't discovered, no one would know that they used to exist. It's impossible for a child to recall the existence of everything on the planet, let alone things that are still in the world of ideas and haven't "existed" yet. However, I don't believe that this can apply to every aspect of our lives. So far, I've been referring to "ideas" as knowledge, but if you look at "ideas" in terms of perception, I think it is something one is born with.
Back to the 3D glasses analogy - even if we are all wearing the same pair of glasses, watching the same movie, we will all interpret the "data" differently. Basically, the only thing that is innate is the fact that we perceive, but what we perceive is not. Though the environment we were brought up in can shape the way we think, it doesn't have total control over our mind's development. Say you were a twin, raised up in the same family with the same lifestyle, school and friends; would that mean that the way you both think would be completely the same? No.
To conclude, the main reason why we need to take heed of both sensory perception and reason is that whilst some things can be proved through observation others can only be determined through reasoning. We cannot completely ignore the physical or non-physical. If you were completely concerned about the non-physical, you'll be missing out on all the answers that are staring at you in the face. Likewise, being obsessed with the physical limits your perception beyond the senses.
1 comment:
Wow, extremely detailed with approaches by different philosophers. I agree about seeing through both coloured lenses and "seeing more than you did before".
Post a Comment