Schools of philospohy.

The sky is blue on a clear spring day. Water is warm and wet at the beach. Jasmine smells sweet on a cool summer breeze. Most people would agree that those statements are true and therefore are reality. Albert Einstein said “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” Einstein with the acumen of a mathematician made this philosophical claim that on first reflection makes perfect sense. It however has a flaw. It assumes that everyone has the same perspective. It assumes that everyone has the same cognitive and sensory capabilities. A person blind since birth can no more distinguish between the blue of a spring sky or the scarlet color of an apple. They may be able to tell you that the apple is sweet but for them the color is meaningless. By the same token a person with a neurological disorder which inhibits the sense of touch might not understand what “wet” feels like and a person with damaged olfactory senses might have no point of reference to know what fragrance jasmine exudes. So was Einstein correct? How did his theory of reality relate to other philosophers? Is the answer possible somewhere in between?

It is public knowledge that the fields of hard science are established on two sources of truth. The first is Logic. The second is empirical evidence from our senses by observation and experiment. These are also known as a priori and a posteriori knowledge. The goal is to unite these two sources of truth with the most basic standards as to define reality. However, although logic is necessary and certain, it does not mean that the things we assume to exist actually exist in reality. An example of this is the age old question of “If a tree falls in the woods does is make a sound if no one is around to hear it fall?”.

As Einstein writes; The skeptic will say: "It may well be true that this system of equations is reasonable from a logical standpoint. But this does not prove that it corresponds to nature." You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can decide on truth. ... Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world: all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. (Albert Einstein, 1954) The second principle is where reality becomes harder to define because our senses also deceive us. Philosophers have known for thousands of years that our mind represents our senses, thus the world we experience thorough our senses is different to the real world which causes our senses. Our see of color is an obvious example of how our mind represents a certain frequency of light. Our sense of touch defined by how are body and mind process neurological and psychological impulses. When we describe Reality then it must be founded on real things which exist and cause our senses, not on the naive real representation of our senses. Thus Science, by being empirically founded, is not well suited to describing Reality itself.

David Hume, a Scottish philosopher of the early 1700’s, wrote is his A Treatise of Human Nature about what he felt was the sorry state of philosophy, evident even to "the rabble without doors," which has given rise to "that common prejudice against metaphysical reasonings of all kinds". He felt to much was based on non-empirical evidence. He hoped to correct what he called a miserable situation by introducing "the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects," establishing "a science of human nature" that will put philosophy on a "solid foundation" of "experience and observation". His work inspired Immanuel Kant. Immanuel Kant, an eighteenth century metaphysical philosopher, understood this flaw of scientific reasoning and in his Critique of Pure Reason publishes in 1781 explains the problem. 'Critique of Pure Reason' is the most inclusive dissection of Metaphysics since Aristotle's introductory works, which founded this subject. Kant stated that his reading of David Hume enlightened him and animated him to becoming the "critical philosopher," whose position can be seen as a synthesis of the rationalism and the Humean skepticism. Kant termed his basic insight into the nature of knowledge "the Copernican revolution in philosophy." He said that insteed of assuming that for our ideas to be true, they must conform to an external reality independent of our knowing. Kant proposed that objective reality is known only insofar as it applies to the quintessential structure of the aware mind. He perpetuated that element of experience and sensation may be known, but the things that lying beyond the realm of possible experience are unknowable, although their actuality is a essential assumption. Phenomena can be perceived in the pure forms of awareness. If they are to be understood they must possess the characteristics that constitute our categories of understanding. Those categories, which include our senses and logic are the source of the structure of phenomenal experience. The scientist, therefore, may be sure only that the natural events observed are knowable in terms of the categories. Meaning if a person has no point of reference the color blue has no meaning to them.

Math and science deem it necessary for there to be either provable evidence on a things existence or the principle in question must be already proven. This doesn’t lend itself to belief in the divine or the supernatural. Still math and philosophy have gone hand in hand since Heraclictus and Parmenides taught in ancient Greece. Heraclictus himself had no problem with things he couldn’t see or measure. Heraclictus had the idea that the universe is in constant alteration and that there is an unseen mandate or purpose to this change. He called it the Logos and it forms the essential foundation of the European world view and to an extent the Christian philosophy that God works in mysterious ways but he has a plan and a purpose.. Every time you walk into a science, economics, or political science classroom to some extent the nature of that course originates with Heraclitus's speculations on change and the Logos. So Heraclitus would have deem the sky still blue, the water wet, and jasmine still aromatic whether the observe has the sensory means to identify this or not.

So where does the truth lie? Is reality comprehensible as Einstein believed? Are there mysterious forces guiding the universe and determining our perceptions as Heraclitus believed? Should we only be concerned with what is provable and limit speculation according to Kant? I believe the truth of reality lies not in it being provable but in each individuals personal perception. So I do agree with Einstein that ,yes, the universe is comprehensible but with the addendum that each individual defines there own reality by their own resources.