Well, yeah, i thought it'd be a bit of fun to all of those out there
who know and do and are good at philosophy to comment and destroy my
philosophical outlooks on certain things.
I do realize that these are all flawed in so many ways, but i do
believe that philosophy evolves through debate and destruction. So,
here we go.
A bit of a big thing first, God. That's right, my view on God or any
kind of spiritual being. Now, if you're christian, i understand that a
crusade is heading my way, because i am here to disprove the belief in
Strictly, a christian is someone who believes either in God, or the
resurrection of Christ himself. Lets look at belief for a second, shall
Belief in itself, is flawed. How? It's quite simple. Allow me to
explain. Humans themselves, despite knowing something to be true, can
quite simply state that they "Do not believe it". For example, the July
7th bombings, people were stating that they "could not believe it".
"Alas Eli, that is a statement, it cannot be perceived as true at all!"
I hear you screaming at your computer screens, just waiting to click
"Post comment" and destroy me in such a way. But this use of statement
is human nature. Nothing we know we believe as true until factual proof
is given, so until the point of that factual proof being given, we are
unsure as to it's truth. I do understand this is taking a rather
empirical route on the subject, but nevertheless, it gets the point
Belief, can also be dis-spelled with another simple example. Children
(aww, aren't they cute ;D) can be brought up to believe that their
adoptive parents are their biological ones. This lie is proof that
belief can be flawed, because despite believing something is true, it
is not. I do realize, that what you define as "parent" comes into play,
whether it be someone who takes care of the child all of their life, or
with DNA, but DNA speaking, until someone has received a DNA test, they
are unaware. (Unless told by the parents otherwise) Innate ideas also
don't come into play here, as a child would instantly reject the
adoptive parent if they knew who their parents truly were. The two
examples (which made a lot more sense inside my head XD) show how i
feel that a belief in God is ultimately flawed. We believe that God
exists due our parents and teachers telling us that God is this
brilliant magical figure who makes these lovely things. They only know
because of their parents and teachers, all the way back to those who
originally were there.
The storytellers were most likely the original preachers who wanted to
catch people with stories of "Mr Magical Jesus Christ and his walk on
water party trick".
I know Craigo, Luke, Megan, Josie, James and everyone is going to
absolutely DESTROY that argument, but if it further helps my
understanding, then i think it'll help right?
Onto the next thing.
Now, this i haven't really had much to think about, as I've spent
most of the day constructing my argument about God in my head with
relevant examples, and so, we go, onto Morality and how we should all
behave to each other.
Now, I do not know if I am in a dream world, or sleep like state,
dreaming I am doing things or not. Descartes much? I think so. ;D
So, with this in mind (me being in a constant dream) i should be
able to conduct anything and everything i please, only to wake up some
seconds later to hear myself saying "What a wonderful dream, i set fire
to an orphanage and made love to hundreds of beautiful women whilst
eating mashed potato and playing on my xbox360".
With this in mind, my dreamworld should be a type of near reality
place where i can conduct anything. If this is true, then i should
surely have no morals (no difference, I'm sure you'll agree) and do as
i please, when i please. I should be out right now having sex with
under 5's whilst desecrating graves with excrement and pushing my
clenched fist into the faces of pensioners to go and score some smack.
However, we all know this is false. Or do we?
With no way to distinguish between this supposed dream and reality
world, then how do we know when reality becomes dream, and vice versa?
Honestly, I have no idea. With no way to determine, then the only way
we could figure it out is if we ask in possible reality about things
that happened in the dream world. But again, no way to distinguish
means that you wouldn't know if you were asking dream me about the time
you nearly crashed your car, or reality me.
I just realized i covered some existence stuff there. Which was a bit
silly, i rambled on off topic. But still, you get the idea right? If
we're in our dream worlds then it is morally acceptable to do what we
please when. But with no idea or way to prove that we're not brains in
jars being pumped occasional stimuli, it would be morally acceptable to
be politically correct, dress well, and abide law, just to be on the
And finally, something that has plagued me, the theory of knowledge.
"Oh hooray" i hear craigo mutter, cracking his readied typing fingers,
knowing that yet another horribly flawed argument is coming along for
him to take giant steaming shits all over.
Well, in all honesty, Rationalism and Empiricism are very complicated
as is. To be honest, i appear in my mind, to be a bit empiricist, even
though i fully respect rationality. For example, the idea of innate
ideas, that babies know who their mothers are etc, i feel doesn't
really exist, as the only reason i know who my mother is, is due to me
being told who she is all my life. I agree that there is a maternal
parent/child bonding, but this is only due to the child being placed in
it's mother's arms after birth. (yes, i know that's probably wrong ;D)
Another example. The idea of 2+2=4. Yeah. I said it. I know that
wherever you go, this will always stay constant. But with humans, i
feel that to know 2+2=4 is to have experienced it. I didn't know 2+2=4
was true until i had counted it on my fingers. I don't however believe
that to make sure it's true, i have to keep on asserting that i know
this knowledge. 2+2=4 is very much like an Analytical Proposition. the
subject "2+2" is the same as it's predicate "4". Because 2x2 is 4, the
subject represents or is the definition of 4 (in a way). It's the same
(in a way) as the analytical proposition "All Bachelors are unmarried
men". The subject is the same as the predicate.
But anyway, unless you have experienced a lot of things, then you can't
know them to be true. I do realize that this is opening up a huge tin
of worms that will infest my rotting corpse until my brain explodes,
but it just seems that way to me. I like to think however, in a
rational way, that triangles, no matter what, will have 3 sides with an
inside angle of 180 degrees. Even if we find an alien race, who's name
for triangle is m'gumbak, the shape of a triangle will still have an
inside angle of 180. I won't have to go to planet P'a't'ratttttt and go
measure a load of m'gumbaks to find out, because it's constant.
Well, that's pretty much all of it. I know pretty much none of it makes
any sense whatsoever, i also understand that it's flawed in so many
ways. But what i want you to remember, is that i did this for fun, and
that i don't want to be seen as preaching this as truth. Nothing I've
said here should be perceived as truth (unless you stop perceiving it,
then it goes away (except for God, honest ;D)) because i saw it as a
bit of fun. I basically had a little epiphany whilst bored in
philosophy and spent 3 hours thinking about things. I have posted this
to let people further my understanding of philosophy and to help me
further my theories.