We are discussing this in class and I am having some trouble grasping the entire debate. Could someone provide me some examples of this phenomena?
So then, if you don't mind...We need to address if there is a way to bridge this...So, if I may...Would the bridge then be of the Earth revolving around the sun, instead of the appearance of which, be science's function in disproving this?
Ic, I guess what she is trying to get across is Plato and Descartes' opinions on reality gaps-through appearance and reality. She has used some movies such as the Matrix so sort of illustrate her point. But, I have missed a lot of class and can't really grasp the concept. She uses the word Bridge, is there a gap between appearance and reality and if so, how can it be bridged. Could someone provide an example of that? All of the former examples you guys posted I understand, but where then does the argument come into play.
As for myself, I would think that the gap between appearance and reality could be bridged by logic/critical thinking.
The Matrix could indeed be used as an example here, in that it appears to portray reality, but in reality (the place where people like you and I have to be able to function), it's just a movie.
Also, The Matrix appears to be an original concept to some, when in reality it's just a flashy rehashing of the "brain in the vat" concept. Brain in a vat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The obvious way to bridge the "gap" between appearance and reality is to take the position that appearance IS reality. Phenomenalogists and Existentialists have attempted to do this.
No one drank out of the mirage; both recognised by attending to it that it was in fact a mirage, since it didn't behave as a "real" lake would.
But if one were to hire someone to build a replica of the tower, they would not base it on a distant observation, but provide exact dimensions, height, and so on. Of course, they could ask someone to replicate their view of it from afar (in a painting, for example).
Another way of thinking about this is that we are able ourselves to bridge the "gap" between how something appears and its "factual" appearance by following rules and procedures when we attend to it. We are cautious about some kinds of appearances just because we have learned that we may be deceived at first glance.
We are cautious about some kinds of appearances just because we have learned that we may be deceived at first glance.
But doesn't this refute the statement that "appearance IS reality"?
Would it be more accurate to say that "appearance provides a provisional reality"?
I don't know. I'm just asking.
How things look may be how they actually are, but, then again, not. When a magician appears to saw the lady in half, that is not provisional reality. All the audience knows it is a trick. Otherwise, they would be calling the police. Appearances need not be deceptive.
When a magician performs a trick, such as sawing a lady in half, might there be some in the audience who do not know it is a trick, such as young children, or the feeble-minded?
Appearances need not be deceptive, but sometimes they are. If it were otherwise, magicians would have to find different jobs.
Yes. I agree. And?
If there were someone in the audience who did not know it was a trick, would this not constitute a provisional reality? At least as far as they were concerned, as unless we are living in an episode of the Twilight Zone, their perception of reality has no bearing on my perception of reality.
If by "provisional reality" you mean that they thought that the lady was being sawed in half, then, yes. They thought it was happening, and were wrong. But why call that "provisional reality"? Everytime we make a mistake, and find out that we made it is, I suppose, "provisional reality". Which is just to say that we thought we were right, and later turned out to be wrong. Why make up a fancy phrase for it? (I guess it is because you are philosophizing, and that's what people like to do when they philosophize).
That's what I enjoy about your posts, kennethamy. You cut right to the root of the matter. Thanks for reminding me that I need to choose my words and thoughts more carefully before just hurriedly hitting "submit reply."