As knowers, we have a different way in which we approach, achieve and interpret knowledge. This difference is caused by the fact that all of us are different people with different personalities thereby having different perspectives and points of view. We perceive things differently. The way Tom perceives the idea of abortion may be different from the way Jenny sees it. Tom, being a father of two and a priest will totally disagree with the process of taking away the life of an un-born baby. On the other hand, Jenny, 16 years old, having mistakenly conceived her boyfriend’s child, may take abortion as a tool for putting the broken pieces of her life together.
Points of view, therefore, are developed by people from time to time due to various reasons, one of which in the above example is experience. Perspectives are also built with variations in history, cultural background, age, social environment [which includes our peers] and field of study. These perspectives give us our identity, and make us who we are – then why would one consider them to be an obstacle in the quest of knowledge?
It can be said that this argument may have different implications according to the area of knowledge in question.
Natural Sciences require a very thorough process when it comes to acquiring knowledge. Scientists all over the world follow this process very rigidly. Science demands objectivity in its pursuit. It demands reasons. In Science, falsification plays an important role. A new theory comes into place as it displaces the previous one. It is due to the Scientists’ different points of view that old theories are falsified and new ones are proposed. In this sense, the knower’s point of view is an asset in the proposal of new theories, and hence, development in science.
On the other hand, one would counter that statement saying that it is due to these different points of view that new theories sometimes are hardly accepted. Take the example of Galileo when he proposed the theory of the Sun being in the center of the universe. He wasn’t exactly appreciated for that and was even sent to jail. The society found it difficult to break the paradigm, which they were very much emotionally attached to instead of accepting the new knowledge. In this context, the society’s point of view is considered to be an obstacle in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. But with the development that Science is making today, it is becoming easier to accept new theories as long as it passes the experimental test.
Whereas theories in Science portray one definite scientific truth, artistic truth in the arts differs from people to people. The Arts is that area of knowledge that works because of the existence of different perspectives. What a person may see as the most exceptional piece of painting, another may see it as plainly a waste of time. The Arts is about freedom of speech – freedom of speaking one’s point of view and appreciating others’ perspectives at the same time. And these perspectives help the artists to see where the world stands and how they can better their work of art, their knowledge.
However, if we look at History, we may be tempted to say that its perception on the different points of view is rather opposite of that of the arts. Let’s take the example of the Second World War. An Austrian would think of Hitler as a ruthless and unethical German dictator who took away many innocent lives. On the other hand, a political leader who believes in good leadership may think of Hitler as a very effective leader who led his people well and never let them down. Let’s say that both, the Austrian and the politician are novelists. If we were to read their novels, we would get two completely different perspectives of World War II through their own way of exploiting language. Where would we find more truth? Whereas one of them could be vague in his explanation but true, the other could be an exceptional writer but wrong. How would we be able to tell the difference between the two? Hence here, it becomes difficult for us to pursue knowledge with the different opinions that exist.
Nonetheless, one would say that it is an added advantage to have different perspectives that helps us get a broader understanding of the war. That can be taken into consideration, and does speak the truth in itself. Then again, if we were to read two different books that gave us two entirely different statistics of the war, it would become difficult to determine which book holds the correct information, the truth. And that would be one obstacle hard to overcome. It could be said that in these circumstances, the different points of view arise due to the limitation of knowledge that each individual has, which differs from one person to the other.
Speaking of statistics, mathematics is that area of knowledge that would not appreciate the idea of having multiple points of view. After all, math is about getting the right answer, the only right answer, then where would the different points of view arise in this concrete aspect of knowledge? 2 + 2 = 4, and there are no questions about that, no dissimilar perspectives because any other answer besides 4 is wrong. Yet, topics like statistics in mathematics may carry different answers. If we were to give the statistics of the number of black cars that passed a certain street over a given period of time, and each one of us came up with a different number after the end of the activity, who would be to blame? Our statistics could be wrong. But our memory could be blamed to. It is possible that some of us may have been distracted during the activity and may have made mistakes in counting. It could be possible that some of may be color blind, mistaking black for blue and vice-versa. That means that the process of mathematics does not have different points of view, instead the way we obtain knowledge in it may lead us in having more than one correct answer, more than one point of view.
This takes us to the concept of subjective approach to knowledge where a person may have opinions according to his/her own limited understanding of the concept and self-made generalizations. Let’s look back at the example of the abortion. Both Tom and Jenny have a different perspective of abortion. To Tom, it is ‘unethical’ to abort a child while to Jenny it is a ‘need’. Both look at abortion through their point of view developed as a result of their circumstances. Everyone for that matter will have a different perspective on abortion depending on their circumstances. Some may agree with Tom but understand Jenny’s situation too. Others may disagree with Tom and yet not find Jenny’s reason for adoption convincing. Where would the truth then stand? Ethically, that is indeed hard to tell. Everyone sees the world differently and has different opinions as to where the world should stand. We can not say that the way he sees the world is better or worse than the way she perceives it because their perception depends on the way they lead their life and no two people share exactly the same lifestyle today.
This question, therefore, is too generalized and vague to be given only one answer. It is impossible to have the same answer for all the different areas of knowledge. Yet, all these areas universally seek for one definite thing – the truth, although they may vary in their way of seeking that truth. However, we can generalize by saying that most of these areas of knowledge, besides mathematics, more or less do appreciate different points of view, after all, if everyone saw the world through the same eye, we would still believe that the earth is flat, paintings would always carry only one message and historians would definitely be out of business. In the end, it’s not what you look at but what you see that matters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment