Posted at 07.10.2018
There was one day mom bought a couple of iguanas to be kept as pet. These were cute and adorable to me. I have seen their cousins in the open at the Discovery Route. When my sister came down the stairs and noticed those two little inexperienced creatures, she began to scream and ran off to her room soon after that. I knew that she was very squeamish for the lizards. It creates me ponder. Why do differing people have different view over a similar thing? Are different means of knowing make them perceive things differently? Being a Jewish proverb should go, we see and understand things not as these are but as we have been. What do we understand by this price? This essay will discuss the jobs of emotion, notion, vocabulary, reason physical restriction in determining how we see and understand things.
To answer this question, we first need to define exactly what does it actually mean by 'experiencing' and 'understanding'. According to the dictionary, the word seeing has several meaning. One of the most ideal meanings in this context is it to get alert to something or someone by making use of your eyes. On the other hand, understanding may be defined as a subconscious process related for an abstract or physical object, such as a person, situation, or message whereby one can consider it and use principles to deal adequately with this object. Nonetheless, the word viewing can also bring meaning to comprehend.
However, both of these words can hardly be defined effectively as it requires the procedure of various ways of knowing. Why don't we take a good example of three different people finding and understanding a male lion in action preying on a gazelle; an American biologist studying the animals of African savannah, a local Bushman in Namibia and a Russian holiday who had just escaped from being a hungry female lion's lunch two weeks previously. Would these three different individuals 'seeing and understanding' of a lion be the same?
The American scientist can use more logic and reason rather than using sentiment or emotions to justify the lion's action. Once the guy clenched its dog teeth straight below the jaw of its victim, he'd quickly spot the need for blocking air tube to suffocate the gazelle and making certain his meal wouldn't normally ran away. Based on science, the prey may be killed when the lion enclosing the animal's oral cavity and nostrils in its jaws which would lead to asphyxia. They sneak up to the victim until they reach a distance of around 30 metres or less. Typically, several lionesses work together and encircle a herd from different tips. After they have closed with a herd, they usually target the closest prey. The strike is short and powerful; where they attempt to catch the sufferer with a fast rush and last leap. The prey usually is killed by strangulation, which can cause cerebral ischemia or asphyxia, which results in hypoxemic, or "general, " hypoxia.
Secondly, the local Bushman who has been surviving in the African savannah for decades amidst the wild animals would surely know and understand the lion's behavior and its capacity to hunt not simply four feet mammals but also humans. But just as the lions, the Bushmen are also good hunters. They wander across the veld in ones and twos, rest and sleep everywhere, completely unperturbed by lions, elephant or other wild game. Besides, he also offers a belief that a lion is not simply a lion. The Bushmen of Africa believe not only crops and family pets are alive, but also rain, thunder, the blowing wind, spring and coil, etc. They declare that we see can only see the outside form or body of something. Inside, there is a living spirit that people cannot see. These spirits can fly out of 1 body into another. For instance, a woman's spirit might sometime fly into a leopard; or a man's nature might fly into a lion's body.
Lastly, the Russian traveler would have a greater propensity to see and understand the lion's behaviour predicated on her emotion rather than using logic and terminology. Emotions affect and are a part of our disposition, which is usually a more sustained psychological state. Mood influences our judgement and changes how we process decisions. Being a near-terrorized sufferer, her memory may recalls vividly of the horror event that almost needed her life. This could eventually lead to a mental disorder, ailurophobia (concern with felines). A past connection with pain can give rise over a subsequent occasion to the feelings of fear. When she was attacked by way of a lion, she may have suffered a grievous pain or at least some physical injuries. Subsequently, on seeing the lion, she seems fear. The emotional tone belongs to the present perception as a result of previous painful experience inflicted by the recognized object. The original painful feeling, when it actually took place, occurred as part of a perceptual activity which was one and constant in every its aspects. The painful discomfort was not basically superadded to the visible perception of the thing as another and isolated event; it was an integral phase of the same constant process.
However, we do need to take other factors into account. Although the American scientist seeing and knowledge of the lion's behaviour will be more towards reasoning the logic of its function, he is able to also actually see and understand the lion as the other two 'partial understanders'. Perceptually, he can easily see the atrociousness of the killing and deeply alert to the risk that the lion may pose to him. Besides, a scientist is a man. If not much, he'd have at least a small amount of pity towards the indegent gazelle or worried if the lion may harm him. As Irene Claremont de Castillejo says, "Emotion always has its root base in the unconscious and manifests itself in the torso. " He is able to hardly escape from having a feeling or feeling as other human beings do. Linguistically, the scientist would also used natural lexicons that could help him to reason out the lion's action in a much more detailed manner. On this field, he would be probably richer in terms of vocabulary than other people. For the physical limitation, the scientist is equipped with high speed cameras, sonar tracker and probably sedatives shot to get a closer look with the lion and natural samples from them. This would inevitably enhance the scientist means of knowing through notion which are improbable to be purchased by the other two different people. Even though the Bushmen have a highly sensitive and trained five senses and the tourist is probably outfitted with a set of binoculars, these are just not enough.
We is now able to say that the finding and understanding of the scientist is more serious and objective than others experiencing and understanding where it requires limited variety of ways of knowing. At one time, the Bushmen used more perception whilst the Russian traveler will see things more emotionally and both have a great physical limitation. On the other side, the American scientist means of knowing incorporates multiple activities where he recognizes and understand the lion's behavior theoretically, emotionally, linguistically and by using technology, an increased perception.
Thus, to 'see and understand things as they are and not even as are' is neither easy to be done nor is it impossible. This is because each folks have various ways of knowing that could result in different seeing and understanding of a similar thing. However, when we bring various ways of knowing jointly without being inclined towards one way of knowing too much, we're able to come nearer to viewing and understanding things because they are and not as we are.