Man as the measure of the immeasurable

steelridge58 said:I can't really give you a proper answer right this second because I need to wrap my head around all of this, and honestly, it’s a lot to process. 🙂 even if I wanted to,

Anyway, if you want to dive deeper, maybe start a new thread about the relationship between consciousness and reality so we don't clutter up this specific discussion. Plus, I still owe you an answer regarding those apples we talked about.

🙂 So yeah, let me know if you want to go there.

Just sleep on it, no rush 🙂
Good call (on starting a new thread), I'll think about it..

mistybison said:I can't speak for anyone else, but my own perspective changed recently. Since then, I see the world and reality through an entirely different lens. 🙂 Rather than letting this realization weigh me down or make me feel stuck, it has actually made me feel more vibrant and energetic. I now find myself free to wander and truly enjoy whatever happens to come my way. 🙂 I spent quite a while searching for something others insisted was real, though I couldn't tell if they were actually onto something. By that, I mean seeking that "ultimate realization"—the definitive answers to who we are, where we originated, and where we are headed. As for any other insights, they are naturally subjective, fleeting, and relative, existing only for a brief moment before they pass. 🙂

Why is there such widespread skepticism toward subjective impressions? It seems strange that we often grant more weight to a machine's perception than to our own.

I have previously commented on the topic of solipsism, but I believe subjectivity eventually negates itself. From a purely subjectivist standpoint, it becomes impossible to establish or assert anything with certainty. This is why we require an alternative perspective—one where we perceive ourselves and reality as distinct, independent entities. Only through this lens can we truly experience something and, consequently, categorize it as "knowledge." This view also acknowledges that there are many other beings and objects in existence beyond ourselves; by comparing our impressions of this reality, we strive to describe it more accurately. In fact, machines are often far better at perceiving and defining these impressions with greater objectivity than we are.

When did that occur? Everyone. Do people actually reach a consensus that something is 100% objectively true?

Has it always been this way? 😕 Since birth, some have naturally gravitated toward one another, operating under the assumption that if they exist as conscious beings, there must be similar beings living alongside them.

Why do we feel the need for external validation? I suspect we all go through this phase from time to time. Ultimately, it shouldn't matter, because we live by our own conclusions, our own convictions, and our own hard work. At the end of the day, you rely on your own strength, regardless of what anyone else tells you.

I am not entirely sure what this question is targeting. If we are discussing physical health, I need to consult a doctor to receive a professional diagnosis; I am not a medical professional, so I cannot treat myself—I simply know when I feel unwell. In those cases, I require external expertise to help me. If we are referring to personal philosophies and outlooks on life, there are times when I seek validation because I feel uncertain, and having someone offer support or a counterargument is helpful. However, if this refers to the viewpoints I share here, I do not post them merely to seek agreement, but because I find genuine pleasure in doing so. 🙂Regarding the influence of others, I don't exist in a vacuum. I am a product of everyone who has shaped me—my parents, friends, teachers, professors, books, movies, TV shows, and every person I have ever had a relationship with. Even now, you all play a part in shaping who I am. 🙂

do you actually live out what you write?

What I write is simply a snapshot of who I am at that exact moment. 🙂 Sometimes my views remain steady, and other times they shift by the very next day. When I look back at posts from three or four years ago, I find them funny, strange, silly, interesting, foreign, or uniquely mine. Occasionally, I find myself agreeing with my past self, while other times we are in total disagreement.

do you believe that what you write changes the reality of those who read it? yes, no, or sometimes? and if it's the latter, under what conditions?

I don't give it much thought. Honestly, I would prefer if it didn't change anything. I worry about exerting too much influence over people and the heavy responsibility that entails.

does what you read change your reality?

Sometimes.

do you feel threatened or intimidated when you encounter a strong argument that contradicts your own view?

Quite the opposite. 🙂 I find it exhilarating because it allows me to see reality from an entirely new perspective that I hadn't even considered before. It is just like reading a great book or having a conversation with an interesting person—anything that serves as inspiration.

do you ever fear for your own identity?

How could a change in my thoughts or beliefs ever truly threaten me personally? It is still me, just slightly different. Whether the change comes from you or something else doesn't matter. Change is inevitable. 🙂

is there any idea about reality that individuals advocating it throughout history haven't eventually failed to find "solid proof" for? And is there any single idea that hasn't been overturned, or at least challenged by an opposing view, up to this point?

I don't know.

What is the actual point of seeking objectivity, if all we ever truly achieve is a subjective internal shift? Or perhaps, isn't that precisely the goal?

It really depends on your perspective. If we hadn't pursued objective truths, we wouldn't have modern technology, medical breakthroughs, or any part of the world we recognize today. On the other hand, looking at discussions like this one, the aim might simply be our own personal growth. Or maybe not. Perhaps we’re just having a great time playing around with big ideas. 🙂

Why are you so worried about the impact you have on people when you view their impact on you as something positive? Being receptive to someone else's point of view basically means being open to evolving through that influence. That part is your choice, but the thing you're afraid of—that's entirely up to them.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Why are you so worried about the impact you have on people when you view their impact on you as something positive? Being receptive to someone else's point of view basically means being open to evolving through that influence. That part is your choice, but the thing you're afraid of—that's entirely up to them.

I am not easily swayed and I tend to be quite skeptical, so other people's ideas don't really affect me, but not everyone is built that way. There are plenty of people who adopt the thoughts and views of others without question, which can lead to some dangerous situations. I have never regretted staying silent, but I have certainly regretted speaking up more than once. I much prefer the idea that most people don't take me too seriously.😁

fadedbison17 said:Love that title you used: 'man as the measurer of the immeasurable.'
Everything we see, feel, or know—it all gets filtered through our own lens because there’s nothing outside of us that we can actually experience. We aren't birds or a drop of water... we're just people, and we only perceive reality as humans.

Say we're standing in front of a field, and a buddy walks up and says, "this field is 10 square miles."
Who are we to claim that? Isn't that just a subjective take? What does that field actually have to do with the concept of "10 square miles"?

Humans invented units of measurement—we basically just decided to pick a standard (like the
meter) so we could make sense of distances. We didn't pull the meter out of thin air from some physical reality; we just picked a measure that works for us so we can
show ourselves
how far things are.
But even though that's a "subjective" idea, the measurement itself is objective since a meter is always a meter—it doesn't flip-flop between being two meters or half a meter.

How else would we grasp reality if not through our own context?
Some people call that kind of perception "subjective"—as if there’s some other way to experience the world besides our own senses.

Just to add to that bit about the meter...
Every single unit of measurement—everything we measure—happens within a context. And that context is simply the human being.
Anything invisible to the naked eye is just an extension of human perception. A microscope, an oscilloscope, a telescope... any gadget is just a byproduct of how we perceive things, not a denial of it. These tools exist because we need more knowledge to understand reality better.
If someone discovers a new particle tomorrow that's smaller than anything we've ever found, it'll only be possible because of the knowledge we've built up until now (which all starts with direct perception). It doesn't mean those particles weren't there before; it just means we didn't have the tools or the knowledge to be aware of them yet.Quote: living on this planet finally agree on what is 100% objectively real?

Lawrence Robinson5says: a few questions for the group: when did everyone

I don't really get this one. I mean, nobody's gonna argue when you drop an egg from the tenth floor and it shatters, right?
Maybe you mean most people have their own opinions on the world and don't necessarily agree with what seems obvious to you? I guess that's just life...

I wouldn't go against my own knowledge or logic just to please someone else—doesn't seem worth it. But when you stumble upon someone who actually sees things the way you do, it feels pretty good. Like a sense of connection or belonging... without being dependent on it.

Doing my best...

It’s tough to influence someone just because you want to—people gotta be open to new ideas first. Honestly, I wouldn't even bother writing if I didn't think there was a chance...

I figure there's only one reality, not just my version of it 😉
If I hit an argument that calls me out, I just assume the flaw is in my own thinking—something I need to fix. Happens pretty often, really... doesn't scare me or anything. I just take it in stride. People make mistakes all the time, so it's not like it's some personal failing I should be worried about...

Like I've said a bunch of times before—for anyone who missed my old posts—I believe reality is objective. Humans are part of that reality, and we can't just wish it away with our thoughts or whatever. My whole stance is based on Objectivism...

Maybe the intro to this post actually hits the nail on the head—humans experience reality through their own senses, and there isn't any other way to do it. Reality doesn't care how we label things just to make our lives easier, and it definitely doesn't care whether we choose to accept being a part of it or not.
Saying humans are subjective—just because we perceive things through the only lens available to us—doesn't mean we can't have objective observations.
If a person accepts that they're just one piece of a reality they can't control by sheer willpower, and if they actually respect the laws of logic... then yeah, their perception can be objective.

Measurement is really just something humans needed so we could turn our thoughts into actual work. Think about it—making clothes, building shelters, trading goods—all of that required some kind of standard. We built the metric system with a specific purpose in mind. It’s been made as objective as possible by basing definitions on natural constants (like using the speed of light for the meter) or by simply agreeing on certain constants (like the kilogram). This push toward objectivity was done specifically to dodge extreme subjectivity—you know, like avoiding a massive blowout over a bill because nobody can agree on what a "gallon" or a "pound" actually means in that moment.
The reasons behind this are as practical as they are profound. Another reason we pushed for a universal system is the basic human need for a solid starting point when observing the world. Measurement is the tool we use to uncover the structures of things, because you can't have structure without ratio. Nature itself is structured: look at the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen in a water molecule—it's 2:1—and that is, fundamentally, a measure.

So, measurement is essentially a property of the universe that humans just categorized in a way that suits us. We need a universal system so we can grasp the mechanics of how everything is interconnected—how everything is tied together. First, we measure distance, area, weight, and time. From those basics, more complex measurements emerged, like velocity, and as science progressed, we started measuring force, electrical current, frequency, and so on. Not all measurements are purely human inventions. Because the universe is composed of elements in specific proportions, it can exist, it can be understood, and within that understanding, we can define the unit we use to decode that complexity—and by grasping that, we keep building forward.

As for there being only one single reality—I don't think it's quite that simple. You act based on your own belief system regarding reality, and that's what defines *your* reality. Within your own framework, your actions make perfect sense, but to someone else with a completely different set of beliefs, those same actions might seem totally nonsensical—and that is *their* reality. I know you're going to argue that only manifestations are real—the stuff that is expressed, spoken, or done—but people can't help but interpret everything, whether it's their own actions or someone else's, through the lens of their own belief system. That applies to everyone. A single act can be interpreted in a hundred different ways, and that’s what really matters to us: the interpretation, not just the raw act itself. It’s from that interpretation that people build everything they do, and that is precisely what creates reality. Someone who sees their existence as being granted by a higher power might become a priest, while someone who sees it as pure mechanical physics will become a scientist—and they'll both change the world as much as they can in their respective directions. Without interpretation, human reality wouldn't be what it is; since interpretation is such a core part of it, a person's entire reality depends on it.

Just think about what that does to the whole concept of civilization. Take, for example, how Native Americans interpreted the world compared to some guy from the 18th-century American East Coast—the realities they constructed were worlds apart. And yet, both versions were just as real.

mistybison said:I am not easily swayed and I tend to be quite skeptical, so other people's ideas don't really affect me, but not everyone is built that way. There are plenty of people who adopt the thoughts and views of others without question, which can lead to some dangerous situations. I have never regretted staying silent, but I have certainly regretted speaking up more than once. I much prefer the idea that most people don't take me too seriously.😁

But isn't that susceptibility just part of their own free will? If they're going to be swayed anyway, wouldn't it be better if they followed your lead instead of, say, someone like Hitler? Maybe you could guide them toward a path where they don't feel the need to follow anyone at all. 😁

This is actually such an interesting little rabbit hole to go down. What does freedom even look like in practice? Letting someone commit a murder isn't freedom—that's just violence. Allowing someone to lie to another person isn't freedom either, because lying is its own kind of assault. But sharing your perspective with someone, even when you know they're easily influenced? That *is* freedom. It really just comes down to how you deliver it. A leader's rhetoric almost always uses these cheap tricks and half-truths to manipulate, whereas a teacher's sincerity is meant to spark actual independent thought.

At the end of the day, whether you choose to speak up or stay silent, you're carrying the weight of that responsibility...

Edward Flores4 said:What you're describing there is consistency, not objectivity.

Think about it—we use measurements to track things we can't even see, interpreting data from electromagnetic spectrums, molecular structures, astronomical readings, or statistical models. We use theoretical reasoning, complex calculations, and all sorts of computer simulations... In my view, that’s plenty of ways to engage with the world beyond just basic sensory perception. And honestly, each of those methods is distinct enough that we can argue none of them are truly "objective," simply because they are all constant—just like a meter, a liter, or a minute—meaning you can't really discredit any single one of them.

Well, you find that in every religious group, or really any community built under the umbrella of an ideology. A philosopher, though—they generally try not to belong to anything at all; their goal is to follow the path of knowledge. More often than not, that means being an outsider or getting marginalized rather than finding a group of like-minded people to feel close to. You've basically covered the whole playbook here, but at least you've laid out your motives for everyone else—even if you haven't quite figured them out yourself yet.

The first part of fadedbison17's post...

And the second:

Everyone needs a sense of belonging—it's essential. It's what actually gives life meaning. A person isn't just some isolated island; we are parts of a larger whole, and we have to feel that connection to the pieces around us and to the bigger picture.

But don't confuse dependency with belonging. Dependency is that desperate belief that you need something external just to feel okay. That’s actually a sign that you lack a true sense of belonging, both within yourself and with the world around you.

A healthy connection creates harmony: with the people in your life, with nature... and since that connection is genuine, there’s no fear of losing it. You have the freedom to step away when you need space and come back when you want to be close. Someone like that knows they are already whole.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:The first part of fadedbison17's post...

And the second:

Everyone needs a sense of belonging—it's essential. It's what actually gives life meaning. A person isn't just some isolated island; we are parts of a larger whole, and we have to feel that connection to the pieces around us and to the bigger picture.

But don't confuse dependency with belonging. Dependency is that desperate belief that you need something external just to feel okay. That’s actually a sign that you lack a true sense of belonging, both within yourself and with the world around you.

A healthy connection creates harmony: with the people in your life, with nature... and since that connection is genuine, there’s no fear of losing it. You have the freedom to step away when you need space and come back when you want to be close. Someone like that knows they are already whole.

I wouldn't argue that I don't belong to humanity as a whole.

By birth, my roots are in California, the Mediterranean Sea, and the West,
but I actually see those ties more as limitations than blessings.

To me, any other kind of belonging feels restrictive and ultimately harmful.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:The first part of fadedbison17's post...

And the second:

Everyone needs a sense of belonging—it's essential. It's what actually gives life meaning. A person isn't just some isolated island; we are parts of a larger whole, and we have to feel that connection to the pieces around us and to the bigger picture.

But don't confuse dependency with belonging. Dependency is that desperate belief that you need something external just to feel okay. That’s actually a sign that you lack a true sense of belonging, both within yourself and with the world around you.

A healthy connection creates harmony: with the people in your life, with nature... and since that connection is genuine, there’s no fear of losing it. You have the freedom to step away when you need space and come back when you want to be close. Someone like that knows they are already whole.

Yet, that craving for belonging is most often just a toxic addiction. 👎

Lawrence Robinson5 said:The first part of fadedbison17's post...

And the second:

Everyone needs a sense of belonging—it's essential. It's what actually gives life meaning. A person isn't just some isolated island; we are parts of a larger whole, and we have to feel that connection to the pieces around us and to the bigger picture.

But don't confuse dependency with belonging. Dependency is that desperate belief that you need something external just to feel okay. That’s actually a sign that you lack a true sense of belonging, both within yourself and with the world around you.

A healthy connection creates harmony: with the people in your life, with nature... and since that connection is genuine, there’s no fear of losing it. You have the freedom to step away when you need space and come back when you want to be close. Someone like that knows they are already whole.

Actually, a healthy sense of detachment is what allows for harmonious relationships
with everyone, without fueling hostility toward anyone.👍

swiftcobra15,

I’m really talking about that sense of harmony, you know? It’s impossible to have that kind of flow unless there’s an actual awareness of the whole picture. When you look at the big picture, every single piece is tied together because everything interacts with everything else—but it’s this natural, effortless kind of interdependence. I think we’ve all had those rare, quiet moments where you just stop and feel like, "Man, everything is exactly where it’s supposed to be."

When you truly grasp that, you realize you don't actually need to go out and hunt for anything extra, because everything you could ever need is already right here. But if you don't get it? Then you end up spending your whole life constantly chasing after something new to fill the void, and honestly, that’s just a recipe for addiction. Does that make more sense?

fadedbison17 said:Just sleep on it, no rush 🙂
Good call (on starting a new thread), I'll think about it..

Go for it, then—once you've had a chance to chew on it and if you decide to go ahead, we can start putting together some real deep dives on this topic: 🙂

In order for consciousness to truly become aware of itself, it first has to be aware of something else entirely. It’s only after consciousness experiences something that it can achieve self-awareness through that very experience.
Without something—anything at all, any shred of reality—consciousness simply can't exist. Consciousness is fundamentally dependent on reality.

Which means consciousness is just one part of reality, rather than being outside of it.
And since consciousness is an integral part of reality, it follows that it must be objective, just like everything else within the fabric of our existence.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Measurement is really just something humans needed so we could turn our thoughts into actual work. Think about it—making clothes, building shelters, trading goods—all of that required some kind of standard. We built the metric system with a specific purpose in mind. It’s been made as objective as possible by basing definitions on natural constants (like using the speed of light for the meter) or by simply agreeing on certain constants (like the kilogram). This push toward objectivity was done specifically to dodge extreme subjectivity—you know, like avoiding a massive blowout over a bill because nobody can agree on what a "gallon" or a "pound" actually means in that moment.
The reasons behind this are as practical as they are profound. Another reason we pushed for a universal system is the basic human need for a solid starting point when observing the world. Measurement is the tool we use to uncover the structures of things, because you can't have structure without ratio. Nature itself is structured: look at the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen in a water molecule—it's 2:1—and that is, fundamentally, a measure.

So, measurement is essentially a property of the universe that humans just categorized in a way that suits us. We need a universal system so we can grasp the mechanics of how everything is interconnected—how everything is tied together. First, we measure distance, area, weight, and time. From those basics, more complex measurements emerged, like velocity, and as science progressed, we started measuring force, electrical current, frequency, and so on. Not all measurements are purely human inventions. Because the universe is composed of elements in specific proportions, it can exist, it can be understood, and within that understanding, we can define the unit we use to decode that complexity—and by grasping that, we keep building forward.

As for there being only one single reality—I don't think it's quite that simple. You act based on your own belief system regarding reality, and that's what defines *your* reality. Within your own framework, your actions make perfect sense, but to someone else with a completely different set of beliefs, those same actions might seem totally nonsensical—and that is *their* reality. I know you're going to argue that only manifestations are real—the stuff that is expressed, spoken, or done—but people can't help but interpret everything, whether it's their own actions or someone else's, through the lens of their own belief system. That applies to everyone. A single act can be interpreted in a hundred different ways, and that’s what really matters to us: the interpretation, not just the raw act itself. It’s from that interpretation that people build everything they do, and that is precisely what creates reality. Someone who sees their existence as being granted by a higher power might become a priest, while someone who sees it as pure mechanical physics will become a scientist—and they'll both change the world as much as they can in their respective directions. Without interpretation, human reality wouldn't be what it is; since interpretation is such a core part of it, a person's entire reality depends on it.

Just think about what that does to the whole concept of civilization. Take, for example, how Native Americans interpreted the world compared to some guy from the 18th-century American East Coast—the realities they constructed were worlds apart. And yet, both versions were just as real.

Basically:
The point of my posts is that humans exist within the context of reality (their life, their body—which has eyes, ears, etc.) and only as such do they perceive reality. They study reality in relation to themselves, but that doesn't make it subjective. If I had to use some slang, I’d use the word "real." But the word that actually fits better here instead of "real" is—objective.

To answer you:
I don't think reality depends on what I or anyone else thinks.
That would mean water is only wet because a massive crowd of people all happen to share the exact same thought about it—if you can even define what a majority is. Do you actually think reality depends on what everyone thinks?

Living in a world like that... honestly, it sounds terrifying. 😱

I feel like we just project things sometimes—like, we decide ahead of time how we’re gonna react to a situation—but at that moment, we aren't actually changing or creating anything in the real world.

fadedbison17 said:Basically:
The point of my posts is that humans exist within the context of reality (their life, their body—which has eyes, ears, etc.) and only as such do they perceive reality. They study reality in relation to themselves, but that doesn't make it subjective. If I had to use some slang, I’d use the word "real." But the word that actually fits better here instead of "real" is—objective.

To answer you:
I don't think reality depends on what I or anyone else thinks.
That would mean water is only wet because a massive crowd of people all happen to share the exact same thought about it—if you can even define what a majority is. Do you actually think reality depends on what everyone thinks?

Living in a world like that... honestly, it sounds terrifying. 😱

I feel like we just project things sometimes—like, we decide ahead of time how we’re gonna react to a situation—but at that moment, we aren't actually changing or creating anything in the real world.

I hear where you're coming from, man, but I really don't get how you can assume that humans don't change things. If we aren't making an impact, then what are we? Just pawns for God and the Devil? Slaves to fate? A byproduct of genetics or pure mechanics?

In your view, what does "will" even mean?

Think about it—when a historical leader decided to launch a crusade against a region because they viewed it as too free-thinking, that didn't just vanish. That act set American culture back by centuries. Does that mean nothing? Does a worldview carry zero weight? It won't change the fact that water is wet, sure, but if human agency doesn't matter, why even bother talking? Why are you drawn to philosophy in the first place? Is it just to prove that humans are irrelevant? That's a hard pill to swallow.

Every living thing knows it matters. And when someone tries to convince you otherwise, there's this internal friction—this clash between two realities, the one being forced upon you and the one you know to be true—that is exactly how people are manipulated and ruled over (by others). If that "other" is you, you can't just shrug it off. If someone tells you your life and your desires are worthless and demands you abandon them just because they say so, are you going to just say "okay"? Or are you going to thank them for the input and walk away?

You're saying reality isn't shaped by thought?

Human history is essentially a timeline of shifting perspectives. People have died for ideas, and entire civilizations have crumbled because of them.

If you're telling me that none of that matters in the grand scheme, I just can't go there with you. We influence nature through our thoughts (usually by failing to think clearly, which is still a form of mental state, strictly speaking). Obsessing over things we can't control—like the chemical properties of elements—is a total waste of time, unless it's to better understand how the world works so we can act more effectively. We should focus on what we *can* change, because that's how we fulfill our purpose. We aren't here to be mere spectators—who's even going to read our journals? People just as "irrelevant" as us? We are here to act. And action, much like any force, can be creative or destructive. It's creative when we think the right way, and destructive when we refuse to.

We have to be practical. Because a theory you can't actually use isn't really a theory at all.

And honestly... claiming that our actions don't change anything is just a convenient way to dodge responsibility. It's a way to avoid growing up. I think that's where the fear comes from: the realization that we have to own our actions and realize we actually matter in the big picture. The truth is, we live in a world where what we think makes all the difference.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:I hear where you're coming from, man, but I really don't get how you can assume that humans don't change things. If we aren't making an impact, then what are we? Just pawns for God and the Devil? Slaves to fate? A byproduct of genetics or pure mechanics?

In your view, what does "will" even mean?

Think about it—when a historical leader decided to launch a crusade against a region because they viewed it as too free-thinking, that didn't just vanish. That act set American culture back by centuries. Does that mean nothing? Does a worldview carry zero weight? It won't change the fact that water is wet, sure, but if human agency doesn't matter, why even bother talking? Why are you drawn to philosophy in the first place? Is it just to prove that humans are irrelevant? That's a hard pill to swallow.

Every living thing knows it matters. And when someone tries to convince you otherwise, there's this internal friction—this clash between two realities, the one being forced upon you and the one you know to be true—that is exactly how people are manipulated and ruled over (by others). If that "other" is you, you can't just shrug it off. If someone tells you your life and your desires are worthless and demands you abandon them just because they say so, are you going to just say "okay"? Or are you going to thank them for the input and walk away?

You're saying reality isn't shaped by thought?

Human history is essentially a timeline of shifting perspectives. People have died for ideas, and entire civilizations have crumbled because of them.

If you're telling me that none of that matters in the grand scheme, I just can't go there with you. We influence nature through our thoughts (usually by failing to think clearly, which is still a form of mental state, strictly speaking). Obsessing over things we can't control—like the chemical properties of elements—is a total waste of time, unless it's to better understand how the world works so we can act more effectively. We should focus on what we *can* change, because that's how we fulfill our purpose. We aren't here to be mere spectators—who's even going to read our journals? People just as "irrelevant" as us? We are here to act. And action, much like any force, can be creative or destructive. It's creative when we think the right way, and destructive when we refuse to.

We have to be practical. Because a theory you can't actually use isn't really a theory at all.

And honestly... claiming that our actions don't change anything is just a convenient way to dodge responsibility. It's a way to avoid growing up. I think that's where the fear comes from: the realization that we have to own our actions and realize we actually matter in the big picture. The truth is, we live in a world where what we think makes all the difference.

👍

Lawrence Robinson5 said:I hear where you're coming from, man, but I really don't get how you can assume that humans don't change things. If we aren't making an impact, then what are we? Just pawns for God and the Devil? Slaves to fate? A byproduct of genetics or pure mechanics?

In your view, what does "will" even mean?

Think about it—when a historical leader decided to launch a crusade against a region because they viewed it as too free-thinking, that didn't just vanish. That act set American culture back by centuries. Does that mean nothing? Does a worldview carry zero weight? It won't change the fact that water is wet, sure, but if human agency doesn't matter, why even bother talking? Why are you drawn to philosophy in the first place? Is it just to prove that humans are irrelevant? That's a hard pill to swallow.

Every living thing knows it matters. And when someone tries to convince you otherwise, there's this internal friction—this clash between two realities, the one being forced upon you and the one you know to be true—that is exactly how people are manipulated and ruled over (by others). If that "other" is you, you can't just shrug it off. If someone tells you your life and your desires are worthless and demands you abandon them just because they say so, are you going to just say "okay"? Or are you going to thank them for the input and walk away?

You're saying reality isn't shaped by thought?

Human history is essentially a timeline of shifting perspectives. People have died for ideas, and entire civilizations have crumbled because of them.

If you're telling me that none of that matters in the grand scheme, I just can't go there with you. We influence nature through our thoughts (usually by failing to think clearly, which is still a form of mental state, strictly speaking). Obsessing over things we can't control—like the chemical properties of elements—is a total waste of time, unless it's to better understand how the world works so we can act more effectively. We should focus on what we *can* change, because that's how we fulfill our purpose. We aren't here to be mere spectators—who's even going to read our journals? People just as "irrelevant" as us? We are here to act. And action, much like any force, can be creative or destructive. It's creative when we think the right way, and destructive when we refuse to.

We have to be practical. Because a theory you can't actually use isn't really a theory at all.

And honestly... claiming that our actions don't change anything is just a convenient way to dodge responsibility. It's a way to avoid growing up. I think that's where the fear comes from: the realization that we have to own our actions and realize we actually matter in the big picture. The truth is, we live in a world where what we think makes all the difference.

I jumped into this thread while I was still riding the high from that other discussion, so I totally misread the vibe—my bad.
I'm gonna sit this one out so we don't go off the rails...
Sorry again 🙂

fadedbison17 said:I jumped into this thread while I was still riding the high from that other discussion, so I totally misread the vibe—my bad.
I'm gonna sit this one out so we don't go off the rails...
Sorry again 🙂

😁😁😁

Man, there is absolutely no need for apologies! Honestly, trying to stick strictly to the topic like some kind of rigid textbook is just counterproductive when you're talking about philosophy. It’s happened to me more than once where I’ve gotten way too carried away and blurted out something without really thinking it through first, but hey, that’s how we learn, right? This whole forum has definitely taught me a thing or two about getting a bit too intense during a debate—it's just that sometimes a certain angle hits me so hard that I completely lose sight of everything else...

Actually, maybe veering off course is a good thing, because it’s really the only way to learn how to find that sweet spot of moderation—you know, learning not to drift too far into the weeds or get lost in the tiny details. Philosophy is all about finding that balance, and honestly, that's exactly what makes it such a massive challenge.