Appearance and Reality - Essay Example

To start with, he considers light falling on the table and its distribution. He suggests that different people looking at the same table will actually see a different thing altogether depending on the angle of look and position with which they stand. He explains further that the two people will have different account of what they see, and the initial table will have a different “meaning” altogether. He continues by outlining other characteristics of the same and claims that the texture, when observed with the unaided eye, will be much different than when observed with microscopes of different powers.

He alleges that more details will be revealed whenever the latter will be used, making him wonder of what more is yet to be found on this rather cool and smooth table. He elaborates that, if what can be perceived with the naked eye is questionable, then how true is that which can be observed with aids? Russell claims that a real shape will maintain its shape regardless of the angle with which it is looked at. He alleges that a circular shape will appear oval like when viewed from a distance and thus deviating from the initial theory of “real shapes,” hence concludes that there is no such thing as a real shape.

Briefly, Russell Bertrand, an acclaimed theorist, suggests that there is no such thing as “Reality.” From the examples given, he brings out the possibility of reasoning and challenging even the most of basic things in life that we consider common sense. Physics teaches that light travels from the object to the eye, so whatever we perceive depends upon the light on the same object to our eyes. Therefore, whatever our eyes see depends on the property of light. Thereby we can justify that whatever our eyes see is the real object.

Considering his example on texture, where he was torn in between on what exactly he was to take as the real feel for the same. He actually overlooks a lot in his reason for even considering the microscopic view as part of the “real” view. One thing he forgets to understand is that the microscopic view, whether in low or high power is actually giving the hidden structural arrangement and combination of grains, which are the building blocks for the table, which will otherwise not have been seen with the naked eye.

This example is the equivalent of considering a house where the basic are bricks. When the bricks are analyzed on their own, they exhibit a different property, which the otherwise finished house will not have. Thus, the house cannot be described using such property. The human eyesight is limited to a number of things. His claim that shapes look different from a given point of view can also be challenged critically. Perspective angle causes shapes to appear different, but that does not mean that they really are.

In my view, people will see whatever they want to see and interpret them in whatever manner they deem fit, making each person to have a different opinion and account concerning what they perceive depending on their current physical and psychological condition. However, if the different people were given the same “viewing” ground and if they all had perfect eyesight, all of them would give the same answer and description of what they saw. Russell’s claim that two people will give different accounts when viewing the same from different places is actually true.

Were the same people given