comment: >
  
  Yeah it’s a dumb post, but the old argument of “is a reflection a real image” is definitely a valid debate lol
context: This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
  Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
  (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
  Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >
  
  Evander Holyfield and Vincent Van Gogh have entered the chat. 💇 >
  
  Mr Orange would like a word… >
  
  🎵Clowns to the left of me
  Jokers to the right🎶 >
  
  genuinly started humming this while I waited for the comments to open. Was pleased to find you here. >
  
  Oh you wish that were true but everything can be cut of/out and shown to your eyeballs. >
  
  except the both of your eyeballs >
  
  Well pull one out and point it at the other. >
  
  but that’s your eye not your eyeballs >
  
  Then what r your eyeballs if not your eyes? >
  
  yh but eyeball is for when it’s out of the socket right? (im not english so sorry if im mistaken) >
  
  I think eyeballs can leave the socket and still be attached to the optic nerve in some cases, so it's technically possible. >
  
  Definetly possible and not so uncommon in medicine.
  For example it happens in some industries that people get metal splinters into their eyes and they can wander to the backside of the eyeball. In the hospital they then scoop out your eyeball and remove the splinter before putting it back in >
  
  I imagine it like a charging cable >
  
  i did not need to know this information in my life >
  
  I’d argue that things that are reflected are still “seen”.
  Everything you see day to day is refracted to some extent, and we still consider that we can see things properly.
  I don’t see why reflection should be treated differently. >
  
  Obviously reflections show the thing being reflected, but I think what OP means is you can’t actually see it with your own eyes. Mirrors can be distorted, cameras can be inaccurate, etc. It doesn’t necessarily make a difference in this situation, but reflection’s definitely don’t always look 100% like the original >
  
  Nor does anything since all light is distorted before getting to your eyes, be it reflection or refraction.  You have never, and will never, see something that is 100% accurate to the original.  Even air distorts light that passes through it. >
  
  Well, true, but that’s exactly what “see it with my own eyes” means. The best we can do to see a “true” image is to see it with our own eyes, even if our eyes are technically flawed, that’s still how we see. >
  
  I don’t think there anything about “see it with my own eyes” that discounts reflections.  
  The idiom just means to see something yourself, especially when it is something that you would not believe to exist or be true if you did not see it. >
  
  I see your point, and respectfully agree to disagree lol, seeing something with your own eyes is definitely the best way to see a “true” image, and while the phrase can be used to dismiss something “unbelievable” I’ve also heard it used when something doesn’t look quite right, could be a picture, a reflection, etc. You can’t undisputedly know for sure what something looks like unless you see it with your own eyes. Think of “funhouse” mirrors, we know that they intentionally distort images, but there’s no way to tell (hypothetically) that a standard mirror isn’t distorting at some small amount. I’m only defending this post because I’ve absolutely seen reflections of things and had to turn around for a proper look to be sure what I saw. I agree the post is being intentionally thick, because obviously we can see a near perfect reflection of ourself, but it’s true we can’t really tell what we look like from real eyes >
  
  I get you, you make a good point too! I’m mostly just exaggerating my opinion to poke fun at the original post