It may be physical or psychological, and a cursory observation of human interactions makes it apparent that we engage psychologically in at least two different, not necessarily mutually exclusive types of “seeing”. One is where we employ external inputs to perceive the outside world. The other is the unadulterated gazing inside of our own conscious: genuine introspection. Both varieties of “seeing” are a part of our daily interactions and are shaped by our environment and backgrounds..
It could be an interesting measure of one’s emotional maturity as to how little dichotomy is allowed to exist between those two types of “seeing” in daily transactions. The area of history can be displayed to support the statement. Hitler is a subject of endless debate amongst historians: a judgement of his massacre of the Jews would be based on personal perspectives, cultural beliefs and moral values. Even though it is widely accepted Hitler was unethical in his actions, a staunch Nazi would have justifications that only other Nazis would be able to relate with.
They understand Hitler not as he is, or accepted to be, but as they are – followers of Hitler. Emotion as a way of knowing demonstrates this, as the passion of the Nazi followers for the party, be it through love for themselves or their leader, blinds of the reality that Hitler committed immense crimes. German philosopher Nietzsche, who’s ideas are interestingly believed to be the foundation for Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”, stated “love is the state in which man sees things most widely different from what they are.
” With the divorce rate increasing day by day, it is evident that the emotive force of love has capabilities to cloud one’s mind with dillusion. Religion and culture are areas where there was always been misunderstanding. France being a secular country has banned headscarves in school, generating opposition. Emotion comes into play here as women who have worn the burqa as part of family tradition may feel either obliged to or pressurised to wear it in school. To view the issue in a positive or negative light, it depends on the intensity of the ones beliefs.
If a person is open-minded enough to view a variety of situations that could arise, such as internal family conflict, repercussions within the school as well as Muslim community and personal anxiety, they may feel that the ban is justified. Nevertheless, a Muslim extremist may feel it is a violation against Islam based on personal beliefs, and not consider the full spectrum of events. Humans are incapable of viewing certain situations from all angles due to limitations of physical and mental ability. Therefore one must perceive a situation according to individual circumstances.
Considering science, visible light is a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum that can be observed by the human eye. When we see something as red, the other colours are present but have been absorbed. We see this as red itself because of the limitations of the human eye, as we are, and not as the spectrum is scientifically proven to be. These limitations are also shown through Art, taking optical illusions as an example. The image below is still, yet the leaves appear to be flowing. What we physically see is different to the reality of the image, as the leaves are arranged in a particular way to suggest movement.
The artist is playing on the limitations of human eyesight. In this world of relative value systems, it is easy to be comfortable in the belief that there aren’t many absolute truths one must accept. On a deeper and more objective level, however, it would be apparent that it might be dangerous to accept our interpretations of reality primarily on the basis of who we are. If the proposition were to be true, where would the humanity end up without objectively understood scientific facts and timeless values of daily human interactions?
Taking an example from personal experience, during my internship I came across an atheist doctor who subscribed to the principle of relative morality with liberal views on abortion right up to 21 weeks of pregnancy. A patient asked him whether aborting voluntarily at 21 weeks of pregnancy would be tantamount to depriving a life a chance to exist as well as what his thoughts were on the foetus’ ability to perceive pain, and in my presence he dismissed those concerns in private.
