Skip to main content

What is Real?




An individual’s behaviour (“strategic conduct,” to be more precise, as phrased by Anthony Giddens, sociologist) is based largely on how s/he interprets his/her environment, or the reality around.  But what is reality?

How real is my laptop?  The ancient Greek philosopher (to start with our ancestral wisdom) Plato would say that the idea of the laptop is more real and this particular laptop. Ideas are more real for Plato than particular concrete things.

Modern science will tell me about the various components that make up my laptop which in turn are made up of atoms which consist of subatomic particles which are made up of more fundamental particles!  Which among all these is real?

This post is a sort of continuation of my previous one titled Truth is Beauty.  I think we cannot speak of truth unless we tackle the issue of reality.

People see reality differently.  Hence truth too varies according to people.  For most people the scientific world of atoms and subatomic particles will make little sense, although they may be making use of things invented or manufactured putting the scientific truths to practical use.  The whole science of electronics and information technology mean little to me and I understand little of it though I can make efficient and effective use of my laptop.  My laptop is real to me in a way significantly different from how it is to the mechanic who repairs it when it fails to function properly.  The laptop is almost a meaningless reality for an illiterate labourer in the granite quarries off my village.

I know I’m mixing up reality, truth and meaning.  They are, in fact, interrelated.  Cognitive scientists today argue that the human mind is embodied.  That is, human reason does not transcend the body.  Human reason is not as abstract as Plato would have us believe.  It is shaped “crucially by our physical nature and our bodily experience,” (Fritjof Capra). 

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, eminent cognitive linguists, argue that most of our thought is unconscious, and the argument is backed by scientific researches.  Most of our thinking operates at a level that is inaccessible to ordinary conscious awareness.  “This ‘cognitive unconscious’ includes not only our automatic cognitive operations, but also our tacit knowledge and beliefs,” (Capra).  Even without our awareness, this cognitive unconscious shapes our tacit knowledge and beliefs. 

That’s why reality appears differently to different people.  That’s why truth is not singular.  That’s why there are so many opinions on the same issue and occasionally violent conflicts too.

It is facile to insist that the reality shown by scientific equipments like the electron microscope is the real reality.  Real for whom?  Real for what purposes?

It is here the arts make their entry.  Literature, painting, music, etc express the non-scientific truth of certain reality in their own way.  When I assert the epistemological value of these handmaidens of human quest for the truth, I’m not devaluing science.  I’m merely stating that these too are as legitimate tools as science in the human pursuit of truth.  This is not condescension.  Nor is it schadenfreude.  And I’m aware enough of the limits and limitations of each of these as a method of inquiry into truth; hence not exultant about any of them.  
Labels:

Comments

  1. mandakolathurJanuary 31, 2013 at 8:50 PM

    That is perfectly fine Matheikal, but somehow I cannot accept statements of the kind, "Science cannot explain this." This has been done enough number of times in the course of history, and had to be withdrawn many a time, whatever "to explain" may mean. True, there are some statements of this kind that have carried their credibility thus far. But ... what tomorrow brings is anyone's guess.

    I cannot even accept that for so and so, truth is not philosophical or scientific understanding. That appears to me to be limiting oneself in the quest for truth. I just need some one, anyone, to tell me that trying to understand anything logically brings on a negative premium and why this happens.

    Reality for one is never the reality for another. OK. Moreover, such a reality cannot jump from one mind to another. Then, what exactly can be explained? It is not that I am looking at the utility value of a piece of artistic work. All I am asking is whether any two people can ever agree at all?

    Take the case of the photograph Piss Christ by Anders Serrano. I do not think the reality of this photograph will be the same for ANY two people! If Shakespeare has so many people interpreting him, does that not mean that his reality, as perceived by him, has mutated vigorously as it jumped from him to the others? This is perfectly fine. I have no problem. I do not shy away from interpreting any photo, any piece of writing, but I am capable of it only at the lowest level (I am metaphor-challenged, as you know). If you remember one Rajarumugam - I burnt my fingers repeatedly trying to interpret what he had written, the photographs he had posted. But, that never deterred me, because I understood that the reality he depicted is subjective. But, I know my limitations enough not to call literature a sour grape. This accommodation I do not see elsewhere.

    No scientist worth his salt will claim that what the microscope, even of the electron microscope kind, shows is reality. This was an unnecessary straw man.

    By the way, the "blue" in the blue sky you see, is it the same that someone else standing beside you sees? This is how subjective reality can be explained in simple terms. If you want to make it less subjective (remember, not objective), it can be said as EM waves of a specific frequency. That is it.

    RE

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownFebruary 1, 2013 at 3:12 PM

    Hey guys,
    Wanted to share some stuff with you. I used Vistaprint for some embroidered t-shirts with logo. Damn impressed. Check it out if you can.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Woman'n'BeyondFebruary 1, 2013 at 4:06 PM

    I am intrigues by both you article and Mandakolathur's reply. Both are talking about two side of coin. Reality, truth is indeed subjective. Even the blue thing appears 'blue' because it has absorbed every other colour but 'rejected' blue and sent it back. The blue thing is actually every colour but blue.

    This debate actually will always remain open ended, always throwing more questions than answers but it is worth the quest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tomichan MatheikalFebruary 1, 2013 at 8:16 PM

      Mandakolathur (Raghuram) and I love to debate on this issue and we have done it quite many times in different ways in the past. We have not succeeded in convincing each other of our views. So I've decided to call off the debate :)

      However, I stick to my guns. Reality, truth is highly subjective; even you agree on that.

      Delete
  4. The MukhtiarsFebruary 1, 2013 at 4:41 PM

    quite interesting mate

    ReplyDelete
  5. shajanmFebruary 1, 2013 at 5:16 PM

    What exactly is Real? That is THE question Matheikal. I think the answer 'Reality is what you can measure or at least express using a mathematical model' has a very compelling logic. If two intelligent people cannot agree on something how could it be called 'Real'?

    But this answer is wrong. I agree this is just my subjective feeling and need not mean anything to a skeptic. I may be just hallucinating!

    There has to be a way to prove the reality of the 'subjective', and there is a way. Stay with the skeptic and go on to ask what exactly is 'objectivity'? How come there is objectivity in the world? All our experiences are subjective and how do we construct this objective picture that appears so solid and alluring?

    -shajan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tomichan MatheikalFebruary 1, 2013 at 8:20 PM

      Because, Shajan, I think, the objective picture runs the world of technology, science, materialism... Secondly, rationality can satisfy the mind while the irrationality of subjectivity is quite certain to unsettle minds that demand perfection or at least systemic order.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In this Wonderland

I didn’t write anything in the last few days. Nor did I feel any urge to write. I don’t know if this lack of interest to write is what’s called writer’s block. Or is it simple disenchantment with whatever is happening around me? We’re living in a time that offers much, too much, to writers. The whole world looks like a complex plot for a gigantic epic. The line between truth and fiction has disappeared. Mass murders have become no-news. Animals get more compassion than fellow human beings. Even their excreta are venerated! Folk tales are presented as scientific truths while scientific truths are sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. When the young generation in Nepal set fire to their Parliament and Supreme Court buildings, they were making an unmistakable statement: that they are sick of their political leaders and their systems. Is there any country whose leaders don’t sicken their citizens? I’m just wondering. Maybe, there are good leaders still left in a few coun...
12 comments
Read more

The Adventures of Toto as a comic strip

  'The Adventures of Toto' is an amusing story by Ruskin Bond. It is prescribed as a lesson in CBSE's English course for class 9. Maggie asked her students to do a project on some of the lessons and Femi George's work is what I would like to present here. Femi converted the story into a beautiful comic strip. Her work will speak for itself and let me present it below.  Femi George Student of Carmel Public School, Vazhakulam, Kerala Similar post: The Little Girl
47 comments
Read more

Death as a Sculptor

Book Discussion An Introductory Note : This is not a book review but a reflection on one of the many themes in The Infatuations , novel by Javier Marias. If you have any intention of reading the novel, please be forewarned that this post contains spoilers. For my review of the book, without spoilers, read an earlier post: The Infatuations (2013). D eath can reshape the reality for the survivors of the departed. For example, a man’s death can entirely alter the lives of his surviving family members: his wife and children, particularly. That sounds like a cliché. Javier Marias’ novel, The Infatuations , shows us that death can alter a lot more; it can reshape meanings, relationships, and even morality of the people affected by the death. Miguel Deverne is killed by an abnormal man right in the beginning of the novel. It seems like an accidental killing. But it isn’t. There are more people than the apparently insane killer involved in the crime and there are motives which are di...
7 comments
Read more

When Cricket Becomes War

Illustration by Copilot Designer Why did India agree to play Pakistan at all if the animosity runs so deep that Indian players could not even extend the customary handshake: a simple ritual that embodies the very essence of sportsmanship? Cricket is not war, in the first place. When a nation turns a game into a war, it does not defeat its rival; it only wages war on its own culture, poisoning its acclaimed greatness. India which claims to be Viswaguru , the world’s Guru, is degenerating itself day after day with mounting hatred against everyone who is not Hindu. How can we forget what India did to a young cricket player named Mohammed Siraj , especially in this context? In the recent test series against England, India achieved an unexpected draw because of Siraj. 1113 balls and 23 wickets. He was instrumental in India’s series-levelling victory in the final Test at the Oval and was declared the Player of the Match. But India did not celebrate him. Instead, it mocked him for his o...
6 comments
Read more

Whose Rama?

Book Review Title: Whose Rama? [Malayalam] Author: T S Syamkumar Publisher: D C Books, Kerala Pages: 352 Rama may be an incarnation of God Vishnu, but is he as noble a man [ Maryada Purushottam ] as he is projected to be by certain sections of Hindus? This is the theme of Dr Syamkumar’s book, written in Malayalam. There is no English translation available yet. Rama is a creation of the Brahmins, asserts the author of this book. The Ramayana upholds the unjust caste system created by Brahmins for their own wellbeing. Everyone else exists for the sake of the Brahmin wellbeing. If the Kshatriyas are given the role of rulers, it is only because the Brahmins need such men to fight and die for them. Valmiki’s Rama too upheld that unjust system merely because that was his Kshatriya-dharma, allotted by the Brahmins. One of the many evils that Valmiki’s Rama perpetrates heartlessly is the killing of Shambuka, a boy who belonged to a low caste but chose to become an ascetic. The...
8 comments
Read more