As we see the things in front of us, we tend to believe in what we see, hear, taste, smell and even touch. Some believe what our senses tell us lead to our answers but do they always lead to the right ones? or are we left to wonder even more? To believe or not to believe.. Right and wrong.. Good and Bad. In our perspective is everything we see divided into borders? exactly in the middle? just simple answers? How do we when we see a blue pen it is blue? How do we know what it feels like to ride a bus? If what we see is what we believe then when we wear a pair of "red-tinted glasses" what will we believe?
Most people matching to Kant's theory believe that "clear limits regarding which conclusions we couldr each through our sense perceptions" therefore us human beings believing everything through our senses. Thus thinking the world is exactly the way we perceive it or the way it appears to our reason. Yet if we see things in a different perspective, for example through Sophie's "red-tinted glasses", we see the things in front of us differently. The metaphor "red-tinted glasses" shows a metaphor in the way we see things (i.e. when we're not wearing the red-tinted glasses, we see everything clearly in colour. But after wearing the red-tinted glasses, we see the exact same thing but just in different shades of red) therefore the glasses limit the way we see reality just like our pure thoughts or logic will.
Let's say a mother and her child that just entered reality sit at home watching nursery rhymes on telly whilst wearing the"red-tinted glasses". The mother having enough experience and basic knowledge knows that when the red-tinted glasses covers her eyes it doesn't determine that everything is red. She then brings up her knowledge and logic from her experience and senses that when she takes of her glasses, she'll see everything in colour. However, the child on the other hand with no experience and absolutely no knowledge at all, not knowing what is red and wearing the "red-tinted glasses" governs her "mind's operation which influence the way the child experiences the world". The child then believes the world is red and it will stay red forever. This leaves and imprint in the child's memory that what she experienced/saw using her senses is how she oprehends that time of the world.
How about the coke advert that recently went off? It shows a man buying a bottle of coke and the process in which the coke machine went through from inserting the coin to the output of the coke bottle coming out. Within the coke maching it showed little tiny men celebrating and cooling the coke and delivering the coke to the output where the man gets his drink. If an adult watched this, through experience they obviously know that there is no "little men" in the machine and atleast have seen what an interior of the drink machines look like. But children on the other hand without any knowledge or experience in SEE-ing a interior of a drink machine would actually believe there are "little men" inside the drink machine. Just like the "red-tinted glasses" which convey the child believing the advert and that "little men" exist inside the drink machines. This is another example of how the "red-tinted glasses" is conveyed metophorically.
Personally, I agree with both points about rationalists (i.e. through knowledge) and empricists (believing through our senses) heavily leaning on kant (as he believe in both), as you can see neither one is truly correct. What we see is something we can believe in but not all are true facts. But what we know and what we can confidently put forward are the true facts which we can put forward through logic reasoning yet without experience we won't be able to describe its appearances and actually determine the thing as a whole.
Most people matching to Kant's theory believe that "clear limits regarding which conclusions we couldr each through our sense perceptions" therefore us human beings believing everything through our senses. Thus thinking the world is exactly the way we perceive it or the way it appears to our reason. Yet if we see things in a different perspective, for example through Sophie's "red-tinted glasses", we see the things in front of us differently. The metaphor "red-tinted glasses" shows a metaphor in the way we see things (i.e. when we're not wearing the red-tinted glasses, we see everything clearly in colour. But after wearing the red-tinted glasses, we see the exact same thing but just in different shades of red) therefore the glasses limit the way we see reality just like our pure thoughts or logic will.
Let's say a mother and her child that just entered reality sit at home watching nursery rhymes on telly whilst wearing the"red-tinted glasses". The mother having enough experience and basic knowledge knows that when the red-tinted glasses covers her eyes it doesn't determine that everything is red. She then brings up her knowledge and logic from her experience and senses that when she takes of her glasses, she'll see everything in colour. However, the child on the other hand with no experience and absolutely no knowledge at all, not knowing what is red and wearing the "red-tinted glasses" governs her "mind's operation which influence the way the child experiences the world". The child then believes the world is red and it will stay red forever. This leaves and imprint in the child's memory that what she experienced/saw using her senses is how she oprehends that time of the world.
How about the coke advert that recently went off? It shows a man buying a bottle of coke and the process in which the coke machine went through from inserting the coin to the output of the coke bottle coming out. Within the coke maching it showed little tiny men celebrating and cooling the coke and delivering the coke to the output where the man gets his drink. If an adult watched this, through experience they obviously know that there is no "little men" in the machine and atleast have seen what an interior of the drink machines look like. But children on the other hand without any knowledge or experience in SEE-ing a interior of a drink machine would actually believe there are "little men" inside the drink machine. Just like the "red-tinted glasses" which convey the child believing the advert and that "little men" exist inside the drink machines. This is another example of how the "red-tinted glasses" is conveyed metophorically.
Personally, I agree with both points about rationalists (i.e. through knowledge) and empricists (believing through our senses) heavily leaning on kant (as he believe in both), as you can see neither one is truly correct. What we see is something we can believe in but not all are true facts. But what we know and what we can confidently put forward are the true facts which we can put forward through logic reasoning yet without experience we won't be able to describe its appearances and actually determine the thing as a whole.
The glasses is another way that restricts what we see and makes us believe what we see through those glasses limiting the way we perceive reality. We cannot just state the fact the world is red because of the glasses and through what we see through cellophane glasses. But WHAT IF fromt he following prompt, we covered one side of our eyes with the red-tinted glasses and the other eye with blue, would we then say "the world is half red and half blue?"
No comments:
Post a Comment