Early morning, train packed with commuters. Everyone is going and busy in their minds, it's up to them to decide where to go. Possibilities always could be, but not limited, to work, university, meet friend or escape the city, their living place. Train is an usual place to see so many people around especially during peak hours. Most of them are busy with themselves. Reading news papers, is it really a news paper? Am I seeing the same as others, maybe it's just my point of view and the rest who look to the same paper sees it differently. Even the same printed colour on a white paper will look different. White itself is not White, as Black is not Black. Do you remember your art classes and your teacher telling you that there is no way you can use black or white by creating a reality. There must be shades, reflections and mixtures. Thats a way to express what you see. The light reflects from a surface differently if you will look from another angle or distance. If the light source would move slightly, it's not gonna be the same you saw it a second ago. Coming back to our short space on a morning train we still have others who plays with electronic devices, listening music or just wondering around. Can you feel the shape, straight line of the objects they hold? Had you thought about their existence? Do they (people) really exist or it's just illusion of the surroundings and space. What about all the belongings they have at that particular moment. Things we tend to take for granted in any mean can be not true. What's that special about each and another. They are for that second when we can see them. They appear and disappear in a moment we leave a place. B.Russell in his book The Problems of Philosophy tries to raise the awareness about the troubles philosophers have in “distinction between 'appearance' and 'reality', between what things seem to be and what they are” (Russell, 2009:10). Russell introduces term 'sense-data' where he describes this term as the knowledge of matter by senses. He names the things we already know like colour, smell or sound. Uses 'sense-data' to distinguish between our experience to know exactly about those things. If we would look to the electronic device commuters uses on a train, if we know anything about, “it must be by means of the sense-data—colour, shape, smoothness, etc.—which we associate with" that device (Russell, 2009:14). If that device exists we should call it real 'physical object'. By adding all the 'sense-data' of the object to one group we can call 'matter'.
What we call real and reality. Do the reality appears to us as real? “We shall say that an object is 'known by description when we know that it is 'the so-and-so', i.e. when we know that there is one object, and no more, having a certain property” (Russell, 2009:70). Russell rises the proposition about the existence of the object. It doesn't mean that it is true or not, it just a fact that all the facts/properties would be considered as prove to the proposition. By having a properties of the object we can guess about it but doesn't mean that what we know can be the same object we are talking about. If I would say that there is a object with a touchable screen, has an speaker and microphone, colour is white. What you would think about? It might be a smartphone but do we talk about the same? "We shall say that we have 'merely descriptive knowledge' of the so-and-so when, although we know that the so-and-so exists (Russell, 2009:71). Rusell uses two descriptions. One is definite which describes the exact object for example in an early commuting hour traveler using iPhone5. It is a definite description and a only one object with that description where you can know about it. Where in another way he uses ambiguous description where the exact object itself is undefined like mobile phone.
What is true or what is false? How to know if the information is right, if we can trust it? Russell rises those questions over last chapter of his book. What is our belief in true information? What we see, read, hear and learn can be wrong. The primary sources of the information can not be 100% truthful. If I would say that in a morning traffic on a rail road was huge and I needed to travel half an hour longer you would take it as fact, but it might be that I am exaggerating and adding it a little bit up and a real travel time wasn't that long. "Thus a belief is true when there is a corresponding fact, and is false when there is no corresponding fact" (Russell, 2009:176). That means that the mind doesn't create true or false but it just gives a possibility to believe by fact.
Ref: Bertrand Russell. “The Problems of Philosophy.” 2009 EBook#5827. iBooks
What we call real and reality. Do the reality appears to us as real? “We shall say that an object is 'known by description when we know that it is 'the so-and-so', i.e. when we know that there is one object, and no more, having a certain property” (Russell, 2009:70). Russell rises the proposition about the existence of the object. It doesn't mean that it is true or not, it just a fact that all the facts/properties would be considered as prove to the proposition. By having a properties of the object we can guess about it but doesn't mean that what we know can be the same object we are talking about. If I would say that there is a object with a touchable screen, has an speaker and microphone, colour is white. What you would think about? It might be a smartphone but do we talk about the same? "We shall say that we have 'merely descriptive knowledge' of the so-and-so when, although we know that the so-and-so exists (Russell, 2009:71). Rusell uses two descriptions. One is definite which describes the exact object for example in an early commuting hour traveler using iPhone5. It is a definite description and a only one object with that description where you can know about it. Where in another way he uses ambiguous description where the exact object itself is undefined like mobile phone.
What is true or what is false? How to know if the information is right, if we can trust it? Russell rises those questions over last chapter of his book. What is our belief in true information? What we see, read, hear and learn can be wrong. The primary sources of the information can not be 100% truthful. If I would say that in a morning traffic on a rail road was huge and I needed to travel half an hour longer you would take it as fact, but it might be that I am exaggerating and adding it a little bit up and a real travel time wasn't that long. "Thus a belief is true when there is a corresponding fact, and is false when there is no corresponding fact" (Russell, 2009:176). That means that the mind doesn't create true or false but it just gives a possibility to believe by fact.
Ref: Bertrand Russell. “The Problems of Philosophy.” 2009 EBook#5827. iBooks
Hej Vaidos! Wow your blog posting is impressive since you wrote it as a little short story, but still explained all the important facts that Russell mentioned in his book. I had so much fun reading through your posting until I came to the point when you made pretty clear that “what we see, read, hear and learn can be wrong.” I needed a few seconds to think about that, because it seemed so harsh but then I realized, it’s very true. You made it crystal clear what Russell was saying about the difference between appearance and reality. Our sense-data cannot be 100 % truthful, as you put it in your blog posting, since it is personal and very subjective – but still it is the only sign that there is existence of something independent of us. As Descartes mentioned, the most certain things to us are subjective things, we are very certain about our sense-data without questioning what it really is. Every time I’m looking on my smart phone now, I can’t be sure if it really exists or if it is just something that I want to exist. Anyways, well written!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the above poster, your reflection was clever and well written and explained all the important bits in a relevant modern way!! I loved it. What I do want to say is that I also agree with you, what we learn can be wrong. I maybe want to push it a bit further and suggest that while science and people and the world want to know everything and always be "right" the concept of that is completely misguided if we base this n Russell's text. I would go as far as saying that actually nothing we know in existence is right. Nothing can be right, we will never be right and we are always wrong - just because we will never experience the same as anyone else so we will never have that comparison or clarity to know for sure! The world as you know it is wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think that you have understood and successfully discussed what was presented the literature. I enjoyed reading your post since it was a different approach on explaining in “The Problems of Philosophy”.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post this week, as you have rally managed to grasp the concept of the text, and to apply it in our daily life in Stockholm today.
ReplyDeleteI especially liked how you managed to explain the question definite description and ambiguous descripton by using iPhones vs mobile phones as an example.
You also made it interesting to read. Well done!