Our perception of truth and relativity:
“I think, therefore I am.” or “Cogito, ergo sum.” by Descartes
According to Descartes, our perception of the world cannot be proven. This is a theory that is common among philosophy enthusiasts but is odd to empiricists that do not come for the abstract, theoretical reality; this reality is the noumenal reality.
As a compromise, there are 2 realities in our world. The perceived reality, the phenomenal reality, and the reality as its own existence, the noumenal reality, separate from the self and consciousness. In truth, there is only 1 reality, because the world must be perceived and thus cannot exist without consciousness and awareness. That is, which came first, the chicken or the egg?
That is: a = our ability to think, and b is our knowledge of oneself. To know that we exist, we have to be able to think (a). In order to know something, we think (a), all we can know is what we can think. Thus, we only know what we think; our reality and existence are up to our own thoughts and perception.
The world is amoral versus relative; while it is true, from the viewpoint of existence preceding essence, that the world is inherently amoral if not subjected to by humans, that does not mean that morals do not exist. It is apparent now, as we have established in this text, that reality and the truth are dependent on the individual and their respective perspectives. Thus, as the world cannot have an “absolute” that’s undeniably true, we know that the amoral reality does not necessarily have to be the relevant reality.
There are two types of realities, as named here: the noumenal; the theoretical reality, and the phenomenal reality. The noumenal reality is impractical and theoretical, usually irrelevant to the life of most as it cannot exist within our own realm of perception. In addition, the noumenal reality cannot be conceived or thought of without the existence of our consciousness, which is within the phenomenal reality. Inside the noumenal and the phenomenal realities, the noumenal reality is a reality beyond our human comprehension. That is, it’s a reality where each and every atom or chemical reactions are relevant and calculable. This is theoretically possible, assuming that the universe is able to be written in binary.
If we assume that the universe is written in binary, as the actions of the universal particles and molecules show (binary actions). The universe is a world that is probable and caused by cause and effect. “If A + b = c, then…” The universe exists in binary 1s and 0s. This would mean that the universe is able to be simulated in a deterministic fashion. If given the product of the equation, we can theoretically reverse engineer the problem to find the equation; essentially, the source code of the universe. Thus, in theory, the world is simulated and exists in a mathematical and simulated reality. While we know this in theory, it is not possible for humans to exist in this perspective. In the present and in our biased reality, we only know of the phenomenal reality that we ourselves live in and are able to think and know of.
Incomplete, Quick Note On ‘Phenomenal & Noumenal Realities’
In Kantian thought, there exist 2 realities within our world, which is the entirety of existence and everything within it. That is, the world that our senses perceive and the world as it is without our human biases that come with being conscious and ‘personal.’ Thus, the human consciousness, which is the only form of consciousness that we are aware of. The reality that we live in is phenomenal, and rather than the postmodernist, relativist reality that postmodernists suggest is our reality. The most splendid interpretation of epistemological and metaphysical would be Nietzsche’s interpretation of perspectivism and existentialism are, Nietzsche denies the existence of the noumenal world because we cannot exist without us being able to ‘know it.’
–
Perspectivism In Nature
The modern human self and its psychology are often rooted in sociology and the effects of others on the self; what is considered accepted and normal is very important, often affecting our perception of truth and values. Therefore, the truth is relative to what our surroundings dictate. This posits that there is relativity to the truth.
The truth is our belief of what we can argue ourselves to be true, often for a fact but does not require evidence in order to believe something is true. One can believe that something is true based on our own, individual knowledge of what is true. As the truth is dependent on the ability to know, and the ability to know is dependent on consciousness, that means that because the host of consciousness is biased, the rest of consciousness is biased. As the host is biased to their own consciousness and interpretations, that would mean that people’s truths are biased and up to their own interpretations. I.e., we can’t know more than what we think we know. Reality relies on awareness since the world, and our reality, cannot exist otherwise. The truth and reality depend on what we think we know.
An example of this would be in the character of Albert. Albert is very similar to the likes of you and me, having gone through childhood and the upbringing of someone within modern civilization. Although Albert himself does not consider himself a psychologist or a philosopher, he does dabble in such tendencies.
When presented with an epistemological question of “knowledge” and whether Albert knows that something is undeniably true, he would answer that, yes, indeed he does. Some believe that it is necessary to be able to feel something and confirm it with one’s own senses in order to believe it, but that notion is juvenile; one can simply be rational in their approach. However, if we do not rely solely on our senses, then we must rely heavily on our minds and our own preconceived notions.
If Albert is asked whether his dearest friend, Jean, has biological organs and a brain or not, instinctively anyone would volunteer an answer; yes, as Jean is a human, Jean has biological organs. However, what evidence does Albert have in order to prove that Jean has organs and a heart? As a man of science, doesn’t he feel compelled to find concrete proof? The only way to find concrete proof would be to examine Jean’s body itself, which Albert has never before done. Thus, why is it that we know that Jean has a heart despite us not being able to sense it (other than through perhaps hearing)?
That is because we made an assumption based on preconceived notions and facts that we hold to be self-evident. Even if it is not absolute, we feel that it is absolute because it is the most likely. This branch of philosophy would be that of Nietzschean perspectivism; that we only know what is available to us and our experiences. What we hold as the “truth” or reality of things depends on our individualism, which is influenced by our sociology.
For example, for English speakers reading this, the word “angel” would most likely give you a holy, spiritual image of a divine individual. And if anyone near asks you what the word angel meant, you would then deliver them that very same answer. And if asked if that answer is true, you would respond, truthfully, with yes.
However, the definition that we gave to that very word is specific to the English language. Although it signifies a heavenly, divine image in the mind of an English speaker, the word “angel” would remind the Dutch speaker of “sting”; a painful sensation. Or perhaps it would remind the German speaker of the word “fishing rod.” In these three people’s perceptions, they are being true and honest in their interpretations of the word. Within a room, if someone gave these three people a simple prompt, with only the word “angel,” all three of them would have separate, unrelated ideations of the word’s definition. Yet, while so distinctly different, all of these people believe that they are equally true in their own right. Even if you would like to investigate the etymology and genealogy of these words to find their earliest origin, the “oldest” variation of the word “angel” does not make it the most legitimate.
The goal of theories is to deobfuscate the truth, but that assumes that said truth truly exists despite one not knowing it. Humans can never truly know, but we know that we know. We have replaced the conscious God with an unconscious one. Shall the ruled maintain order when the ruler is dormant?
Relativist mentality: are delusions or illusions true if we can’t reasonably disprove them? The world is our own interpretation.
Lest the dictator of choice commands one to be punished by its own and only its own virtue, then the one dictator of choice and ethics is of naught by tyranny. If all choice is predetermined by the said dictator of choice, then the ethics of which are broken and reprimanded then should not be possible, lest it is caused by the dictator. If a dictator of choice exists, then one cannot be held accountable for deeds and choice, and thus are innocent. Immorality is not apparent, for there is no one true dictator of ethics.
Slovenly Scholar 