Do you think there's an objectively true philosophy?
I'm starting to wonder. The universe seems to be built on paradoxes. For example, "there are no absolutes" is a statement that disproves itself. Or, free will, may or may not exist, but it's a fact that believing that one is free seems to facilitate a better self-determination than someone who concedes to determinism.
Even the most advanced entities in our universe might have to grapple with the same issues that we do. "If I can only perceive the universe, is anything I know or believe real?" There must be discrepancies in morality, and ideology, with even relative gods arguing over e.g. liberalism vs conservatism, just on grander scales and based on a much wider pool of facts. Where we argue nationalism vs globalism, they might argue globalism vs galaxy-ism, galaxy-ism vs universe-ism, universe-ism vs multiverse-ism, with various parties arguing who constitutes "their people".
Imagine being a 5000 year old god-being, still having more or less the same types of debates we have today? It's almost like there's not supposed to be a clear answer, like there *isn't* a clear answer, like all things are in a superimposed state of being true and untrue. I probably just accidentally stumbled upon some Eastern philosophy.
It's odd to think about because I used to believe that these sorts of things were predicated on knowledge -- e.g. there *is* a correct and universally true ideology, it just comes down to who has all of the pertinent facts. Now I don't know anymore.
>>17635360
Right and wrong, good and evil. It all is and isn't.
You can be a psychotic maniac who exploit everything and everyone around you, only to gain massive amounts of resources and then proceed to build something that will help the world become a better place. You can choose to do something for "good", go into medicine and study virus'. But despite your good intentions, instead of curing something, you make a superbug you can't eliminate again, that you'll have to store away in the hopes that it will never be breached.
This is the universe we live in. Our universe, is a universe of duality. But we humans break that duality, because we can put shit in our perspective, a non-universal look on life. You can choose to do nothing with your life but enjoy the moment, sitting in front of your computer 'til the day you die, and enjoy every minute of it, because the universe will eventually change to the point were your existence is not a possibility and therefore it is all meaningless. But for the same reason, you could go out and dominate the world and create the next golden age and be a pillar on the foundation that will shoot us into the next civ tier.
>TL;DR
everything is
Don't confuse the slogans, metaphors, models and words we use to describe reality with actual reality. They are not the same thing.
An objectively true philosophy is any philosophy that can be proven through objective means to be correct consistently. Not that difficult to define, really. Take everything to their logical conclusions, analyzing the world as it truly is without any confirmation bias and you'll arrive at the closest thing we can postulate to be an "Objective" philosophy so far as our perceptions are concerned. Asking for anything more than that is delusional, because the best we'll ever be able to do is whatever the scope of our capabilities permits.
>>17635396
>the post modern void strikes again
>>17635396
>Don't confuse the slogans, metaphors, models and words we use to describe reality with actual reality.
Such as?
>They are not the same thing.
See but the thing is, I could disagree with you, and we could argue about this indefinitely, never reaching a conclusion, only ever putting forth points and counterpoints.
I'm fairly certain that some philosophers would argue that our abstractions of reality comprise reality.
>>17635410
But this insinuates that given the same information, the same conclusion follows.
For example, let's say that it is statistical fact that 9 out of 10 dogs will violently maul someone. We can operate on this knowledge in a multitude of ways, we can say destroying all dogs is the safest solution, or we can say destroying only violent dogs is the safest solution, there will be people who argue "who are we to decide the fate of dogs?" or even a more bizarre "perhaps it is our place in the world to be mauled". There's no conclusion that can be definitively proven wrong or absolutely correct, they're just disparate notions.
>>17635449
>that our abstractions of reality comprise reality
And that is also true. A vision of an area -- a map I suppose -- is one of the simplest examples of the abstraction shaping reality, at least on an easily sellable model level. New philosophy plays with this every now and then for sure. But it just contributes to the hyper-real all the same, a virtual and malleable form of concept space that still gives an impression on true reality while simultaneously being purely abstract. Slogans and metaphors, (Fucking memes and that whole forced meme virus on multiple social networks also) easily shape reality, especially politically themed forms of memetic information. Ghost in the Shell plays with this a lot with the puppet master and viral terrorists. They implant and control reality through ideology and extremist momentum, but without actually interacting with physical reality at all, save for an exchange of ideas here or there over social networks -- along with some patience. Purely virtual entities existing in a closed space would get to observe this phenomenon at its full level, falsified and constructed reality along the mass thoughtform interacting and modifying objective reality along a sort of timey wimey wibbly what have you. I shutter at how intense observing that in all of its splendor must be.
>>17635360
>Now I don't know anymore.
If there is a God, does He know?
A universally true philosophy. "The source is Truth. Only in knowing it, can you know everything." You can basically apply that to any question or problem and find an answer.
perennial philosophy
>>17635449
>Such as?
Isn't it obvious?
>they're just disparate notions
Answered your own question there, bud.
>>17635360
Please stop confusing omnipotence with our level of consciousness.
You should use a dictionary.
Instead of the consistent struggle for "muh purpose" or "muh reality" acknowledge that this is all we have. Just in the same way we can interpret circumstantial events as events led by gods or their will. You wouldn't know what real free will is until you dont have it, the fact that you are able to try to be deep about it and that you are able to go forward with your curiosity shows you have it.
Also dont use metaphors and "muh deep analogies" to lead your interpretation of the universe, language is essentially symbols and sounds used to represent images, pairing adjectives and nouns together wont fully capture what the nature of the universe is. If you want to "get deep" with poetic slurs and contradictions knock yourself out.
The fact that people disagree with eachother is based upon a few principles:
>personal knowledge
>personal experience
>personal prejudice
>personal ignorance
Also dont look for truth, look for yourself. Cause the kind of truth you look for is largely subjective. Everything you see and interpret is done so factoring in everything you have seen and interpreted before. The universe has no truth, not for any entity.
>>17635498
What are you even talking about? They're just words you use to create a world-view. they don't apply to actual reality.
>truth blue hair ehrjafg
There. I've just described the whole universe. Whether you understand the words or not doesn't matter. Wait... nothings happening..
Seriously, you need to lay off the BS and learn some science, mate.
>>17635485
Please stop making this retarded question and look for the meaning of omnipotent, what you should be asking is whether the entity is omnipotent or not
>>17635449
I don't think you actually realise how stupid you are. You probably think you're clever.
You're not.
Sure there is. Here's one example:
1)Socrates is a man.
2) All men are mortal.
3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The conclusion is 100% true given that the premises are true.
If by "philosophy" you're talking about an all-encompassing system to describe all of reality, you won't find such a thing. Reality is too messy to be perfectly stuffed into the box of abstraction. That's why we have science, and science is about probabilistic truth: there's always error bars, always uncertainty.
>>17635498
>>17635531
>words you use to create your worldview
The thing is these people like to bind words to feelings that do not fit them or stretch their meanings wide as hell. The only definitive way to capture something is with cold calculated mathematics.
The "universally true philosophy" anon posted there is basically saying: "the question has an answer, in knowing it you can answer the question *cue euphoria*"
>>17635449
wow dude ur so deep rite a bok pls wow such complex thoughts its almost like a 15 yearold didnt write this
3.14...
>>17635549
>the question has an answer, in knowing it you can answer the question
That's nothing but a word game. It's like saying.. "this sentence is a lie" and calling it a paradox. It's nonsense. It doesn't apply to the Universe. The Universe doesn't know what a "question" is. "Question" is just a noise we make. It's a word used to convey personal feelings. There's no such thing as an actual "question" in reality.
Y'all need to realise what reality actually IS.
>>17635902
its benis vs. bagina
/thread
/life
/universe
/reality
>>17635902
Language is just a means for us to capture something, and with that concept of being able to capture images and ideas we can create fantasy and bend existing concepts into new ones.
You know the phrase "cogito ergo sum"? I think therefore I am? In modern philosophy it is the ONLY thing that can be assumed. The only objective truth.
>>17635360
the only reality that matters is the one that you decide to believe in
Reality is subjective.
>>17636353
The thing we are subjectively experiencing has an essence of its own though, which is the truth. We just see fragments of it with our limited senses but there is an objective structure
>>17635519
>Isn't it obvious?
I wouldn't have asked if it were. If I read into what you say or make assumptions about what you meant, I can't respond in a way that's productive.
>>17635523
>Please stop confusing omnipotence with our level of consciousness.
Isn't omnipotence infinite power? How am I confusing it with "our level of consciousness"?
I know I mentioned "god beings", I guess I could have used more specific terminology. I didn't mean gods in the sense of having infinite power, just power so vast compared to ours that they are gods relative to us.
>>17635535
Why are you mad? I'm honestly just trying to start a dialogue and exchange ideas. If you feel that I'm stupid...tell me why I'm stupid. Or just be condescending I guess.
>>17635556
Why does any of that matter? We're on /x/, why are you making it out to be any more than a casual philsophical conversation on an imageboard. I really don't know what you expect.
I'm struggling to see how people can get so defensive/mad/argumentative when I just wanted to exchange ideas. Maybe just the overall tone of 4chan puts people in a combative mood.
>>17635474
>Ghost in the Shell plays with this a lot with the puppet master and viral terrorists.
I'm not super familiar with Ghost in the Shell, are you referring to specific films, series, episodes, or just the entire body of work? I'm asking because I'd like to see these ideas explored.
>They implant and control reality through ideology and extremist momentum, but without actually interacting with physical reality at all, save for an exchange of ideas here or there over social networks -- along with some patience.
This is actually pretty fascinating.
>Purely virtual entities existing in a closed space would get to observe this phenomenon at its full level, falsified and constructed reality along the mass thoughtform interacting and modifying objective reality along a sort of timey wimey wibbly what have you.
You lost me.
>>17635902
>"this sentence is a lie" and calling it a paradox.
Is that not what it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
>"Question" is just a noise we make.
Right, I don't see how I implied that it wasn't. I'm asking a question regarding that specifically.
To rephrase what I at least intended to ask:
Let's say I hypothetically possessed complete knowledge of the universe down to the finest details. With that knowledge, if tasked to decide something such as "is there an afterlife?" would I, with my complete knowledge, be able to reach an indubitable conclusion?
That's really all I'm asking.
>>17635908
If there is or isn't an objectively true philosophy, that statement becomes an objectively true philosophy.
So yes, but it's probably not what we think it is.
There´s no true, everything is possible
>>17635360
Read the Kyballion
>>17637071
That makes sense when you think about it.
72 virgins = 72 vaginas.
well after studying philosophy and occult both for a long ass time.. it all boils down to balance. or in science speak.. every action has an opposite yet equal reaction. the bad must go with the good.
a somewhat magic trick is to embrace the dark side of the coin, and watch everytime as the light side of the coin comes and forces its way in somehow. i have had quite a few hilarious ones, just to see how ridiculous it could get. also if you fail at something over and over.. the more effort you put into you will get a result reflecting it. magic is so fun.
>>17635360
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.
You are looking for truth anon you will find him.
>>17638784
But that is like a coehrsitive thruth, as in "do what I say or ELSE!" how can you argue againts that?
>>17636377
how do you know that?
