Is there a difference between appearance and true reality?
Appearance is what we understand (through the thought process). True reality is what the senses perceive. It is the empirical observation we take in. But, since we can only know what we understand and we do not understand any purely empirical evidence, we cannot know true reality. What we know (understand) is empirical -emotional evidence. All appearance is subjective. True reality exists, but since we cannot know anything without the empirical observation of true reality first being funneled through our emotions, than all appearance must be subjective to the observer and more precisely to the observer's emotions. We can have a strong sense of true reality because not all emotions will skew or corrupt our empirical observations as much as others.
Emotions are vital to our understanding. They dictate how the empirical evidence is understood and more importantly how we will act (through the will). Take for instance the event that occurred on September 11th, 2001.
The true reality is that an object composed of inorganic (lifeless) substances that contained organic (living) substances crashed into another object composed of inorganic substances that contained a number of organic substances. If we understood what the true reality was, then we would not understand it in such deep and profound ways. However, we all understand the events of 9/11 in subjective ways.
We understand the appearance of the true reality of 9/11. Our emotions enrich our understanding (or our knowledge). Without emotions our knowledge would be so dry that we might not even find it worthwhile to acquire.
First off, we understand that the objects composed of inorganic substances were created by the organic substances. Thus, we know that these inorganic substances were the Twin Towers and airplanes, both of which are high achievements of the organic substances.
Secondly, we understand that the organic objects were humans. We have emotional bonds with these creatures because we ourselves are human. We have this bond because we experience human beings (including ourselves) empirically and understand them through empirical-emotional ways. The weight of our emotions with other human beings involved specifically, and with ourselves drives our understanding.
Hypothetically put yourself into these various positions to understand the appearance of the 9/11: The New Yorker who did not lose a loved one in the attack, the New Yorker who lost a loved one, The American who didn't lose a loved one, the American who lost one and received a phone call from their loved one from the plane, the Japanese person who has no ties to America or Islam, the Islamic person who is not deeply religious or avidly anti-American, and the fundamentalist Islamic Jihadist. Their emotions played a vital role in how they understood the event. Their understanding is not wrong from an empirical-emotional viewpoint, but may be wrong from an ethical viewpoint.
(Originally written May 1, 2006)
Emotions are the key to understanding and, thus to knowledge itself.
- But how?
Consider it from my vantage point. At the time I was a seventeen year old college student in Indiana. I had no ties to New York City and had no family members or friends, or even acquaintances on board a plane. Geographically and emotionally I was disconnected. However, I am sympathetic to loss of life because I view all life as precious. Also I was in a far right influential environment. Patriotism, which was already abnormally high in rural Indiana, copulated with paranoia and the love child was bastard of vengeful rage.
No comments:
Post a Comment