Assignment 2: The Red Tinted Glasses

I think this chapter tried to convey that we all see things differently, because we are all wearing the different 'red tinted glasses'. Although what comes into our eyes are all the same, when we wear our own red-tinted glasses, we have different interpretations of what we see through our eyes. Maybe some of us have really similar perceptions, but it may not be exactly the same because we are have individual aspects on certain things. I think the way we interpret things depend on how we were raised. For example, some religions respect certain types of animals and do not allow them to be slaughtered. However, other athiests who have no particular views on animals being killed for food are used to eating them since they were young.
It also seems that the red tinted glasses we wear prohibits us from the reality. Although we do see some of the things through this glasses (shades of red), it is possible that we are not seeing everything that is out there. But from what we are allowed to see, we see them and interpret them in our own ways.
I thought that the chapter was trying to tell its readers that we are all different - and we all have different perceptions and ideas about them. But it is important to appreciate each other's views on certain things, and our own individualisms.

Assignment 2 'The red tinted glasses'

In Chapter 25, Kant, The metaphor ‘red tinted glasses’ suggests that everything we view is limited to an extent. I think it is trying to say how the way we perceive and interpret can be limited due to the ‘red tinted glasses’ that we personally wear. When we have the red tinted glasses on, we see everything in shades of red. This suggests that everything we perceive is altered, however, the way we view world may be different from how others view the world as there can be many other views.

When putting on the red tinted glasses on, we can instantly recognize the differences between the real world and the world that is limited by the red tinted glasses. The things we see may all be the same, however the color, shade and texture may be altered and changed and therefore allow our interpretations to differ. In other words, the glasses have limited our insight of reality. These glasses can affect the way we view groups in the society, people with different ethnic backgrounds, different cultures, different religions, etc.

Personally I think we don’t start off having the red tinted glasses but it is merely something we put on either by others or ourselves. The pair of glasses we put on shapes the things we are taught during our life (all those morals and values). If we want to view the world in all perspective, we will need to courage to take a step forward and take these glasses off. Without these pair of glasses we will be able to make our own reasoning and accept all other perspectives.

"Red-tinted glasses"

In the chapter 25 from the novel, Sophie's World, it talks about the 'Red tinted glasses', which is just a glasses and everything you see through it is red. I think its a metaphor for how people view the world. Everyone one has their own perspective on the world, like what we have been doing in our past TOK lessons. This would be a drawing of 'school knowledge', mostly everyone view it differently. So metaphoricly the red-tinted glasses makes me realise that there is not only one point of view of things and learn to look at other people's point of views.

It also refers to assignment 1, when the question was "Do we lose the ability to wonder about the world in the process of growing up?". There is a link between the two assignments because we see everything differently when we wear the red-tinted glasses and this might be due to by having obtain more knowledge and understanding of the world during the process of growing up. For example, when we are still a kid, studying in kindergarden school, we would think that the world is peaceful, fun, relaxing, but when we grew up we notice that the world wasn't it seems to be not because the world has changed but our mind has. We know more about the world itself, that there are wars and isn't peaceful. So the red-tinted glasses might shows what we might see as the world in the future. It actually makes us or only me think that is the world right now the way we see it? Even though we have grow up to a stage that we have understood and know more about the world, but is that the end? There is no stop in viewing what the world is, there is no answer or meaning to what the world is to everyone.

'Red-tinted glasses'

The metaphor, ‘red-tinted glasses’ symbolizes the limitations of our perceptions which further emphasizes how our minds become narrow-minded without us being aware of this process. Red is only one of the perspective and there many different colors like Green, Orange and Blue as well as different shades of colors.
Although we may not be born with a pair of colored-tinted glasses but the manner in which we are brought up with our values and culture as well as the experience we have gone through, we will eventually be wearing glasses of different hues. Religion and the environment we are brought up in also affects our view of situations and the world.
The red-tinted glasses reflect all colors but red and its shades. The colored lens acts as a filter and allows only us to see things in red and its shades. Due to the different points of views, conflicts and disagreements arise. We may not be able to remove the glasses but we can be open to the different opinions and options around us.
For instance, most of us believe that students from band 5 schools to be unintelligent and dumb especially academic wise. This is, in fact, completely false. Many of the students are bright and I know this so as there were a number of them who moved into my previous school which is a band 1. This is an example of stereotypes which unfortunately does exist in our society. We may think this way from what we hear from people around us or from the newspapers and ratings. We, then, simply judge students from band 5 schools and put them in the same category without looking at other possibilities.
In conclusion, Kant is trying to make us realize about the glasses we have been wearing without being aware of them. Through this, he wants to tell us to remove our glasses and see the ‘real’ world with a clear mind.

Assignment 2 – “red-tinted glasses”

From my point of view, the “red-tinted glasses” in the book that Sophie was asked to put on symbolizes one’s perspective. Through the red-tinted glasses one would see everything in the shades of red and if one was born with red-tinted glasses stuck to one’s eyes, one will find the world red and might not know that it is in fact made of all sorts of colors; however, if one was born without the glasses stuck to one’s eyes then one will know that the world in fact is made up of all sorts of colors no matter if they put on the glasses later on.

The “red-tinted glasses” in book convey how people think, see and judge things in different ways. On earth, almost everyone do think, see and judge things in different ways despite the fact that they are wearing the glasses or not. Without experience or thinking deeply about something people tend to judge things according to their senses. For example, if a person is obese, some people might think that the person is obese because he/she eats a lot; however, they might not know that the person could just be obese because the person is lazy and doesn’t do enough exercise but eats as much as them. This is because they are using their senses to think and making a judgment, and this would make them empiricists and not rationalists, whose belief and theory is based on knowledge. Therefore, the “red-tinted glasses” in the book is a metaphor for how would empiricists think.

Assignment 2 - 'red-tinted glasses'

The red-tinted glasses metaphor seemed to suggest that the way of interpreting information obtained through our sense perception is adapted to an individual’s existing underlying principle. This is a balance Kant concluded from the beliefs of both Empiricists like Hume, who believe that all knowledge is derived from information from sense perception and experience, and Rationalists like Descartes, who believed that basic grounds for all knowledge lay within the mind. I believe that what is sensed (e.g. seen) maybe the same for people of different upbringing, however, as a result of the different upbringing we may regard the event or object in different ways demonstrated by Sophie when she put on the red-tinted glasses. She saw what she normally would have observed just like everyone else, however because of the red-tinted glasses, everything was a shade of red unlike others without red-tinted glasses. The glasses symbolised the different upbringing and existing rationales that modify how Sophie would have interpreted information obtained from sense perception compared to other individuals.

This can be especially applied when different views must be tolerated or tried to be understood when working cooperatively with others in the real world. Companies and schools consists of students from various cultural backgrounds and different upbringings, however despite difference views; they can reach a collective decision as they tolerate the difference that the ‘red-tinted glasses’ can make to their perceptions. On a smaller scale, working with others in school, interpreting the same passage with another individual (like on a literature exam) may bring out different understandings of the passage and derive different explanations/answers. Another example can be set by this TOK second assignment. Everyone who’s currently doing this task will be reading the same text, but we will all have different opinions and perspectives. Further more, when working in a group, looking at the same thing everyone will be able to provide different views therefore, different perspectives and variations can be given into the group discussion. Also, putting the ‘red-tinted glasses’ as an example of a magnifying glass or telescope, as we put those appliances to look at what we see everyday, our views of that particular something might or will change. Out of my own life experience, when I looked at a picture of Hong Kong view from the peak, I didn’t expect it to be as beautiful when I actually got there, even though I was looking at the same view.

This is how I think the ‘red-tinted glasses’ can change our view of senses and perception, and this is what I think the metaphor is trying to tell us. When looking at the same object that we see everyday in our lives, it can be changed by just a simple pair of glasses such as the ‘red-tinted glasses’ which suggests that everyone can have different perspectives on the same object according to their surroundings.

We all wear "red tinted glasses"

The extended metaphor of the “red tinted glasses” illustrates the limit between the actual reality and what “you conceive it as being so”. When Sophie put the glasses on, she noticed that she saw everything in red. Then when Albert asked her what she saw, she replied; “I see exactly the same as before, except that is all red”. This proves that we can empower what we want to see and the glasses allow us to do that. However is it reality? No it isn’t, because the red tinted glasses limit us into seeing what the world is really like, and instead let us see only what the glasses portrays. This also means that “there are certain conditions in the human mind that are contributive to our conception of the world”. We choose to shut our eyes to some problems or another going on around the world, all due to what our mind wants us to do. Our mind controls what we see and what we perhaps don’t want to see and this unwanted view of the world can be hidden with the red tinted glasses. Sophie discovers something about the rationalists and the empiricists. She discovers that the rationalists almost forgot about “the importance of experience”, and the empiricists had “shut their eyes to the way our own mind influences the way we see the world”.

I agree with what was mentioned in the novel about us shutting our “eyes to the way our own mind influences the way we see the world”. This is because we see only what we think the world is like and not what other people may perceive the world as being. That means that we all at some point wear red tinted glasses, and that hides the reality of a certain situation. We are all different people with different perspectives, which mean that we probably all see one particular thing for example in different lights. However we as individuals can control what we want to see if and when we feel comfortable to be exposed to the reality of the world. We can choose when we are ready to take off our red tinted glasses.

Assignment 2 -Red Tinted Glasses

The red tinted glasses are used as a metaphor, which illustrates how different people have different interpretation in perceiving the world but what we really perceive may be biased. When you look through the tinted glasses, everything you would see will be in red instead of the actual colours they are in which limit the way you perceive reality. The red glasses makes everything seen as red because it acts through a filter and literally changes what we see things as. However everything we see is part of the world around us but how we see is determined by the glasses we are wearing where individuals have their own idea of the world. As we get older, we have more knowledge about the world and the experiences we have already gone through give us a image of what things really are seen as and see it as what we perceive it to be. This metaphor explains how we perceive things differently from others but if we don’t take the chance to change it then we will never be able to see how things appear to other people as well.

The red tinted glasses shown by Knox tell us how we can use this to other things in the world to make a conclusion of our thoughts that is limited to the things that we can only perceive. Some people might think that the world is flat where others might think the world is round. Those who wear these glasses will only have one perspective where they will avoid what other people think of and just live with it. They won’t be able to know what other people are thinking of and will always think they are right which might be biased. However everyone who takes off the glasses would see other peoples view and how they think. Even though what other people think of is not the same as the individuals, they would realize that others have different views about the world.

This can be applied to ourselves where we cannot perceive the world as it really is but must look at it in a different way in a result by looking for more interpretations. For example some people might have seen a person they haven’t met as very mean, but if they got to know the person better, the person might be seen as very friendly where they have misinterpreted the information of a person. This shows us what we have seen may not be the same as actually experiencing it. In conclusion, we must be able to experience it before we perceive anything.

Different people have different perspectives of reality

I believe that the red-tinted glasses show how truth is determined by one's own reasoning. This is because the red-tinted glasses work in much the same was as, for example, being brought up believing in the existence of God. Already, your perception of truth is different from that of others, as you have chosen to see things a certain way without considering all of the other countless possibilties for what could be the truth, which then shows that in fact, there is no such thing as a correct conception of knowledge and the world, as everyone has their own versions of the truth.

As for how the questions of perspectives apply to one's own life, we can see that the way in which a person sees the world affects the way in which they act. For instance, if the Islamic Terrorists who attacked the Two Towers on September 11th did not believe that American culture being a threat to Islamic culture was true, then the attacks would have probably not happened. However, them being bought up in an extremely devout Islamic community was what affected their reasoning and drove them to believe that America really was posing a threat, even though many others would have never thought of this simply because their own reasoning made them see different truths about the world.

In conclusion, I believe that there is no such thing as truth, as truth is a concept made up by one's own mind.

Glasses of Prejudice, Glasses of Diversity

Hello everybody! Sorry for my late posting but there was a valid reason! With regards to the "red-tinted glasses" extended metaphor in Chapter 25, I too believe they symbolize the limits of our perspectives.

By describing the lenses as ‘red’ and ‘tinted’ we immediately identify them as negative. Such imagery suggests severe staining, a blot which has relentlessly pursued the mind and utterly thrown it into an edifice of ignorance. What once might have appeared a set of ‘clean’ eye pieces is now overrun by prejudice and stereotypical angles. However, such an uncompromising torment of the ‘healthy’ mind can certainly be interpreted as not self-inflicted. From the moment we open our eyes to the moment we close them we have indeed led a life exposed to numerous external factors each contributing to the clouding of our judgements. An initiation towards stereotypical views is inevitable. And despite what might seem like a ‘universal’ condemnation towards such practices in general, each person still lives with an invisible pair of ‘blinding’ glasses shielding them from the transparency of the world. It may be arguable however that there are neither right nor wrong perspectives, and that what might be considered as ‘negative’ perception of certain phenomena is simply a component of our intellectual development. There can be a fine line between what is seen as a ‘negative’ perspective and what is accepted as fact. And therefore one may not be able to determine with absolute sureness what constitutes a ‘foggy’ pair of glasses. A consistent definition cannot be acquired across all cultures. Is one right and all the others somehow wrong? Or are all mistaken in some way, already ‘tainted’ by the redness?

However, the red lenses don’t necessarily have to indicate a barrier acting against one’s ability to understand radically varying views. They might plainly imply the singular dimensions of one’s adopted viewpoint. By seeing only red we automatically restrict our personal perspectives. To live effectively in a world increasingly giving way to globalisation, one must experience the full spectrum of colours or consistently view them objectively through colourless eye pieces. Such a standard of open-mindedness is unfortunately widely rendered unachievable as our views will always be ‘tainted’ with opinions based on past occurrences. Furthermore we cannot just remove the obstruction hanging at the end of our noses as that would result in the inability to perceive anything at all, with or without ‘tainted’ perspectives. They act as the basis of our reason, required for the essential balance between empiricism and rationalism.

Finally, can unique perspectives be so easily assumed as wholly incorrect? Or should the individual modes in which each of us witnesses the world be celebrated? Do we value transparency over diversity?

In conclusion I would l reiterate the common fact that each and every one of us bears their own pair of coloured glasses which grow increasingly marked by both positive and negative experiences as our lives progress. Glasses which become continuously customised to suit their particular owner and glasses that give way to ignorance and prejudice but also individuality and diversity.

Red Tinted Glasses

In chapter 25 of Sophie's World, two groups of people's perspectives are shown. The rationalists, who think or base all their knowledge in their mind and experiences, and the Expiricists, who base all their knowledge on senses. The red tinted glasses is a term that means to block or to screen. This can mean that the red glasses are only making us see one colour. However, in fact there are many other colours that we see. This "red tinted glasses" means that we only see things in one perspective. But what we dont see because it is screened by the red glasses are the other perspectives that are covered. Our perspective is always limited to that one colour of the red glasses, so we dont see what things truly mean or what they are trying to tell you. Kant in a way "took off the red tinted glasses" and saw different points of views from both the rationalists and the empiricists. He believed that they both had their points to make and that both were neither right nor wrong. Everyone has a choice to wear these glasses or not. This means that everyone can choose what they believe is right and that if they put on the red tinted glasses, they wont accept others perspectives in a way that onyl supports their own.

Red tinted glasses (assignment 2)

In chapter 25 of Sophies World, it mentioned 'Red tinted glasses'. A red tinted glasses is simple just a red tinted glasses. However, when viewed metaphoricly it shows how we view the world, and when Sophie was asked to put on the red tinted glasses, everything was red, through the media, experience and beliefs we expect the world to be the way it is shown, which makes me wonder, is the world really like how we see it?

Everyone is born with a pair of eyes, no matter what color eyes, we see the same things but everyone has there own perspective of the world. For example Mao Ze Dong's perspective of the world was to teach intellegent people how it is to work hard on the fields and make everyone even. but for America, they believed in freedom of speech.

To conclude, the world might not be the way we all see it. Everyone has a different perspective of the world.

red tinted glasses

In chapter 25, 2 different attitudes are being explored in our world, rationalists and the empiricists. Rationalists believe that all knowledge is based in the mind, or through experiences. Empiricists believe that all knowledge is based on our senses. “The Red tinted glasses” is a metaphor which suggests that everything we discover is limited to a certain extent. In the case of the red glasses, we would see everything as tinted red, and as we approach something new, we would see them as red and believe that in reality, they are red.

Likewise, our morals can be described as “red tinted glasses”. The “red tinted glasses” we wear simply affect how we perceive new things. It alters our reasoning according to how we perceive the world. There are many possibilities, but most of the factors are our ethnic background, group in society, upbringing, and even the people we are normally with.

Kant was able to see both sides of the argument between the rationalists and the empiricists. He believed that neither of them was correct and that neither of them could be the only explanation of how people discover things. He believed that people must perceive things through 2 methods, sensory perception and reason. Without either one of them, it would be impossible to complete the structure of a person. He felt that it is impossible for both processes to operate separately, but rather, simultaneously.

In my opinion, I believe that the “red tinted glasses” is more of a personal prejudice about certain things. We are not born with them, but rather, we choose to put them on ourselves through the morals and values we’re taught. The only way we can see differently, is whether we have the courage to see things on the other side, through a different perception, by taking off the glasses. That way, we will not only see red, and perhaps leave alone our individual reasoning.

Blinded by Prejudice

Throughout our lives, we see things in our own perspectives. This can be caused by past experiences, religions, feelings, knowledge, influences by friends and even the latest news stories. The 'red' glasses may make you see red, but this is just one kind of viewpoint. By seeing only one colour, you will not be able to understand other people's views as they are radically different from yours. Only by having a bit of each colour will you be able to fully understand all points of view.

In life, many people do not understand the mindsets of other countries. That is why many Western nations have an idea of ‘honour’, where both sides are at an equal advantage, such as jousting, duels and the ten paces draw. They cannot understand how 'terrorists' can commit suicide attacks without giving the other side a 'fair' chance to retaliate. And even as one culture's perspective confuses another, another culture finally realises what the other is saying. Although they make each culture unique, different languages and cultural references divide the world, as outsiders to that culture have no idea what they are talking about and thus form stereotyped ideas which are not reliable.

We unconciously form stereotypes and presumptions about other people based on what we can see, without really getting to know them, and this is an example of how by relying on our feelings or what we know, we do not really get the right answer unless we see the world from their point of view. The common saying about walking in someone elses shoes applies here, as we do no know what they think about us. From the bible we are told 'Judge not lest ye be judged', and this sums up to the same point.

Should we try to keep the very things which make us unique, our perspectives and thoughts, which separate us from everybody else? Or should we all have the same perspective, and work like some sort of hive dwelling insect? That, indeed is the question.

Assignment 2 - "Red-tinted glasses"

I think that the red-tinted glasses mentioned in chapter 25 'Kant' is a metaphor for how visual perception, interpretation and opinions of things can be changed through different 'tinted glasses'. In practical terms, when a person wears the tinted glasses, he sees everything in red and his perception is altered and limited as the only colours he sees are shades of red.

However, red is not the only colour we can view the world. There are many different ways to 'view' the world. In other words, the colour possibilities (way we look at things) are somewhat endless. When Sophie puts on the glasses, she is familiar with what she sees but the difference is how she sees them. For example, if a person puts on tinted glasses, everything s/he sees is familiar to him/her but the colours or shades of the objects are changed and is interpreted differently. The glasses limit our insight of reality. Knox states that "You cannot say the world is red even though you concieve it as being so." Sophie learns that empiricists believe that knowledge of the world come from the senses whereas rationalists believe that all human knowledge lay in the mind. With tinted glasses, the knowledge of the world is filtered through and not all available knowledge is grasped and understood.

The tinted glasses are an asset which controls the way we think and experience things around us. We have to view the world with all the different coloured tinted glasses in order to fully understand and open our eyes to other cultures, nationalities, religions and beliefs.

"Red Tinted Glasses"

The extended metaphor “red tinted glasses” is utilized to portray our perception of the world. The fact that it is a specific colour ‘red’ implies that we have a limited vision; this could also be implied as a “filtered” view where society has “tinted” our thoughts and compelled us to think a certain way. Along the way Sophie has discovered about rationalists and empiricists. Empiricism is a theory of knowledge emphasizing the role of experience, especially sensory perception in the formation of ideas. Whereas rationalists are those who perceive any view that appeal to reason as a sources of knowledge or justification.
Nobody is born with ‘a frame of perception’, I believe it is ones education of culture, environment, and religion that contributes towards the approach we have towards others and life. We are often influenced too much by society. By this fact one could support the idea that humans tend to share the same outlook as the people with and around them. We usually take a fabricated approach, and hardly pause to reason, if we truly think something or just believe what is meant to be thought. Can we say we have an individual opinion, when the majority of us follow the crowd?
Most of us could relate to situations where we’ve judged someone by the way they looked or dressed. Believing they are certain things, without personally knowing them. A change in the outlook from the majority is considered “weird”. Although individual opinion is encouraged, society doesn’t accept those that take an altered perspective. Thus the one colour “red” may also imply the unified opinion that is mutual amongst us.
In my opinion “red tinted glasses” has various interpretations; although I believe it conveys how an individual’s perspective is influenced by the society and environment one lives in, hence limiting our views and unifying our thoughts with the majority.

Our perspective or everyone else's?

In chapter 25, Alberto Knox mentions the "Red Tinted Glasses". I think what Knox means is that our perspective gets affected. So, for example, using what Knox said, "clear glasses" would be our own personal perspective which is what we really think ourselves, whereas, "red tinted glasses" would be our perspective which has been 'tinted' by the society, media and peers. Thus meaning that our perspective from behind the "red tinted glasses" are no longer our own. A part of it may be our ideas and opinions but they have all been changed by what we see and hear from our society and the media.



I think, the way that Knox chose to use "tinted" was interesting because if he was trying to say that we have no personal point of views, he might as well have called the glasses "black glasses" showing that we can't see anything through our own eyes through them. But Knox chose to use "red tinted" to show that we are still able to see through them ourselves but it's been "polluted" by the red (in reality, the society and media). However, another thing is, the choice of "red" may be Knox trying to indicate that's it's dangerous for the society nowadays to have no individual thoughts. I mean, there are "individual thoughts" but for example in a fashion magazine, we are practically only obeying and following what the magazine says, like "pink's the colour this year" and the magazine editor's thoughts are the "individual thoughts" in this case. Although when we read this we might think, "No, I'm not going to wear pink even if it's 'the' colour to wear." However we don't really have a choice in this because when fashion designers read this, they'll start designing clothes based on pink and when we buy clothes from the designers, there'll only be pink to buy. Therefore although we aren't directly affected by the society, we are still affected in the end.



So the main point Alberto Knox is trying to make from these 3 words is that we have to start thinking for ourselves and not just accept what people tell us to believe in. We should be unique and have our own individual personality even if it means not everyone thinks that way. We should see that our thoughts count and we should just believe in what we think and not think about what other people tell us.

Assignment #2

In Chapter 25, Albert uses the extended metaphor "red tinted glasses" to illustrate the way we perceive the world. The "red tinted glasses" metaphor is used to illustrate the fact that we all perceive the world in different ways since we all wear different coloured glasses.

Empiricists and rationalists propose two different theories on what makes us perceive the world as it is. Empiricists propose that our perception of the world is based on what we experience. Rationalists propose that our perception is due to inborn reasoning and values.

In my opinion, everybody is born free of coloured glasses. It is everyday experiences and knowledge that allow us to put on these cooler shaded glasses, and it is this difference that allows everybody to discuss their different perspectives of this world. As we learn about the perspectives of other people, it can enhance our creativity as we learn to see things not only through our own "red tinted glasses" but also other coloured glasses.Through knowledge and experience, we learn not only our perspective, but also to adapt to other people's opinions as we realize that we all see the world in a different way. Therefore, both empiricists and rationalists are right to a certain extent.

Sophie's World --Tok2

A metaphor is used to compare our perception to “red glasses”, screening our eyes and limiting how we see. The books tells us our perception is limited. However “perception”, as in how we see the “thing for me”, in my opinion, is never really “limited”. I hate to think that my ability to see, interpret, appreciate and love could ever be “limited” especially since my views are ever changing and even influenced by others. Moreover, as I am aware that I wear glasses, I am also aware of the fact that there are many other glasses out there and am always interested in what others see. I understand that a rainy day could be “seen” as beautiful and soothing to me but through other “glasses” could be seen as dismal and unwelcoming. My knowledge of other visions already extends my perception. Therefore, I don’t quite agree that our perception is completely “limited”. The word is negative in connotations suggesting that our ability to “wonder” can only go to some small extent.

However: All knowledge and reason comes from sensations and our experiences. Our senses and perception are limited though, because even senses have to conform to reason –before we experience something new it is in our reason to “seek the cause of an event”. When “wondering” we have to abandon reason to fully “wander” because the bigger philosophical questions –events such as the Big Bang –cannot be experienced, there is therefore no “sensory material” to reason upon.

So, I suppose in the bigger philosophical picture, we can only wander so far…

Red Tinted Cornea?

In this chapter, two attitudes of our conception of the world are explored. One of them is the rationalist’s point of view, and they believed that the basis for all human knowledge lay in the mind. On the other side are the empiricists, believing that all knowledge of the world proceeded from the senses.

Through the medium of the Red-Tinted glasses, Alberto Knox is illustrating Emmanuel Kant’s belief – that neither the rationalists nor empiricists are correct. The glasses are representative of our reason, that they ‘limit the way [we] perceive reality’ through our senses.

In my opinion, Kant was correct in drawing the link between our senses and reason by stating that our senses are altered according to our reasoning. To take it one step further, I also believe that our reasoning (and its development) can also be altered according to the way we perceive the world. This can come about as the result of factors such as our upbringing, ethnical background, the people we choose to associate with or our experiences. Therefore I believe that reasoning and sensory perception cannot exist as separate processes but rather, operate simultaneously.

The Red tinted glasses can also be considered our personal prejudices and bias. Many claim that the key to open mindedness is to ‘take off these glasses’ and view the world with an untainted perspective. However, is it not being open minded to accept that we may never be open minded? Despite putting aside our individual reasoning and taking off the glasses, there is still a limit to how much we can conceive of the world as we are looking through tinted eyes; being only human after all. I suppose we simply have to do the best with what we’re given.

Our Perspective

The extended metaphor in chapter 25 (red tinted glasses) is there to show how we, in our daily lives, limit our perspective and only try to think in one way. When Sophie was asked to put on the red tinted glasses, naturally everything she saw became red. Through our beliefs and experiences, we expect the world to be exactly the way we percieve it, but is it really?

Everyone is born with a set of tinted glasses. Whatever the shade is, those glasses will reflect our experiences, our culture and the way in which we are brought up. Therefore we will only try to percieve the world in one way, in this case, it would be through the red glasses. What is most important in determining how we view the world is our experiences. These experiences, whether it is something positive or negative, help to build up on how we view the world. These red tinted glasses help us filter all the things we dont want to see, leaving us with only what we WISH to see.

I think we are all able to relate this to our everyday lives. For example, meeting a new person or having stereotypes against certain groups. It is as the saying goes; "Don't judge a book by its cover." In the same way, we should not judge a person by the way they look or the way they dress. If we just take the glasses off, then we are able to get to know them and thus not judge them by their looks.

I personally believe that every single person in this world is born with a set of red tinted glasses. It is just up to choose whether we wish to take it off and view the world from a different perspective.

Assignment 2

The extended metaphor "red tinted glasses" from what i gathered was the different perception and interpretation of people. it shows that people see everything differently and in a way see things in the same light.

In the book it explains two kinds of theories but i think it is more about the upbringing, the empiricist view. The quote "Don't believe everything you see" this shows that people just look at the exterior of things and don't try to see whats under the problem, this relates to the "red tinted glasses" that they can see only half way that they cant see both ways. Also everyone has their own perspectives, which may differ from others and may depend on their culture or upbringing, so there isn't one right answer to what you see.

This can relate to a time in my life where i could not see past peoples feelings... i could not tell if they were angry or sad as i had "the pair of red tinted glasses" on me but now i can see, but of course as humans we can never really learn about everything in this world due to what our senses will limit us to.

To see or not to see

To be able to see the world is a privilege. However, some people like to limit their views, which is a pity. I believe that in some areas, we all limit our perspectives, but during the journey of growing up, we experience new things so that our perspectives, in most cases widen and change. The metaphor of the red-tinted glasses in chapter Kant demonstrates how every individual has unique perspectives. However, I believe that we are born with clear glasses, but everyone develops their views through their own experiences, culture, religion and environment, so we have glasses of different hues. However, due to our coloured lens we may not be able to see others’ views, thus causing confusion and disagreement.

Is true acceptance impossible, then?

Let us look at how two groups of philosophers believe how perspectives are formed. The empiricists believed that ‘all knowledge of the world comes from sensations’ while the rationalists thought that ‘the basis for all human knowledge lay in the mind’. Kant thought that both groups’ ideas were right in a way, so he combined them. He believed that although our knowledge comes from our senses, it is our reasoning which determines how we perceive it. Therefore, it is possible for true acceptance – we just have to alter our views and make our lens as clear as possible so all colours can enter our eyes.

I am stuck with how hard this seems once again. However, when I come to think of it, it all comes down to communication. One summer, I went on a camp and was put in a group with an extremely punk and goth-looking girl. Earlier on in my life, I had already stereotyped people with that appearance as dark and dismissive. However, once I was made to befriend her I found out that underneath that cool look she was as friendly and optimistic as everyone else. This can not be labelled as a ‘life changing experience’, but I now find it easier to change my views and to form my views slower.

In conclusion, we all see the same things, but it is down to how we view them to determine the colour of our glasses and how we act.

Communication and appreciation is the key to a rainbow vision

Red-tinted glasses are simply glasses that have red lens, that filters any other colour but red, so when one wears them, they would see exactly the same thing as everyone else but in different shades of red such as pink and crimson. The shades of red represent the way in how we as an individual precept our surrounding, and therefore no one will have the same shade or colour as anyone else. The colour and shade of everyone’s ‘glasses’ depends on how they were brought up through beliefs, culture, environment, and experiences they’ve have had in their lives.

The extended metaphor in chapter 25 “Kant” of “red-tinted glasses” allows us to understand how every individual perceives things differently in their own way and how we limit or affect our thoughts to the interpretation of our senses. No one will clearly understand or experience how another person perceives things, no matter how close their relationship is. We can’t ‘swap’ our glasses to experience how another person feels as it’s inbuilt in oneself. However, we are able to ‘change the colour or shade’ of our glasses through communication or experiences as we gain more knowledge and understanding of the world. We could, however interpret colours into our glasses to extend and widen our vision and therefore accept others’ perception. I will describe this in more detail later on.

In the novel “Sophie’s World”, Sophie puts these red-tinted glasses on and “everything was exactly the same, except all red”; it clearly shows us what Knox is trying to prove: although everything we see and gain knowledge of such as facts and figures is the same compared to the rest of their world, each person holds their own point of view and is therefore biased and restricted to the culture and condition we live in. There are many things that Sophie couldn’t see through these red glasses as they’re limiting her senses, for example, if she was to cross the road by looking at the traffic lights, how would she know when to cross when both of the lights are red? Does that mean she should stop at that spot forever? Sophie would never know when it’s right to cross, or when it’s wrong to cross as she wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, this exemplifies how we would never know how other religions are practiced without studying, asking or acknowledging them. Therefore, she would never understand how a person wearing green glasses would perceive his/her surroundings unless she has been informed about it.

In the novel, Sophie discovers that Kant is the mediator of the rationalists and the empiricists; he’s able to see both sides of the argument. The rationalists believed that "the basis for all human knowledge lies in the mind" whilst on the other hand the empiricists believed that “all knowledge of the world proceeded from the senses". Kant believed that neither of them could explain the one reason of how people perceived things; he believed that people’s perception comes from two factors: sensory perception and reason. This means that even a blind person would be able to perceive everything in the world, though they’d be using different sensory organs and their minds to think and interpret.

Now relating this to our day to day life, there are always two sides to everything, and not everyone is able to see this as their perception are limited by many reasons such as beliefs, culture, environment, and experiences they have had in their lives; these are the filters represented by the ‘red-tinted glasses’. However one can easily accept another colour into their glasses by accepting another person’s perception. Even if one may not agree with another, one has taken notice of another’s argument and reasons then the shade of their glasses will lighten, even if just a little. For example, when one person argues with another about global warming, the one who is against it would be wearing red glasses and will only see the disadvantages of global warming, whilst the person who’s in favour of global warming, would be wearing blue glasses where he only sees the advantages and possible economic opportunities of global warming. If neither of them were willing to express themselves, their coloured glasses would stay the same and might turn a darker shade, resulting in a really one-sided perception. However, if both sides were willing to speak up and express their ideas and thoughts, they might both understand and appreciate the values that each side are holding, resulting in a lighter shade in their glasses. So now, they’ve another perception of global warming they’ve never seen or thought of before.

Many times, I’ve experienced conflict or misunderstanding between two different cultures due to the difference in cultural beliefs, in other words different perspectives due to the different coloured glasses we’re wearing. For example, me being a Chinese would find it perfectly normal to have a steamed chicken (including the head and feet) as a dish for dinner, whilst people living in England for instance would find it horrifying and refuse to eat that dish, without even trying it. This shows how different culture causes us to wear ‘different coloured glasses’, and because of this, we should communicate with other people to acknowledge their culture and beliefs to widen our perspective and also lighten the shade of our ‘glasses’. If we don’t attempt to learn about others’ beliefs, culture, environment and experiences, the shade of our coloured glasses would, in result turn into a darker shade and we’d only be restricted to that one colour and perspective for our whole lives. I believe that our aim in life is to expand our knowledge and understand other people’s perspective and therefore gain a ‘rainbow vision’.

To conclude, I believe this experiment shows us clearly that we’re all wearing coloured glasses, despite us being aware or not. There is no way to take it off or swap with other people, it’s our own will to lighten the shade of our lens in order to appreciate and discover more than what our sensory organs and mind are limiting us to. As time pass, the colour of our glasses would change, darken or lighten, it doesn’t matter; but in the end what we’ve got is what we should appreciate, as this is the final colour of our own perception of life.

Assisgnment 2 -Red-tinted Glasses

Red-tinted glasses is mentioned in chapter 25 which I believe is an attempt to convey that the individuality of each person is brought through their perception. Red-tinted glasses in reality are shaded glasses which only allow the red spectrum of light to pass through, filtering all the other present colors of the spectrum in the light from the user's eyes. This is a metaphor to exemplify how each person's view may vary, and I believe it is affected by many factors, most of which are environmental and social factors.

Rationalists and empiricists each present a different theory for people's different view points. Rationalists only believe in reason -what they think, and empiricists only believe in senses -what they experience. In the given example, one views the world through red-tinted glasses and everything becomes red, but as Knox has said, one " “cannot say the world is red even though you conceive it as being so”. This is because what one sees with the glasses does not correspond with the knowledge of one who does not wear them. One's experience or senses both have limits in what they can conceive. Therefor, neither rationalists nor empiricists are absolutely right or wrong. They are both correct to a certain degree.

In my opinion, I think people are first born free of glasses, as babies are not born with knowledge or experience. However, as they grow older they start putting on glasses, and the glasses may change throughout their lifetime as their knowledge and experience alters.

If put in relation to our everyday life, such examples of red-tinted glasses would be stereotypes and typically perceived images of things. False images of people or places are crafted, molded and formed in our heads through social influences from the environment such as movies, adverts and word spread form mouth to mouth. Such causes have lead to racism and general discrimination of people who do not fit in.

Social influences also takes place whether we want it to or not in our perception of things during our everyday lives. We judge people during our first few seconds of interaction with them -what they wear, how they project themselves and how they speak, all mount up to our own created image or figure of the new person we have met. If you dress scruffily and present yourself poorly, you may be less approached and accepted by the people you meet. Naturally, we choose to blend in, to be a part of something, with someone. Thus presentation becomes important and that is why there is fashion. It is a basic, simple but common form of social influence which forces people to view others judgmentally through red-tinted glasses.

The "red tinted glasses" metaphor in chapter 25 compares the way we see things physically and our perspective. Looking through the tinted glasses would obviously change everything that comes insight, everything would be in shades of red instead of the being normal and colorful. In this case, the red lenses act as some sort of filter and literally changes what you see things as. When applied to our daily lives, the "tinted glasses" would be our opinion. Where do opinions come from? They come from our experiences in lives. As people grow up, they have had a much larger exposure to things in the world, and had most probably been educated in a certain way. This gives us viewpoints, feelings, impressions of everything and those things often give us a biased image of what things really are, and we see things depending on our perspective. These "tinted glasses", or perception, limit us to the shades of red, and we can't see the diversity of colors the world offers.

Let's apply the theory of perspective in a real life situation. Big bosses of corporates would probably think that the more buildings built, the better things are. But obviously, the environmentalists would not agree with that as they think trees and animals are more important and should be preserved. Can we say one is right and the other is wrong, yet being fair? No we can't. Both sides have their perspectives, and just because we don't agree, doesn't mean that they are wrong.

However, some people solely believes in their senses. The key is that they think what they saw, or heard, is the whole truth and would not use any logic or knowledge. These people are called empiricists. The red tinted glasses metaphor shows us that what empiricists seem to believe in would most probably be wrong, and not trustworthy. It is obvious that the world isn't just in shades of red, if they actually thought about it with some sense. On the other hand, there are some people that base everything on their knowledge, and those people are rationalists. These people have another kind of 'tinted glasses': in their minds. Knowledge or experience blinds them and they don't see things for themselves.

Clearly, wearing 'tinted glasses' is not good - in the mind that is, sunglasses are fine if necessary. In an idealistic world, it is best that everyone just put down their opinions and prejudice. But certainly, the world is not idealistic and, to be frank, most people are shallow and opinionated. Many people like or dislike others just by first glance, determined by gender, appearance, age, and all sorts of other superficial factors. Some people would be like, "oh you're blond, so you're dumb" or "you're Asian, so you must eat lots of rice and be super good at maths".

In this chapter, Kant is trying to tell the readers that basing everything only on senses or knowledge is not good, as people would often need a balance of both to get the full understanding of things. Trust your senses and add a little bit of knowledge to anything and that would remove the tinted glasses and have a much less opinionated image of things.

open your eyes

The red tinted glasses are used as a metaphor to show that our perceptions are restricted to how we are made up as individuals. When the glasses are put on and everything around is red, this limits perception of everything around us and I believe that there are many different perceptions in the world and red is only one form or opinion of the world in the same way we all have different views and opinions. No one is born with red tinted glasses otherwise we would have only one perception and one opinion but I believe that it is up to us to change the glasses to be open to new ideas and perceptions because the colour of the glasses do not change themselves and if we keep one colour of glasses we would be discriminative and opinionated to things we have no idea about. In my opinion the glasses are like some sort of filter and it brings together and is only open to the same beliefs and ideas, which is why we need to change our glasses to be open to everyone and everything.

The experiment shows that when worn the glasses alter opinion and open stereotypes. What we do not realise is that everyone wears these glasses as no one is 100% open to the world and the colour red is reflecting and the other colours are absorbing into nothingness. We have to open ourselves to every pair of coloured glasses because that makes us understand other cultures, relgions beliefs and people. Everyone has their own perceptions and viewpoints and we often think when we make a point, we are right because it is the glasses that we are wearing although if we wore the glasses of the other person we put our point across to we would realise that they have a point to. This put into real life situations show that our opinion can be altered by things we watch or read or even see, and they could be altered more than other people which is why we have these different opinions and obstructions to how the world is really like. However, this doesn’t mean that it is okay to always have these opinions, it is only okay if you accept that the opposite argument has a point because by wearing all different shades of glasses chosing one opinion accepting all other points of an argument is okay, though making a judgment without knowing all sides is not.

The coloured lens could be anything from opinion to emotions and feelings, and whether you wear blue green yellow or red the hue of the colour obstructs your view from the other colours leaving us with such limited vision. Here is an example, If a new girl walks into school and is what one person sees as “not so pretty” they would probably not talk to them because their glasses shun them from reality and the person by making a judgment. However, if a person finds her “gorgeous” automatically everyone wants to know her etc. This is a judgment people make from their perceptions through their coloured glasses but there is more to life than what is on the outside and I believe you only understand that the elder you get. The glasses make up a judgment and we have to ignore the glasses the judgment makes because it is not always for the best and it could be a mistake

In conclusion, I believe that the red tinted glasses shows that we have to open our mind to the world and not look at it through one glass or one colour because in life we have to be open minded. However, I don’t believe that we can take off the glasses but we have to wear the glasses the right way and switch glasses to see different opinions and ideas otherwise you will be a judgmental person because of the one perception you see through the glasses. When people use the phrase open your eyes I dont think they physcially mean OPEN YOUR EYES but they mean to change your glasses and see all the different things around you, DONT stick to one pair and make judgments according to that, open your persona and open yourself to new ideas which makes you a better individual.

The Red Tinted Glasses

'The Red Tinted Glasses' is a metaphor Albert Knox used to refer to the fact that everything that we perceive may be biased. Its literal meaning is glasses with red coloured lens, which filters out every other colour there is so when we wear them, everything we see is in red. In other words, our perception is always limited and what we see may not be always correct. However, most of us would choose to believe on what we can perceive, rather than something that does not even exist to be more satisfied with life. Through life we will come across many experiences that builds onto our red tinted glass that means that there’ll be more colours in our lives than red but red was always the base colour to everything. Unless we have the courage to put down the glasses, we would never be able to put ourselves fully onto another's perspective since that we are always more aware to what we believe is right and wrong, we only perceive what we wish to see.Relating it to everyday life, in a cultural perspective. For example, if you were born as a Chinese, then Chinese is the colour 'red' of your tinted glasses and if you were born as western, it will be the colour of your tinted glasses. It won't be easy to mix the two colours together which also means that it won't be easy either for Chinese to adapt the western culture (vice versa) unless we ignore our cultural differences. In other words, unless we choose to put down our glasses, we won't be able to adapt different culturesIn the end, the colours of our glasses will be different. We may have many patches of different colours, the contrast and tone of the glasses will change. However, in order to be satisfied with life and in order to live happier, it is better to believe our own perception. Of course, it is always our free choice on whether or not we want to put down the glasses to see more and what's real of the world around us.

The Tinted Glasses

The “red-tinted glasses” in my opinion symbolize the fact that what we see in reality is restricted. When you place the glasses on your head, your field of vision becomes red and you are restricted to this perspective until you take off your glasses and view the world without interfering factors such as stereotypes.

Unfortunately for us, we are unable to bask in this boundless perspective due to the fact that we are all born with ‘glasses’. Our views will always be tainted with opinions and our own past experiences. The ‘glasses’ themselves naturally act as a basis for knowledge to be built upon as they consist of native ideas such as ‘cause and effect’. These are also the “’glasses’ of reason” mentioned in the novel that we cannot take off. These ‘glasses’ may appear to be crystal clear at birth, but once they are exposed to sensations, they become decorated or stained with knowledge.

Looking back into the years, I still remember my first encounter with the tropical fruit, durian. Upon display of my curious nature, I instinctively reached out to grab the fruit but not knowing that the spikes were that sharp, I got hurt and started to bleed. From then on, my ‘glasses’ have been tainted with a negative impression of the durian. Although now the smell of it is no longer revolting, I am unable to stop myself from throwing negative comments about its taste, appearance and smell whenever I can.

Therefore, as we grow older, our glasses become increasingly tailored to suit its owner. Similarly, “the water adapts itself to the pitcher’s form”.

Furthermore, Kant also states that “there are two elements that contribute to our knowledge of the world – Sensory perception and reason.” This means that our knowledge is split into an equilibrium of Empiricism (sense) and Rationalism (reason). Our experiences act as our senses and our ‘glasses’ act as our reason. These two factors are co-dependent on each other. For example, how can one know how much they dislike a particular genre of music before they have even listened to it (sense)? And after they have listened to it, do we not need a ‘pair of glasses’ to determine whether or not we like it (reason)?

In conclusion, we perceive the world through innate ‘glasses’. These glasses, however become increasingly tainted due to our experiences and often affect our perspective and our knowledge of the world as a whole.

"Because I have seen a whole herd of black horses doesn't mean that all horses are black."

So here we are presented with the extended metaphor of Red Tinted Glasses. Alberto Knox uses a contrast between the actual world and a stained world as an example to show how perception nor reason cannot be fully trusted. Kant's view was that both ideas were "partly right and partly wrong."

Let me begin by defining these two ideas:
Empiricists "believed all knowledge of the world proceeded from the senses"
Rationalists "believed that the basis for all human knowledge lay in the mind," through reason

Kant's idea was that empiricists relied too much to their senses, and that rationalists "had almost forgotten the importance of experience."

Using the extended metaphor to align such, a empiricist would concluded that the world is red-based. That is only because if he looked through the red lenses all his life, all experiences he perceived will be a primary condition to form a red, complex conditional view of the world (Locke). Therefore it is arguable to say that the 'real' world will then be false, because it is out of what he normally sees. However, he has to be completely sure of himself that he has eliminated all other possibilities of the world - that is, he must be sure that what he sees is what everyone else sees, conforming it into an objective, primary quality. By that, the only achievable measure is by habit. Otherwise, his conclusion will be false as it would have been narrow-minded and becomes a secondary quality, which is subjective from people to people. Only if you know that every horse that existed is black can you say that horses must be black, albeit you must also be aware of the possibility of a white horse

Linking back to Kant's argument, it means that we cannot fully rely on our senses because whatever we perceive must be governed by the way we think. That is because 'habit' can only be true if it was to the same for each and every one on this planet. But clearly, that is not the case, because we are not clones of everyone and can think for ourselves. Therefore what we see becomes subjective. So why is it subjective? One, because we have free will to choose what to do; two, that is because we have different experiences in our lives, forming different stereotypes and prejudices, which can come from an individual or social context.

A point to prejudices and stereotypes are that they are thoughts due to misunderstandings and ignorance. If people learn to appreciate different cultures, then we will not be so narrow minded, and we will see the world much clearer and real. It is also morally correct too. That is because if we have accomplished to this state, we can then conclude that our senses are primary and accurate, whereby it is objective not subjective, and conforms to everyone. The world then will be what we see. That is why our emphasis on Global citizenship is so important.

In a rational view, we do not know if the world is actually red or not. Both are equally valid and false because we are part of the reasoning. Linking to that, we are part of the world we see, so we cannot tell whether we are red or not because it is us and many other elements that make up the world we perceive. Using the water in pitcher as an example, whereby water changes "shape" according to the shape of the pitcher freely, if we solely rely on our reasoning, then what we perceive will adapt to what we have thought about. That is to say our reasoning shrouds our perception. That is because if we have already possessed a value judgement on something whether or not we have experienced it, then what we perceive will be based on that judgement.

This danger of rationalism can be seen from Brutus in Julius Caesar. Though he was rational, his over-thought and misinterpretation let to the death of Caesar. Because he wrongly identified to himself that it was his civic duty to maintain Rome as a republic, he possessed no emotional consideration in his decision and clearly, did not consider what the people thought, eventually leading towards war and civil unrest for the next 40 years.

What that means is that a sole rationalist will wear "opaque glasses" (tributes to Laurence Wong) and see the world in a self-centred, sometimes against a social conventional, method.

So, the thing behind really is that Kant demonstrates how rationalism and empiricism both relate to each other. Your senses affect your thoughts, and your thoughts affect yours senses too.

Assignment #2 - Response by Jamie Tang

Revisit the "red-tinted glasses" extended metaphor in Chapter 25 ('Kant'). What's the meaning of it? How do these questions of perspective apply to your own life? Use examples from the novel and your life to illustrate your understanding of the "red-tinted glasses" metaphor/experiment.

In Chapter 25, Alberto Knox used the red tinted glasses as a metaphor to describe the way humans limit their perception to see the world. To me, red tinted glasses means that the only colour that could be seen is red. But we don't actually see everything as red, its just that we see things through a filter formed by everything we've experiences in our lives, the way we were brought up, religious beliefs and things that happen in our everyday lives.

Empiricists believed that you get your knowledge through your senses and rationalists believed that the knowledge comes from the mind, they believe in more scientific stuff. In the book, Kant thinks that both of these are important and they contribute to our perception of the world. I believe that no one is born with a pair of these tinted glasses and it is only those who choose to take them off that can understand how the world really is. We can choose whether to put on these pair of tinted glasses and we tend to be affected by things. But people may choose to put on one of these tinted glasses because they may not like what they see and wish to look at something at a different point of view. These people will have to learn to change their own pair of tinted glasses so that they can change their perspective.

To conclude, this metaphor lets me think about the problem more seriously and see things in a different perspective. We should all exchange our pair of glasses so we get to see what other people sees. Like this blog, this allows me to read what other people wrote and understand what they think about the question.

The red-tinted glasses - assignment 2

The metaphor of the red-tinted glasses in Chapter 25 means that when we put on these glasses, it will limit our perspective of the world. Red is only one perspective of the world, there are others such as blue and green. Each of these colours show one specific view of the world, just like each person has their own view of the world. Some people might think that this world is loving and peaceful, but then others might think that this world is a waste of time and wish they were never born.

No one was born with these red-tinted glasses, because if they were, then they will only have ONE perspective of the world and will never see how other people think. They will only stick to one view and live with it. They cannot listen to what other people say and won't be able to admire the beauty of this planet as they can only see red. This means that everyone was born without these glasses, so that they can see how other people think, no matter if these comments are positive or negative, they will be able to see different opinions and make their own about this world.

After people are born and they don't like what they see, they might put it on to avoid looking at the world because they don't like what they see or they want to avoid the disasters that occur around the world so that they think they are safe. But when they take them off, they will realise how peaceful and harmless the world is currently and they can do something to change the future when global warming does more damage to this wonderful planet.

The colours of our world...

This “red-tinted glasses” experiment is intended to help Sophie and the readers understand ‘how [Kant] could think both the rationalists and empiricists were right up to a point’. Through this metaphor, we are made to realise that every individual perceives things differently, and that if people do not attempt to change the colour of their glasses themselves (even temporarily), they will never be able to see how things appear to other people.

Before I explain the above, I first need to mention that Kant was an in-between of the rationalists and the empiricists. He thought that ‘both 'sensing’ and ‘reason’ come into play in our conception of the world’, which in other words meant that ‘all our knowledge comes from our sensations’, but ‘in our reason there are also decisive factors that determine how we perceive the world around us’. When Sophie wears the ‘red-tinted glasses’, the actual things that she sees are exactly the same as before she wore the glasses – the difference is in how she sees them. Everything appears to her as either pink or crimson, because ‘the glasses limit the way [she] perceive[s] reality’. In real life, people obviously don’t literally see their world in different colours, but they do see things through a kind of filter formed by their religious beliefs, culture, nationality, environment, and every experience they have had in their lives. This filter only lets certain things through, and shapes other things so that they can be let in. This shaping, according to Knox, is much like water adapting itself to the shape of the pitcher that it is poured into.

What the ‘red-tinted glasses’ or the filter that I mentioned above is symbolizing is bias, or a subjective point of view. By this, I am not referring only to extreme ideas like racism or sexism. No one has a completely objective view point. Even scientists, who are dealing with an objective topic (assuming that science really is objective), have subjective point of views. I can bet that not one scientist in the world has absolutely nothing ‘governing [their] mind’s operation which influence the way [they] experience the world’. For example, many would probably assume that a primary school student is less likely to be unable to carry out DNA experiments than a university student (because they have the stereotype that older students are smarter), or be surprised if they met a Japanese person who had never slept on tatami or had never eaten sushi before (This brings up a stereotype that I have been faced with numerous times before – some strange people do not seem to realise that it does not mean I have to eat sushi everyday just because I am Japanese …). Or it may be a stereotype that is even more ordinary, like a person assuming that they hate milk-flavoured candy or yogurt (before trying them) just because they hate milk.

What this all means is that everyone is wearing coloured glasses, whether they are aware of this or not.

In my opinion, all people are born with these glasses – they are already wearing them when they are sleeping inside their mother’s stomachs. Initially, everyone’s glasses are crystal clear, with no colour. But the moment they enter the world, their glasses start to get coloured – and what colours their glasses is different for each individual. One person may befriend their neighbour’s dog as a child and may have a positive view towards dogs for the rest of his life, while another may develop fear for dogs after he gets bitten by one. The colours of people’s glasses constantly change throughout their lifetime. A person may completely change their opinions, for example the dog-hating person may get to know a guide dog who helps blind people and thus start to have a positive view towards dogs (in which case the colour of his glasses would change completely; eg. from red to blue), or his views may become more extreme (colour gets darker; eg. from pink to red) or more moderate (colour gets lighter). I also think that people are not only wearing one pair of glasses – they are in fact wearing millions of glasses with different colours, because one pair of glasses cannot possibly represent a person’s perspective on everything in life. These glasses overlap to create yet more colours. For example a person with a pair of blue glasses and yellow glasses would see a green-coloured world. This overlapping of colours is just like how someone’s opinion on one subject can affect his opinion on another.

So how does the colour of a person’s glasses affect their viewpoint and result in bias? Suppose that an environmental activist was trying to persuade a factory to decrease carbon dioxide emission. We could say that the activist was wearing red-tainted glasses, as opposed to the blue glasses worn by the factory owner. The activist, through his red glasses, may only see advantages in the factory using wind powered energy to be more environmentally firendly. The factory owner, on the other hand, may only see the disadvantages, for example the possibility of less profit for his factory. The red glasses prevents the activist seeing the disadvantages for the factory, and the blue glasses prevents the factory owner seeing the possible advantages. As long as these two people do not attempt to be open-minded and listen to each other’s views, they will not be able to understand how things look through glasses other then that of themselves. If they try to at least give others a chance to express their point of views, even if they do not change their own opinions, the colour of their glasses would probably have become lighter. I say this because they are now able to see things that they had been unable to before, which means that their glasses must be filtering out less things and letting through more. Perhaps this idea is easier to comprehend if I refer to acidity rather than colours. Say that the factory owner's viewpoint was of a very low pH value. If he tried to open his mind to the perspective of the activist (a more 'alkali' point of view), then his outlook would be in some way nearer to pH 7 (even if still more 'acidic' than 'alkali'), because the acid and alkali can neutralise each other to some extent.

What this leads me to think is that the ultimate goal is probably to make one’s own glasses as near to the original crystal clear as possible. Because the lighter the colour of their glasses, the more likely that people can see the other side to things. I am not saying that it is better to have no personal opinion or view point. What I am saying is that one can only obtain a balanced perspective by understanding how others see things. Only then can one realise that the world is not just all red or all blue, and that it is in fact bursting with countless different beautiful colours.

People cannot, of course, erase every trace of colour from their glasses – and they cannot take off their glasses either. Like I mentioned before, no one has a perfectly objective point of view. But one cannot deny the importance of being able to see things from many different perspectives and forming an unprejudiced opinion – and this can only be done by trying to see the world without tainting everything with one’s own glasses’ colour. This, in conclusion, is what the “red-tinted glasses” experiment meant to me and has taught me.

Kant's "form" of knowledge

The red tinted glasses experiment emphasizes how people can be easily influenced by their perception, ways of thinking just because a factor of our senses are different, like us wearing red glasses and it makes the world around us crimson or pink.

Rationalists believed that the basis for all human knowledge lay in the mind and the empiricists believed all knowledge of the world proceeded from the senses. In the book it stated Kant thought that both ‘sensing’ and ‘reason’ is important and contribute to our perception and understanding of the world. When he stated that he thought rationalists went too far in their claims as to how much reason can contribute, it illustrates a sense to us readers that by using what is available in our mind we are blinded by what we can perceive. Things that we obtain and learn from our 5 senses are of an importance to how we assess the world as well as using our reasons.

The fact that Kant also said empiricists placed too much emphasis on sensory experience conveys another fact. This is that we cannot alone rely on what we see, because sometimes our sensory experiences lie to us. Not only that if we the red-tinted glasses was put onto an empiricists philosopher then that means the philosopher will believe his knowledge of the world is that the world is all different shades of red, which is bias because he or she is the only one affected by the red tinted glasses.

I think this explanation was trying to explain, whether we are able to see perfectly, or colour blind the way we perceive the world is unique in our own way, however that alone would not be enough to establish a convincing explanation, because we also need our mind, our reason to go with our sensory ideas.

Kant named our two forms of intuition “time” and “space”. He claimed that it is not only the mind which conforms to things; things also conform to the mind. This is what he called the “Copernican Revolution” in the problem of human knowledge. In my opinion here it is trying to express to us that human knowledge cannot be fully complete if we do not understand the fact that both factors helps us to understand the world a bit more.

However it is said that we cannot have certain knowledge of things, only how they appear to us and with prior experiences we can say how they might act or perceived to be by the human mind. This emphasizes that there are things we cannot know of before we have actually understood or perceived them through our senses. By using our senses and mind we in turn gain experience and form knowledge.

In life I have experienced how easy it is to be covered by reality and taken over by what we perceive first and peer pressure. There were once discrimination towards friends, because of their behavior and due to first experiences I was too blind to judge with all my senses. But through time I have learnt to not judge someone by what was said about them, like how to not “judge a book by its cover”.

Overall I think the red tinted glasses is trying to tell us that there are a lot of ways that people can easily be influenced by just a little difference in the way their sensory organ functions. However we cannot fully rely only one part of our human abilities, but we must use what we have fully to understand what we want to know.

The "red-tinted glasses"

Alberto Knox’s “red-tinted glasses” experiment is simply a way to show us that people do not see the world around them as it truly is, but that there is an obstruction that contorts our views and perceptions. I believe this obstruction is caused solely by our experience and the influence the world itself, and people, have on us.

This obstruction is portrayed as the “red-tinted glasses” in the experiment that, when worn, transform our vision into a world where everything is red. Of course we know that when we take off the glasses, everything is NOT red but if we don’t, we continue living our life with the knowledge that the world is, in fact, all red. However, how can someone know that they are wearing the glasses in the first place if they have been wearing them all their life and don’t know that the glasses are not natural? As unless you know better, you wouldn’t try to remove something from yourself that you believe to be inherent. Consequently, even when you do take off the red glasses (because you know you had put on and have been wearing them and that they distort your vision), how can you be sure you aren’t still wearing another pair of “glasses” that may have been on you your entire life? Well, we can never know for sure because we have never experienced a vision without those “glasses”, if they even exist. That is, until we find a way to get those first “glasses” off. So I do believe that experience means a lot to the way we perceive the world because without it, we wouldn’t know if what we understand is real or not. Then again, even if we do experience something first hand, we still won’t know if it was truly genuine because it is only what we saw it as. Others might have been in the exact same situation and seen something completely different but I suppose I’m agreeing with the empiricists in a way; that experience still matters.

Continuing on, everyone wears those “red-tinted glasses” in some form or another but nobody’s is ever identical. For example, if one person wore blue-tinted glasses and another wore red, the person with the blue glasses would believe everything is blue while the other would believe everything is red. They would then think that everything the other person says they see is a lie because they themselves are seeing something completely different. They would only realize that the other person is right when they try on each other’s glasses. To put that into a real life, people all have different forms of obstruction that change their vision of the world. It could be religion, experience or even something they read in a very “trusted” magazine. That is why everyone has their own view on things and no one can really understand what each other sees because they have not been through the same things and simply do not share the same minds.

Take our voices for another example. The sound of our voice heard by others is never the same as the voice we ourselves hear. When you talk, you can hear yourself speak but if someone records your voice and plays it back to you, you wouldn’t recognize it as your own because you only ever hear what you sound like to yourself. You will never see through the eyes of another person (not literally) because even if you somehow manage to swap bodies with someone, it will still be you “in spirit” inside them, with your same mind and thoughts and “glasses”. For in life, those “glasses” aren’t actual physical objects we wear but preconceived opinions that influence our judgments and visions of the world, etched into our minds through individual experience. It is therefore quite impossible to swap these outlooks with anyone else.

You can say that we are born “without” any sort of “glasses” on us but as we grow up, we experience and witness things than affect our mind and change our views on life and the world. These things become our “glasses” and the only way to remove them is to erase those views. This, of course, is almost impossible because you will always have an opinion of something one way or another that influences your judgment of things. So in retrospect, those “glasses” will come naturally to you whether you want them or not. Consequently , you could say that we are born without any opinions but as soon as we commence living and experiencing even the smallest of things, we start to create our own views that shape the beginnings of our "glasses".

Many people can tell you to “open your eyes” to see the world better. But in fact, they should be saying “take of those glasses” because you can open your eyes all you want and only end up with sore eyes. To truly see the “real” world as it is, it is necessary to remove any preconceptions (glasses) we “wear” and view the world with a clear and impartial mind.

Assignment 2: I see Red people...

The red-tinted glasses in the chapter ‘Kant’ can be seen as a metaphor for how reason and sensory perception can both be altered and influenced like “when you pour water into a glass pitcher.”

Though glasses usually help us to see and so improve our understanding, here the red tint causes our perception to become “pink” and “crimson.” The glasses are red because it absorbs all the blue and green colour lights but reflects the red, leaving us with an obscure, limited sense of vision. We can see the glasses as a metaphor of the mind and how at times we choose to only absorb and accept certain things while rejecting, reflecting other ideas, information or people. This is commonly seen in or world as racism, discrimination and narrow mindedness. Depending on where and how we were brought up “the mind leaves its imprint on the way we apprehend the world. Our reason and perceptions are thus moulded fostering our identity, opinions and principles, which may not always be fair or socially responsible. We are all wearing coloured glasses but since we grow into them, we cannot take of these ‘glasses of reason’.

A rationalist believes the basis of all knowledge lay in the mind, while an empiricist believes all knowledge we have, has come from our senses.

When linking to the views of rationalists and empiricists, an empiricist wearing the glasses would not apply reason and perceive the world to have become red. This implies that an empiricist would ignore the social influences in which the person is brought up and would not be aware of bias as reason has not been considered. On the other hand a rationalist may address these problems but by thinking that knowledge comes from the mind, he or she would not actively learn from experience and may ponder about the problem at home. So this is why Kant believed that both rationalists and empiricists went too far in their beliefs, empiricists ignored the red tint while empiricists used opaque glasses. There is a need for balance as both support each other in understanding.

In my life there have been many cases where I have worn tinted glasses. A main example is laughing at racist jokes, many of these are based on stereotypes like ‘Black people steal things’ or ‘Irish people are dumb.’ Though they are meant to be funny, if reason is applied you are laughing at the cost of hurting someone’s feelings. This is why I have learned to bite my lip in these situations.

To conclude, the red-tinted glasses are a metaphor for how many of us are influenced to perceive in different ways because of our upbringing. These differences can lead to a sense of identity but at times be hurtful and bias to others. Being able to take off these glasses would make a global citizen, but also someone without their own culture or personality.

The "red-tinted glasses"

In Chapter 25 “Kant” Alberto Knox talks to Sophie about Immanuel Kant. He talks about the “red-tinted glasses” and how the glasses limit the way you perceive reality. According to me this metaphor means we see things how we would prefer to see it. The “red-tinted glasses” make you see the world in one colored light. It makes you see everything in your own light. When Sophie puts those glasses on Alberto Knox was trying to explain that you can still see everything but is restricted to one color. We all see the world in our own perspective. We see the world based on the knowledge we have of it.

We all come from different backgrounds and we all follow different cultures and religions therefore we have different perspective of each person around us. We all have different perspective of this world. So when Sophie puts the glasses on she sees a different perspective of the world. How different people portray things differently is what makes everyone unique and different from each other. If everyone was the same it would all be completely boring and we would all see the same perspective of this world.

In my experience I always thought that people who smoke are very unpleasant people and they don’t care about others. Although when you get to know them they could be quite generous. We feel they are unpleasant because from our knowledge people who smoke are usually not very nice people, but people change and mature. In this case the cigarette restricts us from exploring the world

In conclusion I think Alberto Knox is trying to tell us you cannot believe what you see or what your knowledge tells you. The glasses show how we are blocked from reality and we must take the glasses off and explore reality.

Assignment #2.

The red tinted glasses is a metaphor for how our reason and knowledge, opinion and experience, time and space limits what we can experience - as empiricists argue, and how we may believe that the things we experience through these constraints are the whole truth - as rationalists argue. An example would be how one raised in an environment where they have never experienced a snake would believe, due to a snake's appearance, that it is slimy and repulsive and think of this as the truth, but as anyone who has any remote knowledge about snakes or have touched one would say that snakes' skin is, in fact, dry and scaly, unlike the previous person would've thought.

However, can we ever transcend the barrier of human concepts and experience the universe as it truely is?

Kant's theory implies that humans are eternally oblivious to everything that is happening around them, even with the advent of science, because even though it seemingly explains (or tries to) even the most unconceivable of phenomena, it is still limited to the human concepts of time and space, and even as we take in the knowledge that is fed to us as scientific concepts, these concepts are merely concepts, opinion, knowledge of others, and therefore we aren't taking off a pair of tinted glasses, we are merely adding more shades to the tint.

Assignment #2

The metaphor on chapter 25 “red-tinted glasses” is that the red tinted glasses changes our perspective of life. On what we see and how we feel. When Sophie wore those glasses it quickly changed the color of the world but didn’t change anything else. The color red could also mean aggressive and also love. So it really depends on what your perspective is. Are you more on the bright side of life or the dark side, cause if it’s the bright side you would think the color red as love. If you’re on the dark side you would see red as blood or something unpleasant.

Everyone is brought up differently and everyone has different perspective. Sophie wearing the red tinted glasses changed everything that she sees in her daily life. It also depends on her, if she didn’t wear those glasses she wouldn’t have known how the world will looked like when it’s red. What she can see while she is wearing it and what she can’t see when it’s taken off. There might be a really big difference. Cause while you’re looking at the world of red you might not see things that you normally see in your daily life. It really depends what your personality is like, religion your in and mostly how you were brought up. A lot of different things will change if you were brought up in a different way.

I think that this metaphor could also be explained in another way. All the new life which comes to this world and also the children until the age of 13 they are all wearing the red tinted glasses. They haven’t actually taught to know what exactly is happening to the world they are living in. When they actually get taught for example the global warming that is happening, that is when they take off that glasses and realize what the world situation is in.

Red-Tinted Glasses

The red-tinted glasses that has been mentioned in Chapter 25 is a metaphor for limitation of our perspective in each human being. Sophie was being asked what she saw with the Red-tinted glasses that she was given and obviously everything turned out red from her view. That was definitely not the reality of the world but surely it was what she saw because the red tinted glasses gave her illusion about this world, made the world she saw differently.

If every single person has their own pair of tinted glasses ever since they were born then they wouldn’t have the chance to see the reality or to see other views that people see. Luckily, we are not born with these tinted glasses which give us the chance to look at the actuality of this world.

Some people rather live in this world without any tinted glasses because it lets them see the world much more clearly. But perhaps not a lot of people, but surely few people might rather live in these tinted glasses after they see the “reality” of the world. These tinted glasses, which filtered all the bad things they see and only left with the goods. But I personally think it’s not a bad idea to live in these tinted glasses because I am that kind of person who prefers to hide or escape from problems when they arrive. And by wearing these tinted glasses can stop me from knowing these problems because all I see is the good side of the world.