My Philosophy

[DReaver13]

I'd appreciate some criticisms and comments on my philosophy as it stands. After about 3 months reading about the subject this is where I stand. I haven't really consolidated Metaphysics or Epistemology yet as they are massive areas, but I have dabbled into ethics nontheless. I believe my ideas share similarities with Kant, Nietzche and a little bit of Hume, but I'm not sure. I also have some unique ideas about epistemology, where I categorize the different data within the brain which I would like some opinions on. Thanks for your time, comments would REALLY be appreciated, if you can stand the length and complexity of it ..

I wrote this without directly referencing any other writings, I just sat and thought about stuff. :D

I could post it here but it would be massive so I'll just give a link:
My Philosophy (http://www.darkreavers.co.uk/articles_everything.htm)

[ComradeRed]

The only axiom is that (at least one) true reality does exist Why? Critically resolve this, how can you know a "true reality" exists? How could you ever know this?

[DReaver13]

Well the alternative is that there is nothing and we are nothing, in which case there would be no point in discussing philosophy. There must be something causing me to be conscious. I don't claim that we can ever be certain what that something is though. Having "something" makes philosophy just a bit more interesting don't you think? Don't confuse what I say in my philosophy with objectivism or something like that, it is far from it.

Further criticizms? Anyone?

[NovelGentry]

My only initial criticism is that your website should not be designed as such to make people go blind.

[DReaver13]

My only initial criticism is that your website should not be designed as such to make people go blind.
Looks fine to me!

[ComradeRed]

Well the alternative is that there is nothing and we are nothing, in which case there would be no point in discussing philosophy. There must be something causing me to be conscious. I don't claim that we can ever be certain what that something is though. Having "something" makes philosophy just a bit more interesting don't you think? Don't confuse what I say in my philosophy with objectivism or something like that, it is far from it. I am talking in a metaphysical sense, not epistemolgically. You are talking this to the extreme, but how would you not know that this "reality" is nothing more than a product of one's mind? Would it be objective? Would it exist? How would you know?

[Rasta Sapian]

what i know is that you guys are talking sheit buys, keep your head on straight, and your vocabulary on the page, which is situated in reality, not hyperspace where your balls are popping out of your mouth. lol

metaphysics shiznits scanizminks, ya think?

oh I am sorry, i really mean, I bow down to you almighty superman :P

[DReaver13]

You are talking this to the extreme, but how would you not know that this "reality" is nothing more than a product of one's mind? Would it be objective? Would it exist? How would you know?
Yer, but even if it is only a product of one's mind, then that would be the true reality I am speaking of. I just say that something exists somewhere.

[ComradeRed]

But how would you know that if you cannot seperate products of your mind which you perceive to exist independently from that which "actually exists"?

[ComradeChris]

Sorry, I got sidetracked on your webpage. Are you an LA Kings fan?

I agree with you on the ethics page. My view on morals and ethics is that it was created from our own fear of the events which are deemed unethical/immoral, to happen against us. I mean someone who kills probably isn't afraid of his/her own death. Especially if s/he commits the acts in places with the death penalty. They would be fully aware of their death if caught. But I know I don't want to be killed for no reason, or some innane reason, and hence, wouldn't do the same to someone else.

[Hiero]

ComradeRed do you believe that earth existed before the evolution of Humans. Then do you believe in the science of geology that can date rocks and gases to millions of years before human era. If you believe that then how can the world outside of us, all that we percieve be a creation of our mind. It only has to be reality. How could it be anything else. Things do exist independtly of us, becuase as proven things existed before us.

[Hiero]

Your philosophy can be summaries as Agnostic. I am only halfway throught i though.

[Hiero]

Reality, as one perceives it, has a multitude of rules or laws (e.g. that of gravity) and one presumes the effects of these rules through experiencing them via evidence, which allows one to understand things and create ideas about general causality within their reality. "If A happens, B is the result" ; and this will presumably happen every time. The same cause will have the same result each time it is performed. These are still only assumptions derived from one's perception / interpretation. It should also be noted that true causality requires all the variables to be the same, and since this is impossible unless you can control time and move matter on a subatomic level, then causality is not an accurate measure and just a very general equation on which to base predictions concerning one's wider image of reality. Chaos theory, or more specifically the Butterfly Effect, shows us that tiny changes in starting variables can cause massive changes to the end result, so although causality can be seen to work, it is extremely questionable to rely on experience of causality for long-term / more-than-basic scenarios. The human mind and even the most powerful of computers cannot calculate the outcomes of so many interrelated variables.


So you say that not allaws "if a happens, b is the result". You come to this conclusion because not all variables can be controlled.

So that when chemical A is mixed with B reaction C occurs. But your philosophy claims that not allways C will occur. So that A and B added together and for some reason E occurrs. But that means a even has occurred during mixing chemicals, that some how a chemical has occured or temperature has risen.

Lets take for example that everytime A and B is mixxed the temperature never rises above 30 and thus C occurs. But one time the temp rises above 30 and E happens. Now you would have to be a idiot to claim that everytime A is mixed with B that C wont occur. Its obvious that A + B allways results in C and if any other thing occurs then it is caused by a even interupting the mixture.

[DReaver13]

Thanks for the comments everyone!


But how would you know that if you cannot seperate products of your mind which you perceive to exist independently from that which "actually exists"?
You can't be certain of this, which I do admit in my page. I don't make much reference to it though because it has quite depressing implications of being totally alone, and therefore everything becomes quite meaningless, especially for communists.


Sorry, I got sidetracked on your webpage. Are you an LA Kings fan?
Hehe, I am a little bit yeah, but the main reason for buying that top was the colour scheme :D. It says Dark Reaver 13 on the back. Purple & Black are my favourite colours, as you can tell by the website.


I agree with you on the ethics page. My view on morals and ethics is that it was created from our own fear of the events which are deemed unethical/immoral, to happen against us. I mean someone who kills probably isn't afraid of his/her own death. Especially if s/he commits the acts in places with the death penalty. They would be fully aware of their death if caught. But I know I don't want to be killed for no reason, or some innane reason, and hence, wouldn't do the same to someone else.
Good points. I am only just moving into ethics, but I still have to consolidate metaphysics and epistemology I believe.


So you say that not allaws "if a happens, b is the result". You come to this conclusion because not all variables can be controlled.

So that when chemical A is mixed with B reaction C occurs. But your philosophy claims that not allways C will occur. So that A and B added together and for some reason E occurrs. But that means a even has occurred during mixing chemicals, that some how a chemical has occured or temperature has risen.

Lets take for example that everytime A and B is mixxed the temperature never rises above 30 and thus C occurs. But one time the temp rises above 30 and E happens. Now you would have to be a idiot to claim that everytime A is mixed with B that C wont occur. Its obvious that A + B allways results in C and if any other thing occurs then it is caused by a even interupting the mixture.
Yeah I agree with you. I have been reading about quantum theory and chaos theory though, and it seems to point out that things aren't 100% predictable. My philosophy says that because no variables can EVER be the same, that outcomes are always going to be slightly different. It would be hard enough to carry out an experiment and get the temperature exactly the same, but the molecules will be in different positions and time will have moved forward etc. Chaos theory says that small changes in starting variables can have huge consquences. What do you think?

[Hiero]

]Yeah I agree with you. I have been reading about quantum theory and chaos theory though, and it seems to point out that things aren't 100% predictable. My philosophy says that because no variables can EVER be the same, that outcomes are always going to be slightly different. It would be hard enough to carry out an experiment and get the temperature exactly the same, but the molecules will be in different positions and time will have moved forward etc. Chaos theory says that small changes in starting variables can have huge consquences. What do you think?

I cant see how that disproves humans knowing objective reality. The changes in variables can be recorded and we see the changes.

In perfect world when a action occures we will know the reaction. In the real world we know a action will cause a set reaction, we also know anything changed in the action from the original test may cause a different reaction. We then can record the reaction, and know have a knowledge of a new action, that everytime that action occurs the same reaction occurs and if it doesnt then the action has been changed.
So even if a small change happens creating a huge consquences we can still record it.

I guess its fair enough to say we dont know when vairables change, but it doesnt go to say we dont knnow objective truth.

[DReaver13]

I cant see how that disproves humans knowing objective reality. The changes in variables can be recorded and we see the changes.
No it doesn't disprove it, you're right, but it also doesn't prove it.


I guess its fair enough to say we dont know when vairables change, but it doesnt go to say we dont knnow objective truth.
But what is objective truth? Knowing what happened in the past may constitute objective truth because only one past happened, and we either know it or we don't. But total objective truth would require knowing the rules of the universe and their causes, which we don't and can't. The past is over and done with, but predicting the future is very difficult if not impossible, beyond simple things like falling objects, bouncing balls etc. where a rough estimation can be made and be fairly congruent with what actually happens.

[gaf]

but there is no truth .no sasquash. only wat you believe or want to .


do you understand?