MISGUIDED THINKING BUT DEEMED TRUE
Be careful in philosophy, if trained to think freely, then arbitrarily stirring up overlapping meanings.
IT'S NOT A PROBLEM IF YOU CAN DISTINGUISH, WHICH IS A JOKE AND WHICH IS SERIOUS OR WHICH IS TRUE.
It becomes troublesome if jokes are taken seriously, while serious matters are deemed true.
While jokes are just memes or twisting hierarchies of meaning for amusement. But at some point (from daily interactions) they are taken seriously just because of similarity to daily tasks. Moreover, considered true just because many follow.
They cannot distinguish what is relative (probability) from subjective (personal adaptation) and what is absolute (clear boundaries).
〰〰〰
Sometimes they do not realize they have expressed humor as a truth.
Either out of despair, or seeking a shortcut to support a wrong belief, or just rhyming 😌
Or perhaps because it's so difficult to see the logical path that it's also difficult to see its boundaries. Overlapping each other, and when traced, the paths lead in the wrong direction, ending in confusion.
I'm not saying to those who are confused searching for truth as I once found it difficult to find the boundaries of truth, and still do now.
This is normal.
The problem is that because they do not face confusion, but they create confusion themselves, then pit it against other arguments, and the confusion increases more and .... here's the funny part. ... that the increasing confusion legitimizes that there is something that becomes the scapegoat of confusion, whereas they themselves are the main cause.
What needs to be emphasized again is that it's normal to face confusion, but it's very careless when we create confusion ourselves randomly. How can this happen? How do they trivialize (randomize) in asserting mistakes?
------
Many of them master logic, understand fallacies in logic, yet easily defend wrong arguments.
Forget subjectivity. Prioritize the value of possibility. I mean, don't hide behind subjectivity, but prioritize the possibility of truth - even if it's subjective. At least during one's lifetime, they agree on a worldview. Or at least tested in experience.
If we realize the humor in reasoning, it will put us on high alert.
Here we will all learn how true philosophical foundations really yield results.
Sorry, there's no shortcut, I'm just revealing a little because my knowledge is limited, the rest we can all develop ourselves according to the uniqueness bestowed upon us by God.
- ... what's true is, if subjective SHOULD NOT judge the existence of injustice. because whatever your belief may be wrong, so what you think is unfair, could be fair
- ... or ... after humans die, there's no sign of life, then where does the sign of life disappear, if considered vanished, THIS SHOULD BE PROOF THAT it means before because parents got married, consciousness is divided from parents to their children, and there's a risk of something being lost from our parents' minds
- ... or, they demand justice, SHOULD WHEN asked to exchange places with someone more difficult for justice, they would
In short ... this is the kind of reasoning that is disordered, or forced, or simply sought for conformity without considering hierarchy or others ...
Hasty thinking!
Meme of Reasoning?
- .... Paying 500 for photocopying, but paying 2 thousand for parking, then refusing to pay for parking? or what?
- ... God is not All-Powerful, because God cannot weaken His own Power.
... Seeing is believing ... God cannot be seen, so God does not exist.
... God is not All-Powerful because angels are needed to help take lives. - ... Much injustice because some are suffering.
- ... There is no truth, because everything is subjective.
On one hand, they hastily make sounds or conclude by seeking simplicity or feeling very practical and precise in asserting haste as a truth.
While on the other hand, they do not know or pretend not to know that many reasoning are equally funny as they did before, and if accused, suddenly they evade and accuse it as absurd reasoning, even though they themselves are absurd.
Meme of Reasoning?
Example:
- ... every day after their family members wake up, they cherish them as before, THEY SHOULD SUSPECT that there may be a change in them that is harmful after waking up. Why? Every time we sleep, how can we know where the sleeper goes, then wake up with a new strategy. It could be another child waking up 😏
- ... a tame dog sleeps, AFTER the dog wakes up, there is potential for more aggression, because it briefly encountered the neighbor's lion while asleep.
- ... be careful with cars that are cherished like family members, as if alive, SHOULD SUSPECT ... perhaps there is a living energy in the car that affects the owner.
- ... we are hollow creatures, SHOULD FEEL TEMPTED THERE IS A DESIRE WHEN they say to us "you are a sturdy, solid human being.
DISTANT DEBATE
Example of Confused Debate
- ... affirmation "bread is food"
=> confused debate "bread is on top of cow dung, therefore bread is not food" - ... affirmation "lion is a wild animal"
=> confused debate "lion can be tamed, therefore not wild" - ... affirmation "God Exists"
=> confused debate "He is Almighty but there is injustice, so God doesn't exist"
The confusion here arises because the response (debate - rebuttal) is in a different domain from the affirmation.
This confusion can be corrected through understanding like this:
- ... if something exists, no matter how contradictory its nature is, it doesn’t negate its existence
- ... if a tendency exists, no matter how its change occurs, the tendency remains
- ... if its nature exists, no matter how its intensity decreases, its nature remains
- ... if the cause is acknowledged, then any consequence cannot negate the cause
WHY SHOULD IT BE LIKE THIS?
Because if something is affirmed, then other things related to it cannot negate the certainty of that thing in any way.
- ... If something is affirmed, there will be no contradiction on the other side except just presumed contradictions or different perspectives.
- ... If there are many presumed contradictions to an affirmation, it means the affirmation is not affirmed.
In simpler terms: if I have just drunk water, then any presumption from those who believe that I have not drunk water must be rejected by me and anyone who realizes my condition of having drunk water.
- In short, if they refute the affirmation from the furthest angle, they actually are not confident in the evidence of the affirmation from the closest angle.
Perspective. Most of them engage in debate from the farthest angle of an affirmation, but they think they have proven the error of the affirmation from the closest angle.
In formal terms: proving out of context without their realization
- They thought they were close, have embraced, have tasted, when in fact they have only been peering from afar. Weak debate!
⭕️ THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE PHILOSOPHIZING, when in fact they are swaying back and forth.
