Why are we told to avoid pleasurable things? (mostly)

One of the many questions posed by Shelby as end of the year thought provokers caught my eye and I figured I would respond to it.

Shelby asks why we are told to avoid pleasurable things, but I ask where and when were you or anybody told this?

I have been taught from the youngest age to seek out things that make me happy, things that give me pleasure, things that give me pain of some sort, I was told to avoid.
I feel that there are many human being that follow this theory of life. In fact the theory is even bolstered by Freud's publicized theory.

The pleasure principle is a psychoanalytic concept, originated by Sigmund Freud. The pleasure principle states that people seek pleasure and avoid pain, i.e., people seek to satisfy biological and psychological needs.An individual's id follows the pleasure principle and rules early life, but, as one matures, one learns the need to endure pain and defer gratification, because of the exigencies and obstacles of reality. In Freud's words, “an ego thus educated has become reasonable; it no longer lets itself be governed by the pleasure principle, but obeys the reality principle, which also at bottom seeks to obtain pleasure, but pleasure which is assured through taking account of reality, even though it is pleasure postponed and diminished”.

My question is: Where are there examples of people being taught to avoid pleasurable things or activities?

The Gestalt Effect

The Gestalt effect refers to the form-forming capability of our senses, particularly with respect to the visual recognition of figures and whole forms instead of just a collection of simple lines and curves. In psychology, gestaltism is often opposed to structuralism and Wundt. The phrase "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" is often used when explaining Gestalt theory.

The investigations developed at the beginning of the 20th century, based on traditional scientific methodology, divided the object of study into a set of elements that could be analyzed separately with the objective of reducing the complexity of this object. Contrary to this methodology, the school of Gestalt practiced a series of theoretical and methodological principles that attempted to redefine the approach to psychological research.
The theoretical principles are the following:
--Principle of Totality - The conscious experience must be considered globally (by taking into account all the physical and mental aspects of the individual simultaneously) because the nature of the mind demands that each component be considered as part of a system of dynamic relationships.
--Principle of psychophysical isomorphism - A correlation exists between conscious experience and cerebral activity.
Based on the principles above the following methodological principles are defined:
--Phenomenon Experimental Analysis - In relation to the Totality Principle any psychological research should take as a starting point phenomena and not be solely focused on sensory qualities.
--Biotic Experiment - The School of Gestalt established a need to conduct real experiments which sharply contrasted with and opposed classic laboratory experiments. This signified experimenting in natural situations, developed in real conditions, in which it would be possible to reproduce, with higher fidelity, what would be habitual for a subject.

I read a separate article on the Gestalt Effect in relation to seeing faces in the clouds or in an irregular grain of wood, etc. and I do not fully understand the effect yet, and I'm not exactly sure where this post is going, but I am fairly certain of the relativity it possesses in correlation to the course material so I'm curious how R.C. and Gestalt react with one another.

The ineffectiveness of Radical Constructivism

Have you ever been in an argument with your mother about the way life works and she obviously (hopefully) knows more about it than you do, and she eventually says that single thing that you don't really know anything about, and you are struggling to argue with the fact because you simply cannot refute it based on the fact that you don't know enough. Are a discussion with a doctor in which you say "I've heard this about that medication..." and the response is something along the lines of "Yes,but you need to have this condition and it only happens to a few people." You can't argue with this information because you don't know enough to disprove what has been said;to argue with what has been said. A similar phenomenon comes into play when discussing the theory of Radical Constructivism. Not the details of the discussion,but the outcome of the opponent; he/she is left feeling helpless because the theory is, admittedly by R.C.'s irrefutable. The idea that a Radical Constructivist does not care whether or not he/she is right and is only concerned with whether or not ideas fit with particular individuals makes the theory itself lack 'substance of argument.' (This term is developed by my family and myself). Substance of argument in itself refers to an arguments ability to be seen in more than one scenario and is disproved, or able to be disproved. There is no proof in R.C. just words. No statements are made other than that truth is relative. Radical Constructivism does not get the thinker anywhere in reality. I disagree with R.C. not as a whole, but the problem is R.C.'s don't even care.

Is there an effective argument to a person who does not care about right or wrong?

Absolute truth and the relativeness of it

You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth…

"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.

"No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement is true.

It is safe to assume that there are philosophers who actually spend countless hours toiling over thick volumes written on the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume they think the text is meaningful! Then there are those philosophy teachers who teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth." Then they turn around and grade the papers!

Joel's Truth Equation

In class today(4/26) we discussed the equations to find truth for the view of realism and constructivism. The realists truth was based on how claims corresponded with how the world actually is. While the constructivists truth was based on how claims fit with their own personal experience. I am definitely and admittedly more inclined to subscribe to the realists point of view, but not yet ready to completely disregard the constructivists truth equation. While I believe a balance between the two would be the optimal solution, along with a few other characteristics, I have developed a, perhaps rough, truth equation of my own.

T= C -->Q --> R --> C --> Correspondence --> World

The T represents the truth or supposed truth (i.e. the world is round) The first C represents a claim about this truth. Then my though process is to question this claim hence the next arrow is represented with a Q. After questioning the previous claim and perhaps discovering something new or different or false about it the claim is reformed into a more accurate legitimate claim, thus the stages R (reformation) and the second C (claim). After this slightly different process I would then assess how the claim corresponds to how the world is in order to justify its truth value.

After pondering for a while about how I think, I asked myself if there is anything this cannot be applied to, in other words is there anything I don't think about, or is there any point that one does not think?

Difference between Conceptualizing and Experiencing

The difference between the two terms seems to be baffling at first, but upon further research and examination of the lexical definitions and various articles in which the terms are used I believe I have a decent differentiating characteristic.

To experience something is to accumulate knowledge or skills by directly participating in events or activities. When you experience a concert or a piece of artwork you have developed skills in order to perhaps discuss the nature of the artist. When you experience an apple you understand the dimensions of the apple you are viewing or have previously viewed you understand the colors, the tastes, etc. When you conceptualize something you invent it. To conceptualize an artwork means to create it. The viewer of artwork is the "experiencer" and the creator of the artwork is the conceptualizer. When you conceptualize an apple you create its colors, tastes and dimensions. So the difference is found in the position of the person discussing whether or not he/she experiences or conceptualizes. The question is whether you view or create.

My question is can you conceptualize an experience, or can experiences only be experiences to an individual?

Argument against Nihilism

Depends on what sort of Nihilist you are!

If you say "life has no inherent meaning or purpose", I would say "sure, but so what?". It doesn't change the basic dynamics of what makes life *work*, which is the true basis of morality.

If you say "life has no inherent meaning, and therefore there's no basis for morality", I would say you're wrong: that's making the meaninglessness of life MEAN something, yes? That's screwed up: life doesn't mean anything, and it doesn't MEAN anything that it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean you get to shoot your neighbor or steal his Rolex. That's giving meaning to the meaninglessness.

If you say "life has no meaning, and therefore I'm depressed", I'd say "you've missed the personal responsibility aspect of this theory". Life has no *inherent* meaning, that doesn't mean there's no meaning to MY life. It means that without the subject, in a purely objective perspective, there's no meaning. But put subjects in, and then you have got something.

Life is rich and abundant with meaning: Anybody who is depressed or justifying selfishness and crime because of life's lack of inherent meaning isn't doing philosophy, they're just malfunctioning.

What legitimate arguments are there for Nihilism? How do they (nihilists) make sense of other philosophical theories if at all?

Solipsism and its problems.

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is certain to exist. Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.

Problem One: Explaining Solipsism to someone
However a problem is faced in Solipsism when you try to explain this belief to someone else. You see, it is nearly impossible to convince anyone that this could be true. There are only two ways to convince someone that Solipsism is true:

You have to convince them that *they* are valid, and that you yourself are a projection of their own self. However they'll know you can't possibly believe this yourself.

So, you have to convince them that they are a projection of your imagination. Which they simply will never believe, because they are conscious themselves.
It appears, using this simplistic approach to Solipsism, to be impossible to state that you yourself are the only valid consciousness in a meaningful way, because anyone who you tell it to will automatically disbelieve you. That is a major problem, it makes Solipsism workable only as a completely private belief. It doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true, if you do honestly believe that all the people around you are automatons of your own creation, and do not possess independent consciousness.

Problem Two: There can only be one!
It seems only one person in the world can be a solipsist and be correct in their belief. If two Solipsists ever meet, one of them are wrong in their belief. This problem begins to appear as a symptom of a great problem of solipsism: It might not actually be true.

Can somebody refute my problems?

How do you truly know someone response

In response to Becky's doubting of a characteristic (s) due to a lack of experience: I feel that the view of not truly knowing someone due to the simple fact of not meeting them is legitimate, but a step further than that bring the information giver into question. What details of said "non-existent" person are being presented to you and how well do you know the person giving them to you? I think knowing people and their particular characteristics and habits and emotions is a step by step process that takes years and cannot be understood through he said she said. By understanding the one talking about another person you should already comprehend that due to an inclination to gossip about others, that particular information may not be so reliable. So in order to actually know what this mystery person is or does you must physically spend extensive amounts of time with he/she otherwise an acceptable evaluation of who a person actually is would not be so.

My question is what techniques can people employ to truly understand people one on one? For example if I am meeting a new friend or person, what can I do to ensure this person is being honest?

Could psychological time beat physical time?

Response to Sarah's last post.

In the basic sense, psychological time is not a tangible source of measuring schedules by checking the time on the clock. In it is that sort of time that deals with the degree of significance a certain person assigns to his/her past, present and future- which mainly are the three important dimensions of psychological time. For every person, psychological time differs as each person has a specific and distinct mode of priority with regards to assigning importance to different dimensions (phases) of his/her life.

For instance if a person has a past orientation, that person relives old days of their life, considers the old methods and approaches of life far superior to contemporary practices. Not only that but the person also sees events as recurring and circular. In other words, according to a past-oriented person, the theories and practices of the past are verily applicable in the courses of both present and future.

As for persons who have a present orientation, they live for the present and don't care either about the past or about the future. According to their standpoints, the present is the ultimate determinant that will comprehend the course of their lives. Past and future holds no importance for present-oriented people.

The last dimension, that is the future-oriented dimension, involves those people, who live for the future that is, they sacrifice their present luxuries and pleasure in order to secure a comfortably lasting future.

Given these dimensions of psychological time, one may assume that human, that is, normal human psychology, perception and corroboration are necessary in order to judge and make use of them. In a sensory deprivation chamber these three dimensions are blurred and eventually meaningless because without chronos or clock time human's seem to be unable to distinguish realities, let alone psychological time dimensions. So in relation to that, what would a reality look like without the institution of time?

What is time...to you?

We all know what time is. It's the ticking of a clock, the whine of an alarm, the calendar on the wall. And since we all agree about how those things work, time can seem as solid as a rock.

In fact, it's a lot more squishy. Our calendars are imperfect. We need a leap day to keep them in line with the seasons, and even so, time will eventually get away from us. "If you feel there aren't enough hours in a day, just wait," says Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "In a few hundred million years, tidal friction will have slowed Earth's rotation to make the day 25 hours long."

If that doesn't make your head spin, consider that in physics, motion alters time; in psychology, different stimuli alter our perception of time; and in philosophy, there's disagreement on whether time is even real.

I attempted to find a few scholars that comment on what time is and compiled three or four of them through the following short quotes:
"From a gerontologist's standpoint, biological time is not wear-and-tear, it's a genetic program," says Michael West. "It's sort of like a time bomb. The cells are programmed to last just long enough for us to rear children, and no longer."

Thank goodness for spiritual counselors--and drugs. The Rev. Jacqueline Lewis, senior minister at Middle Collegiate Church in New York, says that while we may be most familiar with chronos, or clock time, we should also be aware of kairos, or God's time. "It's what the theologian [and Narnia author] C.S. Lewis called 'God's unbounded now,' where now is both this moment--right now--and what stretches into eternity." If you get frustrated waiting for your prayers to be answered, remember that "when God comes, it's always the right time."

Spiritual guide and alternative medicine expert Deepak Chopra, warns of the dangers of a hectic lifestyle.

"People who feel that they are 'running out of time' have speeded up their biological clocks," says Chopra. "They have faster heart rates and jittery platelets with high levels of adrenaline. When they drop dead from a premature heart attack, they have literally 'run out of time.'"

With so many definitions of time and so many aspects and characteristics of time, it is difficult to nail down a definition that is both universal and accurate. So my question is, beyond lengthy conditional definitions and philosophically accurate descriptions of time, what does time mean to you?

Wiping the world clean : Does time exist without humans?

There is no question that we experience what we call time. There is a precision with which we can measure the progression of events over time that is phenomenally accurate. Things age and particles decay over “time” and it is consistent. However, physical laws that use time as a reference work equally well for time reversal - going backward – a particle hitting another particle, generating other particles and emitting photons will work just as well running backward according to physics. We just have never experienced time reversal and this disconnect with the laws of physics seems to be a mystery. This disconnect is used by many to express the opinion that time exists. However the fact remains that equations of space and time break down at certain points and time falls out of some of them as an unnecessary factor.
Beyond the question of whether or not time exists without the mind is does time exist at all? Or is that the same question? Is existence of anything comprehensible and extractable without the recognition and corroboration of the human understanding/ conceptual mind?
With the understanding that the past no longer exists and the future is only potential and these two nothings are separated by an ongoing ever growing present that moves so quickly that humans cannot make sense of it, then this alone allows one to logically conclude that time does not exist. Past equals nothing; future equals nothing; present equals nothing. Time is sections of nothing all separated by nothingness.
With the question of whether or not time is real or arbitrary still unsure to me I ask whether time flows or rather do we flow through it?

Egalitarianism vs. Envy or Egalitarianism based on envy

At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are socialism, communism, anarchism, left-libertarianism, and progressivism, all of which propound economic, political, and legal egalitarianism, respectively. Several egalitarian ideas enjoy wide support among intellectuals and in the general populations of many countries. Whether any of these ideas have been significantly implemented in practice, however, remains a controversial question.
One argument is that liberalism provides democracy with the experience of civic reformism. Without it, democracy loses any tie - argumentative or practical - to a coherent design of public policy endeavoring to provide the resources for the realization of democratic citizenship. For instance, some argue that modern representative democracy is a realization of political egalitarianism, while others believe that, in reality, most political power still resides in the hands of a ruling class, rather than in the hands of the people.

Envy may be defined as an emotion that occurs when a person lacks another's (perceived) superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it.
Envy can also derive from a sense of low self-esteem that results from an upward social comparison threatening a person's self image: another person has something that the envier considers to be important to have. If the other person is perceived to be similar to the envier, the aroused envy will be particularly intense, because it signals to the envier that it just as well could have been he or she who had the desired object.
Bertrand Russell said envy was one of the most potent causes of unhappiness. It is a universal and most unfortunate aspect of human nature because not only is the envious person rendered unhappy by his envy, but also wishes to inflict misfortune on others. Although envy is generally seen as something negative, Russell also believed that envy was a driving force behind the movement towards democracy and must be endured in order to achieve a more just social system.

When juxtaposed I feel that without a doubt the social convention and invention of egalitarianism is a last, most powerful effort to avoid envy.

Given that egalitarianism is meant to provide equal opportunities to everyone, why is it so central in governmental thinking? More precisely, can government exist in an egalitarian society?

Vegetarianism is hard if you eat meat!

As the son of a devout and zealous vegetarian I've been exposed to the lifestyle for many years. 18 in fact. Up until I was 18 I was a strong follower of Kashrut (kosher law in Judaism) and had little option to eat a large amount of meat. From birth to the age of seven I was a vegetarian so I have a slightly more intimate understanding than I would otherwise have were I never a vegetarian. However, since being 18 I have experimented with various foods of which a large portion is new meats, pork included.
After the last article and discussion on moral justification and necessity of meat in the human diet I debated with myself and decided to try to be a vegetarian again to see if I felt any different or any worse, etc. After four days of strict vegetarianism utilizing the likes of Quorn products and veggie stir fry with little to no fat to cook with, and other BM inducing foods I was forced to cave, whether due to my weak will or dietary needs. My body yearned for that hamburger and as soon as the opportunity arose where meat was one of fewer options I gave in and got the burger and MAN did it taste good!
I couldn't ave possibly predicted how difficult it would be to wean myself off of meat especially as I have been a veggie before. If people don't really need to eat meat why does it seem to be such an intrinsic hard to shake habit?

Response to Abigal Lindamood

This is a response to the question what makes an issue socially taboo, thus difficult to discuss in society?
The answer is in the question. Society makes things taboo or dangerous to talk about. Many times I have the conversation with my friends as to whether or not I feel "awkward" and I answer the same way every time. I say that I never feel awkward, but I understand that whatever it is I may be talking about can make those I am talking to, uncomfortable. Thus, the subject, whatever it may be, becomes a touchy subject.
When discussing anything with my parents I know, through years of training, what is appropriate to say and what isn't. However, these things, whether it be the content or the way in which I convey information change when I am talking to my friends and they change even further when I am discussing with my close friends. So issues that are taboo are only taboo to certain or people or a certain population. Saying God doesn't exist would be quite taboo in an orthodox mikvah or a protestant church, but go to a college philosophy course, and you may find it a central issue of discussion. The issues that are taboo like sex, religion, beauty, to name a few broad ones are only taboo to people uncomfortable with talking about them. Sex might be uncomfortable to talk about with your parents, religion might be uncomfortable to discuss with a rabbi or priest, and beauty may be uncomfortable to talk about with somebody who has had an eating disorder. Every topic of discussion is uncomfortable somewhere and normal somewhere else.

The meaning of life for animals Re: Becky-Jo

First off, I feel the question what is the meaning of life to animals is one of insurmountable subjectivity, especially considering we have not even nailed down the meaning of life for ourselves. Obviously, this is a more lighthearted subject, after all I feel we cannot really infer what the actual meaning of life to non-human animals is because we are not one. I shall do my best to respond to the question at hand, however.

I would say the meaning of life to an animal is just that, to live. I might be way off base in assuming that animals have no need or time to consider what they want to do with their lives, what to be when they grow up, what they should invest their money in, whether or not God exists, or contemplate when they are going to die. Animals seem to want or need a few things, these being, the need to eat, sleep, have sex, rinse and repeat. Granted I might be skipping over some things, like social interaction or bathing. However, I think that animals know more than we do and thus require less time for pondering such ideas like the meaning of life. In short I would assert that the meaning of living to an animal is basic functions for survival and I feel that humans could learn a lot if they stopped questioning and just started living.

potentiality vs. speciesism

In class today, the subject of potentiality was brought up. My understanding of the subject as explained by various participating members of the class is as follows: An object or being can be judged in numerous ways, one of which being its potential. Stated another way an ethical choice can be made towards or rather between two objects based on either's potential. An example of this theory being the question which is more important the acorn or the leaf of the oak tree. Theoretically the most 'choice' answer would be the acorn seeing as it has the potential to become a brand new oak tree while the leaf just sadly seeps into the soil and is slowly forgotten. However, another topic discussed was that of speciesism. This being the perhaps immoral favoring of ones own species over another. My curiosity is whether or not potentiality can outweigh speciesism, or the affects of it. To put it into exact circumstances: If for some hypothetical situation a human being had to make a decision as to whether or not a baby child died or a monkey used in science died. Hopefully, most people would choose, no matter how unfortunate to kill the monkey used in science, perhaps simply because it is a baby and they are our own species or perhaps the baby is viewed as having more potential then the monkey when the baby grows up. I want to examine the latter example more closely. If the baby, say a one year old is seen as having eventual potential, more so than the monkey of science then a human would be inclined, more to the point, obligated to save the baby's life. However, what if the baby had a disease that would prevent he or she from reaching this potential. Say, for example the child is born with Tay-Sachs or encephalitis and the monkey is completely healthy and able to make solid contributions to the scientific community. Would the lack of potential in the human child make the human deciding which life to save, choose the monkey? Or more generally, does potential or in this case a lack of outweigh the intrinsic speciesism, perhaps biologically imprinted in human beings?

Knowledge vs perception re: Tomasi

I think there is often a discrepancy between the experience of seeing and the knowledge or expectation of what we are seeing.
That being said, I believe the assertion that both fact and perception or valid forms of knowledge, I don't believe there is a consistent way of discerning between the methods of internalizing said knowledge. Meaning that, if you could prove ( I don't believe you can, hence the nature of my response) beyond any reasonable doubt that a "fact" is actually a truth of the world that proven truth would be no different then if you were to state that a red balloon is actually blue. To the person claiming the balloon is blue that balloon is blue, end of conversation. No amount of intense influence by way of scientific fact or rigorous rhetoric would prove otherwise to this person. So whilst both forms of discovering knowledge are legitimate there is no way to differentiate between which is which.

Naturally, supernatural?

What is naturalism? It is not really a philisophical system so much as a point of view or tendency common to a number of philosophical and religious systems. Rather than a well-defined set of doctrines, it is more an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines.

Naturalism is the belief that all objects, events, and even values can be fully explained in terms of factual and/or causal claims about the natural world. Nature is regarded the one original and fundamental source of all that exists. The limits of nature are also the limits of existing reality and knowledge. A more specific form, Materialistic Naturalism, asserts that matter is the only reality and that all the laws of the universe are reducible to mechanical laws.

All forms of naturalism, from what research i have done, explicitly reject any reference to or reliance upon supernatural powers or authority.

What is supernaturalism? Just the opposite - the belief that events and values require supernatural powers or authority for their explanation. Natural explanations may be reliable on an immediate level, but they in turn must eventually require a supernatural cause. According to supernaturalism, a supernatural order is the original and fundamental source of all that exists. It is this supernatural order which defines the limits of what may be known.

So the main problem I have with both "definitionally" speaking, is : How can something natural be viewed through a supernatural lens and vice versa? If this is possible at all?

Is it more reasonable to be a naturalist, or does the evidence support being a supernaturalist?

Beginnings of Beauty

Beauty as defined by wikipedia ( obviously not the most reputable of sources)is as follows : "Beauty is a characteristic of a person, animal , place, object, or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure, meaning or satisfaction."
This definition seems to eliminate the physical aspects of "materialistic" beauty, but I still find opaque nooks and crannies.

This conversation is, again admittedly, over my head, but I'm doing my best to stay afloat and shout out ideas, but I fear with my shouting I've ingested to much water from this ocean of ideology and I'm going to be sick. Beauty is something I believe is meant to be universal; rather I feel most people want it to be universal or are looking for there to be an agreed upon definition. Taken at a glance beauty may seem to have a singular definition. This definition being something to do with face value or physical appearance. This "shallow" definition is overshadowed when you peer at beauty. After taking this longer look at beauty you realize one person's definition of beauty is most likely significantly different than another's and that extends to members of the same culture. If you cross culturally compare definitions of beauty you quickly arrive at the unsolvable puzzle that is universally defining a word as complicated as beauty. How can one person's definition of beauty be more valuable, more correct, or even more applicable than another persons definition? Why are people so interested and invested in defining and or discovering what beauty actually is?

Are things constructed not true? Re: Burke

I believe, that truth is strictly construction. How could truth be anything other than construction, when the discussion of "Truth" is conducted by flawed, unknowing beings? Humans are taught what is true and what is false from a young age and most do not have interest in delving into whether or not what they were taught is actually correct. Is it possible that everything we know about physics is wrong? Or, everything we have been fed on subjects like history or politics is lies developed by the craftiest of thinkers? Who knows? However, what I do believe, strongly, is that human beings possess the ability to construct truth. Truth does not construct reality, rather humans do so by creating their own "truths." So I would submit that all things constructed are true, at least at one point in time. However, to further question I ask the following: How can one evaluate reality without filtering it through their own version of reality?

The sense of Truth

Admittedly, I am no authority on the difference between reality and how human beings perceive reality. In fact, I am confronted with a major struggle to even begin discerning between the two. My version of reality is what I hold, with sufficient bolstering evidence, to be "the" case. However, that being said, I have very little comprehension of extrinsic universes or realities to my own. After all, how could one think of something not in their mind, never mind make sense of it. Epistemology is referred to as a map, but this map only extends as far as the corners of OUR minds. Granted, to limit oneself to a singular possibility would inevitably turn out to be quite boring, but a bore we are doomed to endure. The question of what else exists beyond us, to me, is impossible to answer, unless we have a literal out of body experience, on the other hand we would need more than an out of body experience, we would need to have an out of mind experience which would lead to the experience not being intrinsic to the person in the first place.