The arguments on the nature of reality mostly results to philosophical questions what can be seen from analysis paper example. Regarding to the experience I had with my two friends from philosophy class outside the class work, the nature of reality can be argued on the basis of life experience and physical appearance. However, this results to the series of differences within the participating parties. One might ask if the world is as experienced through senses, or it is a mere subject of appearances, or is the day really the way it is experienced or even is the orange really the way it smells and tastes. These questions form an experimental philosophy approach in understanding the nature of reality.
Philosophers have quite different views regarding the nature of reality. Although they agree on the metaphysics of philosophical questions posed by the experience, there was a bit difference in the perception and understanding of the reality. Regarding to the above mentioned questions, several arguments came, in which there is clearly outlined difference in understanding the nature of reality . Though it was during the summer, the fact that the sun was not hot was used as evidence in the argument that the physical view does not show what is happening in reality but it just a mere subjective formed set of appearances. These philosophers argued that the nature of reality cannot be determined by physical appearance of the situation. Although the orange I picked looks and smells to be delicious, these philosophers argued that it is not a must that the orange will taste as it looks and smells. In addition, these philosophers argued that besides the picture displayed by physical appearance, personal perception should be considered in understanding the nature of the reality. They assumed that different people perceive things differently and therefore different perception can result to conflicts of interest in understanding the nature of the reality. The way one views and perceives things determines his/ her view on the nature of the reality. In addition, these philosophers further argued that previous experiences on the similar factor might lead a person to making wrong perception of the reality. For instance, they argued that having previously eaten an orange that was very sweet does not imply that all oranges are delicious. Another assumption made was that the nature of the reality depends on the situation of the form. For example, describing the reality of God will be much different from describing something which is visible. This implies that, to a certain extent, physical appearance can depict the reality but for certain specified situations it may not.
The argument that is experienced through senses and physical appearance of a factor can be a sound method of determining the reality. For instance, a student can be described to be seated on the desk if he/ she is seen seated on the desk. It is real that a student is seated on the desk because that is what can be seen physically. Therefore, physical appearance gives a picture of what is happening in the reality and hence it is validly acceptable. However, it is ironical that the sun was not hot despite the fact that it was during the summer season. This supports the argument by my fellow philosophers that the nature of reality in addition to the physical appearance, depends on the situation of the form. The fact that the sun was not hot cannot be used to imply that it was on the winter season. This is because the walk might have been undertaken early in the morning before the sun gets hot, or in the late afternoon when the sun cools. The interpretation of the reality of orange from the smell and appearance is not logical enough to be accepted. This is due to the lack of evidence that the way the orange looks and smells can depict its real taste. The argument that people have got different perception which affects personal perception of the nature of reality is valid and can be used to make sound interpretations of the reality. For instance, people who perceive that for every cause of action there must be a force behind it can easy accept the existence of God as real through how things happen. However, people with different perception may completely deny the reality of God’s existence.
The way I experience things, either through senses or seeing, implies how they are in reality. If, for instance, through the sense of touch I fill that something is rough, therefore, this becomes the real nature of the object. From the above mentioned example of a student seating on the desk, it is real that the student can be seen seated. The fact that the student can be seen seated on the desk reveals what is happening in reality. Therefore, the way things are experienced by whatever means can be used to describe the nature of reality.
I agree with my fellow philosophers that personal perception of things is very important in understanding the nature of the reality. The instance of the reality of God is a good example of personal perception in understanding the nature of the reality. As it has been argued in Part Three, the way people perceive things determines their understanding of the nature of reality. God is an invisible being and therefore His reality can be evidenced through understanding how things happen and the force behind them.
Theoretical knowledge is also very vital in understanding the nature of the reality. Theoretical knowledge prepares a person psychologically to the expectations of certain forms of nature. For instance, a human expects delicious taste from an orange and therefore, the smell and the look of the orange may not influence the perception a person has on the reality of the orange. This is because theoretical knowledge has psychologically influenced the expectation of the person on the real taste of the orange.