By modern I mean what people usually discuss when they wanna feel all philosophical and wise. I will touch on most of these subjects later in this post and try to bring something new and challenging to the table.
The really "big" questions as they call them, honestly pretty dull stuff:
*The meaning of life?
*The size of cosmos?
*The meaning of life?
*The size of cosmos?
*What is free will?
*Does "Nothing" exist? paradox
*Does "Nothing" exist? paradox
*Time travel paradox
As for the meaning of life, I could be boring and state the obvious that there is no meaning. Meaning is something we seek because many need to believe that there is a purpose for our being.
I could say that the meaning behind life is personal which would lead me to rephrase the question "What is the meaning of my life?".
Both common and totally uninteresting views that bring nothing new to a table that is now overflooded by these cliché ideas. And I already neglected to include religious beliefs because let's face it, religion and philosophy are two very different beasts. They do occasionally overlap, I won't argue against that. It just doesn't feel like the religious quasi logic could really bring anything substantial to the table. I mean you can't argue with logic as "God has a plan"Because you have to assume a belief that might not be your own.
Let's be creative. Let's be smart.
How do we enlighten this question and illuminate a new and fresh perspective?
If we assume it's not god, it's not a personal meaning but definitely a global one. We have ourselves a decent challenge.
Even the most basic form of life has a pattern, doesn't matter if it's random or predestined. Humans are complex beings and we have many patterns. Maslow's hierachy of needs shape some of the most basic reasoning behind the patterns we commonly produce. We seek to fulfill our self actualization, self esteem, belonging - love, safety, and physiological needs. Ask a poor broken man if he would want a better life. And there is your answer. This encompasses everyone. The meaning of life is to fill our meaning with life. How elegant.
Next subject, the size of cosmos? I don't fully understand the charm of discussing something as redundant as this. I think by now everyone knows that either it's finite or it's infinite. Or ever expanding? Can you make a reasonable example of something practical that I can actually view that is infinite? The closest thing I can think of is placing a mirror in front of another mirror. Supposing the placement is perfect the image will continue to iterate into the tiniest form able to reflect. Hence it's only as infinite as strings or particles are small. In similar fashion we can deduce that cosmos is probably only as big as some other to me unknown entity is.
That is one way to think about it. Another way is to let go of conventions as size and shape. Simply because most things we know have a shape does it need to imply that everything has a size and shape? What if cosmos is "shapeless"?
I could say that the meaning behind life is personal which would lead me to rephrase the question "What is the meaning of my life?".
Both common and totally uninteresting views that bring nothing new to a table that is now overflooded by these cliché ideas. And I already neglected to include religious beliefs because let's face it, religion and philosophy are two very different beasts. They do occasionally overlap, I won't argue against that. It just doesn't feel like the religious quasi logic could really bring anything substantial to the table. I mean you can't argue with logic as "God has a plan"Because you have to assume a belief that might not be your own.
Let's be creative. Let's be smart.
How do we enlighten this question and illuminate a new and fresh perspective?
If we assume it's not god, it's not a personal meaning but definitely a global one. We have ourselves a decent challenge.
Even the most basic form of life has a pattern, doesn't matter if it's random or predestined. Humans are complex beings and we have many patterns. Maslow's hierachy of needs shape some of the most basic reasoning behind the patterns we commonly produce. We seek to fulfill our self actualization, self esteem, belonging - love, safety, and physiological needs. Ask a poor broken man if he would want a better life. And there is your answer. This encompasses everyone. The meaning of life is to fill our meaning with life. How elegant.
Next subject, the size of cosmos? I don't fully understand the charm of discussing something as redundant as this. I think by now everyone knows that either it's finite or it's infinite. Or ever expanding? Can you make a reasonable example of something practical that I can actually view that is infinite? The closest thing I can think of is placing a mirror in front of another mirror. Supposing the placement is perfect the image will continue to iterate into the tiniest form able to reflect. Hence it's only as infinite as strings or particles are small. In similar fashion we can deduce that cosmos is probably only as big as some other to me unknown entity is.
That is one way to think about it. Another way is to let go of conventions as size and shape. Simply because most things we know have a shape does it need to imply that everything has a size and shape? What if cosmos is "shapeless"?
Think about it.
Meanwhile I'll move on to the next subject, I can't be bothered to dabble in these questions too long.
What is free will? Assuming the two popular ideas I've heard are somewhat of the norm I can completely see why. The first theorem is that there is no free will and everything is just more or less the solution to an almost infinitely complex equation. Hence free will is an "illusion" so strong that it more or less has become real.
Meanwhile I'll move on to the next subject, I can't be bothered to dabble in these questions too long.
What is free will? Assuming the two popular ideas I've heard are somewhat of the norm I can completely see why. The first theorem is that there is no free will and everything is just more or less the solution to an almost infinitely complex equation. Hence free will is an "illusion" so strong that it more or less has become real.
The other is that god gave us free will. And you should know by now that I don't even want to go there. That idea is just so ridden with plot holes it's scary.
Scientists argue that free will in the form of chance do in fact exist but only at a subatomic particle level. I personally guess it's simply because we hardly fully understand the nature of such small things yet.
It's really difficult for me to think of a fresh perspective which makes this the most interesting of the questions so far. Let's see.
In fuzzy logic there are calculations that do not give exact answers. While a linear explosion would give us predictable results an explosion made with fuzzy logic would give us a "chance" result at the very most basic level. Assuming everything started with an explosion of course. This means that our path is not predestined because we are the result of a random seed. And as long as time is not recursive, free will most definitely exists.
It's really difficult for me to think of a fresh perspective which makes this the most interesting of the questions so far. Let's see.
In fuzzy logic there are calculations that do not give exact answers. While a linear explosion would give us predictable results an explosion made with fuzzy logic would give us a "chance" result at the very most basic level. Assuming everything started with an explosion of course. This means that our path is not predestined because we are the result of a random seed. And as long as time is not recursive, free will most definitely exists.
Next subject.
Does "Nothing" exist paradox?
Note that I chose to capitalize "Nothing" as being an entity because I feel the biggest issue is that our language does not allow us to talk about "Nothing" without giving it properties hence rending it's meaning useless. Nothing simply is. You just have to accept if it's worth your effort to argue that if somebody said "Nothing is the absence of anything" that their linguistics are off. Silly. This is hardly philosophical at all, just an oversight in linguistics.
Finally my favorite.
Finally my favorite.
The time travel paradox. THE one subject that has perhaps the most poignant cliché that everyone agrees to because it's the simple way to see it and it seems logical within it's own reasoning. But that is just the problem with time travel, our knowledge of how it works is sketchy at best.
But if we put that aside for a moment to explain this idea. The idea is that if you travel back to before you were born and kill your dad then you would die. This is one argument that is hard as hell to break without introducing parallel timelines/dimensions. And I simply do not believe in either.
Once I find a solution to this I'm going to use it in a unique sci fi story of mine. I have already flushed several ideas down the drain but there are some ideas that are starting to stick.
Last but not least, for the longest time I was baffled by conscience and why I am me and nobody else. And the fact that I will never be again. It was more or less solved by "my grandfather's axe". And understanding that the conscience is constantly changing still retaining aging memory shards that keep the character intact. I still sometimes feel there is more to this existential question but I've been able to put most of it to rest due to the above reasoning.
Keep dreaming, keep believing. If one dream doesn't work out it simply means you were not dreaming big enough.
Signed, Mireneye
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar