We see and understand things not as they are but as we are. Discuss this claim in relation to at least two ways of knowing.
“We see and understand things not as they are but as we are.” Discuss this claim in relation to at least two ways of knowing.
A recent video that has caught much attention worldwide looks at the famous Tiananmen Square “tank incident” of 1989 from a very distinct point of view. The incident, normally seen in pictures taken behind the student blocking the tank, is followed in the video from the eyes of the man in the tank – a view probably never considered before. This questioning of the subjectivity of knowledge, in particular how our Ways of Knowing influences how we see and understand things, is akin to the assumption of Anais Nin’s statement that humankind’s knowledge is entirely subjective. Indeed, much of humankind’s knowledge comes from what we see and how we understand it. The four Ways of Knowing can be compared to lenses through which we see and understand. Despite them being central to a great extent of humankind’s holistic view of the world, these lenses may present a very subjective and distorted perception of reality, as they are based around what “we are”. But to what extent is Nin’s assumption justified? In order to answer this question, this essay will explore the following knowledge issue: To what extent, and why, do our sense perception, culture, belief system, reason and emotion alter our reality of history, mathematics and ethics?
If we follow the same real life issue with regards to the Area of Knowledge of history, we can see that the past is invariable. Every individual can see the below photograph of the “tank incident” and see the same things. The events that have occurred are constant, and in this sense, we see things as “they are”. Yet the same photograph can be looked at by two different people and the way it is understood is changed. Sense perception’s influence on history can be exemplified by the differences that could arise between the understandings of, for example, a history student studying the incident in a class in America as compared to a Chinese student who was present at the incident. The Chinese student, who personally experienced the incident first hand, may see the photograph and have a deeper, detailed understanding as to the intentions behind the protest. The history student, on the other hand, may not understand these motives. Furthermore, the emotional context that is present in the photograph to the Chinese student is a product of his sense perception. This emotional context is thereby lacking in the history student, affecting the way he understands the photograph. Although they are seeing the same thing, their understanding is different due to the presence, or lack, of personal experience. This would imply that the difference between understanding things as “they are” and understanding things as “we are” is solely quantitative. If this is the case, we could claim that one of the reasons humankind uses subjectivity is as a means to give deeper meaning and understanding to things already known.
