"We see and understand things not as they are but as we are" IB TOK Essay

International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge

Word count: 1,600

Our world is unfathomably complex. The segments that each of us is familiar with and has some understanding of, are but the size of the electrons of a single molecule in a great ocean of dilemmas. Every “thing”, that is to say, every entity, idea, or quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence, has infinite forces acting upon it and we, the human populace of this world, cannot ever hope to fully comprehend even a single such Kantian “Ding an sich”. Instead we rely upon what, as Socrates would have it, we think we know; the few “facts”, perceptions, opinions and insights that we have acquired through our own sensual experiences and those of others that we may have heard. These are the factors that colour our thoughts and consequent opinions of “things”. They are the factors that build up who we are and it is by them that we assess, interpret and judge the various situations we may find ourselves in.

We encounter, mostly unwittingly, thousands of such confrontations per day, each bringing many potential repercussions to our experience-bank. Yet we are faced here with a problem; though our mental capacities may be great, it is simply not possible to register all the encounters and simultaneously keep track of them. Thereby, what is deemed to be irrelevant is sieved out and only a fragment is left available to us for future interpretation of the workings of the world. Thus we are faced with a new phenomenon; as our various prior experiences (each unique to the person experiencing them) have shaped our mental information sieves, our own final verdicts may differ significantly from those of our peers, whose priorities will most likely have been dissimilar to ours. Such a situation, as is clearly depicted in Kurosawa's Rashomon (1950), allows for digressing witness accounts in court or simply many possible interpretations of a single event.

What we see and understand, we do so as it is in relation to ourselves and hereby only one side of an intricate matrix. One’s ability to manipulate people and situations stems from the disability of those acquiescing persons to see and understand “things” from an objective viewpoint that incorporates one’s own. Clear representations of such subjective situations, with respect to the subject’s knowledge needs, are depicted in all stories of capitulation due to the fear of discomfort or danger. We, as people, may be scared, outgoing, nervous, ambitious, lazy, ambitious, territorial, naive, caring, approving, disapproving, selfish, wealthy, poor, with power, without power, betrayed, faithful, leaders or followers, depending on our relative circumstances; how we see and understand things with accordance to our situations. The prejudices, that attend to the defining curbs of the breadths of our horizons and designate where under the sun we may want to stand, are aroused by our unique social and personal circumstances and histories.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

Perception is how we view an image; a telescope built up of prior experiences and, aside other factors, stereotypes. It sets various criteria, basic tolerance boundaries and our attitudes and, though it affects our acknowledgment and rationality less than strong emotion, it remains a leading factor of the understanding of a problem.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The deeper the foundations of the margins of perception are set, the harder it may be for, say, a stereotypical Palestinian, to surpass them by describing a Jewish Israeli man as simply a “man”, rather than an “Israeli Jew”; to allow for objectivity to prevail over bias. Subsequently, the wish of your average six year old girl to attain the most beautiful china doll should be far more sustainable, were it not intensely amplified by an idol owning a similar doll. Yet, was a classmate, who is looked down upon, to own the figure instead, its appeal would slowly ebb away. The girl perceives the belongings of a more respected character to be of greater worth, despite their essence being identical.

The practicalities of a shoe, regardless of style, are, perceived and received largely similarly by the great majority of shoe-wearers as they prevent much possible pain and damage. This is an area of somewhat less bias. Yet, similarly, just how necessary they may then be regarded, remains dependent on the various past circumstances of those shoe-wearers.

On the other hand, the ever-present topic of fashion is a somewhat more subjective area; parallel to, as some would say, all other forms of art. Take one with a gothic style of clothing; they may well find their associates in such style easier to relate to, and perhaps more attractive, than those more faithful to a style of haute couture, and, naturally, vice versa.

The most precarious variable to seeing and understanding is emotion. There is nothing like emotion; it is an invisible thread that tugs at us all. Perhaps a good way of describing how it effects our perception of the events around us is through politics. In November of 1917, the Balfour Declaration was issued by the British, declaring support for a Jewish “National Home” in Palestine. Each member of each party concerned; the Jews, Palestinians and British being key, saw and understood the declaration in differing lights- each according to their individual situation. As its effects were of enormous consequence, emotions clouded all aspects and the compromise of a “fair ruling” was never reached; even today the issues concerned remain unsolved. Each party involved considers his own profit and what he sees and understands to be true according to his knowledge needs.

Emotional differences are a vital factor of the way we perceive things; a single mother who has lost her only child should, upon coming across another infant of a similar age, see and understand the status quo in a way greatly differing to that of a mother of five lively, joyful children. Someone who has, in life, been repeatedly betrayed and emotionally crushed would no doubt find himself understanding the prospect of relationships discordant to a young hopeful. As different emotions and differing sieves of experience govern these four people, divergent circles of knowledge shall come to be.

The resulting deviations from any distinctive truth may then contribute to, if not cause, significant misunderstandings and thus misinterpretations. These, in turn, may permit greater misinterpretations which, on a larger scale, in dubious times with a lack of communication, are prone to leading even to war; a situation we see repeatedly throughout history.

Were we to promulgate this title’s version of Anais Nin’s claim incorrect and advocate instead that we see and understand things as they are, without a hint of subjectivity, there would be no grounds, nor indeed any need for misunderstandings, diplomacy and claims of inherently good human nature. Predictably, there would also be a severe lack of the personality and originality that distinguishes any one individual from the next (though genetic variation and those with more acute personality traits may beg to differ). Society would most likely develop into a bland existence such as that of the great dystopian novels of the 20th century.

We are, among other things, but a great compilation of good experiences, bad experiences, pride, prejudices, predispositions, biases, desires, fears and ambitions. Perhaps the ambitions and desires outweigh the fears, and then perhaps the good experiences are to conquer the prejudices, but these are some of our basic characteristics and hence motivations to see things as we are, not as they are. Social Darwinism and the fight for survival are our predominant instincts and, more often than not, they are the subconscious authorities driving us on.

For better contextualization, we may insert the title claim into a practical example; a lawsuit. Being the plaintiff, you are indeed pleased to have a strong case, with an excellent lawyer and complimentary witnesses; you shall win the case. However, were you to be in the shoes of the defendant, with an inexperienced, weak lawyer, witnesses who had never taken a shine to you and the sickening knowledge in your gut that you were doomed; you would be very far from best pleased.

Even the Platonic concept of innate aesthetics is refuted by the fact that our appreciation of and perspective on beauty is prevailingly dependent on our cultural backgrounds. The incredible diversities in societies and cultures according to upbringing and social environment, distinguishing one person from the next and allowing for such ranges of occupations and the compatibility of relationships stand only to support the claim further.

What we see by sight and primary senses is processed according to our knowledge needs (the conceptual way of knowing) and acclimates in understanding; what we want to be true and how we choose to subconsciously see and understand things depends on our cultural backgrounds (that differ both internally and among one another in their discipline, priorities and upbringings) regarding the development of our senses and linguistic skills, our emotions, our past and our entire environment. It is our personal traits; “as we are”, that shape our conduct and fundamentally affect how we “see and understand things”.

We take in and process stimuli from the environment, most often according to our emotional knowledge needs, become aware of them, react to them and understand them, then by sieving strongly, commit them to mind and memory as subconsciously deemed appropriate. Yet, even were we able to see and understand things objectively; as they truly are, questions always remain: How can we possibly guarantee, despite all odds-such as evolutionary meanings (i.e. bright colour=poisonous), that we each see, under the same label, the same colour? Is it not entirely plausible that, due to the wide range of perceptions we are liable to acquire, we do not share our acumen of colour, nor of many other “things”? The answer to this thereby justifies endless further possibilities regarding our viewpoints on life, the universe and everything.

References:

This essay has been based mainly upon personal experience and insights derived from prior knowledge.

Houghton Mifflin Company. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed. Online: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2009. Cited: 06 Nov. 2009

Available at: