Reality truth is that we just observe our

Reality
and perception are things that exist and can be viewed in many ways. Many
philosophers have their own theories about reality and existence. In this
discussion we will look at the theories of Descartes, Locke, Berkeley and Hume
and their views on what reality is. We will look at what perception means to
reality and how everyone’s view on reality is different. As we question what
reality may be, we take in more about ourselves and our view of life.  We start to address ourselves and we
gradually realize what reality intends to us as people. All of us have
confidence in there being one reality which is free from all sentiments.
Something that simply is. Something which is valid; undisputable. We see this
reality to be something which we can’t change in any capacity. The interesting
aspect is this reality may not by any means exist. The reason we think on one
unmistakable truth is that we just observe our side of the story. Clearly,
there must be one reality which is valid and undisputable. Consistently we
confide in our faculties to disclose to us reality.  We accept what we see, notice, touch, hear,
and taste.  However, do we ever address
whether our faculties are misleading us? 
Do we ever stop to assess whether our faculties are being controlled? If
by chance we could question if our senses reveal to us reality; how would we
know what truly exists? An individual’s judgement is totally their own.  One individual’s views might not be the same way
another individual views things.

At
the point when a conscious being recognizes that they “exist in a universe
of physical items”, they additionally confirm that their sense observation
capacities to a degree which enables them to reason, even to a little degree,
their physical presence. One philosopher David Hume had an idea about nature
and where things in the world come from. His reasoning was there is no God but
there is universal casualty that holds everything together. Hume believes the
reason people believe in human nature is because they have become
psychologically accustomed to a habit of when one experience has happened and
then it happens again then it must be real. Skepticism appropriately prohibits
us to theorize past the substance of our present involvement and memory, yet we
discover it completely normal to trust greatly more than that. Hume thought
these unjustifiable beliefs can be disclosed by reference to custom or
tendency. That is how we learn new things from our experiences. When I watch
the steady conjunction of occasions I would say I became adapted with connecting
them with each other. Though numerous past occasions of the sunrise don’t
ensure the fate of nature, my experience of them gets me used to the thought
and creates in me a belief that the sun will rise again tomorrow. I can’t
demonstrate that it will, however, I feel that it must.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Beforehand,
we must take a gander at what perception and reality mean.  The meaning of perception is, “what we sense
in our environment from what our senses and mind tells us. The definition of
reality is the state or quality of being real (dictionary.com)”. Each philosopher
has searched inside themselves to figure out the response to what is reality,
and how we recognize what is genuine and real. 
Yet every philosopher has their own perspectives on reality.  To start, idealist Renee Descartes proposed
that sensations and experience can be questioned, so it is absolute reason that
must frame the evidence of truth and what reality is. Next, the idealist Plato,
who stated the universe of thoughts; for instance the perfect nature or
substance of a tree or a circle or a shading, was more important, even more
“real,” than physical reality, and that physical reality, a tree for
example, appears as a flawed occurrence of the ideal. Plato believed the truth
was as two separate universes; he shaped a contention that something was an
individual protest, however could be assembled into a bigger gathering. For instance,
there are numerous types of cats, however they all fall under a bigger group
that combines lions, tigers, and numerous others. John Locke an empiricist said
the mind begins with no learning and all one knows is developed as a matter of
fact through the faculties. So, who is correct? Is there any restriction to
know what reality truly is?

With
Descartes in his first and second observations he asserts that every one of our
beliefs can be questioned on the grounds that our abilities could basically be
only a dishonesty.  He also states that although
every one of our beliefs can’t be sure, in light of the fact that we think and
experience, our minds must exist. Descartes argued that our standard encounters
and perspectives of the world can’t give us the sort of affirmed founding on
which all other information and convictions can be based. We are frequently depressed
to recognize that what we have discovered is essentially impairment, or that
what our senses let us know isn’t sure. That should influence us to think about
whether the many things we accept may likewise be unverifiable. So, is there
anything that we can know for sure no ifs ands or buts? We can question whether
there is a physical world and whether we have a physical body. We may likewise
question whether our own thinking can be trusted, so then what would we be able
to totally know for sure? Descartes gives a case that regardless of whether a
higher power betrays us about all our different claims, there is one belief
that we can be sure about, which is that we are considering. Indeed, even to
question this conviction is demonstrating that we are suspecting something.
Since thinking can’t happen without there being something that does the
thinking, this demonstrates we truly do exist. When we think, it demonstrates
we have a brain, paying little respect to whether we have bodies. The body we
encounter as our own isn’t a basic piece of our self since we can question its reality
in a way that we can’t question the presence of our brain.

Another
relationship that Plato thought of was the story of the cave. Here the physical
world is as a cave, in which the people are trapped from the beginning of our
life, where we are stationary and can’t move our heads, so we see just shadows
and sounds. Without a motive, one of us is released and is urged to venture
upward to the entrance of the cave. At that point he is pulled to the
passageway of the cave, where the light is harming his eyes that are familiar
with the dark, which dangers the main security his life has known. The universe
of sunshine signifies the realm of ideas. His eyes become familiar with the
light and he can admire the sun, and understand what an absolute source of
light and life is. This slow procedure is an illustration of education, and
enlightenment. However, the genuine lesson of Plato is that the enlightened
individual now has a moral accountability to the unlucky people, still in the cave,
to safeguard them and bring them into the light.

Finally,
John Locke expressed that we characterize objects by primary and secondary
properties; primary properties being unquestionably objective structures, for
example, size and shape, and secondary properties being subjective, for
example, shading and taste. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dQpDNtsIAE)
Locke’s theory on the truth is called Representative Realism, the view of sense
information (a quick question of judgement, which isn’t a material object; a
sense impression) by one means or another speaks to the articles and that these
items are causally associated with our creation of the sense information. Our
impression of items is along these lines oblique; henceforth, representative realism
is a sort of unusual realism. (A Prologue to Epistemology, second version, 277)
This view argues that we experience reality by perceptions that embody the real
world. Along these lines, on the off chance that we see a darker table, what we
are really seeing isn’t simply the table however a picture of it. This way, differences
of perception which happen because of changes in light conditions, position of
watcher, and so forth., can be effectively described: it isn’t the question
which is changing, just its view.

These
are only three unique perspectives on reality out of huge amounts of different philosopher’s
ideas, but is there no way to know which philosopher’s idea is correct over
another? One way these theories are alike is our perceptions of reality, how we
see things through our senses and the different items we see, may not be what
is positively genuine, they recommend that what our view of the truth are, are
not by any stretch of the imagination what the truth is. This means for the
normal individual living, their existence depends on numbness towards different
certainties. All through the span of mankind, we as a species have viewed the
workings of the universe through the viewpoint of religion, applying it to
clarify the unexplainable. Be that as it may, secularized sciences started to
surface and along these lines, logical clarifications started to supplant
religious convictions. Be that as it may, as the sciences and innovation
developed further developed, past logical hypotheses have started to be discredited
by newfound ones. Once more, the numbness changes into truth; in any case,
greater part of the time the obliviousness believers to truth new obliviousness
shows. Reality is a cycle of truth and obliviousness, and will keep on being so
constantly. Unless one is smart, there will always be a reality, a truth, in
presence that will convey the possibility to discredit all that we know.

 

As
humanity keeps on battling understanding why we exist and what the truth is,
however a significant number of us are excessively perplexed, making it
impossible to surrender the solace of accepting what we see to be consistent
with find the responses to what the truth is, because of this there are select
couple of people who question their life and what it implies, these people
offer knowledge to others and can instruct different people about questioning
our reality and discernments. Despite the fact that for a lot of us the
speculations of rationalists, for example, Descartes, Plato, Locke, and Hume
may appear to be uncontrollably improbable, the more we question what the truth
is, the more we ourselves make new hypotheses about reality, and they
themselves may appear to be outlandish to different people. We may take a
gander at what different philosophers have hypothesized before, yet for us, as
people, to find what reality intends to us, we should think deeply ourselves;
we should speculate and question ourselves until the point that we are so confused
by our inquiries we never again comprehend existing. We can’t depend on
different hypotheses of reality on the grounds that everybody sees reality in
an unexpected way, what one individual may see is not quite the same as what
someone else may see, and as a result of this not every person can have similar
perspectives and speculations on what reality is and what really exists.

Some
of us may see God as an important influence in what reality is and some of us
may not. Others may think nothing really exists and that everything is just an
illusion while others may think that everything they see is real. Not one
person is wrong; our different views on reality are personal, and our
perceptions of things are not the same. Personally, I think God is a big part
of how we view what reality is. I believe that he made all things and that its
not just a science. Yes, I agree with the idea that we learn new things through
experience and repeated experiences makes us believe that these things are in
fact real. But I also do think that none of the philosophers is wrong in their
points. They all have their own view on reality, perception, and human nature.
Thinking strongly about reality inspires people to realize that there is more
to the world than we may see.