On perspective:
Few would argue that they are unbiased, unless they extrapolate Kant’s universal reason to include perception in general.
In which case by “unbiased” I fear they mean “foolish.”
I am quite biased.
I attempt to approach the world from a realistic perspective. I tend to emphasize the reasonable, rational and practical. This is often contrasted with things like optimism, and is frequently confused with cynicism.
(I think naiveté lends itself to confusing realism with cynicism—considering reality to be better than it is, while certainly a noble mistake, holds that any non-optimist must be a cynic.)
I understand myself as realistic as a medium between how I perceive the perspectives of idealists on one side and cynics on the other.
I suppose that everyone needs to recalibrate his or her understanding of perspectives. After realizing that no one subscribes to a philosophy entirely (i.e. there are streaks of other philosophies in everyone’s perspective), you’ve got to establish what is what.
I don’t give people enough credit, but approach life practically, reasonably. Not enough credit isn’t enough to say cynic, though I certainly entertain a fair number of cynical musings.
Oftentimes it seems that anything not lining up with an idealist is cynicism, ergo they fancy themselves realists insomuch as they think that how they perceive reality is realistic.
Or they don’t understand the connection between reality and realistic.
That to demonstrate that perception of reality is relative.
I can only ever consider things through my two eyes.
I have no choice but to interpret reality in my own context and through my own experience. I strive to expand my context and experience in order to objectify my perception, but even my consideration of my own bias is a biased perspective on it.
I say I’m realistic, but some call me cynical.
That bothers me.
It bothers me because I am realistic.
They’re just naïve.
Trust me, I’ve got a corner on reality…
No comments:
Post a Comment