The color of something is the color of the spectrum that isn't taken in by an object. However when I look at the color "green", do I see the same tint someone sees when they see "blue"? The identification of a color is what we've been told, and we've essentially been told what colors don't go good together. So how do we know that all of our eyes see the same thing?
Hello, my question is around the nature of reality.
Is it reasonable to say that our only view of reality can be via experience (which I take to mean through the physical senses that I as an individual possess)?
If this is true it raises a number of questions:
1. When we have no experience of something should we deny its existence - I have never visited the Taj Mahal so do I as an individual deny its existence?
2. People with more astute senses have a view of reality that is more accurat than someone with less astute senses ?
If it is false, then are we saying that reality is formed from our thoughts and ideas BUT could this mean I imagine I have won lottery and behold I have !
Thanks for any insights.
A fish may approach the surface but may never "know" what it is like to live in air. Is there any discussion relating to the limitations of our own knowledge with respect to knowing a "larger" reality or a more "complete" reality. I ask this with particular reference to the search for understanding as it relates to a deity.
I've read that philosophers claim that the sorts of things that can be true are things that could be potentially talked about in words. It also seems held that truth is essential to knowledge. Hence, it seems that the claim is that language is essential to knowledge.
But I was looking at an intricate (but ugly) carpet yesterday, and it really did seem to me that it wordlessly expressed knowledge, as much as many sentences do.
Why cannot a visual idea express knowledge as well as a word idea?