This brings into mind the
age-old expression: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to
hear it, does it make a sound?" In a purely scientific point of view, of
course the tree does exist even if there is no one around to see or hear it. Its
mass is still there even if it has never been seen by any human being, and the
sound it made when it fell is a ‘hearable’ noise that could have been sensed.
However if we are to take a more philosophical approach, one can say that for
something to exist to a human being, it has to have been perceived by at least
one of the senses of that human. The reasoning behind this is that the definition
of existence can be debatably argued in many ways. It can be seen more as a set
of ideas than a simple black and white set of rules.
For example, can we base
the existence of something purely from reading or hearing about it on TV or the
internet? I have never seen the Amazon River with my own eyes; I have only seen
pictures of it and heard accounts of its existence. Does that mean it doesn’t
exist in my reality until I witness it in the flesh, so to speak?
In a similar sense, does
something have to be physically real for it to exist? Laws and rules are real,
yet they cannot be touched except on the paper they were written on. Technically
speaking, a law is an idea, which means it came into existence as soon as it
was thought of. The same thing can be said of a painting. If an artist thinks
of a painting, does he/she have to paint it for it to become real, or is its
conceptualization enough to give it existence?
Hi,
ReplyDeletewell based on my readings from the philosophy of phenomenology, anything that falls in our conciousness exist in regards to our lived-experiences. The opposite will be: anything that we are not aware of does not then exist. So, it can be the case that something (a phenomenon) can indeed exist but it is a different matter whether takes a shape and meaning in our life or not.
In regards to the notion of phenomenon - this can be anything from a relationship, marriage, programme, organisation or culture. it can be 'something real or imagined, empirically measurable or subjectively feld' (van Manen, 1990,p9). So my answer to your question will be: depends from the perspective you are trying to answer your question.
Furthermore, if you allow me to draw from my experience as a PhD student then the 'world' can be perceived in two different ways. The first one is 'realism' which means that there is truth to be discovered and that trees exist. The second one is 'relativism' whereas there are multiple perceptions of one reality. So someone can perceive trees in different ways or perhaps even ignore them?
Eliada
I'm definitely a relativism' kind of guy. To be able to perceive a singular phenomenon from multiple angles gives you a broader field of vision and an open mind on its interpretation.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that stops us believing that every thought in our head can be real is 'realism'. If we can only see things as the way they 'are', then we already failed in the meaning behind it. but if we escape the bondage of our mental chains then even the simplest idea can be real to us just by thinking of it.