Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Am a Philosopher

Facts are the personification of objectiveness in our language.

They are not perfect, as they are only true inside the space we have limited via our clauses. We could say they are objective, by defining objectivity as the collective subjectivity of humanity.

On the other hand, I believe absolute truth does not exist.

It is very interesting exercise to mix philosophy and physics and think about relative true, relative time and past events. Events occurred in the past would are true, and as there is no way of going back in time, they would remain true. However, those events are past just for a certain number of observers. For others, light could very well be showing it to them right now. However, there is a timeline in the universe and we could still somehow “absolutely” pinpoint where our event took place, and thus classify it as past.

But I haven’t found any truth that could stretch into the future eternally, due to the everchanging nature of our universe. Unless, of course, that there are not absolute truths. But when thinking it twice, I realize that could change as well.
It is also to be remarked that all these statements are based on the fact that we can perceive reality as it is. And that is not true, nor proveable. Because in order to prove we can perceive reality, we have to use the senses with which we perceive reality, the same tools we are trying to prove.
OwnerOfMany · 90-99, M
The problem with all you have written here is that it is your interpretation of your perception of writings of the perceptions of other people. This is not philosophy, it is an opinion.
No offense intended but you need to read less and live more. At this point in your life you are too blinded by arrogance and clinging to the opinions you have formed to actually experience "life".
FlowerAlchemist · 22-25, T
@OwnerOfMany Actually, they are my original thoughts. I am sure other people arrived to these conclusions before, but I got to them by philosophizing, not by reading.
I know I am young, but I am also mature enough not to be arrogant. I consider it fair to judge a thought by its nature and arguments, not by the age of the writer. That is not philosophy.
@OwnerOfMany This lady is a philosopher- in- the- works.

She is not exhibiting any arrogance.

People who don't understand others always seem to love to try to drag them down to their own level.
PhilDeep · 51-55, M
I found philosophical readings interesting but often they seemed to reduce to definitions, what follows from them and disagreements stemming from different definitions. While the logic and conclusions can be interesting, I find literature more fascinating partly due to its being less abstract.
There is no future and there never will be.

This fallacy of thinking is a mind bender, but just think about it.

The future is a hope and a fantasy and nothing more. When and IF it materializes it is the present.

 
Post Comment