The Power of Horizons, Continued
I started with a definition: a* horizon is the line/zone of demarcation between detail and lack of/no detail.
I gave three examples: a 3d graphic image; a Peanuts comic strip; and a description of mountainous horizons in the real world.
I ended with an objection, that goes like this: 'This all sounds well and good, but it's not real. You can't touch a horizon, just like you can't touch a constellation. A horizon is an effect of relative positions between multiple objects, one of them being myself the looker. The cognitive/perceptual phenomena are real - they can be at least extrapolated via MRI and EEG, for instance - but the horizon itself isn't. It's a human, cognitive
inter
polation. So it can't have any significance in human science, and therefore can't be logically - or even phenomenologically - justified, even if you philosophers are going to pretend otherwise.'
Ha. I've never heard anyone say this out loud, but this stopped me up short when I considered it in my own mind. What
do
I consider
real
? Like, real as in objects - you can touch it, see it, smell it, hear it, taste it....
Right?...
Instead of a digression, check this out if you want to go down that essential rabbit hole:
The gist of the video:
"Phenomenology describes experience as experienced - it's an objective approach to subjective experience. From this perspective, the world is a very strange place.For instance, the following are all invisible to the unaided eye of any human observer:- your own face- your own head- your own heart- your own guts- your own eyesThe following are all things that the observer has never touched:- the Sun- the Moon- a rainbow- your gutsWell, are those things real? If you say yes, I ask By what criteria?"
Ok, so, is the objection valid? Is an horizon real?
At the very least, the horizon can be seen. Right? Then there's a prima facia case for being real, which must then be empirically verified.
But we already know that the verification will fail. You can't touch, taste, smell or hear an horizon. Not even in principle.
That's a shock, right? I mean, it's
right there
. We can both see it. How can it not be real?
That rabbit hole may not be so inconvenient after all...
So, is it real? You can see it. You can't perceive it with any other senses, but... Now we start to understand the practical impact of the question, Is it real? Because now, we're actually questioning the definition itself, and the criteria for designating something as 'real'.
The gist of the video: before you answer whether a rainbow is real, make sure you know what you mean by 'real', and be able to give examples of both real and unreal 'things'. If we take the usual criteria - it can, in principle, be perceived with all the sense faculties - then we hit two difficulties.
First, there are 'things' like subatomic particles that we can't directly perceive with any of our senses. Second, there are macroscopic things that we can't perceive all of the senses, even in principle.: You will never taste your own, living heart. You will never see your own face externally like everyone else sees your face.
Clearly, though, my face is real, a rainbow is real, a horizon is real.
One other criteria that's maybe not obvious enough: If some perception is repeatable, then we're likely dealing with something real. You would think that saying any horizon depends on my location, would suggest it's merely a 'subjective' phenomenon, and unreal. But the fact that the perception depends on my location, only means that, if I place myself appropriately, and look in the appropriate direction, I will indeed and in fact perceive a horizon.
I can 'predict' where to find an horizon. Further, anyone else in the same location, looking in the same direction, will see the same thing.
Horizons are real.
*This could be "an horizon", and that's how I pronounce it out loud. As "a horizon", spoken sounds like either 'uh huhrizen' - short a, or 'ay huhrizen' with a long a. When I say 'a horizon' out loud, the a is long.
Comments