SO WHERE DOES CRITICAL THINKING BEGIN❓
METAFilosophy must be capable of viewing contexts differently from perspectives and not equating 'different contexts' with 'different perspectives,' even though they are distinct.
⭕️ THIS IS THE MAIN MISTAKE IN PHILOSOPHIZING THAT BECOMES THE ROOT OF MANY POLEMICS
It's necessary to understand about contexts & perspectives so that 'CRITICAL THINKING (SHARP)' doesn't become 'critical thinking (careless)'
- The overlapping awareness of contextual boundaries & perspectives in this matter leads philosophical endeavors to believe they've found the truth, when in fact, they've mispositioned it.
Because context is a domain and not a perspective within the range of that domain, in essence, different perspectives can be within the same context, or different contexts can be within the same perspective.
- 1. Such as viewing from a psychological perspective or a philosophical perspective on the context (domain) of family | Different perspectives within the same domain
- 2. Or such as viewing from the same perspective (mathematics) on issues of health & commerce (different contexts) | Same perspective but different domains (different contexts)
UNIVERSAL & RELATIVE PERSPECTIVES
🎯 The crux of this issue actually leads to one thing, that if a discussion is viewed from the perspective of universal absolutes on one hand and other perspectives relatively on the other, then the perspective is out of context.
Therefore, it cannot be said that an answer is unacceptable just because there is a difference in perspective, when in fact it is not a difference in perspective but a difference in context, when an answer is based on universal absolutes and the other perspective is relative.
- 👉 This means that the difference in relative perspectives cannot be considered as disregarding the perspective of absolutes whose hierarchy includes other relative perspectives.
- 👉 Or if the universal absolute perspective is considered not to encompass other perspectives, then it becomes clear that the discussion involves different perspectives in different realms (different contexts)."
RELATIVE & SUBJECTIVE
After understanding about context (domain, target, observed) and perspective (observer), we then look at common examples which in philosophy are misunderstood due to a lack of understanding of context and perspective. Namely, "relative" and "subjective."
- 1. RELATIVE. Something being relative doesn’t mean everything is wrong or nothing is true, but rather that relativity indicates possibility or likelihood - possibilities.
So, if there's a situation, its diversity is relative itself. A situation has possibilities - possibilities that are relative themselves.
Something being relative means there are diverse aspects, characteristics, possibilities, chances, among many possibilities (which are relative - different) of a situation (context).
- 2. SUBJECTIVE. Meanwhile, subjective doesn’t mean what is true is relative, but subjectivity is personal adaptation.
Once the possibilities (with different diversities depending on the situation) are realized, our task is to choose (differently on a personal level - subjectively).
Thus, the statement "relative subjective" is ambiguous unless it's clarified as "relatively decided subjectively" or "among the relative, chosen subjectively."
Hierarchy of Relative-Subjective
So, subjective always exists within the domain (context) of relative.
Thus, relativity and subjectivity do not negate truth, but rather affirm that the truth of a situation has characteristics (relative) that we can accept/choose subjectively (personally).
Subjectivity doesn't invalidate truth but rather affirms the difference in how individuals adapt to the offers of possibilities (which are relative - diverse).
- Therefore, truth is relative, meaning truth has its diversity which is possibility - possibilities as chances.
- Also, truth is subjective, meaning individuals have seen truth (specific situations) that offer possibilities (relative), then decided to choose (subjectively).
WITHIN ORDER
Order is not random, nor is it arbitrary. Even what is considered random is based on order (formulas - stages - algorithms).
But without oversimplifying, let's delve deeper into this matter.
Does order occur because of repetition? What kind of repetition? Repetition that forms patterns. So how are patterns formed? Because of consistency. And how is consistency formed? Because there are limits that cannot be surpassed, then it returns to its original position.
If there is no consistency, the pattern will collapse, so there will be no pattern repetition, which means there will be no order.
- So, randomness is not absolute but relative. This means it is not entirely random but relative as a characteristic of a state, which is a random pattern.
The order is the state, whereas the randomness is the diversity of an order.
If true randomness exists, then it must be ensured that the randomness is universal (comprehensive, complete) with no order at all.
- If there is no order at all, it means there is no repetition, whereas what is random must repeat to appear random.
- If there is no order at all, it means there are no patterns at all, whereas what is random must repeat so that we recognize the existence of a random pattern. If what is random has no pattern, it is unrecognizable, so why do we recognize the existence of randomness?
- If there is no order at all, it means there is no consistency, whereas what is random must be consistently random, or there will be no randomness.
So it is clear here that what is random is not entirely random, which means it is not universal but relative, which means it is merely one pattern of diversity among other patterns, that is, a random pattern that is part of order itself.
- That is why Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the facts of quantum physics show that the irregular movement of electrons does not mean complete randomness, but rather the non-random movement of electrons is still within the bounds of repetition in a consistent pattern that forms an electron cloud (like brush strokes that, although appearing irregular, still form a pattern within certain limits).
So do not philosophize in a way that makes it seem as if all meanings can be easily dismantled and reassembled without seeing the shape of their connections.
So? We accept randomness as randomness that is not entirelya random. We accept consistent randomness. A random pattern. An order that appears to form diversity (randomness) that remains consistent.
THIS IS HOW TO PHILOSOPHIZE PROPERLY. THIS IS HOW TO BE CRITICAL OF CONTEXT & PERSPECTIVE, SO AS NOT TO TWIST AND OVERLAP MEANINGS."
