Throughout history, people have tried to answer question "What is the true essence of things and events?" and in order to find an answer to the question different philosophers have proposed different theories. John Locke says that most of our knowledge about the outside world is based upon one's empirical observations. On the other hand, Berkley argues that experiential perceptions do not give the true information about the world, as all physical objects exist only in our minds. Similarly, Plato claims that the physical objects one perceives are just imperfect copies of universal forms and in order to find out how things really are one has to find the forms. However, it is impossible to find a universal way of learning how things really are as in different areas of knowledge there are different ways of gathering and evaluating information and often the filters that influence the results are difficult to recognize.
Firstly it should be noted that many aspects of our life cannot are moral and aesthetic assertions and therefore cannot be evaluated to true or false. In this case, 'how things really are' should be considered to mean objective opinion about the events.
The main filters influencing one's knowledge about the world are empirical observations, emotions, common knowledge imposed by communities and authorities, introspection and empathy, previous experiences, and language. Almost all areas of knowledge are influenced by one or more filters; and as all filters sum up they can alter the results from the true essence of reasons behind events.
One of the biggest questions arising when using observations to get evidence about the world is whether one can always trust one's senses. For example, when looking at a white piece of paper through red glass one would see the paper to be red. Being aware of...