Reading the notes and comparing all the philosophers we studied, it became evident to me that all their works in some way attempted to explain the nature of reality and all their writings dealt with the relationship between subjective and objective reality. The contrast between objective and subjective can be exemplified by the contrast between Berkeley's theories and those of the Buddha. Although they have some similarities and a similar conclusion, they seem very different to me. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Berkeley states that all reality is subjective, while Buddha states that reality is objective. While the Buddha believes that truth and reality exist independently of our perception of them, Berkeley believes that reality exists only in our perception because there is no way to prove that it exists outside of it. It seems to me that the Buddha sees reality and perception as more separate, while Berkeley sees them as inseparable. Regarding the aforementioned similarities between Buddha and Berkeley, both would agree that our perception of reality shapes reality for us. It is impossible for us not to see reality subjectively, so our perception of reality is the only reality we know. My opinion on this topic is not in line with either of them. I believe that just because it is impossible to prove the existence of reality outside of one's perception does not mean that objective reality does not exist. It simply means we haven't found a way to prove it. But at the same time, I believe that for us reality only exists thanks to our perception of it. As has been mentioned in many readings, we are limited to our point of view and it is our only source of reality, therefore it constitutes our reality. Another philosophical view on reality that I feel obliged to discuss is that of Descartes. As for his argument, I personally found it problematic because to be convinced of it requires belief in God or an Evil Genius or some sort of higher power. I understand that he is only using the Evil Genius argument as a way to create doubt and strip away his past beliefs, but this argument makes no sense with his idea that for things to exist, they must be perceived. He would say that we know that all the places and objects that we have not yet perceived exist because God is there to perceive them all. But to be convinced of this, it is necessary to believe in God or in a higher force that perceives everything. Since there is no way to prove such high power, how do we know his theory is right? How do we know that the physical world is not just made up of the things we have perceived? Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay The objective physical world was a significant theme throughout the readings, which is ironic, because we cannot experience objectivity. Philosophers like Berkeley would even go so far as to say that objectivity might not exist. What intrigues me is why most people believe it exists. We see others and are able to read their actions, recognize their feelings, and empathize with them. This is how we know that there must be some objective truths out there because there are things that everyone experiences. If you asked someone to describe a physical object to you, their description would most likely be similar to yours, which is how you would know that there must be something objective that you both are perceiving. Berkeley, of course, would argue that it is impossible to be certain that the other person.