ChatterBank0 min ago
perception/reality
20 Answers
what are peoples' views about perception of reality?(in whatever context 'you' want to consider,)
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jojojojoanne. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
My views on perception of reality, are probably like most peoples, a bit too long winded to explain to your satisfaction.
Briefly however, reality to me is very complex, and exists at different levels.
There are the things that I perceive through my five windows on the world, my senses, then there are abstract realities, and underpinning it all, spiritual reality, and my belief in a creator God.
Well, that's me. How about you?
Briefly however, reality to me is very complex, and exists at different levels.
There are the things that I perceive through my five windows on the world, my senses, then there are abstract realities, and underpinning it all, spiritual reality, and my belief in a creator God.
Well, that's me. How about you?
i agree(with most of your comments), i think a persons' perception of reality is what is or could be considered to be real to them, so people can be argued to be 'different/have differences' so therefore their 'take' on reality opposes somebody elses, and their reality is only defined by them and through their perceptions. (thats in one broad sense)
What so David Icke's perception of reality that the Royal family are actually alien lizards is as real and as valid as the perception of reality as experienced by 99.99999% of the country where they aren't?
Isn't that just just shirking the issue that there is a notion of consensus objective reality where we demand evidence that supports our view of reality and which is equally observable to all who look in the same way?
I realise that such a definition is objectionable to many as their religous beliefs may not validated in such a way and therefore may be considered "not real" by those who rashly demand evidence for outlandish claims - but are we really going to modify conceptions of reality to accomodate religous scruples?
Isn't that just just shirking the issue that there is a notion of consensus objective reality where we demand evidence that supports our view of reality and which is equally observable to all who look in the same way?
I realise that such a definition is objectionable to many as their religous beliefs may not validated in such a way and therefore may be considered "not real" by those who rashly demand evidence for outlandish claims - but are we really going to modify conceptions of reality to accomodate religous scruples?
Your first one water is wet is linguistic - water is wet by definition.
Your second is much more interesting - for hundreds of years the consensus would have been that "all life derives from the sun" was "true" (I know that's not quite what you said but bear with me)
In recent years we discovered microbes and whole ecosystems who derive their energy from the earth's heat and not from the sun in any way.
That's a fine example of how our perception of reality can be changed by what we find around us.
In the end that's what defines reality - at least in my world - what we see and find around us - what we "feel", "intuition", "spirituality" have no place in reality because they are unique to an individual
Your second is much more interesting - for hundreds of years the consensus would have been that "all life derives from the sun" was "true" (I know that's not quite what you said but bear with me)
In recent years we discovered microbes and whole ecosystems who derive their energy from the earth's heat and not from the sun in any way.
That's a fine example of how our perception of reality can be changed by what we find around us.
In the end that's what defines reality - at least in my world - what we see and find around us - what we "feel", "intuition", "spirituality" have no place in reality because they are unique to an individual
My studying and training have led me to have these beleifs which I have copied as feeling lazy
Within the social constructionist strand of postmodernism, the concept of socially constructed reality stresses the on-going mass-building of worldviews by individuals in dialectical interaction with society at any time. The numerous realities so formed comprise, according to this view, the imagined worlds of human social existence and activity, gradually crystallised by habit into institutions propped up by language conventions, given ongoing legitimacy by mythology, religion and philosophy, maintained by therapies and socialisation, and subjectively internalised by upbringing and education to become part of the identity of social citizens
Within the social constructionist strand of postmodernism, the concept of socially constructed reality stresses the on-going mass-building of worldviews by individuals in dialectical interaction with society at any time. The numerous realities so formed comprise, according to this view, the imagined worlds of human social existence and activity, gradually crystallised by habit into institutions propped up by language conventions, given ongoing legitimacy by mythology, religion and philosophy, maintained by therapies and socialisation, and subjectively internalised by upbringing and education to become part of the identity of social citizens
Basically what this means in normal words is:-
There is no objective social reality, psychical yes, like I can feel the keyboard with my fingers, some sort of biological explanation about nerves and skins and receptors. Every thing else is created by humans in their interaction with others. OK especially through dialectical exchange, logical(sometimes illogical and only emotional) arguments debates we have or not in life including AB. Therefore there could be as many truths as there are people except our social interaction tend some �truths� having more validity and currency than others, this does change over time. Spare the rod spoil the child, was a truth, if you didn�t hit a child they would grow up spoilt, now we tend to think children need boundaries rather than physical abuse. Morality, attitudes towards death i.e. life is sacrosanct and must be preserved to life is just the forerunner to our ultimate and more valuable destination etc are social constructs that varies over time, context and is ever evolving. Your beliefs, my beliefs are valid and important and are co constructed with other humans, but are constructed; they have not got any objective factual evidence. This is why we feel passionate about subjects and matters and others can feel with equal strength but hold opposite views. Our constructs be religion, law, ethics, morality, fashion, parenting, humor, race, gender, beauty, pain, fun, and every human condition action you can think off, is socially constructed, the meanings the value or not we place on all human endeavour is constructed and becomes and is the fabric of our life which we continually create, support and become our truths
There is no objective social reality, psychical yes, like I can feel the keyboard with my fingers, some sort of biological explanation about nerves and skins and receptors. Every thing else is created by humans in their interaction with others. OK especially through dialectical exchange, logical(sometimes illogical and only emotional) arguments debates we have or not in life including AB. Therefore there could be as many truths as there are people except our social interaction tend some �truths� having more validity and currency than others, this does change over time. Spare the rod spoil the child, was a truth, if you didn�t hit a child they would grow up spoilt, now we tend to think children need boundaries rather than physical abuse. Morality, attitudes towards death i.e. life is sacrosanct and must be preserved to life is just the forerunner to our ultimate and more valuable destination etc are social constructs that varies over time, context and is ever evolving. Your beliefs, my beliefs are valid and important and are co constructed with other humans, but are constructed; they have not got any objective factual evidence. This is why we feel passionate about subjects and matters and others can feel with equal strength but hold opposite views. Our constructs be religion, law, ethics, morality, fashion, parenting, humor, race, gender, beauty, pain, fun, and every human condition action you can think off, is socially constructed, the meanings the value or not we place on all human endeavour is constructed and becomes and is the fabric of our life which we continually create, support and become our truths
Ruby - So if there is no objective reality, then all we perceive and experience is subjective and based solely on our five windows on the world, influenced to a greater or lesser degree by our interaction with individuals, and the normative social constructs that you refer to.
But surely objective reality is a fact and the example you use about child discipline illustrates this.
You say that "we" accept the need for kids to require boundaries rather than physical punishment, but if such punishment having been abandoned is replaced by a more acceptable social construct, ie boundaries, then that is no guarantee of the efficacy of said substitution is it? In fact, there are many who call for a return to swifter short sharp shock punishments for precisely that reason, because what we have now does not work, and what we had at least worked to a certain extent.
The objective reality therefore, will or will not work regardless of my or others subjective tinkering with societal organisation, and this must be true in other fields that you mention also.
But surely objective reality is a fact and the example you use about child discipline illustrates this.
You say that "we" accept the need for kids to require boundaries rather than physical punishment, but if such punishment having been abandoned is replaced by a more acceptable social construct, ie boundaries, then that is no guarantee of the efficacy of said substitution is it? In fact, there are many who call for a return to swifter short sharp shock punishments for precisely that reason, because what we have now does not work, and what we had at least worked to a certain extent.
The objective reality therefore, will or will not work regardless of my or others subjective tinkering with societal organisation, and this must be true in other fields that you mention also.
1 to 20 of 20
