THE INVISIBLE FILTER TH4T DISTORTS WH4T WE SEE

This article has 2.246 words.

Have you ever stopped to think that the world we see may not be exactly the “real” world?

Every human being carries within themselves a powerful tool, which can be empowering, but also dangerously limited.

In this article, we will talk about worldviews and the great game of human interpretation in a simple and direct way, in the best straightforward style.

What do interpretation and worldviews mean?

Let's say that worldviews function as invisible filters, which we use to interpret reality. From them, we give meaning to what we experience, hear, or observe. Every human being in the world interprets reality according to their experiences, beliefs, prior knowledge, emotions, and values.

A simple example of this is when two people witness the same event but understand and react to it in different ways. This is because each of them organises the information according to their own emotional baggage.

I don't know if you've ever heard the phrase, ‘We are responsible for what we think, feel and do, but not for what others interpret.’

Well, interpretation, therefore, is not just about ‘understanding’ something. This process is also responsible for attributing (or not) meanings that relate what happens externally to what we carry internally – and vice versa.

The concept of ‘worldviews’ is directly linked to our interpretation process. A worldview is a set of beliefs, principles – or lack thereof – traditions and perspectives that shape how someone observes reality. This set of beliefs is also known as a paradigm.

These paradigms vary among individuals, groups, or societies and influence how they understand concepts such as justice, happiness, progress, spirituality, etc.

In other words, our worldviews act to build or destroy what we understand as collective and individual meaning.

Interpretation vs. Reality

After all, is there an objective reality, or is everything just a pre-agreed collective delusion?

A good number of philosophers and scientists defend the existence of a reality independent of our mind's interpretations. They define this idea of reality as something similar to gravity – it exists independently of our will.

Within this concept, our ideas of ‘truth’ and/or “meaning” would be nothing more than a collective construction, a mere result of what groups and societies have agreed to believe and value. These ‘globally true’ narratives may even have some basis in objective reality, but only in accordance with what is constructed from the human interpretations involved.

However, when we look at the point of view of some existing lines of thought, we see a veritable smorgasbord of worldviews:

Scepticism: says that we cannot be absolutely certain about any kind of view, as all forms of knowledge can be questioned.

Social constructivism: the world is constructed collectively through language and social relations.

Empiricism: worldviews arise from sensory experiences and observations of events.

Epicureanism: the world should be understood in terms of the pursuit of happiness and the reduction of pain.

Stoicism: worldviews should align with reason and nature, accepting what cannot be controlled.

Structuralism: every worldview is formed by unconscious structures (such as language and social systems).

Existentialism: worldview ideas are constructed from freedom and personal choices.

Phenomenology: worldviews arise from direct experiences and how consciousness interprets what has been experienced.

Hedonism: guided by pleasure as a fundamental principle of life.

Humanism: places human beings, their dignity and freedom at the centre of any worldview.

Idealism: the mind and ideas shape the reality we know.

Marxism: worldviews reflect the material conditions and power relations in society.

Materialism: says that there is no belief in any kind of ‘mental power.’ For materialists, the world is physical, solid matter, nothing more, nothing less.

Nihilism: no worldview has ultimate meaning or objective value; everything is a great void of foundation.

Perspectivism: argues that every worldview is just one of many possible ones, so there is no single, exclusive truth for everyone.

Post-structuralism: there is no fixed worldview, but rather multiple meanings that are in dispute.

Positivism: only scientific knowledge based on verifiable facts can form the basis of a valid worldview.

Pragmatism: the value of a worldview depends on its practical usefulness for problem-solving purposes.

Rationalism: reason is the main tool for understanding the world and forming a true view of it.

Realism: we have the idea that there is an objective reality, independent of our interpretations.

Cultural relativism: each culture forms its own paradigm and none can be measured or compared by another.

Transcendentalism: worldviews are anchored in spirituality and the connection between human beings and nature.

Utilitarianism: the worldview should seek the well-being of as many people as possible.

Yes, these are just a few of the many views and interpretations that exist about reality. And since there is (still) no conclusive proof, one that leaves no gaps or doubts, the interpretation of the world becomes a whirlwind of data and information that coexist as chaotic and incessant white noise.

The role of our interpretive mind is to transform all this chaos (Khaos) into cosmos (Kósmos), into order. It captures millions of stimuli per second, organises them, interprets them, fills in the gaps and then delivers a tiny part of this data to the consciousness, the rest remains ‘running in the background’ unconsciously.

Thus, the bigger issue is not the multiplicity of views and ideas, but rather our stubbornness in insisting that only our version of the facts is correct.

Distorted Filters

And so we come to the dark side of the force. Our interpretive mind can save us from the madness that absolute chaos can represent, but it also condemns us to the relative madness of confirmation biases, prejudices, struggles between us and them, left and right, fake news...

Our interpretation filters are not neutral. They magnify information that confirms what we already believe and blur information that may challenge us.

David Hume would cut through this nonsense with just one question: ‘Do you really see causality, or do you just assume that one event follows another?’

In order to clarify this tricky question a little, let's use a game of billiards as an example.

We see a player hit ball A, which in turn hits ball B, causing it to move in some direction. Are we seeing the movement of these balls or just observing the sequence of events and interpreting them as causality?

Most of what we call ‘interpretive reading of the world’ is just a mental habit, an addiction to interpretation that repeats itself until we realise that we are repeating it automatically.

Words create worlds

In the midst of this game, language acts as the primary tool of interpretation, which also makes it an accomplice to our interpretive biases.

George Orwell, in his brilliant work ‘1984’, shows how the limitations of language prove to be limitations of thought.

For example: if we do not have real and applicable definitions for words such as “union” and ‘freedom’, how can we conceive of the meaning that this word has?

It is not just a matter of looking up dictionary meanings, because the views that each person, culture or society has of what it means to love and be free are usually completely different and multiple. The concepts of these words, as presented in dictionaries, are rarely applicable to the subjective sensations, feelings and interpretations of individuals themselves.

If we go a little further in this example, we see that we often use certain words as weapons. An ‘attack’ today is also used to denote ‘peace operations.’ A “terrorist” is referred to in certain cultures and situations as a ‘freedom fighter.’ The facts do not change, but rather the interpretations that the mind makes, often with subtleties adjusted by ulterior motives.

Depending on the prevailing narratives, other words such as ‘visionary’ or ‘lunatic’ have come to be used to describe the same behaviour, thus gaining interpretations opposite to what they categorise in dictionaries.

If you want to see these changes in the concepts of words for yourself, look up the word “empirical” in a recent dictionary. If you know what this word means, see how it is being narrated today.

Worldviews in the Age of Social Media

We can say, without exaggeration, that social media has become a laboratory for studying interpretive and linguistic distortions, where each piece of information reflects a different and hyperbolic version of ourselves and the world.

Social media feeds us only the narratives we accept and like to see. In some cases, due to these ‘personalised experiences,’ we become mere caricatures of our own opinions.

Hyperinterpretation is on the rise, and from it we not only read the world, but we read others' interpretations of our own interpretations. All of this in an infinite and sometimes sterile loop.

Interpretation: Freedom or Imprisonment?

All this does not mean that we are doomed, but it does give the impression that we are under a regime of conditional freedom.

Changing our worldview, beliefs, and interpretations is possible, but it requires the discomfort of realising that not everything we believe to be true is in fact true. I say this with the awareness that my interpretations may also be repetitions or errors of judgement.

Admitting this does not change them, but it helps to broaden my spectrum of understanding. I believe that no one would want to live a whole life believing that the shadows projected on the wall are more real than the world that awaits outside the cave (Plato's ‘Allegory of the Cave’).

And for those who are brave enough, I suggest reading Michel Foucault's ‘Discipline and Punish,’ a true lesson in how we interpret – and how we are interpreted – by the prevailing systems and narratives.

Amidst all this interpretive dance, I cannot fail to mention the irreverent wisdom of Diogenes, the cynic, who walked the streets of ancient Greece with his lantern lit in the midday sun, shouting at the top of his lungs: ‘I am looking for an honest man.’ He was not looking for a man of flesh and blood, but rather an uncorrupted interpretation of humanity. In his brutal satire on social conventions, Diogenes showed us that most of these conventions are merely the result of a foolish collective interpretation, and not of natural laws.

Simplified Summary

Our brains do not see reality directly. They interpret it as a kind of simultaneous translator.

What makes this translator incredible is its ability to give meaning to the world, but it is also, paradoxically, a great inventor, distorting facts to massage our ego, clinging to first impressions and repeating them in an ‘eternal return.’

The secret here is not to want to fire it or just ‘reprogram’ it, but rather to keep an eye on it, checking and questioning its work when necessary.

Author's note:

I believe, pessimistically – and slightly hopefully – that interpretive humility is one of the most neglected virtues of our time. Assuming that we may be wrong and that our filters may be distorted are antidotes to blind fanaticism, polarisation, and anxiety.

In my opinion, true intelligence, if there is such a thing, is not about having the most accurate interpretation, but about having the flexibility to question and change when faced with new evidence and information.

Let's say I can be a person who is open to correction and not someone who calls themselves wise but stubbornly denies anything that ‘conflicts’ with my worldview. I prefer to have people around me who admit they “know nothing” rather than those who pretend to know, possessing absolute certainties for everything. I think the greatest tragedy is not having a limited worldview, but believing that this view is the only one possible.

Interact (or not), the choice is yours!

The exercise of looking at yourself and questioning your own beliefs may be the quest that really matters. Self-knowledge is not a luxury, it is more like a code that helps to fine-tune our filters. The journey may be somewhat lonely, but it does not have to be isolated. So, how about starting by sharing your own interpretation of this article?

In the comments below, you can leave your harshest criticism, your most uncomfortable question, your most reluctant compliment, and even your suggestion for the next topic. And if you think this article isn't completely wrong, how about sharing it with someone who also appreciates a hefty dose of reflection? Go ahead, feel free.

Oh, if you see the value in this work and want to support us in our project, consider buying us a coffee on the ‘Buy Me a Coffee’ platform, where you'll find free content and membership plans with bonus content and even more exclusive material, all created by us. Your support makes a difference, and you'll get some gifts in return.

Thank you for your preference, and see you next time!

 

‘The illusion fades when we question reality’ - UN4RT

 

Sources, references, and inspirations: