Can I know that the world I experience is real?

Descartes, in a fit of suspicion and doubt of the world, declared, “Cogito, ergo sum.” I think, therefore I am. In his process of Cartesian Method of doubt, he had torn down all his previous beliefs and interrogated every aspect of the world, leaving behind one solipsistic conclusion: we can only be sure of our own existence in our experience of the world, and thus can never know whether the world we experience is real.

Aristotle claimed that our knowledge and by extension experience of our world is government by our senses. He rejected Plato’s forms and focused on the empirical idea of ‘Nihil in intellectu, quod non prius fuerit.’ There is nothing in the intellect which was not first in the senses. Therefore, in order to dissect whether we can know the world we experience to be real, we would have to evaluate whether our senses are trustworthy. However, as the idea of skepticism has long argued, our senses can easily deceive us, hence we cannot grasp our knowledge of the world with certainty. In this case, Montaigne, rehearsing such arguments of the Pyrrhonism thesis, lamented ‘We have nothing left to hold on to.’ Doubting our senses equates to doubting our perception of the world- and even our grasp on reality. This uncertainty towards the veridical character of our knowledge was later fundamental to Descartes dream argument, where he asks ‘How can I not know I am now not dreaming?’ If our world were to be a dream or even brains in a vat, we simply would have no way of knowing. As Morpheus in the Matrix questions, ‘What is real? … (If it is our senses), then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.’ As a result, we have no way to refute whether we are actually experiencing the world’s true nature or in a simulated reality enslaved by intelligent machines.

However, whilst skepticism assumes that our senses are untrustworthy, even if we did suppose our empirical knowledge was entirely correct, if we apply the theory of Gestalt’s shifts, our experience of the world would still alternate as our perceptions shifts. And if we are able to experience the same thing differently, we are unable to truly know which experience is the real one. Moreover, whilst Kant in his “Critique of Pure Reason’ does assess that ‘the senses do not err’ hence refuting skepticism, he also states ‘because they do not judge.’ Kant believed that though our initial report from our senses might be correct, once they filter through our mind, they become tainted with judgements and inaccurate. Our perception of the world is so shaped and influenced by our mental structures, judgements and pre-existing beliefs that we cannot know if they are a true reflection of reality. This was further extended by Hume, who stated and I quote, “Reason is, and ought to be the slave of the passions.” Hume, known for his empiricist philosophy, questioned our senses and in fact argued that our experience of our world was based off habitual patterns, highlighting the possibility of sensory illusions in our perception. Thus, whether we question our experiences through systematic skepticism or through the nuances in our judgement, we are still unable to know nor justify if our experience of the world is real.

It is also important to note that the question postulates the existence of a ‘real’ world experience, yet to this essay, individual experiences mean there can never be an objective ‘real’ experience. Humans infer their experience through judgements, but Hume states this judgement is what deceives us, illustrating how we can never experience the world truly as it is due to our inability to escape such interferences in our experience. Although philosophers like Locke argue that there are some experiences of the world, or primary qualities, that are untainted by our judgements and therefore objective knowledge, since all our knowledge comes from our perception of the world, it is impossible for us to know anything independent from our perception. Hence, Locke’s theory is still unable to justify the existence of a real world experience. In this case, there is no standard ‘real’ experience to weigh and compare our experience of the world against, meaning we are unable to determine if our own experience is real.

However, if there indeed was a ‘real’ world experience, what would it be defined as? Just as  one can develop a doxastic attitude towards a proposition and rely on luck for that judgement to be true, can one also somehow accidentally experience the ‘real’ world through luck? Nonetheless, the person in question would firstly not even know their experience is the ‘real’ one, and even if they did believe their experience to be true, they would still not be able to truly know since their belief won’t be justified nor evidenced, and as per Plato’s epistemological formulation: knowledge, or knowing something, requires justified true belief. Hence, this essay’s thesis that we cannot know whether the world we experience is real still stands.

This essay considers whether we can know the world we experience to be true, but it is also important to question whether that truly matters. In an idealistic sense, if our minds comprehended our experience, then though it wouldn’t be real as the Oxford Languages defines it to be (actually existing as a thing, not imagined (from an objective standpoint)) it would still be real to our minds in the present. Hence following Bentham’s utilitarianism, it would be logical to treat our experience as real in order to maximise our hedonistic pleasures. Consider it a pragmatic wager: even if we did one day find out our experience of the world was false, it would still not diminish the value of the pleasure we received when we did believe it to be real; if our experiences turned out to be real, then we would still have lived a life of purpose. Yet in turn, if we chose to abandon our faith, each day would be reduced to monotonous as the value and goal of life would be gone. 

So in conclusion, whilst we cannot truly know whether the world we experience is real, still live life fully and believe your experiences to be real. Ultimately, there is no way to know if our perception is the real one, and if we are consumed in trying to find out, it will hinder our potential to exract the utmost from life, both in terms of pleasures and success. Though this might clash with Socrates belief that “the unexamined world is not worth living” as well as many’s preference for intellectual curiosity, over-questioning every interaction you have with reality would strip life of meaning and purpose if we become overwhelmed by the doubt. Thus, put yourself out there and do your best to expand your knowledge and experiences of the world. What is there to fear? The worst thing that could happen would simply be to realise we were in the Matrix all along.