[INTJ] I want to learn something deep or profound

[Anonymous]

You could try reading this essay, it's quite interesting. It's about how species can sometimes get to the point where they are selected for on the basis of groups rather than individuals. It says that humans have done this, and then applies this sort of thing to things such as egalitarianism in groups.

 

[Blank]

I dunno, but now that I think about it, I would say that being 'real' is being absolute. The existence of a physical body such as mine or your own body is unquestionable, because no matter how much philosophizing or arguing you do, you can't unravel your existence...(unless if you're really fucking good at it, maybe. Who knows?)

Truth is such a difficult concept to pick apart. No matter how clear or vast I'll argue my point, I'm sure there will still be arguments or questions.

Truth, however, I believe is a concept that only exists between the discrepancy of human perception and reality. We as humans have figured how reality should function, but when we are presented with a discrepancy, we believe there to be a falsehood, an untruth about the matter of things. It's left entirely to perception. If we were to purely perceive reality as it is, there wouldn't be any need for the measurement of truth--what would be, would be. There would be no argument to the integrity of reality (except in existentialism, but whatever, moving on...)

There could be a subjective and an objective truth to things as well. Say we have Bob and Joe, two ordinary men who perceive things differently. Bob sees just fine, but Joe sees green as blue. If Bob and Joe were to argue about the color of a green pen, and Joe argued that it was a blue pen, Joe would be objectively wrong, because the pen is green, but you couldn't say that he was a liar or not telling the truth because it was outside of his realm of perception. However, we tend to believe that truth is absolute, so following what I believe to be real as being absolute, in this example the subjective truth that Joe observes conflicts with the objective truth about the color of the pen, the two truths conflict in Joe's perception of reality. While compared to objective reality, Joe's vision of the world is deemed 'false,' or 'incorrect,' but there is no way of changing Joe's perception of reality....BAH! FUCK! This example is too freaking hard to describe accurately. Objectively, Joe is wrong, but subjectively, you can't prove it. In Joe's eyes, what he says is the truth. When you take a step back and look at the big picture, we as humans can't see or be shown objective reality or truth. Reality is perception.

 

[ygolo]

You could try reading this essay, it's quite interesting. It's about how species can sometimes get to the point where they are selected for on the basis of groups rather than individuals. It says that humans have done this, and then applies this sort of thing to things such as egalitarianism in groups.

Another thing to add to my readings. Thanks Anonymous. This is actually pretty short--making it more likely that I will actually read it.

I dunno, but now that I think about it, I would say that being 'real' is being absolute. The existence of a physical body such as mine or your own body is unquestionable, because no matter how much philosophizing or arguing you do, you can't unravel your existence...(unless if you're really fucking good at it, maybe. Who knows?)

Truth is such a difficult concept to pick apart. No matter how clear or vast I'll argue my point, I'm sure there will still be arguments or questions.

Truth, however, I believe is a concept that only exists between the discrepancy of human perception and reality. We as humans have figured how reality should function, but when we are presented with a discrepancy, we believe there to be a falsehood, an untruth about the matter of things. It's left entirely to perception. If we were to purely perceive reality as it is, there wouldn't be any need for the measurement of truth--what would be, would be. There would be no argument to the integrity of reality (except in existentialism, but whatever, moving on...)

There could be a subjective and an objective truth to things as well. Say we have Bob and Joe, two ordinary men who perceive things differently. Bob sees just fine, but Joe sees green as blue. If Bob and Joe were to argue about the color of a green pen, and Joe argued that it was a blue pen, Joe would be objectively wrong, because the pen is green, but you couldn't say that he was a liar or not telling the truth because it was outside of his realm of perception. However, we tend to believe that truth is absolute, so following what I believe to be real as being absolute, in this example the subjective truth that Joe observes conflicts with the objective truth about the color of the pen, the two truths conflict in Joe's perception of reality. While compared to objective reality, Joe's vision of the world is deemed 'false,' or 'incorrect,' but there is no way of changing Joe's perception of reality....BAH! FUCK! This example is too freaking hard to describe accurately. Objectively, Joe is wrong, but subjectively, you can't prove it. In Joe's eyes, what he says is the truth. When you take a step back and look at the big picture, we as humans can't see or be shown objective reality or truth. Reality is perception.

I think you were making sense. As far as what the color actually is, it depends on your definition. Some philosophers actually define it as the subjective experience of color, not the wavelength of light. So, in that sense both Bob and Joe are correct.

 

[substitute]

gotta admit, I saw the title and thought "so you're looking for an Ne revalation, that you won't listen to?"

but then I thought, "why are you looking for that here??"

and then I thought, "uh, good luck with that, pally!"

 

[Novascientia]

As a kid, it seemed like I could learn new stuff like that...

But this sort of thing just doesn't seem to come around much these days.

You have come to the age when you have found what interests you, you have learned the basics of what there is to know in that area, so you don't find much new information that you don't already expect in these areas.

To solve this problem? Choose a new area of inquiry. Something you've never thought much about before. Try to answer the questions as they present themselves yourself, instead of relying on the wisdom of others, which is what causes uniformity of thought among groups of people (which, is good in that it allows good ideas to spread, bad in that it limits an induviduals one-on-one experience with the mysteries of the universe. You always hear about them second hand...you learn about some one else's life-changing realization or discovery instead of experiencing it yourself.)

You will soon find that there are infinite microcosms of the unknown in the universe.