Well, okay. I was thinking of starting a blog as a way to organize my many never ending confusing thoughts. So, I will start by asking if anyone knows of any good ones? It would be totally new to the concept to me, and I don't know anything about them really. Now, one of the main reasons is I'm uncomfortable (usually) with people reading my things, so for my first confused philosophical rant, I shall post it here. I've been confused over some things for a while, and need to put them down somewhere in a (likely failed attempt) to help analyze my own ideas. If nobody answers that's fine, but two minds + are always better than one confused one. Now, my friend has been stuck on the absurdity of existence for awhile, and it is a concept I cannot will myself to look past. There is no way of knowing whether or not something is fact, for nothing is infallible. While I may think that terrorism is wrong, another will feel the opposite, and there is nothing out there that can prove whether or not one of us is more right than the other. One could argue that most people would agree with me, though, majority does not ensure correctness. It may, in some cases, imply a probability, alas, that lays far from any sort of certainty. At any rate, this line of reasoning has left me in a paradox. One of the only things I can accurately deduct without making any bold assumptions, is that I know nothing. But then, if I know nothing, I cannot know that I do not know anything, and in order to free myself from this paradox, I must know something, for I cannot know that I know nothing, or else I would know something, and that is that I do know anything. Therefore, I must know something. The question then becomes, what is that something? Well, perhaps this would land me in the lap of Rene Descartes, and I would have to accept that the only thing I can fully know is that I am a thing thinking somewhere in some form ("I think therefore I am.") Though, I would also argue that I also know I perceive. I don't know factually whether what I am perceiving is real, though I know that I am perceiving it. However, one could also point out that a perception could be interpreted to be a form of thought, which lands us back at Rene Descartes famous quote. But as we will discuss, I cannot trust the assumptions of others to be true without fully analyzing them myself, and that will perhaps be done during our discussion. Not only can I not trust any information I think I know, nor any information anyone else thinks they know, I cannot even truly trust the line of reasoning I use to reach this conclusion. Having very briefly studied psychology for only a few short weeks now in one class I can see my previous faith placed in hard determinism may be accurate - though, as we have established, I have no way of verifying it, leaving me still completely unsure. Everything we think, feel, and do, is very dependent on external forces. There is also no way of knowing whether my logic is truly objective, or rather if it is at the mercy of some other force, which it inevitably, to some extent, is. Merely by being part of a group, which we all are to some extent or another (as dictated by the 'in-group out-group concept/theory) our thoughts are influenced in a certain manner. There is no certainty that my logic has been infected by these influences. Perchance, they are guiding me towards superior logic, but alas, there is no way of verifying this, and if decisions are made merely on chance or probability, it is therefore a mathematical guarantee that so long as we base one probable decision on another, we must eventually be wrong. And building a foundation of knowledge based off of past mistakes is only going to build a structure manufactured on the principles of an impending failure. This would lead me to question traditions, something which the earliest philosophers were skeptical of. Since we are born we are instructed how to do certain things, and certain ways which are appropriate to act - but are they? And to what extent are these thoughts buried into my own subconscious? The only way to ensure that my own knowledge has not been based off of some flawed structure is to begin by doubting everything, but then the old problem already experienced by others emerges from the depths of logic's inescapable paradoxes. If I doubt everything, then I must also doubt that I am in fact doubting everything. I must also pursue the chance that I am only thinking this in the first place because of influences - but this brings us back to an issue we have already touched upon. I posed a question to my friend today. I asked him that based on how teleportation works, is the photon, or particle, or whatever the case may be, the same object that was initially used? (To put it simply, to my understanding the teleportation issue brings to light an old philosophical problem. The philosophical story goes as follows. There is a teleportation machine, but when it teleports you all the matter you consisted of is destroyed. However, all the information that was you, being all your memories, feelings, emotions, scars, thoughts, everything, is teleported to another place, and then essentially, put into a body which would look identical to you, down to the very last particle. The question then is, is that new thing you?) In short, my friend replied with an answer which said that its existence is absurd, and therefore irrelevant, which I'm sure we all will acknowledge is no legitimate response. The particle is still either it, or it is not, it being irrelevant does not make it any less so. And therein lies the problem. Just because things may not be relevant, does not make them any less than what they are, yet, I find myself incapable of decisively knowing what anything is, though they must be something. If one were to reason down to the very last possible point, then one could always find themselves developing a nihilistic view that everything is nothing - nothing matters in the end. And while things may not matter, they still are in some form. Also, that would lead the individual to acknowledge that they cannot know nothing, because that in itself is acknowledging that there was or is something, even if that something was the entity of nothing. So alas, thus far I have come to only one conclusion, and that is that I know something - what it is I know is still up for debate. My current life philosophy (or the most prominent relevant one to this conversation) relies upon the fact that nothing matters, and acknowledging that fact makes it easier to come to terms with everything. No matter my situation, what I do not have, what I have, and what I loose, is not relevant. For if nothing matters, which in the end it inevitably does not, then there is no reason to care for it. Humans typically speaking have a plateau happiness level. However, in order to have dark, you must have light, and similarly, in order to have happiness, you must know and experience sadness. (This is my first obvious assumption made, and therefore the beginning of my self contradiction) Then, in order to save yourself from such unavoidable instances, my idea is that so long as you remain completely apathetic you are safe. The catch is, one must be content about being apathetic, but of course, that in itself serves as an obvious paradox, but how to find a more reasonable option is still being mentally debated. However, my life philosophy also disobeys my most recent mental predicament, and that is that I cannot know anything for certain. Therefore, even if nothing can be verified, as we have covered, we know that that does not make it any less so. Well, there it is. Any comments, or blatant flaws in my reasoning? I know there are. Find them, and discuss them with me? Thoughts?