Being a
newcomer at writing reflections about philosophical works, I felt that 800 words
would be a massive text to produce, but then, when finalizing the post, I had a hard time
cutting it down from circa 1600 words to just above 800. A lot of what I wanted
to write just could not fit inside this restriction.
Some concepts were quite easy to grasp, like
the part about sense data, while other parts felt quite confusing, like
definite descriptions. Checking around on the web to see how others had
interpreted the meaning of some chapters from the book, I found that some
reviewers rate the book as crystal clear on all points, while others think it's
a bit muddy. And browsing through my fellow students' posts and answers
revealed a wide variety of interpretations, not so much on question 1 but on
all the other parts, there were some completely different answers.
And that's
why I was really looking forward to discussing this book and learn more at the
seminar, but oh well, we'll have to do with the blogs.
So, we are
all (or soon-to-be) engineers. And as engineers, we've all analyzed, tried to interpret
and then, with our own words, reproduce the knowledge obtained.
It is very interesting
to browse through all these blog posts. Some of us try to be different (in a positive way), to stick
out and show our philosophical talent, and some might have that feeling of uncertainty and just want to get it
right, or the "I don't get it, I don't care just let's get this over with" attitude. But mostly we want
to show that we've understood correctly. At least I had all of those feelings at certain points during this assignment. Anyway, we try to present the "truth"
of the "facts" we've just learnt from the book. Looking
at all these posts, some are similar but, as said, there are many variations. So
who here has written all the right answers? Well, people interpret the text
differently, but hey, that's what it all is about! We all have our own true
beliefs.
This
learning will be of good use some day, when we as newborn Media engineers enter the
world of research and development in companies all around the place. Hopefully
Russell is right, that philosophy can help us make fewer errors by critically
analyzing knowledge.
Let me finish this off by smashingly re-quoting
Plato:
"... whatever appears is to each one".
Or is it? Maybe you reading this text is nothing but an implanted memory, like it was (or was it?) for Arnold in Total Recall (1990).
The idea that this reality is not the "real" reality seems to pop up over and over again. We find it in Platon's theory of forms and in the hindu veil of illusion, Māyā, that obscures reality. Several esoteric and occult movements have also tried to break free and to experience a more true form of knowledge (Sophia).
SvaraRaderaThe notion of different levels of reality has also been explored in several, mostly sci-fi, films (e.g. Total Recall, The Matrix, Inception, etc.).
But just because there is no real truth doesn't mean nothing exists. And what does it really matter. Isn't our experienced "reality" the most real thing that we'll get?
Start the reactor!
Well Ragnar, I can't help to be a bit puzzled about what philosophers in general are seeking while thinking about and discussing the concept of reality. I browsed through "Philosophische Grammatik" by Ludwig Wittgenstein. It seems that he was very much interested in connecting the concept of reality with language and grammar:
SvaraRadera"The ugliness of a human being can repel in a picture, in a painting, as in reality, but so it can too in a description, in words."
Of course grammar connects to the concepts of descriptions and propositions in philosophy.
But to me, the general public of today which are not so much into philosophy, are instead seeking to escape from reality in movies and virtual worlds in computer games. It touches the next theme where we discuss how media oppresses thought and in a way, encourages us to flee from reality so that we may miss the true wrongs being made against humanity.