In the article “The Reality Tests,” author Joshua Roebke raises an interesting question: “Do we create what we observe through the act of our observations?” The simple answer to this question is yes. Two different people can see one common thing and make two completely different observations. It’s all dependent on one’s perception of what they’re looking at. In the article, Roebke uses many physics examples, but that’s definitely not the only subject in which this statement holds true. For example, for a vegetarian person, Buffalo wings can seem disgusting and horrible while, to a regular meat eater, they look absolutely delectable. Another example is in sports. If a team wins the championship, there are going to be just as many unhappy fans as there are happy ones. Like I said, it all depends on the person’s perception of the subject matter.
Roebke’s thesis is a fantastic one and has a great amount of room to expand on. It’s mind-boggling that so many people can look at one thing and have so many different ideas and perceptions about it. The thesis shows how Roebke chooses to write. Instead of stating the answer to his question and making it obvious, he makes the reader think. He makes us look at the writing piece and realize that we really do create our own observations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you Parth. Here's an example. The Phillies won the World Series two years ago and you were extremely happy because the they are your favorite team. Me, on the other hand, couldn't care less about the Philies and their victory. I see the Phillies championshp as completely irrelevant but you see it as the greatest thing that could ever happen to you. This also relates to "The Problem of Describing Trees". For me, I couldn't understand the meaning behind this poem. For others however they could read the same poem and it could make perfect sense to them.
ReplyDeleteI really like your take on this issue. I hadn't thought about it the way you did. You provided so many great examples in this blog. Ones that I wish were evident in Roebke's article. I thought his thesis was weak because I didn't quite understand. After reading the way you put it, a new light was shed on this issue. Thanks!
ReplyDelete