Sanitarium

“When it is not in our power to determine what it true, we ought to follow what is most probable” Rene Descartes was a philosopher who in his old age began to rethink his take on the world and re-examine all of his beliefs. His famous words: “I think therefore I am.” tell us that we can know nothing with absolute certainty, except that we are here and we can think. I feel that his conclusion, at a basic level, is true. Generally, men see a total of maybe 10 colors, whereas women see like 10000(etc); staring at the same wall I see white, yet my sweetie sees eggshell white…what the hell is the difference? <--I see no difference, but my sweetie can give me a full explanation of the difference. So at this point I have no idea whether it’s white or eggshell white, but I can think about it, and I’m still standing here…”I think, therefore I am.”
Seeing the world as it “actually is” has no real meaning. Each person knows the world through his/her senses; therefore the qualities of different things in the world are known only to the individual who experiences them. Music is a prime example to help explain this. The song Bring the Noise by Anthrax & Public Enemy does in fact start off with just large amounts of noise coming from guitars, drums, and bass. But to those that enjoy this genre of music, they can tell right away what the beat of the song is. Whereas, those who seem to prefer softer, more soothing sounds react as if they hear nothing but loud, obnoxious noises. So, is Bring the Noise actually a song or is it just obnoxious noise?
After seeing that people experience the same thing in different ways, questions such as “What is the correct perception? Are there right and wrong ways to experience something? How do we know which one is right and which one is not? What criteria do we use to determine the validity of someone’s perception?” arise. I believe that there is a physical world, but the way it is viewed is left up to us. There cannot be a correct or incorrect way of perceiving the world, simply because the criteria would not be agreed upon; the same questions would be asked of each criterion. This would lead to a cycle of questions, yet none of them receiving answers. And as we know, circular reasoning is a logical fallacy; therefore, even attempting to think of a “correct” perception of the world is ludicrous.
The reality of the world is experienced individually by every person. Reality can be defined as events or occurrences that take place while a person is conscious or awake. Therefore reality is unique to each individual that experiences it. For example, if a person is asleep during a blackout and wakes up only after the blackout is over, that person did not actually experience the blackout; therefore the blackout never occurred (to that person). No matter how much the blackout is described to him, he will never experience it.
At the same time, no person experiences the world exactly the same as another person. The terrorist attacks on September 11th were experienced drastically different by those who were in the Twin Towers than those that were watching the videos played repeatedly on CNN. The feelings and emotions of those watching on television were of shock and distress, whereas those fleeing from the buildings were in a state of legitimate fear and panic. The people that were running from the burning buildings saw only fire and dust and crumbling metal around them; their world had become blackened. But those of us watching in horror only saw images of the fire and dust and crumbling metal, but around us everything else looked normal and pretty. Taking it a step further, the event itself, the attack, was seen and experienced with totally opposite feelings and emotions by those responsible. While we at home are watching in dismay, the terrorist were rejoicing and celebrating. In about 500 years when no one that was living to experience 9/11 is alive, how will it be remembered? Will the people of Afghanistan teach it as an act of heroism by their people or as an act of horrible violence against the innocent people? But the people 500 years from now will never truly know if the events of September 11th, 2001 took place; the same way we cannot be certain that events that we learn about took place (examples to follow). Though I was not in NYC on September 11th, 2001 at 9am to experience the event, I can say with almost certainty that some sort of destructive event took place. This is because when I went to NYC in 1998 I saw two giant towers; I went back in 2007 and in the same place, I saw nothing but a giant pit of dirt and scraps of what used to be there. I’m quite positive that no one can go to Ground Zero and still see The Twin Towers (unless they have those cool glasses with pictures in the lenses). But since pretty much the entire world has agreed that some people decided to fly airplanes into building, it will be taught as an event that took place. “History is a set of lies agreed upon.” (Napoleon Bonaparte) I am in no way saying that the events of 9/11 did not take place, but what I think Napoleon was trying to say is that: the things we are taught as history have been discussed and negotiated to make all the historians happy…how can negotiated stories be fact? Truth in history is rare. So now that we know it’s going to be taught, the question is how? That will depend on who writes the history books, because as Winston Churchill put it: “History is written by the victor.” Which is quite true; the winner gets to say whatever he wants. Therefore the only thing that we are able to know with any amount of certainty is that some event did take place; the details of the event are left up to the victors. A perfect example is the 3rd Crusade; after ridiculous amounts of research (for a paper) I still have no idea who won that battle. The Christians of Europe say that King Richard the Lionheart valiantly led the Crusaders to victory, whereas the Muslims of the Middle East are certain that Salah-ad Din Ayyub nobly re-took the Holy Land from the hands of the unworthy Crusaders. If historians have to argue and come to a conclusion about what happened, how truly reliable is that opinion? So what actually happened? Uh, people fought over The Holy Land. There is no answer to who won; the Europeans have their correct answer, and the Arabs have theirs. I guess the only real way we can find the right answer is: invent a time machine and go watch them fight. But even then, if a Syrian and a European watch the same events at the same time, I’m pretty sure that they would still disagree with each other. With that being said, there is no way to know who won. Isn’t history just wonderful?! Though the last several examples were on a much larger scale than that which the question is asking, I feel like they relay a similar point. In all of these examples, those involved physically witnessed the same event, but experienced it in totally different ways.
The way a person experiences the world is not based on what is physically seen or heard (smelled, tasted, felt), our physical experiences of the senses are not how we actually perceive the world to be. Because the physical sensation lasts for such a short amount of time, we cannot actually describe what is physically felt. We only know the world through what our secondary senses perceive them to be. And since no two people’s brains are wired exactly the same, there is no way that two people can see and experience an object, an event, or a situation with exactly the same characteristics and/or feelings (respectively).
Do you think that you are, right now, experiencing the world as it actually is? Do you believe that the way things appear to you is, in fact, the way they are in reality? Yes, I am experiencing the world as it actually is, to me. The only reality I can see is my own, so the way I see them is the only way they can be.