Reality can be said to be constructed out of our own minds. That while our brains and bodies interpret light and sound waves and all sensory stimuli into images and music and a (somewhat consistent) world, we in fact create this very world we seem to just inhabit.
There are very compelling explanations of why this is so, coming from many different fields, from sociology to neuroscience, from psychology to particle physics.
A common reaction to this is that if there is no common reality to unite us then we are aisled into lonely realities. That basically every person is alone in his own onanistic little asteroids.
This is a mistake.
The reason is that confirmation of truth is required only if there is ultimate reality to begin with. To refuse radical subjectivity as onanistic is only possible with an inconsiderate assumption of reality. But it is this assumption itself which is called into question.
So we create reality, but this does not take away our north: Reference frames are temporary and flowing.
Is it not obvious the correspondence between this article’s title and the blog’s name? Nevertheless, i want to ask: is it possible? Can truth exist in lower-case? Can we propose a kind of truth not so much so absolute and irrevocable? A truth that we trust in without thinking it is the end of story? After all, that would be practical and sensible. I will once more try to argue that truth cannot be but upper-case, by definition. »
All philosophy has to begin from the standpoint of an aware being. That is, there is no philosophy without one “I” who thinks and wonders.
I think. I wonder.
That is not to say that every philosophy is subjective. The ideas stretch into the world. The philosophy mixes itself into the things. But it does so only through experience. It does so only in people’s lives.
Self-reliance in philosophy is not a truth, though. It must be an assumption. We work with it, but there is nothing in the world that forces us to do so. It is not a consequence of nature, or Bog, or anything. It is a tool.
But forsaking this one tool is not a good idea. It allows us to deal with our ideas, instead of being dealt by them. It allows us to use ideas as tools. Which is to say — it is a bootstraping idea. Read More »
A very common Manichaeistic (used here for any Absolutist and Dualistic view of the world) reaction to any Relativistic proposal is to say that without referentials it is not possible to live normal life. The problem is that Relativism did not abolish Referentials, it only shows they have limits. To assume that any Referential with a limit must be avoided and feared is in itself an absolute rule, which is exactly what Relativism seeks to undo. But it is almost simplistic to say that /every referential is relative to something/ is the same as /avoid all referential/.