Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Question 7

We see and understand things not as they are but as we are.

Mariya Gainsford

on 13 May 2010

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Question 7

We see and understand things not as they are but as we are. What does the question really mean? It is the striving goal of Mankind to see and understand things Arts, History, Mathematics and Science W have been trying to better our understanding the external world...
...and ultimately, ourselves in the process. To understand is to able to grasp the knowledge of something, thus it is arguable something can never be fully understood. How can we? When knowing is a state of mind thus can never be entirely proven by emotion, perception and language? To see and understand something as it is can be defined as being able to explain to yourself the nature, meaning, cause and existence of that particular thing. To see and understand something as we are can be defined as being able to explain various objects, experiences
and the external world in relation to ourselves. We often know things from our emotions,
perception and language, like how we can
tell a frying pan is hot when he touch it or whether someone is happy or sad. So it is really possible for us, to see and understand things as they really are? And if that is not possible, does the knowledge obtained by seeing and understanding things as we are incorrect, inaccurate and/or warped? We often encounter a situation where two different people
recall a particular object or event in a dissimiliar way. Yet the external world and the environment we each encounter remains the same. Despite this, our "reality" which I define an individual's interpretation of the external world differs from person to person. Why? Our personal experiences and backgrounds have an effect on our emotional understanding. Our view and understanding has been heavily influenced by our own background and personal experience. Still, there remains the universal things in life, which are understood despite there being no proof. It is either too simple or complicated, beyond explanation or something that is simply "common sense". Somehow, without real explanation we can understand breathing as it is, as a function necessary for life.
This understanding is as automatic as the action itself. Some things are beyond understanding through our own "reality" and are just simply understood. Just as we have many Ways of Knowing and Areas of Knowledge, we have many different ways of understanding. Is it possible for us to rely on one way or the other? It is possible to understand things both as it is and as we are. We gain understanding we could not have possible received otherwise.
Full transcript