There are no facts, only interpretations
Plan – 5 minutes
Intro – 9 minutes
Body 1 – 17 minutes
Body 2 – 15.5 minutes
Body 3 – 17 minutes
Conclusion – 7 minutes
Total - 1:10 or 70 minutes
1055 words/hour
1243 words total
“There are no facts, only interpretations.” Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous musing conveys the view that nothing can be deemed as an objective fact, and that what we consider to be facts, are in actuality, subjective interpretations. This view however, is slightly flawed. There exists an absolute objective reality, one which we are all subject to and all that we all experience. Nonetheless, our world is one composed of unique individuals, and thus every person perceives the world in a different way. The same event will inspire an infinite variety of interpretations from different individuals. And as human beings, we are prone to believing in the absolute validity of our own comprehension. Once we have established a particular perspective, it becomes extremely difficult to modify, regardless of any contradictory evidence that we may encounter. Accordingly, calamity can ensue when we are unable to reconcile our own views of reality with that of another. It may be difficult to consider that our own paradigms are faulty and that subsequently we need to make the effort to understand another’s perspective, but this is the best approach to take should we desire optimal results. It is imperative that we appreciate the existence of alternative interpretations.
David G. Myers once remarked that “There is an objective reality out there, but we view it through the spectacles of our own beliefs, attitudes, and values.” Indeed, we each adopt a unique set of spectacles in our attempt to understand the world around us. The way in which we read and respond to the world is filtered through infinite variations of experience and influenced by many different conditions. It is therefore, fully possible for two individuals to experience the exact same event yet end up with entirely contrasting interpretations. This concept is explicated in Ian McEwan’s novel Enduring Love. As a result of their first encounter, Jed Parry is left with the impression that an immediate connection was established between him and Joe and that it is now his mission to bring Joe to God. Joe, however, does not feel or see any connection between them and is at an utter loss as to how Jed has arrived at his perception. Individuals can begin at the same starting point yet diverge to construct vastly different perceptions of reality. Accordingly individuals can observe the same incident and come away with conflicting views on what occurred and its implications. Objective classification is then, often impossible, even though empirical observations may be set in stone. For example, Jed’s obsession with Joe is perceived as inconsequential by the police, as well as Clarissa. Yet in contrast, Joe, being most privy to Jed’s inner mechanisms, construes Jed to be a physical to his well-being. It is as Joe declares, “There isn’t ever one system of logic.” As no two individuals adhere to identical models of reality, thus it is at times difficult for us to find solidarity with the views of others. This is however, an inherent condition of the world – there is never merely a single interpretation. Each and every one of us endorses a different perception of reality.
We are not however, always able to comprehend that alternative interpretation exist. We have the tendency to believe that our own view of reality is the “real” one and that therefore any view that conflicts with our own must be invalid. Clearly, this is a fallacious approach to adopt, as our own understanding may be faulty. By refusing to acknowledge the faults in our interpretations, we thereby make it impossible to amend them. Nonetheless even mature men such as Joe Rose are capable of making the mistake; it is an error that at times, is difficult to recognise within ourselves. Once Joe has learned of De Clerambault’s syndrome, he establishes the belief that Jed will eventually resort to bodily harm. Joe accordingly attempts to find, amongst Jed’s numerous letters, indications that Jed means to harm him. There are of course, no overt signs of such a malicious intent, but Joe, convinced that he is right, selectively isolates passages of Jed’s letter to compose a “dossier of threats.” Joe therefore, illustrates that once we have established a certain stance and believe that we are correct in upholding that stance, we will thereby selectively interpret evidence in a way that confirms our beliefs. We will be discriminating in processing information ot suit our personal interpretations. Any contradictory evidence, such as the police’s refusal to align with Joe’s views, is shunned as invalid and not worthy of serious consideration. Thus our beliefs dictate the facts that we choose to accept and it is difficult for an interpretation to be altered once adopted. It is sometimes just too difficult to accept the possibility that we are wrong. But in doing so, we fail to understand the timeless principle that there exist many different yet equally valid views of reality.
It is in our best interests to appreciate the diversity that exists amongst individual interpretations. We should resist our natural inclination to be dogmatic in our views. If we able to examine the reality paradigms floating around us, and with detached logic compare them to our own, we are thereby allowed to thrive as our reality model expands to encompass alternative views. As the ancient fable of the The Blind Men and the Elephant illustrates, we often cannot perceive the whole truth by ourselves; rather we must combine our own understanding with that achieved by others in order to construct the most accurate model possible of objective reality. It is through the collaborative effort of many minds that unprecedented technological feats, such as NASA’s landing on the Moon, can be achieved. New possibilities for the future emerge when we are able to work towards a shared understanding. However when we fail to understand an alternative perspective, disaster can ensue. An extreme example of this is the First Gulf War. Documents show that within the month before the invasion, the United States communicated to Saddam Hussein in a way that made him think he could invade Kuwait with repercussions. Evidently, the first Gulf War may well have been avoided had the diplomats of the United States and Iraq clearly understood each other. Thus the principle that different individuals adhere to divergent views of reality is a double edged sword. When two individuals hold conflicting interpretations encounter each other and fail to amend the incongruity between their views, unnecessary tragedies can occur as a result. Yet on the other hand, when individual interpretations are amassed into a coherent, shared understanding, the impossible can become the possible, subsequently enabling us to thrive in light of our enhanced knowledge. Hence we must take care to reconcile our interpretations with those espoused by others.
Whilst we all exist in a common objective reality that is universally experienced, it is nonetheless inevitable that two individuals will arrive at varying interpretations. There are simply so many factors involved in the constructed of a single interpretation that it would be an unprecedented miracle should more than a small proportion of them match up. Yet we are often susceptible to advocating our own model of reality as the absolutely correct one. It does not, however, serve us well to be so egocentric; the optimal approach is to approach appreciate that the alternative perspectives we encounter can be just as valid, if not more so, than our own. The inherent variety of individuals interpretations, whilst potentially dangerous, is something we should celebrate.
Home
Help
Search
Login
