GENIUS FORUMS

I don't think we see everything in its entirety. Color, for example, is a function of light and biology—which means that no two people see color exactly the same. It also means that reproduced color can be described, defined, and modeled through a variety of mathematical and visual lenses called color spaces. By your own definition, what we 'see' is subjective i.e. two people may not see it the same. If we did, for example, see a color in 'its entirety' we would not only see it as we see it but as everyone else sees it, as that would constitute different aspects of its entirety. Its the same for whatever we attempt to 'grasp' through language. You can understand how pointless it becomes when we attempt to deal with abstracts such as ultimate truth, infinity, god and so on. If we talk about something, for example, the color red, we immediately set ourselves up in opposition to it ( subject/object ), our recollection triggered by memory. We are in fact a LONG WAY from the color itself now - four steps! e.g. red > how we see it > our memory of it > writing about it.

z

zarathustra wrote:I don't think we see everything in its entirety. Color, for example, is a function of light and biology—which means that no two people see color exactly the same. It also means that reproduced color can be described, defined, and modeled through a variety of mathematical and visual lenses called color spaces. By your own definition, what we 'see' is subjective i.e. two people may not see it the same. If we did, for example, see a color in 'its entirety' we would not only see it as we see it but as everyone else sees it, as that would constitute different aspects of its entirety. Its the same for whatever we attempt to 'grasp' through language.

What you've described is a more conventional perspective of reality, and I must say one that I most often operate from within too, but it's certainly not the end of the philosophical story as far as I'm concerned. I suppose in one sense it depends on what level of philosophical certainty you desire.

One of the uncertainties of this conventional view is that it assumes that there really are other minds out in the world. How do you or I know for certain that other humans are conscious and sensing beings at all, they might be unconcious automata? How do you deal with that issue? Do you think there is an uncertainty there? Do you have a desire for certainty in your philosophical conclusions?