There’s a saying that “seeing is believing,” but is this really so? There are instances when we question what we see, especially how something is presented or the context it’s presented in. For example, a magician can pull off a trick which looks “real,” when in fact, we know that there was a method behind it. Videos and images can be digitally alternated, and a reflection in a mirror or in a body of water can distort what we see.
We cannot ignore that we often believe what we hear, read, or deduce from our intellect. Why? Because we can only see so much in a day, and we are dependent on receiving information secondhand because of the limitations of our sight and our location in the world.
Seeing is only believing if we are there, or if we see something via video or images. But what if we can’t be there or if there are no videos or images of an event? For example, the events that took place hundreds or thousands of years ago. Or something which could only be told or written about because the technology wasn’t available to record it.
If we only believed what we saw, what about the things that are invisible, abstract and transcendent? Things that only the mind’s eye can see, things only the intellect can grasp, and things that we can’t see but experience, such as feelings and emotions?
Fallton Havenstonne 