definition to grasp is that of a filter. This quote could imply filter in a number of ways. It
could go from the product of what we know and our culture, to the various physical
differences of our senses. The filters that are constructed during our education come from
the experiences that people face until their adulthood or age of maturity. Our culture
could be how we were brought up, including our religion, while the physical differences
could be the capabilities of our sensory organs. If someone senses what reality actually is,
then reason would lead us to believe that our organs should be able to convey them to us.
The problem with this is that the extent of our organs is limited. There are certain sounds,
like a high pitched whistle, that we cannot hear. There are also certain things that we
cannot see, like electromagnetic waves. Just because we cannot perceive them does not
mean that they do not exist in reality. Thus, what we believe to be reality is actually our
perception. Culture and society are closely linked, creating certain filters in how we see
things. These societal filters are adding shades and tints to the way that someone would
interpret a perception that they experienced. Images, colors, scents, and emotions are all
unique to our own interpretation of the perceptions of our world. As a consequence to this
uniqueness, however, it is impossible to compare our own perceptions to others, as there
is no medium to weigh the relative judgment. Our own beliefs and societal influences
provide us with an involuntary bias. That is, for the most part, ignored by the viewer’s
outlook of his or her world. The society and culture into which a person is born has a
strong influence in how he or she perceives the world around them. While people’s filters
may help them fit into a society, I really do not like the way that “filters” are used in the
claim being examined. The filters imply that there is such a thing like pure insight of our
world in terms or reality. To me, the “filters” are saying that there is a real world, alone
from any plausible point of view on it. This raises some very important questions on how
this claim can be evaluated.
Is there such a thing as “how things really are”? Although perception is based off
of reality, they are both conflicting forces. The topic states that in order to know the true
nature of things, understanding what affects our outlook of those things is essential.
Central to the topic is the claim that there is a supreme reality, an order of subsistence
that is somehow specialized as "how things really are". In addition, there is a hesitation
with the technicalities of perception, the process through which we come to apprehend
this objective reality and the "filters", the various influences that affect our perception
and interpretation of “how things really are”. The Areas of Knowledge can be divided
into two different groups. The first group includes mathematics and the natural sciences.
This group includes only these two because their information is derived through
extensive testing and evidence. These two areas of knowledge are inherent with the
theme of “how things really are” and so they reflect what we believe and know to be true.
Of these two areas of knowledge, mathematics is the only one with complete certainty.
According to Descartes, disciplines which depend on the study of complex things are
doubtful, while mathematics has ultimate assurance. Everything else which includes
physics, astronomy, and medicine are often doubted because they shift and change with
the knowledge that we gain about them. The second group of the areas of knowledge
includes everything else from the Areas of Knowledge: history, the arts, human sciences,
and ethics/politics. While history can be related to the natural sciences in terms of truth,
we do not know for sure if it is completely correct and so it can be doubted as to how
things really were in the past. However, as time has progressed, the filters in the minds of
people have not changed that much pertaining to the cultural filters that are put into a
person’s mind. The filters in the mind of a westerner would be very different from those
in the mind of an easterner. Someone from the east could be from Japan or India and be
brought up to believe that Americans are ignorant and are selfish because they use up
much of the world’s resources. So, when someone from the east comes into contact with
a westerner, their internal prejudice could result in impolite behavior based on what they
think they know of the person. An example of this would be when I took a trip to India
over winter vacation. While staying at a hotel, a clerk asked me which part of India I was
from. I told her that I was from America, and this instantly changed the way that she
looked at me and even talked to me differently. One of her questions that she asked was,
“Do people in your country actually like your president?” I simply laughed and
responded, “Some people do”. Based on what people are taught while they grow up and
their social experiences, various filters develop in their minds that help them fit in.
Therefore, the filters of which someone sees the world are evaluated through their
everyday experiences.
To answer the previous question, I don’t believe that there is anything that
explains “how things really are.” The closest that we can get to understanding such a
concept is our perception of reality. This claim innately implies that there is such a thing
as pure and complete insight, when in reality there is not. The major filters within the
human mind are controlled by such things as culture and society, the thinker being
unaware of such influences. The Ways of Knowing contribute to how we understand the
Areas of Knowledge. And so, “in order to find out how things really are, one must
understand the filters through which one perceives the world.”
1,244 words
