Hey, I was reading Plato’s allegory, and i started wondering if modern philosophers have jumped on the train of ignorance and gave in, in order, to blend in with the rest of the world? as explained on the allegory where one prisoners leaves the cave, returns, in hopes to help the other prisoners see the real world. I am wondering how much of our world is shaped by those who escaped the cave and how much of our world is shaped by those who never dare to venture outside of the cave. Is there a way to truly ever know who has shaped our reality? Is life some kind of battle field where the forces outside and inside the “cave” fight to bring humanity to a more clearer vision of the world? I am just curious to see if anyone can say anything at about this or if anyone has ever thought about this, maybe someone can recommend me a book I can read to expand my mind. I am very very new to philosophy, if you couldn’t tell .-.

I am really interested in philosophy, psychology, history and natural science. Like many others, I find myself fascinated by the human condition, especially our insatiable hunger to find meaning in our existence. But I believe before asking ourselves the meaning of life, we must honestly and rationally reflect about the root of this question itself, i.e, why do we ask this question in the first place. This will put us in a better position to explore the dilemma and stance of thinkers like Albert Camus, and to reflect more deeply on this matter.

In this blog I have reflected upon this question by examining our evolutionary history, as presented by Yuval Noah Harari in his book Sapiens. This exploration naturally lead us to concept of Absurdity in human Condition as discussed by Albert Camus in his essay, the myth of sisyphus. I have summarized Camus's position and his response to the absurdity of existence. While I find his views interesting and helpful to a certain degree, I have discussed why I believe it contains contradictions and inconsistencies.

Link to the blog post: https://blacklotus.blog/why-we-ask-what-is-the-meaning-of-life-a-philosophical-journey/

theprophetong.com

The main topics are:

The Axioms of Logic

Epistemology

Reasoning about Existence

The Soul (consciousness)

Ethics

The Meaning of Life

The Perfect Society

I'm looking forward to interesting discussions.

Hello. I was randomly brainstorming the other day and thought of an idea that seems somewhat comforting to me in a philosophical sense.

I believe that we have a world involving a mixture of both determinism and free-will. Sort of like a fractal on a plane, there's some instances in life that provide us a set of few choices, and once we make them, the long long path and the choices that come within that path already chosen are all deterministic. But they're choices regardless. Their outcomes might marginally differ (just like zooming out of a fractal doesn't let you see deep into the smaller patterns) and the marginal difference matters so less (because even the sub-choices are so strongly bound to the pre-determined consequence of the initial choice(s) made) that the choices and their paths further lead only towards the end of the more overarching deterministic path of one's life. This leads to the zoomed-out view of a life (fractal pattern) looking very homogeneous, due to the zoomed-outedness of the viewing.

Can this be considered a compatibilism between determinism and free will?
If yes, I'd love both points in favor of this line of thought and against it as well.
If not, I'd like to know what kind of thought process it is, and points in favour and critiques of my thought regardless.

* I'm no philosopher, just a guy who's taken an interest in all of this very recently and trying to fuck around and find out, and just trying to learn, so please go easy on me. :)

Hello,

I am writing partly out of concern for the current state of philosophy, and partly out of self-interest. I remember the fascination I felt when I first read one of Plato's early dialogues--it filled me with excitement and desire to participate in the field of philosophy myself. As I continued my journey deeper into modern philosophy, the tedious, arduous method that had become philosophy chiseled away at my enthusiasm until the magic was gone. Is this rice-counting, bean-sorting method really the manner Socrates and Plato employed to discover truth? And while there are some philosophers whos writing still inspires me, I cannot say the same for the current academic state of philosophy.

If this feeling resonates with you, I urge you to consider reading "Themistocles: A Dialogue On Justice" by Argo. This short dialogue emulates the style of Plato's early writings by provoking the reader to critically engage with their own thoughts and reflect on a topic independently rather than being spoon-fed answers. I invite you to step back into ancient Greece with "Themistocles" to perhaps reignite a passion for philosophy--not only in yourself but in others who may feel barred by the pedantry that dominates academic philosophy today.

"Themistocles: A Dialogue On Justice" will be free on kindle May 14th and 15th, and I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on it. If you enjoy the read, I encourage you to share it with a friend and leave a review on Amazon so other potential readers can find it. Below is an Amazon link which also contains a full description of the dialogue.

Would love to discuss it here as well!

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D2ML83H8

Sincerely,

Argo

I want to share this video about the importance of philosophy today.It is about the importance of philosophy in one’s life, and how it can help prevent being victimised by bad ideas. It uses the example of Nazi Germany to show how propaganda and cognitive biases can manipulate people into supporting evil actions. https://youtu.be/EfBm8zorDNw.

This is My philosophy

Page One

There are two types of people in the world 😅

Either they have found the meaning of their life and live happily in their path of interest (void to flower) Or they are drowned in the routine and only consume and never think about what their purpose of being is (void in void)

People (void to flower) If they live in a remote village in Africa without welfare and facilities and are engaged in performing traditional customs with a strange and unfamiliar language of conversation and hunt for satiety One day in their solitude they say to themselves "Why am I here?" "Where should I be and why should I be there?" They reach the void from their seemingly futile life and after the void they find the answer to these questions and their void becomes a flower. The result can be anything like becoming a well-known politician in the world or a scientist with a great discovery or a popular singer and so on! And these people do not reach the void only in low welfare! Even if they live in New York, USA, in the best neighborhood with the best welfare facilities and high family capital, one day in their solitude they reach the void that am I just here to spend? "Why am I here?" "Where should I be and why should I be there?" And again they reach the void from their futile routine and then find their flower! The result can be giving up all this welfare and life and going to a small corner room in the corner of the city away from money with the least expectation and exploring or writing a book or screenplay and whatever they think they are made for ...!

People (void to void) If they live in the same life in Africa or a poor neighborhood in a third world country that has very little welfare They are drowned in the same routine that the people of the void to the flower escaped from! That is, thank God that today instead of plain bread for lunch I was able to eat a little meat and thank God this month I do not owe anyone so not only satisfied but also happy to achieve the progress that is the basic right of all people like average welfare! Of course, people of the void to the void also face the void and question themselves like "What sin is this life the price of?" "How long can I endure?" And the result of this void is the eternal void that results in violence, addiction, depression and ultimately suicide So after feeling the void, they remain void forever, like a burnt chess piece. And just as the people of the void to the flower are in the void to the flower in welfare, the people of the void to the void are also the same because if they are in full welfare and in the same New York and in the same powerful and first world society, because of the high welfare and being sure that their life is provided until the end of their life, they never get satisfied with consuming and try to do more strange things to get more sense of being a consumer because they mistake this feeling for the flower! And they think this is the flower they should have in life. And if they reach the void, it means either they are finally satisfied or tired of being satisfied and now it is time to say goodbye by means of a gun!

The examples considered for the lives of these two groups of people are all exaggerated and taken to the extreme, which means that if they are in the best and worst conditions, they still become flower from the void or void to void So those who have completely average lives are also outside this framework and still (flower or void) is dominant.

Page 2

The question here is why some people do not know this game and their void does not become a flower? The answer is flower or void! People who do not play are also two types,

The first group of people who reach the void at some point and see their flower but their choice remains void, because of not accepting its difficulty or fear of society or family that does not recognize their flower! But since they had the talent to find their flower, now that their choice is void, in their void life they still do not allow themselves to easily commit suicide or make the situation worse, so they live and instead of themselves enjoy the world and the same routine.

And the second group of people who do not play are those who do not have enough intelligence to reach the void and this is where our irrational and unjust world becomes beautiful Because a world where everyone has a flower is no longer a world The world needs ordinary people with ordinary jobs and goals And as I said, the answer is flower or void We come to the world either we are void or flower Either we have the intelligence and talent to play from void to flower or we do not

Human intelligence is equal in terms of environmental and natural But in terms of behavioral and choice of lifestyle and social and philosophical thoughts, no, it can be very different from each other.

Everyone knows that jumping from a height causes death: instinct But a few invent a parachute: intelligence Everyone knows they have to stay alive: instinct But a few find the reason for their survival: intelligence

Flower or void is not only related to achieving or not achieving success Flower can be a reassuring path that is the person's interest and he enjoys this path of life even when other people see his path as normal And void can be even a successful person in the world who still does not know why he is successful and why he is here and does not know where he should be

And this is where we have to stop judging others that is my close friend void or flower? The world needs both In this game, only we are important.

For example, say each of us is a consciousness observing, and we have chosen to enter into material bodies in this sort of 'fabricated' reality that we know will contain all manner of trauma and tribulations, but we will forget all this knowledge once we are born (let's set aside the logical problem here of how exponential population growth could fit with a set amount of consciousnesses entering/re-entering lives). Once we die, we'll return to our 'true' reality and be fine, albeit with knowledge of this alternate material experience.

Another way to frame this, if anyone protests that this hypothetical is too spiritualistic, is what if we as humans entered into a super-sophisticated virtual reality MMORPG that functioned the same way, and all beings therein are players.

We choose some 'story' that maybe we know will start with being abused as a child and then having to cope with that. If we all enter into this game knowing these things, but forget once we're plugged in.

The two main questions I have:

1. first of all, can this secondary reality -- given that it feels real, we think and experience -- really be called 'reality' at all? (how does this compare, say, to a hyperreal nightmare that feels like it goes on forever, where we also think and feel and experience .. is THAT a form of 'reality'? where is the line drawn exactly?)

2. what are the ethics of this secondary reality? Is everything that happens actually 'ok'? what obligations do we have to each other? do the ethics we develop in the 'false' reality really matter, if we already decided we want to experience these stories that include trauma and so on?

furthermore, should those who are still in the 'higher' reality care about how our ethics would impact their actions? like say someone agreed before starting that they want to test out how to reconnect to higher reality while still in the game. then some game devs come down and kidnap them and subject them to some terrifying procedure that will enable this, maybe even letting them know they agreed already.

do the game devs have any obligation to adjust or stop this process to fit with the new ethical demands of the player, who forgot this agreement ever happened and may not want to undergo these traumatic procedures, even though the game devs know the higher level version has decided this is the best course of action?

what if the higher level version has agreed to this because it will have some kind of big benefit to everyone in the higher reality?

In the current Gaza conflict, capital flows towards deterritorialization and the creation of schizo-states. The flow of money, arms, aid, and media attention to this small part of the world creates a kind of continent without organs. The so-called Holy Land, becomes a schizophrenic battleground of fundamentalism, economics, propaganda, militarism. The ever shifting borders between Palestine and Israel, illegal settlement, underground tunnels, disputed holy and ancient sites is only the most characteristic sign of a theocratic and economical repression that turns people into symbolic fodder for the machines of desire. The ideology of tragedy merely paints over the seemingly endless conflicts that sprout up between artificially divided human populations. Despotic and capitalist institutions pursue and enforce the deterritorialization of impoverished or complacent populations with a seemingly endless supply of arms, media, technology, that floods into 21st century conflicts.

The images and sounds of conflict are no longer only available on major news programs or newspapers but social media, vlogs, image hosters, presenting a democratized view of war that all channels back into the capitalist state mechanisms of ad revenue, data capture, NGO donations, academic articles, political speeches, and aid packages. We can also see in the form of public protests, "LGBTQ for Palestine," Hollywood in support of Israel", etc., the jumble of desires and the rhizomatic expansion of conflict into all aspects of daily activity and cultural interest. One can see how the purpose of the Israeli state or Gaza territory is to produce schizophrenic populations, how the relatively simple religious discord between Muslims and Jews can expand into a confounding soup of political, cultural, economic allegiances and animosities ripe for exploitation.

As with Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, the intent of states to extract surplus value from conquered peoples and lands finds its raison d'entre in the Palestine - Israel conflict. This Kleptocracy creates the schizo-state of irreconcilable religious differences, ideological and historical arguments about indigenous rights, terrorist and state killing of civilians with capitalism being the sole solution with its military armaments, humanitarian aid, corporate memos, national and international resolutions and treaties. So we can see how regime change, two state solutions etc., are merely new outflows of the machines of desire, a reterritorialization of ancient conflict into capitalist productivity rather than any repair or delimiting of the autonomous exploitation of the schizo-state.

The Story

In the beginning, there was the Big Bang.

With it came Time, Matter, and the Laws of Nature.

After that, there was nothing but Hydrogen Atoms, just Floating around.

But over Time, those Hydrogen Atoms gathered in Clouds and eventually Condensed into the First Stars. Those were not like the Stars we know Today; These were Primeval Stars. They were much bigger. Bigger even than our Whole Star system. Some of them were so big that they had Black Holes inside them, slowly eating the Star from the Inside.

The Primeval Stars could not last forever of course, and when they eventually Exploded, the Enormous Heat and Pressure created new Atoms, too many to list.

Those new Atoms gathered again and Formed new Forms of Existence, like Asteroids, Planets, and Moons.

Now, our knowledge about the Rest of the Universe Stops, but we have one Planet we can look at. For one Planet at least, we know, the conditions were precisely Right, and something new could develop: Life.

Life is complicated indeed; we still do not fully understand it. But we know that Life increases in diversity, and therefore in complexity, via a mechanism we call Evolution.

Through Evolution then, Life itself increased in Complexity, and eventually, Humans came into Existence.

Humans, especially those we call Homo Sapiens, had their own new method for increasing Complexity: Civilization.

Aided by Language, Civilization grew in complexity, and eventually, Humans were able to Invent Technology.

This is where we are now. Technology may not be more complex than Human Civilization, yet. But it definitely has the Potential for higher complexity, through AI, for Example.

Conclusion

If we look at our Universe over Time, it consistently gets more complex.

Before we look further into this, I should define Complexity:

“A whole is more Complex, the more individual parts it has, which through relation with one another make up the whole.”

Having this definition, we can now explain the consistent rise of Complexity: Probability.

Our Universe is inherently Probabilistic; things change, and this change is random.

Now, most states the system can take on are low in Complexity, and that is why Entropy increases, but given a large enough System (our Universe), some parts of the System will take a high Complexity state.

Formulation

The Rule of Complexity:

“Systems vary in their ability to exist; Systems are subject to random change; Systems that change to be better at existing persist longer; there are more ways to be worse at existing. Eventually, most systems will cease to exist, while some will rise in Complexity. Although nothing can last forever, so even the most complex system will eventually cease to exist.”

Meaning of Life

The best part of the Rule of Complexity is that it can provide a meaning of Life.

Why does Life exist? Because complexity increases. Life is one of the most complex things to exist, and humanity is even more complex.

What is your purpose? While the RoC does not give you a purpose, you can extract one from it. Your existence is one the most complex things there is, you are a being of Complexity. You should make it your purpose to increase complexity even further, as best you can.

How can this be done? The best thing you can do is create something new, something even more complex than you are; or perhaps something that increases the complexity of Human Society. However, not everyone can do that; almost nobody even.

But just to participate in Society, to do the best you can, so we, as humanity, may increase Complexity, is plenty enough. It is more than many Humans can manage.

There is no indicator of truth outside small mathematical systems, the bastardization of Occam's razor comes close as a heuristic for truth (The simplest explanation is usually the best one.) but likeliness will always favor discourse over the true breadth of facts given by all latent perceivable things.
All possible explanations are possible: For there may be worldly brains in the cosmos that can communicate telepathically, whether their consciousness arises from electromagnetic means, quantum means, or photonic means. Also, therefore, the natural domination of life over physics may produce spontaneous life in the form of physics scripts (ufos), the chance that this is connected to their mind is non-zero. Therefore it follows, out of a need to mitigate risk and survive, that the most natural way of life is the one of the status quo, where we only embrace the scientific and religious truths of our time, progress only on each breakthrough, living through the epochs as they are in look and feel, possibly living in a simulation outright, safe from other minds, other theories are fringe. Entropy is the ultimate issue of higher beings and their superconsciousness.
Since there is a chance that our minds are managed, all possible explanations are possible and truth is only a matter of an agreement with discourse and narrative, having merit in their own way of life.

the periodic table is linear, has observable stages, stages of instability and stability, and even has points of rare obscurity.

Not only that but has steps that could describe time dilation. what if we have been approaching the wrong idea (universe expansion) as time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Even\_and\_odd\_atomic\_nuclei

This post was removed from r/askphilosophy and I’m not sure where else to put it, so I guess here will do just as well… my friends and family are getting really tired of hearing me espouse metaphilosophical theories off the cuff. Hoping some of you may have some additional perspectives that ChatGPT can’t give me.

I woke up a few weeks ago while traveling through Vienna and had the pretty classic realization about how fundamentally bonkers my existence is; “how am I real, how is this real, how is anything real? what is happening, why do I have to be this? I’m a meat brain filtering information? Oh my god I'm going to die too?" and then I had a panic attack and was sick for the next few days.

I’m better now, but I still wasn’t able to shake that feeling of hyper self awareness and it’s helped to journal my thoughts on it. I’ve essentially become aware that I’m a conscious observer participating in reality and can boil down my questions about this to the following:

1. Why do observers like myself experience the universe from a fixed subjective perspective in a brain rather than some larger objective perspective? (Or why is there a world “in here” counter to the world “out there”?)

2. Why are the qualities of an observer seemingly entirely self contained in a brain? Assuming the outer world is real, why does my “inner world” require a body to interact with it?

3. How do complex systems like brains observe from a “first person perspective”? Why are we not all just NPCs?

As you can tell, I’ve come across David Chalmers’ Hard Problem of Consciousness and that has factored heavily into my questioning as it cut to the core of a lot of my anxiety.

The best explanation that I can come up with is as follows:

The universe exists as a great four dimensional object. A three dimensional sea of informational matter that moves via the fourth dimension of time.

Every entity, animate and inanimate, possesses a worldline in the aforementioned spacetime continuum, marking its journey from inception to cessation. This represents the object’s trajectory through the four-dimensional universe.

While all physical matter has a worldline, living beings are distinct due to the presence of consciousness which anchors the Ego to its specific worldline (a metaphysical wake, so to speak). This consciousness-awareness nexus gives sentient beings a subjective experience of their journey (the “inner world”), influenced by their Ego (their personal identity) which is both shaped by and shapes these experiences.

Raw information makes up the universe, but when filtered through consciousness (and modulated by the Ego), it transforms into a personalized experience, providing each consciousness with its distinct interpretation of reality. The brain’s capability to systematically and structuredly process information ensures a coherent and consistent progression along its 4D worldline. Disruptions in this coherence (like mental illness) can skew or disturb this progression.

While human existence spans the 4D continuum, our ability to influence our immediate 3D surroundings remains tethered to physical actions and laws, so we don’t have ESP for example and our brains require a physical body to interact with the “outer” world. They must also replenish themselves and their bodies to keep up with the demands of existing in a physical world of constant change.

At death, the conscious experience and the acquisition of new information halt. Yet, the existing 4D worldline left it’s mark as an immutable record of the living being’s existence and interactions. Our past, present, and futures are set; however, they are all real (or will be real) in the four dimensional object that is the universe. As three dimensional beings, we can’t go backwards in time, but that doesn’t mean the four dimensional object encasing us is any less real.

To me, that feels like enough of a cohesive explanation to ease my anxiety about the hard question of consciousness. It’s the brain’s immense processing ability which gives it the power to hold an anchor in the sea that is the universe of information. That’s why we each have a first person point of view in space and time.

The main difference between humans and, say, termites is that human brains have evolved to hold themselves as singular beings to help propagate their DNA and the survival of our species (while individual termites are rather expendable); but every animal with an evolved info processor in their head would have this tether and sense to some extent. It really depends on what species you want to examine. A theoretical p zombie would have no ego or consciousness.

I may be rambling, but I really need some answers and writing this has helped me put things into perspective. I don’t have any empirical evidence for any of this outside of my personal experiences, of course. You guys can try tearing my theory to shreds, but it has at the very least helped me process this existential crisis I’ve been going through.

Using a series of thought experiments, I argue that free will is not really an issue in assigning moral guilt - and therefore in punishment. The social danger is actually the important issue on this matter.

​

https://meaningofstuff.blogspot.com/2022/08/punishment-is-not-really-about-free-will.html

https://www.mythicpilgrim.com/p/decoding-symbols-philosophical-journey-abstract-thought-concrete-notation

https://teaandtortoises.squarespace.com/blog/transgender-issues-an-analytic-philosophical-perspective

Contact the moderators via modmail with a short description about you, your involvement with philosophy and why you want to be a part of this subreddit. Let's get this place alive again.

https://reasonablydoubtful1.wordpress.com/2019/06/11/is-it-immoral-to-never-donate-to-charity/

https://reasonablydoubtful1.wordpress.com/2020/01/30/the-experience-machine/

I have a theory that we share a hive mind with the universe. This theory of mine is based on the science of biocentrism. This science states that nothing but waves of probability exist when not being observed by a biological observer.

For my theory let’s say that a god exists, not any god in particular, or let’s say the universe is god.

Now, things and events do keep happening without a worldly biological observer.

It is obvious that we all share a reality. I sleep at night yet when I wake up tomorrow the earth will have rotated so that I see the sun when I wake up, depending on weather, but the sun will still be facing my location on the planet when it wasn’t 8 hours earlier.

I say that the universe is in constant observation of what goes on inside and outside of itself. Now if we share a reality and that reality keeps happening while I and say 1000 other people in 1001 population community are sleeping, and the sun “rises” the next morning on me and my other 1000 friends, then we in fact are not the main observers but instead share a reality with the constant observer, the universe.

Now, my question is two parted: 1) do you think a god is needed for this theory to be true? 2) what are your thoughts on my theory?

I can provide some sources for those interested in the science of biocentrism and wanting to know more about my basis for my theory.

https://www.greghickeywrites.com/best-philosophical-novels-of-2019/

The annual update to my list of the best philosophical novels, based on curated lists from The Washington Post, Publishers Weekly and more, suggestions from readers on Goodreads, and ratings on Goodreads and Amazon.

Do you have a favorite book from the list? Or if you read a great philosophical novel published in 2019 and don't see it on the list, let me know.

MY TOUGHTS ON PHILOSOPHICAL THINGS

TRUTH

Let us start by evaluating why is truth is desireable. of course

anything that is desirable must be beneficial, so a truth that is desireable must be benificial meaning that a truth that will quench our desires for it must be benefical, but first how can a truth be beneficial, well a truth can turn into benefit through application, as there is no other way a non-physical thing can have a physical affect, so a truth that we are desireing is not always the absloute truth but it is always a beneficial

(therefore applicable) truth.

___________________________________________________________

MORALS

it is beneficial to a person to call for morals to be socially accepted, so all people including you would be calling for morals to be applied, meaning one who follows them would be rewarded and one that disobeys them would be punished ,so it is benefical to be moral and addvocate for moraltiy.

___________________________________________________________

PURPOSE IN LIFE

The fact that life has no intrinsic meaning, or value is very freeing and librating ,as now anyone can make there own meaning and purpose, so it is not that life has no purpose or meaning it is that everyone has there own special purpose and or meaning.

___________________________________________________________

SUICIDE

Sucide is not the option as the only reasson for its existence is not knowing if happiness will prisist to ocour, but of course happiness could always be experinced by breaking bad routines ,as happiness is the unexpected with possitive implications to oneslef, and saddness is the unexpected with negative implications to oneself, and so by expecting the worst one is not just steping away from saddness, but going towards happiness

___________________________________________________________

PHILOSOPHY OF EMOTION

All emotions come from the unexpected, and there divisrstiy comes from implications of the unexpected, as saddness is the unexpected with negative implication to oneself, fear is the unexpected with implication that onself is going to get hurt, laughter is the unexpected with no implications, and happiness is the unexpected with possitive implications to oneself so on and so fourth, also the intensety of an emotion comes from the intenstiy of the unexpected, as somthing that is very unexpected would be more noticalbe than otherwise so, its implications are more noticable, and so the emotion conected to that certine implication would also be more intense than otherwise. side note: it can also be derived from these ideas that everyone benfits the same from life no matter how fourtunate or unfourtunate.

___________________________________________________________

so these are my thoughts if you have questions ask them and hopefuly i will be able to answer them

sorry if these thoughts happen to match any existing philosophys, as these are just things which i thought about for years and years, and decided to share them as i felt they could help people in need so i was obligated by my morals to do so.

fell free to share these ideas as your own as i only want them to reach as many people as possible and not for recognition.

sorry for any gramatical or spelling mistakes.

How foreign to be writing a letter in 2020. It is slower, the pen travels across the paper in a way that allows your mind the opportunity to think more carefully about that which tattoos the paper I place my ink filled pen upon. The simplicity associated with this particular act creates a mental phenomenon that when examined more closely asks me to look deeply at the direction in which our generation is headed. 

To little do we now concern ourselves with the small things that offer authentic value to our lives. For example, when was the last time the average person of our age within today's modern societies sat down with pen in hand to write a friend, loved one or other a letter? An activity such as this reminds me of a childhood where I would lay in grassy fields and look up at the sky's art with wonder as my mind transformed strokes of clouds into various forms, each one playing a crucial role in the story I attempted to craft. So few within our generation take time to indulge in such peaceful simplicities. In reflection of our current existence, it appears, at least through the eyes in which I observe the world that as we move forward in our cult of progress we've begun to offer our souls to a world of technological creations incapable of embracing them.  Never is this more apparent than when we lay alone in our beds illuminated by inauthentic reflections of ourselves, we crave for someone to cradle our detached souls. 

We have grown away from a willingness to be vulnerable in our pursuit of a modern form of existence that deceivingly promises a simpler life and to make the world a better place. We have been persuaded that likes, retweets, and shares are capable nourishing our starving souls. Blindly we continue to wander within a virtual reality we've been convinced is more fulfilling than the reality into which we were born.

Distracted have our minds become by the portals we use to visit the virtual reality in which we spend a majority of our time. In the digital plantations we farm for manipulative corporations we begin the process of numbing our minds to reality; we have become slaves to the offerings of our screens. Many of us find ourselves quickly entertained by content vacant of true value. Our continued consumption of empty content works to dull our minds in such a way that we become evermore unaware. 

The last decade might suggest we are now more than ever ravenous for constant entertainment. It appears boredom is to be avoided at all costs, perhaps it should even be feared. Of course such a state is a result of a decades worth of conditioning. This I fear, for it is of great importance that our minds are free to think without distraction. Some ask why a state of boredom is so important, the reason is simple, boredom fosters free and independent thought. Free and independent thought with its expression allows freedom to prosper.

If we constantly consume empty content fed to us by algorithms that have learned to know us better than we know ourselves then we will always be entertained which will result in the constant distraction of our minds. A constantly distracted mind cannot think freely. When individual thought can not flow free our minds awareness depreciates, inturn becoming more malleable. When something is malleable and someone has control over that which is malleable it can be molded into whatever the sculptor desires. Our generation and those to come if not mindful will unknowingly hand over the most foundational form of freedom to those who desire to consume the world in their quest for power.

-Wil

To become either God or Nothing, this is the end of this path. This path, known by many names, is, in fact, what all our endeavors amount to, whether we know it or not. Unfortunately, in our ignorance, we lose our way on this path, take detours, wrong turns, have interruptions, etc., and, as a result, some of us, actually the vast majority of us, never attain the end of this path; we are swept into the rivers of forgetfulness and are cast back again onto this path for another journey. This is our fate, but to demonstrate our freedom is to overcome this fate. There are in truth two paths, the path to Godbeing, and the path to Annihilation, and the former is but a resting place on the path to the latter, although the traveler need not stop there and can simply bypass it. Annihilation, however, is without return; it is the final and the irreversible, truly eternal. It is no longer being, and, hence, not a state or condition of being, but the complete negation of being itself; in truth, it is to be truly Divine, beyond all attributes of what is believed to be divine. And this is attainable. But, first, to travel one must first have a ground on which to travel, and on this path that ground is Knowledge; one must have conviction of the truth of this path, have all his doubts eliminated. Hence, before the path can be taken, this ground, that is Knowledge, must be secured. What then is Knowledge? Well, first of all, it is certain, and absolutely so. So, we must find that which is certain, but what is to be found must be found somewhere. This somewhere must be within our reach, and what is within our reach, but our own experience of ourselves, and ourselves in this world, the world of experience. Experience, then, is this somewhere, from which we must find what is certain. In this experience of ours we are faced with so much of whose truth can be doubted, and hence lacks certainty. I look before me and see what, at first glance appears to be one thing, then upon closer examination, it reveals itself to be another; it was not what it appeared to be. Thus results the stirring of our first awareness of the distinction between Appearance and Reality; there is how things seem to be, and how they really are. This Reality would coincide with Truth, and to grasp this reality is to have our secure ground, but standing in between ourselves and this reality is the appearance. All to quickly we forget that it is we who are the investigators and it is we to whom something appears, and thus we should never forget that in our having an experience of our world, we are always there along with it. This world appears to us, and is our world. To forget ourselves is to fall into the trap of believing in the world without us; there has never been a world without us. The world devoid of an awareness of it is an error in judgment that fails to recognize the very maker of that judgment. Hence, the domain of that Knowledge that we seek is, in fact, within ourselves.

Disclaimer: English is not my first language.

I have a lot of philosophical ideas I want to write about in a blog which I feel are new and good, but I know only very basic philosophy from school and from listening to the podcast 'philosophize this!' on spotify. I was wondering if this is the right place to outline some of my ideas so you can tell me what I am being ignorant about and what I need to read before I start writing. I am going in a 1 month trip to India on January and I'd really like to start writing when I come back so I'm thinking 2-3 books. This a rough outline of my thoughts:

I am agnostic. The more characteristics you add to the concept of God (conscience, intelligence, free will, etc), the less likely I think its real. I don't believe in souls or free will. I think us animals are like machines in that we have an input of information through our senses which we process and transform into an output of movement and actions. This process was developed through darwinian natural selection. Certain 'transformations of information' (see food-eat it, hear predator-run away, etc) made our genes more likely to survive, and we percieve the 'direction' of those transformations as happiness-sadness. If it made us happy to eat, we were more likely to eat, and thus to survive. If it made us sad to be hurt, we were more likely to avoid being hurt, and thus more likely to survive. Similarly, if we had empathy and loved our family and friends, it was more likely we took care of eachother, and thus that we survived (the happiness brought by love and family and friends are a higher level of happiness than, say, eating chocolate, because they are long term). 'Thought' is the transformation of information. The big difference between humans and other animals is that we process/transform a much larger amount of information, so within all that information, we process the facts that we have names and identities. Thats all consciousness is to me. Bits of information we take into account to choose actions that made our ancestors survive. But there is a catch. Within all this information we process, we humans realized something (mostly uncosciously and some of us consciously): that the happiness of other beings is the same thing as our own happiness, and thus its irrational to seek our own happiness at the expense of other's. That is why some make sacrifices for the good of others. We invented the words like 'morals', 'justice' and 'good' and phrases like "what has to be done" to describe those actions that provide "the greater good". Thus, it is true and correct to say things like "we have to help others", "we have to seek the truth" and "we have to be good". I am opposed to nihilism and post modernism. To me, actions are 'right' when they create more happiness than sadness and 'wrong' when they create net sadness (I think that last bit is called utilitarianism, I've read some of the objections to it and I have my own answers but I can't expand on that on this summary). The ultimate goal of life is to maximize happiness as much as we can.

Now that is a very condensed summary of some of my thoughts, I could really expand on that and write my ideas about many other subjects but that paragraph is kind of a starting point to a lot of the other stuff. Am I being an ignorant fool? What are, in your opinion, the major mistakes in my reasoning? Are these new ideas or have they been written many times before? Is it even possible to become a popular philosopher without having extensive knowledge of philosophy? And what books can you recommend for my trip? Thank you very much.

This is a slightly edited (to cut out some fluff and leave just the arguments) version of the fourth post in a series on free will that I've been posting to my blog. Despite being part of a series, I wrote it to be self-contained, so I don't think there's any real need to read any of the other posts. If you're interested in reading the other posts, they're linked to at the bottom of the full version of this post.

I said in my previous post that I would be talking here, in this fourth and final post on free will, about what I consider to be the real meat and bones behind all disagreements on whether or not free will exists; the most convincing argument for determinism being incompatible with free will. See, even if an incompatibilist were to accept that determinism doesn’t mean our choices are determined for us by the brain or chemical reactions or whatever, they could still put forth something like the following argument:

“Under determinism, even if our choices may be determined by us, we ourselves are in turn determined by factors outside of our control, like our DNA, our parents, and the society we grow up in; therefore, it is these factors, and not us, which are truly responsible for our choices.”

I will not argue with the premise that, under determinism, we’re determined by things external to us, because I mostly agree with it, but I will challenge the conclusion the argument arrives at, because I do not believe that our being determined by other things means that we don’t have free will.

Back in the first post in this series I said I believed that at the core of just about every use of “free will” lies the idea of a particular freedom, that being what I called the “freedom from external necessity”, meaning the freedom to make our own decisions or the freedom from having others force decisions onto us. So, even if it’s true that our nature is determined by external factors in ways we can’t control, it would still be the case that we have free will if it can be said that these externals don’t make decisions for us, which is a position I will be arguing for.

However, I realize that I have thus far given no reason for others to accept my own definition of free will over theirs, and that without giving such a reason my argument won’t be changing the mind of anyone who believes that free will is incompatible with determinism, so I will also be arguing that the freedom from the deterministic influences of externals can’t possibly be the sort of freedom necessary for free will, because having such a “freedom” wouldn’t actually make our choices or actions any freer.

To begin with, I have to grant that the idea that our genes, our upbringing, and other factors which influence our nature are ultimately responsible for our choices is a valid interpretation of the facts. However, it remains no more than an interpretation; the concept of ultimate responsibility is a human invention, not a fact of nature, and there are other interpretations in which ultimate responsibility lies with us. Take for instance the view that everything in the universe reflects and is reflected in everything else, as in the metaphor of Indra’s net, and so nothing is truly separate from anything else. Under this worldview (which I believe is perfectly consistent with determinism, as I will be arguing in a future post), my upbringing, my society and my genes are not something separate from me, because nothing is separate from anything else; thus saying that they are ultimately responsible for my decisions is the same as saying that I am responsible for my decisions.

Of course, under this interpretation, the existence of free will is only trivially true, since even were I being mind-controlled into making certain decisions it could still be said that my decisions are coming from me, since everything in the universe is “me”. However, my point in bringing up this alternative worldview was not to argue that this interpretation is the correct one, but rather to show that whether or not you see free will in the world depends on how you look at the world.

If you see the world as a bunch of causal chains stretching from the beginning to the end of time, free will doesn’t exist, and if you see everything as a manifestation of a single universal consciousness, free will exists but only trivially so. Similarly, if you look at the world on the level we humans experience every day, cows definitely exist, but if you look at it on a molecular level, you’ll never find any cows.

Obviously, just because you’ve seen the world on a molecular level and failed to find any cows that doesn’t mean you can conclude that cows don’t exist. If you want to figure out whether or not cows exist, you’ve got to look for them on the level where cows are supposed to exist. In that same manner, if you want to figure out whether or not free will exists you can’t just pick any random worldview and say “well, looking at it through these lens I can’t spot any free will, so I guess that means free will definitely doesn’t exist”; you have to look at the world using the perspective from which free will is supposed to exist.

What perspective might that be? Why, it’s the same perspective from which cows can be said to exist, of course; the mundane human perspective we use all the time as we go about our daily lives. Seen from any other angle, “free will” as a concept simply loses any and all meaning.

From the mundane human perspective, the decision to sit here and write this post which is now well over a thousand words long wasn’t made billions of years ago when the big bang occurred and set in motion everything that ever has or will happen in this universe, nor was it made decades ago when my father’s sperm and my mother’s ovum fused to form the zygote from which every cell in my body would spring, nor was it made back in elementary school when I started learning the skills that would eventually allow me to go carrying out this project. That decision is made here and now, as are all others, and in the here and now there is absolutely nothing outside myself forcing me to make that decision; thus, it was made completely out of my own free will.

Now, moving on to the second issue–the validity of the freedom from external influence as a potential definition of free will. In order to evaluate if the absence of external influence might be what “free will” refers to, let us try to figure out whether or not this absence would actually make our choices any freer. To begin with, I’ll describe the two basic ways in which these influences can affect us, then try to deduce what difference it would make in our decisions if we weren’t influenced in these ways.

In the first place, external factors influence the nature we are born with: our genetic code, the foods and drugs our mother uses while she is pregnant with us, and any diseases she might have at that time all help determine what our nature is at the moment of our birth. What would someone who was uninfluenced by such factors look like? Well, such a person would need to have come into existence as an uncaused event, completely at random–as a human baby, an adult, a fish, or a tree; in the depths of the ocean, in the void of space, going 600 miles an hour, or at the big bang.

Regardless of how exactly the began existing, though, they would have had no more say in the matter than they would have if their existence had been the deterministic result of prior events, nor would there be any real difference in how they would then go on to make their choices, so being uninfluenced in this way would give us no more freedom than we would have otherwise.

In the second place, after our birth, external factors continue to influence us, producing changes in our nature: I become able to read after my parents teach me how, I become scared of dogs after one attacks me, I suffer personality changes after severe head trauma. How would a person not influenced in this way go about making the choices we make every day, like choosing what to order at a restaurant? Simply put, they wouldn’t.

See, a decision is the result of the interplay between two factors: the decision-making agent, who contributes a set of personal preferences and some capacity to evaluate different options and judge which of them best fits their preferences; and the situation that the agent is presented with, which contributes a set of possible options and consequences that the agent can judge and choose from. As a result of this interplay, both the agent and the situation are changed. By making the decision-making agent completely independent of its surroundings, the interplay between these factors is erased and the agent can’t make any decisions regarding its surroundings–can’t even become aware of their existence, in fact, and so is doomed to spend their lives stuck inside their own minds, completely alone.

So, since being uninfluenced by external factors doesn’t make our choices any freer, but rather removes our ability to make choices, the freedom from external influence can’t be a valid definition of free will. Indeed, I would say that it’s not really a freedom at all, just an idea born from taking the notion of freedom to such an extreme that it becomes contradictory; the idea of a freedom so free that it’s even free from those qualities that make it freedom in the first place, meaning it ceases to be freedom.

This idea that things are only free if they’re even free from being themselves is what seems to me to be the core assumption behind the incompatibilist position, but this is incoherent because it’s not a freedom anyone can actually have; to be free from being yourself is to cease to be yourself, so that there is no longer a you to be free. Real freedom is not the freedom to be not-yourself, it’s the freedom to be yourself, by yourself, for yourself, and though this may not be the one some people want, it’s the one we have, and it’s a very real and very meaningful one nonetheless.

I've decided to make this a work in progress as there is nowhere else to put it.

The Art of Everything & Nothing

We as people don't know what we're doing, why we're doing it, and have little clue on what to go on. This drives us crazy trying to find it. Ironically, there’s an art to driving yourself crazy. There’s an art to becoming uncrazy too. Sometimes we think we have the answer. Usually, that answer is wrong. So we need a way to find answers.

There is an art to definition, and an art to creating systems. The art of creating systems we call engineering. We have engineered a system to find answers, and call this reasoning. However, Kurt Godel has proven that any system can not prove itself using its own rules. Reasoning, as a system, can not be proven to be correct unless it is contextually in another system. So, we are always left with further questions. Or, infinite questions. If one were to abstract incompleteness theorem to reality, then it has proved infinite systems, each contextually building upon the other. In other words, according to his Incompleteness Theorem in Mathematics:

...{system{system{system{system...

Math provides definition, but is ill-defined. Proof is required for Mathematical theorems to be accepted, but is not itself provable. There are some generally acceptable ideas of what Math is, such as applied logic, applied reasoning or simply the conceptual language of the universe. As Math has not an agreed upon definition, these explanations are subjectively decent.

Moving outwards from Math and back towards reasoning. Reasoning involves asking questions. Questions fall into certain categories. Who, what, why, how, where and when are the types of questions we can ask. Answering these questions involves the use of philosophy and definitions. A philosophy is an answer with reason or reasons.

Who is art? Everyone. We are all art, nature’s art, and artists. No matter what you may believe about yourself, you make art. This is evidenced by what art is.

Art is everything. There is an art to everything in existence, imagination, and experiences people have yet to formulate, come across, or may never come across. However, paradoxically, art is also nothing. This is the case because there is an art to paradoxes (this will become more apparent when I explain why art).

There are man-made and nature-made arts, we call these artificial and natural, respectively. There is an argument to be made that everything is natural, as people are from nature, but for the sake of categorization, splitting these ideas into two is useful. This means that one is not necessarily greater than the other, but one did bring about another.

How we interpret everything is how we relate it back to ourselves or as humanity as a whole (subjectively or objectively). Society has a classical idea of what art is: music, visuals, movies, etc. That is what society has formally defined as art. This is incorrect as those are only a subset of art. However, non-classical ideas of art are still art. For example, science is an art. Fighting styles are art. War is art. Sun Tzu made a book about it called “The Art of War.” There are too many, as in infinity due to there being never truly a closed system, arts to list.

People handle art in two ways: by action or inaction. These terms are colloquial, and are better described as intervention and non-intervention. There is an art to both these actions, and will be art either way. There is only one one way to take non-intervention: Continuing the current course of action despite new information. Alternatively, there are two paths of intervention: transformation, and destruction, in which there are many ways to do either of these concepts. Transformation changes art from one form to another, and destruction changes art to being lost. Lost arts are still arts. They don’t stop being art because people do not know of them.

I would like to take a moment to differentiate between evidence and proof. Proofs are for the art of math and the art of logic. Math and logic are not completely different.. One uses logic in Math, but there is never a situation where Math does not use some form of logic. Consequently, as Mathematical fields grow, more and more of what was once considered purely logic is now considered Math. They are possibly synonymous. Whether one considers them to be the same or different, both are hardened subsets of the art of reasoning. Evidence is what objective reality presents us. These are substances that behave by certain rules, physics, sciences, etc. Anything can be art, as well as nothing. The art of the void is evidenced by minimalism, and there is nothing more minimal than nothing. So even in nothing there is art, which means there could have never been conceptually un-art.

Now onto the art of subjectivity and the art of objectivity, or perception. There does seem to exist a subjective universe as evidenced by our own inner thoughts, dreams, and quantum physics. Anything is possible in your dream because you have written the rules. There is also an objective universe, because, well, you get up and interact with other beings as well as having objective rules to a physical universe. We refer to what we have experienced of both the objective and subjective universe as empirical information. There also exists unempirical information, or information from non-personal sources. I.E: Someone told you they lost their dog. Someone could have lost their dog, but that does not mean the dog is lost.

There’s an art to gathering information, one of which is science. There are many sciences, commonly divided into hard and soft sciences. Each one of these is an art. I can not stress this point enough. There is a divide between the arts and the sciences in what objective society teaches. This is wrong. Although science has a set of rules all science must follow to be considered science, making experiments requires an immense amount of creativity.

Information is also transformed into truth and untruth, the truth of which we define as knowledge. To some, there is no truth. Reasons why this is the case vary. One big reason is the idea of delusion and hallucination. There is no way to tell the difference between a delusion and reality by their classic definitions, which means anything can be false. Rene Descartes came up with a method of doubt which is famously summarized, “I think therefore I am.” This begs the question, what happens when one stops thinking? Do they stop existing? If we weren’t thinking before, and started thinking then there must be more. Unless we were always thinking. These musings are hard to answer, and I do not claim to know the answer to them with my current knowledge. I will suggest though, that there is at least near-certainty in context, which for all practical purposes is truth.

The combination of near-certainties we think to be the case and not the case we call knowledge. The study of knowledge is called epistemology, and can be broken down into two types. Historical and conceptual. Historical is what has happened, is happening, or is going to happen (past, present, future). Conceptual knowledge can be numerous things. For example, a fun supernatural story, or some form of logic. Conceptual knowledge exists in history, but is not necessarily history itself. The color blue is not history, but something in history can be the color blue.

Objectively, some art is better than others. There is a reason we have grand art museums to showcase our most glorious of creations. There is an objective taste in art, as evidenced by people preferring a picasso over say, a fifth grade drawing of myself and my mom. Yet if my mom had a choice between my drawing and the Mona Lisa, well, she might just choose my drawing. That doesn’t mean most won’t choose the Mona Lisa.

This gets into the meaning of life, or what most people are actually referring to as life's purpose. We are here to produce and consume art. There is an art to consuming art, and an art to producing art. We consume art through senses. I'm talking about more than the 5 senses (touch, hearing, smell, taste, sight) most people think of when they hear the term as well. You have a sense of self, a sense of others, a sense of emotions, etc. We can also produce art as evidenced by our creative nature. The production and consumption of art come together to form a single consciousness, or soul. The art of consciousness, or the art of soul. I use these terms interchangeably. That does not necessarily mean they are interchangeable, but this stems from my personal belief that bodies are just avatars/vessels for different souls.

There is a morality. People look at art as right and wrong. And yes, there is an art to morality, or a way we should go about consuming and producing art. This is based on balance. Ever have dreams of traveling? Big consumer of art. Ever have dreams of being a star? Big producer of art. So how to solve the problem of if morality is subjective or objective? It's also both, but there’s more to it than that.

It's both because we have contextual fairness: The art of being fair in context. For example, suppose 2 children do an equal amount of work. This work ends up boiling down to a reward for their hard chores well done of $11 to split up between the two of them. There is however, a problem. We have two $5 bills, and a $1 bill available and no change whatsoever. So there is going to be an unfairness here, and that's why we feel that something wrong is about to happen. There is some sort of inequity. Out of balanceness triggers our sense of right and wrong. Badness relates to unfairness. The art of being bad or evil, is the art of being unfair.

So the subjective side of morality still exists and needs to be explained. People have choice, and can do the subjectively/objectively good/bad decisions. The problem of why ever evil can be explained the following way: Sometimes it’s okay to do a little evil just to kill the boredom, or to create some art for fun. Why is this the case? We have a certain amount of art consumption we are supposed to take in. We are inherently bored creatures, and must make things interesting.

By drawing upon game-theory, our morality would actually be split up into good/interesting, good/boring, evil/interesting, evil/boring. Goodness and Interest are relative to one another. As one goes up, the other goes down. Ideally, one would be as good and interesting as possible, but never bad and boring. The real dilemma is whether it is better to be evil/interesting or good/boring if given the choice. However, if forced to do evil, it is better to do the more interesting option. This is why good people can do evil. It’s because they’re in an unfair situation, and they’d rather take the interesting option because of the inherent increased value.

Just as there is an art to being right and wrong, there is an art to being correct and incorrect. There is the art of the incorrect. The false. I try not to be incorrect, but can’t help myself because of context. You may be incorrect but still do the right thing based on the context of the situation. This makes a situation forgivable. Forgiveness seems to be a lost art nowadays. People should be forgiven, because they didn’t have all the information, and are prone to lose information because of inherent forgetfulness. What is unforgivable is when one has the information, but takes the incorrect action anyways.

For people to perform art, they need some sort of medium. So what determines our canvas so to speak? Well, there are many ways to go with this. I’m going to go down a controversial road and say: God or Gods, a creator, universal architect, etc. In other words; the art of Gods. We are the art of Gods. For some people this is everything, but they are incorrect as Gods are also Art. For others there are no Gods. No Gods is also art. There doesn't have to be a creator, the Big Bang is also a satisfactory beginning to art (though not possibly the absolute beginning as the Big Bang is also art). God(s) and the big bang are not mutually exclusive. This is where the art of belief, and a system of beliefs creates a religion. Beliefs/faith/religion are for the unanswered questions we necessarily require an answer to so they don’t take up all our thinking time.

So how does art work? How does it operate? It operates through the art of mathematics. This is how we understand the universe. Speaking of the universe. It consists of space and time. They are both an art. They are the art of spacetime that Einstein helped combine into one. Space determines the magnitude of art. Time allows us to change a creation. There may be more dimensions to space and time, but that doesn’t matter in this particular instance, because they are of the art of dimensions.

Finally, why art? Because art. That may not be a satisfactory answer to some, but it is the answer. It is the one circular form of logic that is correct, and that is okay because art is outside of logic. So you might be thinking, is there an anti-art? That would null the entire art is everything and nothing hypothesis. There would be an art to making anti-art. This is in and of itself, is still art. This is the one exception to the binary rule. This is the exception to the proposed dualism, and the supersymmetry. No matter what, anything and nothing will always Art.

Just as there is an art to being right and wrong, there is an art to being correct and incorrect. There is the art of the incorrect. The false. I try not to be incorrect, but can’t help myself because of context. You may be incorrect but still do the right thing based on the context of the situation. This makes a situation forgivable. Forgiveness seems to be a lost art nowadays. People should be forgiven, because they didn’t have all the information, and are prone to lose information or the art of forgetfulness. What is unforgivable is when one has the information, but takes the incorrect action anyways.

There exists a way of acting and determining behavior without the use of reasoning. This can be divided into two parts: Intuition and instinct. Both are integral to everyday life, and are subconscious in manner. Think of them as how you are hard-wired. Instinct is found within every living being’s behavior. This is the primordial knowledge one is born with. For example, a baby will instinctively cry when in distress.

Intuition in contrast is how one acts based on experience. Answers come from the subconscious. If you ever take a test, and have a gut feeling on an answer that disagrees with your conscious reasoning, then you’re thinking intuitively. If you do not have an answer, you are also thinking intuitively, but do not have the answer. This is why when a teacher speaks to a group of students about a foreign topic, or someone communicates in a completely foreign language, there is no idea of what is happening. Through reasoning, one may be able to deduce a different idea, but that is not intuition at play.

People are also creative. They find new ways to accomplish tasks, or simply of ways to express themselves. People are creative in different ways. One person may be so musically inclined, and another visually. One may be a master in the kitchen, and yet another towards government. One may be a master of all these arts, but they will never be a master of all.

When one combines intuition, creativity, and reasoning, they form wisdom. The art of wisdom is the creation of ideas based on the experience of intuition, combined with reasoning create a sort of higher behavioral standard. For example, Confucius was a famous philosopher and wiseman. He once said, “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.” This being a form of the golden rule. Note that he did not invent this rule, as the ideas of empathy and altruism formed independently amongst various peoples, but nonetheless is representative of a piece of wisdom.

Tastes are formed by a combination of previous experience and instinct. This is why tastes are subject to change as more information is gained. Our tastes determine what we find beautiful, fun, and humourous. There is also a limit to our tastes, or how much of the three aspects of taste one can take in before they lose their appeal. These tastes can be recharged though, either by the passage of time or by new information. In other words, one can not simply do the same activity over and over again without becoming bored.

Going back to the idea of morality. Something that is good/interesting will be simultaneously beautiful, fun, and funny. Note that fun and funny are mutually exclusive concepts despite seeming similar. One can have fun without finding the humour in something. This is evidence by the example of watching a scary movie and having fun with it, but it certainly isn’t funny. Or one can hear a pun, find it funny, but not have fun with it.

Although the three primary aspects of taste fairly decently make up what people enjoy, this does not really explain what these individual ideas are. As one further branches into a topic or idea, the more complex an art becomes. So while it is easy to understand:

Moral Value = Rightness + Interestingness

What is more difficult is:

Moral Value = Taste

Moral Value = Rightness + Interestingness

Taste = Beauty + Fun + Humour

Rightness + Interestingness = Beauty + Fun + Humour

To make matters tougher, most of these concepts are ill-defined or rather especially hard to define, even though most have an idea of what they are.

For example, take the idea of beauty. Beauty exists on a spectrum, ranging from beautiful to ugly to describe a moral appreciation a group or individual has for a particular art form. Oddly, something can become so ugly, that it becomes interesting again which can be described as, “So bad, it’s good.” What this phrase really means when someone says it though is, “So bad, it’s interesting.” This means beauty and interest are intertwined in a reverse bell curve. In other words, the more average something is, the less interesting it becomes. This makes those pieces of art incredibly forgetful. Another important question of beauty, is whether beauty is in everything and nothing, as art is. However, this is not the case. Beauty necessarily needs an appreciator or set of subjects to find the beauty. This is not a prerequisite of art. In other words, true nothingness can not be beautiful without a beholder.

Many of what can be said for beauty, can also be said about fun and humour even though they are entirely different parts of the moral value. Fun is simply how pleasurable something is. Everything one does or comes across has a fun value to it. Ideally, one would want to have the most fun possible. However, unlike with beauty, which is strictly related to interest, fun is related to both rightness and interest. Recalling that rightness has to do with contextual fairness, the more fair something is, the more fun it will likely be for all involved. However, without interest, something can not be fun. Something that is totally and utterly unfair can also have zero fun value. For example, being tortured in a non sado-masochistic relationship is incredibly interesting, but is lacking in the fun department because it is not fair and not all that pleasurable.

If Interest = Zero and/or Rightness = Zero, then fun will equal zero, and vice versa.

Fun is more complicated than this. Imagine something that is very interesting but also less than fair. This can be considered a challenge. Most people consider challenge a fun and also a good thing. The art of the challenge is important to human happiness. Whereas the counterpart to challenge, problem, is an unfair and bad thing. Problems tend to be uninteresting on top of being unfair. Completing a problem brings pleasure in the form of relief, whereas when one completes a challenge, they feel pleasure in the form of accomplishment.

Moving on from fun, there exists also humour. There is fun in humour, but not necessarily humour in fun. People like to laugh. Much like beauty and fun, I can only give an approximation of what makes something funny. In humour’s case, I would need to categorization. At the heart of the art of humour, there are three basic principles: Inconsistency and the expense of others. Note that when I say others, the other is not necessarily a person. The more inconsistent an individual, the easier it is to find mockery. Extreme inconsistency turns into absurdity. Extreme expense of others turns cruelty. At the intersection of these two concepts is when something is funny. Comedians are masters of finding inconsistencies in others.

With this better understanding of what beauty, fun, and humour is, the moral equation looks a little better:

Moral Value = Beauty + Fun + Humour

Beauty = Interest * Appreciation

Fun = Interest * Fairness

Humour = limit (Inconsistency) * limit (Absurdity)

Moral value = (Interest * Appreciation) + (Interest * Fairness) + (limit (inconsistency) * limit (other’s expense))

The equation ever-expands the more in-depth one becomes into certain ideas. A person can easily ask what appreciation is, what a limit is, and what it means to be consistent. I should also note that many people would rightfully scoff that a moral value possibly includes the expense of another. My rebuttal is that, the individual is also part of the whole, so taking from another is not always unjustified.

Justice is the idea of spreading fairness. There are entire legal systems and laws devoted to procedurally spreading justice. Ironically, many if not all of these systems are rife with injustice because of special interests. Typically, these interests are looking to gain a certain power over one another, and can be divided up into three cases: Individual vs. individual, individual vs. group, group vs. group. Groups typically have more power than an individual to defend their position, but this is not always the case.

Not everyone is out for justice. Not everyone is interested in fairness. These people are selfish, and look to only increase power for themselves. As selfish people are not looking for fairness, they should be considered evil. There is another notion that best explains what highly selfish people are, and that is parasitic. They take without giving back. Some seem to think that because they are better than others, that it is okay for them to take more. There is truth to an individual who is better than others, who contributes more, should receive more in turn. This does not make a person selfish if truthful. However, many people are truly blind to their own self worth, and due to the nature of the current system, there was never a fair playing field to begin with. That means, if you start with more, and proceed to take more, then you better be contributing a whole lot. Otherwise, you are unfair, and thus, not good.

The previous line of reasoning does not excuse selflessness, even though the notion is often idolized in society. Highly selfless people are considered heroes, and are granted respect. They give up themselves so that others may prosper. However, these people are not looking for fairness either. Since a hero is also part of the whole, being a major contributor without asking for anything in turn, leads to unfairness. A true hero should be able to take care of himself as well as others in a just manner. They would value their life as well as others.

There is an art to making an argument, and philosophizing. There is an art to making good writing. There are an infinite number of arts, and I could go on forever explaining them, and may do that as my goal in life, but I also enjoy the art of mastering other arts. I have mastered the art of the argument, and now intend to master a new art, because I value the art of learning. Finally, and importantly, there is an art to endings. Art be with you.

The acknowledgement that my perception of the world skewed from societies was terrifying. It has taken me years to correct this cognitive astigmatism. Even today I struggle with normalcy, the routine monotony that does not plaque my peers but rather pleases the general population. The psychiatric system helped me personality, but the community outside their office still does not understand how easy it was to slip through the cracks suddenly and silently as though I was not apart of society at all.

Twenty years ago I could not own my major depression. It seems that diagnosis outside of those that were deemed worthy for hospitalization were met with a "sweep it under the rug" approach, leaving people like my mom to just deal with it the best she could. She became an alcoholic and a IV drug user. Seeing the strain of my local mental health office, I can only imagine that most people who are drug users have a mental illness of some sort, but I could be wrong. I personally turned to drugs, which developed into addiction because of course it was going to, I was genetically predisposed to both mental illness and addiction. Awesome.

The mental health safety net we have locally was not equipped to provide adequate care for me when I was going through a major break from reality. The attitude was if I did not say I was going to hurt myself or others, they could not do anything. Thinking back, I had no clue that I was speaking at any given moment, let alone had to cognition to know what I was saying. Psychology should not be so scientific in field application. People going through something mentally need people who are compassionate enough to say, what's wrong, and actually listen without judgement.

If the field of psychology would introduce humanity into their research instead of focusing on Nero-transmitters, I think a better understand in this field of study would emerge. Better understand of the experts might lead to a better understanding of mental illness through out the general population.,with a stronger emphasis on mental health rather than mental illness. Yes, my depression is so server that I can not function like most of you, and that is ok. Through taking responsibility for my mental health I have made great strides to integrate back into society. At the end of the day, who could I tell? Who would understand? Who would care? Who out there struggled like I did but is too afraid to share their story, even though it might help someone in turn.