Being someone who speaks multiple languages, I have grasped the true importance of communication. The processes of evolution and global developement were greatly intensified after the introduction of literature. However, with communication comes misinterpretation. Languages are a systematic means of communicating that need to be taught, and this is evidence that humans are limited in expressing themselves. Will someone ever interpret something that you say to them in exactly the way that you intend? Would that require the person to experience the exact same sensations towards a string of words as you do?
Languages are an integral part of our existence. Particularly in a world of telecommunications and technology. Our thought processes are directly linked to the words and symbols that we call a language, and it is almost inconceivable to imagine what our world would be like without languages. A renowned philosopher named Ludwig Wittgenstein once said that "if we spoke a different language, we would perceive a different world". This is a plausible argument. With different languages come different expressions, symbols, and ultimately a different way of thinking.
Languages can work both for and against us. Often they can group abstract concepts into words, symbols or expressions such that these concepts become comprehensible to the human mind. However, other times it can lead to misinterpretation or oversimplification and generalisation. Nevertheless, I will continue to try to learn new languages, and following Wittgenstein's philosophy, it will hopefully help me to perceive the world around me in different ways.
Saturday, 20 December 2008
Friday, 12 December 2008
Journal Entry #4: Beauty
How can we define what is beautiful? What is beautiful to us is purely subjective, but beauty, universally, is a perceptual experience that instils a sense of pleasure, meaning, satisfaction and perhaps emotion in the subject. Beauty can have aesthetic properties, thus bringing us in harmony with our senses and with nature, or even conceptual properties. For example, the concept of a new innovative technology may be beautiful to a businessman, whilst the aesthetic, figurative/symbolic and religious implications in Leonardo da Vinci's "Last Supper" may be beautiful to a painter.
However, human beauty encompasses a different facet of beauty, which is characterised by a person's personality, intelligence, grace, congeniality, charm, integrity, congruity and elegance. These include both the so called "outer beauty" and "inner beauty" (which is not physically observable). Unfortunately, as a cultural creation, beauty has been heavily commercialised. It has become a standard of comparison in society. People feel resentment, anger and dissatisfaction when they do not achieve "beauty". They do not contain the physical characteristics that categorise them as "beautiful". This has had a negative impact on us as it enhances materialism and superficiality in society.
People must embrace not what they are told is beautiful, but what their mind and senses tell them.
However, human beauty encompasses a different facet of beauty, which is characterised by a person's personality, intelligence, grace, congeniality, charm, integrity, congruity and elegance. These include both the so called "outer beauty" and "inner beauty" (which is not physically observable). Unfortunately, as a cultural creation, beauty has been heavily commercialised. It has become a standard of comparison in society. People feel resentment, anger and dissatisfaction when they do not achieve "beauty". They do not contain the physical characteristics that categorise them as "beautiful". This has had a negative impact on us as it enhances materialism and superficiality in society.
People must embrace not what they are told is beautiful, but what their mind and senses tell them.
Thursday, 27 November 2008
Journal Entry #3: Sense Perception
How much can we rely on our senses to comprehend and interpret the world around us? Often our senses must be combined with our intellectual faculties or our sense of reason and logic to put certain things that we sense into context or perspective. For example, looking at a painting of a boat, our brain can differentiate between actually being set in the place depicted by the painting, and simply staring at a portrait of it. We have to incorporate all of our senses and mental faculties to maximize the depth of our interpretation of things around us, but paradoxically all of these senses and interpretations become entirely subjective.
What does this mean? If two people stare at an object in the same place at the same time from the same position are they then seeing the same thing? Ultimately, they are staring at the same object, but they do not see it as the same object. Our minds process different things in different ways simply because our DNA is coded differently and we are all unique in that respect. This centers around the concept of common sense realism, whereby we base our perception and understanding of what we see as subjective beings.
In conclusion, it can be argued that we are forced to rely on our senses because it is in our human nature – we are unable to block out the things we see and judgments we make without evoking a sense of insecurity. However, it would be foolish to base everything on our senses – it is easy for us to be deceived and often scientific reasoning is more effective in helping us to rationalize the world around us.
What does this mean? If two people stare at an object in the same place at the same time from the same position are they then seeing the same thing? Ultimately, they are staring at the same object, but they do not see it as the same object. Our minds process different things in different ways simply because our DNA is coded differently and we are all unique in that respect. This centers around the concept of common sense realism, whereby we base our perception and understanding of what we see as subjective beings.
In conclusion, it can be argued that we are forced to rely on our senses because it is in our human nature – we are unable to block out the things we see and judgments we make without evoking a sense of insecurity. However, it would be foolish to base everything on our senses – it is easy for us to be deceived and often scientific reasoning is more effective in helping us to rationalize the world around us.
Friday, 14 November 2008
Journal Entry #2: Scientific Realism
Often in arguments regarding the authenticity or reality of a concept, we hear the omniscient words "scientifically proven". Somehow, the moment these words are uttered, they silence all sceptics as if they have been proven wrong, as if the scientific evidence is sufficient in proving the truth and revealing the reality. This, at the most general level, outlines the idea of scientific realism.
Should we rely purely on science? It can be argued that all of our intellectual knowledge is just passed onto us from secondary sources whether they are teachers, books, scientists, parents or peers. Often these theories are biased – intended to win us over, and rely on different theories that are well known and established in society. We learn of Newton and Einstein throughout our primary years of education but we never take into consideration the influence that other scientists have had on them to allow them to derive their theory. Very often, well established theories can only work as models for society, but will never replicate a real life situation. For example, computer algorithms try to derive the closest possible replicas to real life situations. The scientific knowledge that we gain is ultimately knowledge that has been passed down and refined for years and years. Is it right for us to rely on this knowledge? If we don’t rely on these scientific ideas and theories, then there’s little else for us to rely on.
Should we rely purely on science? It can be argued that all of our intellectual knowledge is just passed onto us from secondary sources whether they are teachers, books, scientists, parents or peers. Often these theories are biased – intended to win us over, and rely on different theories that are well known and established in society. We learn of Newton and Einstein throughout our primary years of education but we never take into consideration the influence that other scientists have had on them to allow them to derive their theory. Very often, well established theories can only work as models for society, but will never replicate a real life situation. For example, computer algorithms try to derive the closest possible replicas to real life situations. The scientific knowledge that we gain is ultimately knowledge that has been passed down and refined for years and years. Is it right for us to rely on this knowledge? If we don’t rely on these scientific ideas and theories, then there’s little else for us to rely on.
Sunday, 9 November 2008
Journal Entry #1: Literature
Over my past years at school, I’ve studied “English Literature”, but in all that time, never have we discussed the most fundamental question upon which literature exists: what defines literature?
It is difficult to define literature based on specific criteria – seeing whether a literary work meets a list of certain requirements. Often people claim that literature is defined by personal interpretation – people can personally license something as literature if they “see” it that way, and can have their own approach to the text. Other times we listen to teachers and critics to tell us what is or isn’t literature.
Literature can act as a gateway from the past to the present. It can convey the image of different cultures, societies, eras, emotions and so on. It is a form of knowledge that can be passed down for generations, but unlike philosophy it does not question its own understanding. Instead it is unsystematic, and paradoxically, it strengthens our mental faculties, enabling us to better analyze the outer world, the realms of representation and reality, and our own introspection and intuition. We understand a fictional character’s emotions because we have, in some way or another, experienced similar impulses. We can identify sympathetically with something in literature beyond our own ken.
In my view, literature can only be defined subjectively because each reader experiences responses to a literary text that are unique from all others’, and has a different approach and interpretation of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)