Philosophy of Dual-Realities

[bmwguy]

The Philosophy of Dual-Realities


On Dual-Realities:

What is reality other than a mere perception of both the past & the present? Reality exists as a solid, almost tangible, essence of "what-is". However, reality is quite subjective in many (often times, overlooked) ways. Reality is nothing more than what our mind perceives, to the best of its ability, to be the only knowable past & present. No one (save for God, the almighty Creator of Reality) can ever understand what reality really is. No one needs to ever know or comprehend realities hidden corners and clefts. But reality remains. It always has remained. It always will remain. It is remaining.

True reality is not the same for me as it is for you. You may accuse me for claiming that reality is "relevant" (what is true for you is not true for me). But if one considers reality for even just a moment, he cannot successfully refute this claim of relevance. Reality is the collection of everything that we know about everything. From this seemingly un-comprehendible amount of knowledge, our brains form their "records" of the past (both of ourselves and humanity in general). Do you know EVERYTHING that I know, and [do you] know nothing more than that which I know, and visa-versa? Of course not! Surely there exists innumerable facts, events, information, etc. that while known to you, will never become known to me. Your reality then, by definition, cannot be the same as mine. Consider the following analogy:

50 victims of the German Holocaust and 50 common-class citizens who deny that the Holocaust ever took place. They are all placed together on an island which completely satisfies the means needed for survival, but at the same time is completely (and eternally) isolated from the rest of the known world. Now suppose that out of the 50 citizens, there rises up 25 [citizens] who come govern the remaining seventy-five. Let us call this governing-group, "governors". The 25 remaining citizens we shall refer to as "opposers". Finally, the 50 victims we shall call the "victims". As time progresses on this island, the victim's children will no doubt be told by their parents that the Holocaust occurred , and that the Holocaust never occurred by the governors & the opposers. Let us now advance 100 years in the future. The original members of the island (the victims, the opposers, & the governors) are all dead, leaving only their progeny as their successors to their "positions" (victims, opposers, & governors). This second generation is of utmost importance as it is the fulcrum on which the "balancing-bar of reality" rests. The only records of the Holocaust dwells within the children of the victims. As time continues on, you must agree that it is most likely that the opposer's/governer's views of the Holocaust (namely, that it never occurred) will successfully suppress the victim's views (namely, that they are the children of actual Holocaust survivors). This will not take place within the lifetime of one generation, but rather many generations. But, in the end, there will be no one on the island who truly believes in the depths of his soul that the Holocaust ever occurred. Yes, every member of that remote island will involuntarily or voluntarily cause himself to truly believe (with all of his being) that the Holocaust could never have occurred. At the very least, no member will believe that the Holocaust of his ancestors ever occurred in history. The island's members therefore, now live their lives accordingly.

We now are left with two, equally credible Realities: 1) All of the members of the island who truly (within their own being) believe that the Holocaust never occurred, and 2) the rest of the world, who believes that the occurrence of the Holocaust is utterly undeniable.

Lastly, consider for yourself one final fact. Would you not agree that within in all of the records of all history, there are events (even major ones) which have occurred (i.e. wars that took place between Indians in America before Columbus ever discovered America), and yet [have] gone un-noticed to the pen of those who have written the records we have today? If this is the case (which it is), WE ARE NOT LIVING IN TRUE REALITY AT ALL! Ironically, this is the one form of reality that is still comprehendible to humanity, yet is just out of our reach! Yet, you (the reader of this essay) have probably accused me for being absurd in my suggestion that reality could be lost so easily!


Stephen K. Donnelly

 

[phil_t]

Now my head hurts

It all goes to show that there is no such thing as reality, at least not as something you could apply to any body except yourself and your own situation

Interesting stuff though!

Phil

 

[bmwguy]

Originally posted by phil_t
Now my head hurts

It all goes to show that there is no such thing as reality, at least not as something you could apply to any body except yourself and your own situation

Interesting stuff though!

Phil

Thank-you for taking the time to read it! I really appreciate it!

I know it's pretty deep stuff (I'm only 15), but life, itself is deeper than we tend to perceive it to be.

 

[bmwguy]

Here's my Philosophy of "The Non-Exsistance of Proof":

"What", I ask, "is Proof?" Proof is (at least in my Reality) not a sensible essence. Meaning, Proof's existence cannot be proved by any of our senses (taste, hearing, touch, seeing, smell, etc.). It is nothing more than that which we create it to be. Proof has; however, managed to permeate into Common-Reality, and thus, is generally accepted. Excluding God, Proof is arguably the only thing that has no essence at all, and yet, is still believed by the populace to exist. PROOF DOES NOT EXSIST! You may be outraged at such a bold claim, but consider this: can you prove that the last person you saw was really a true, living/breathing/rational human-being, and not a hallucination of your own mind? The carefully thought-out answer to my question would always be the same: NO. The only way to answer, "Yes" to my question would be to deny the existence of any and all forms of hallucinations (let alone supernatural-phenomena caused by God). True, the existence of proof is "relative" to each individual's own Reality. But if this is the case, then I argue that Proof has lost its esteemed purpose. For what good is it to try to "prove" that paper comes from trees when your Reality states that all paper is a synthetic substance?

Proof; however, does exist in one sense: the ability to prove one's own existence. Such a concept was contemplated as far back (in history) as the 1700s' by Rene Descartes. Descartes' Philosophy was (at its core) quite simple: "Cogito Ergo Sum". "I Think; Therefore, I Am". In order to even contemplate the question, "Do I Exist?", one must first exist to begin with. This, to me, is the only logical form of proof. Everything else may be probable, but never provable.

Finally, Does anything at all really need to be proved. I'd answer such a question with an emphatic, "NO!". I can live my life in light of the fact that I will never be able to prove that anyone (or anything) exists. Most things do exist. But their existence is not contingent on whether or not it (it's existence) is provable.

Stephen K. Donnelly