based on the exploration of reality from the following video.
"But if the reality is not what appears have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all.
If so have we any means of finding out what it [thing-in-itself] is actually like."
Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy - Appearance Vs Reality
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?V=xbt-DN7T6C8
Transcripts as follows;
Can anyone explain What is the Chair-in-Itself Really Like?Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man may doubt it.
So begins Bertrand Russell's book the problems of philosophy in this video we'll be discussing the conceptual ideas of this work and where it leaves us in our understanding of the universe and our relationship with it.
To begin to look for certainty it is natural to start with our immediate experiences.
It is fair to say that all knowledge must in some way be derived from our own experience.
But to what extent can we rely on such experiences to bring us concrete knowledge of the world outside of our own minds.
Let's take an example in front of me I see a red chair.
To touch it is cool and soft and it is heavy and when I push the chair I can hear it scraping along the floor.
Anyone who sees or feels or hears the chair will agree with this description so it may seem that no issues would arise.
However, if we try to be even a little more precise we very soon run into great difficulty.
Colour
For example, when I first saw the chair I described it as red a pretty uncontroversial statement I think you'll agree.
Although I believe the chair is actually the same colour of red all over that is not how it actually appears to me when I look closely.
There are parts that are reflecting light which appear much brighter to me the brightest parts of the chair almost appearing white.
Likewise the parts of the chair covered by shadow appear much darker almost black in some places but these colours that I see on the chair are entirely fleeting.
If there is any change whatsoever in the light falling on the chair then the entire distribution of colours I see will change.
We can also deduce from this that if there is more than one person in the room no two people will see exactly the same distribution of colors on the chair as no two people can be standing in exactly the same place.
Any change in the point of view makes some change in how the light is reflected.
Therefore no two people will ever see the same chair but also no one person will ever see the same chair twice at different times.
Of all these colors I can see which of them is actually the colour of the chair.
We have no reason for regarding some of these as more really the colour of the chair than others.
It follows that there is no colour which we can say is truly the colour of the chair.
Shape
Describing our knowledge of the shape of the chair we find similar problems.
We are in the habit of judging what we consider to be the true shape of things automatically.
So automatically in fact that we come to think we actually perceive the real shape of these physical objects.
But just like the color the shape of the chair which we observe is different depending on the angle we are looking at it.
Experience has taught us to construct the real shape from these apparent shapes but the real shape is never actually what we see.
It is only something inferred from what we see.
What we see is constantly changing shape as we move around.
So here again our senses seem not to give us the truth about the chair itself but only about the appearance of the chair.
Texture.
To get this point across we will look at one more example the texture of the chair to the naked eye it appears smooth and even.
But were we to look at the chair under a microscope it would be quite a different story the surface would appear to have tall mountains and deep valleys and all types of differences which we cannot perceive with the naked eye.
Which of these is the real chair.
We are tempted to say the version we see under the microscope.
But this would be changed by a yet more powerful microscope.
If we can't trust what we see with the naked eye why should we be able to trust what we see through a microscope.
Tree.
A different type of example will help to get the point across when we see a tree on tv we know we are not seeing the actual tree.
But instead we are merely seeing a representation of the actual tree.
We see the picture on the screen and infer that there is a real tree out there somewhere in the real world and that a camera was pointed at the tree which recorded it and so on and so on until a picture of the tree appears on our tv screen.
But when we are looking at the tree on tv we are fully aware that we do not see the actual tree.
Likewise when we observe a tree in real life with our senses we do not see the tree-in-itself but we only see a representation of the tree which may be caused by the tree our eyes the light hitting the tree the signals in our brain and a myriad of other factors.
The tree-in-itself is only one of these and it can never be viewed in isolation.
When we see a tree it throws an image into our consciousness.
We as subject bring as much to the act of perception as the object itself.
We have but a tenuous relation to the actual objects that cause our experiences.
Conclusion.
Thus it becomes evident that the real chair [chair-in-itself] if indeed there is one is not the same as what we actually come into contact with through any of our sensations.
Our sensations cannot be supposed to reveal directly any definite property of the chair.
But at most be signs of some property which perhaps causes all the sensations but is not actually apparent in any of them.
Thus what we directly see and feel is merely appearance which we believe to be a sign of some reality behind [chair-in-itself].
But if the reality is not what appears have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality [e.g. chair-in-itself] at all.
If so have we any means of finding out what it [thing-in-itself] is actually like.
based on the exploration of reality from the above video.
Discuss??
Views??