🎯 Relevance (Exist-NonExist)
🎯 Relevance (Exist & Beyond)
🎯 Relevansi (Direct Evidence)
Generally, those who philosophize get entangled in such upside-down thinking that they fail to recognize the boundaries of truth. They overlap ideas, they thought it's correct, when in fact all the consequences have been clearly absurd.
These subtle differences are precisely what puts them in a position to decide and judge where they shouldn't.
Furthermore, the errors in reasoning are carried over to other matters, further complicating the other side, piling up. One truth is covered up with layers of tangled threads.
Subjective & Relative
For example, mixing up subjective and relative, then saying...
"This is relative," "This is subjective," or even "What's relative" is considered subjective.
Generalization
That's the confusion in reasoning that originally stems from everyday conversations through the concept of generalization (similar to GPT). Where the meaning of a word isn't truly understood according to its limits, but only understood based on habitual patterns, such that if someone says this or that, usually it means a certain direction.
♦️However, two things can be veary different, yet considered the same and proven to yield the expected results.
- Example: There's a similarity between "needed" and "must," where both are contexts of "being pressed." But the urgency is actually different, where what's needed doesn't require and what must is definitely needed.
Similarity & Habit
SIMILARITY. Differences between two things aren't seen; only their similarities are used according to habit.
So when they seriously examine its reality, they confuse themselves because they're used to seeing its similarities, thus not seeing the boundaries that differentiate, preventing overlapping absurd thoughts.
So those who think there's a similarity between two things is merely based on SIMILARITY + HABIT = SAME ❓ Yet similarity & habit doesn't mean there's any similarity.
Context Concealed
Just saying "this is relative," "this is subjective," as if they understand the context, talking about "doubtful things." Yet "doubt" in relation to "subjectivity" & "relativity" isn't as simple as considering them one and the same between "subjective" & "relative." Both share different contexts.
Simply because of the SIMILARITY between "subjective" & "relative" there's doubt, uncertainty, then HABIT makes it seem that subjective & relative share the same occurrences (used for the same cases) which is doubting, thus both become "subjective" & "relative" considered the same. WHEN IN REALITY, THEY'RE VASTLY DIFFERENT
Not to mention issues of "perspective" & "context," where what's considered the same perspective means the same context, which isn't the case
Because of their similarity, they're considered the same + proven beneficial in everyday conversations, thus equating the dissimilar & distinguishing the undifferentiated.
Perspective & Context. Context is the territory, whereas perspective is the direction we look within a specific territory (context).
- 〰 Seeing a house from different contexts means seeing different sides of the house (its facade, porch, bedroom, roof, kitchen).
- 〰 Viewing a house from different perspectives means looking at the same house but from a different angle. Observing from the same spot, the house's garden, but examining it from the garden's edge or from the middle of the garden.
SUBJECTIVE & RELATIVE. Similarly, subjective & relative aren't just related to (the presence of) doubt, but they're different.
- 〰 Where if relative means possibilities that exist. In other words, what's relative are the characteristics of something.
ABSOLUTE & RELATIVE
The absolute is what we encounter. And what we encounter is relative because there are many elements of a house, ranging from the roof, garage, kitchen, living room, and others.
- 〰 Meanwhile, subjectivity comes into play when I or others have different responses to the qualities of things that are relative. It's also subjective when I compare renovation costs as either cheap or expensive.
- 〰 So subjectivity considers (questions) the relative possibilities inherent in something that is recognized as absolute.
✅ ABSOLUTE. The absolute cannot be challenged—it's a house, and everywhere everyone will agree it's a house—a place to live with relative characteristics.
✅ Something is relative because it's one of the many possibilities of something. A glass is absolutely something, as long as we're not holding anything other than a glass. And the glass is relative because its state can't be determined when it's being used, washed, broken, filled, or empty.
✅ Because once something is recognized, its existence is absolute. Because once it's existed before, its existence is absolute and can't be denied.
- 〰 Meanwhile, the diversity in appearance, ability, characteristics, is subject to change depending on the situation. It can't be absolutely certain that something that absolutely exists is in a specific condition only, but its condition can be relatively different depending on the situation & circumstances (sitting, walking).
❇️ SO SUBJECTIVITY ARISES BECAUSE OF CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE NO LONGER SUBJECTIVE ONCE DECIDED
❇️ RELATIVITY IS ABOUT POSSIBILITIES THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED. SO OUR SUBJECTIVITY CONSIDERS THE RELATIVE ASPECTS OF SOMETHING THAT ABSOLUTELY EXISTS
❇️ AND, CONTEXT IS THE AREA WHERE WE OBSERVE, THE PLACE WHERE PERSPECTIVES CAN COME FROM DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS
- 〰 So one place (one context) can be observed from different directions (perspectives - observation points).
- 〰 Its context is the territory of a country, but can be observed from different points of view (political or economic). However, the context can change to a different country's territory, but the main topic remains the same regarding politics or economics.
ABSOLUTE & UNIVERSAL
The falling of a stone on Earth is not universal because a stone thrown in a place with low gravity will actually be thrown upward.
A rotation inside Earth isn't absolute because of friction, but a rotation in space tends to continue, so its condition isn't certain—it's relative depending on its location—not universal.
- 〰 However, it's absolute that under Earth's conditions with all its rules, gravity will pull something downward.
- 〰 It's also absolute that if conditions in space are governed by the same laws as inside Earth, the consequences will also be the same as on Earth.
SIMPLIFIED LANGUAGE ...
- 1⃣ Subjective means being considered as an adaptation effort
👉 Considered, adaptation - 2⃣ Relative involves many possibilities that can differ according to situations & conditions, but still within certain limits (absolute)
👉 Possibilities, diversity, different situations, different abilities, different conditions - 3⃣ Context is within a specific working area
👉 Specific area, specific reference point, specific workplace, specific focus point - 4⃣ Perspective is at a specific observation point in a particular area (location - context)
👉 Direction of observation, category or subcategory
HIERARCHY
Relative is found within something that absolutely exists, as something relative (the nature of "being").
Subjectivity exists within the realm of the relative.
Perspective exists within a particular area (context).
🔰 Understanding all of these aspects, which are often confusing in philosophy, enables us to see subjectivity, relativity, and absoluteness from specific contexts & perspectives—from narrow to universal—while being able to discern their subtle boundaries, thus avoiding confusion by what seems true but is actually absurd.
ETERNAL
When something is eternal, has it existed since ancient times or has it just been keeping alive to ensure its existence?
If something has just come into being, then it is not eternal.
If something has always existed because its non-existence is impossible, that doesn't mean it is eternal unless it is being kept alive after being newly created.
When I do something, its occurrence (consequence) has just happened, but its occurrence is not eternal from time immemorial alongside me.
If its occurrence has just come into being and before it happened, it already existed with me, that doesn't mean its occurrence is eternal.
I have the power to create something. If something has just come into being because of my power, it is not eternal because what is eternal is my power, not the thing itself.
If water freezes, then the ice has just come into being, but it doesn't mean the ice is eternal from ancient times because when the ice disappears, only water remains, and the ice had a beginning.
If it's said that the characteristic of freezing has existed since ancient times along with the water, then actually what is eternal is not the ice but the characteristic of the water. In the complete absence of ice, only water exists.
📌 Similarly, when it's said that God has the power to create the universe, it doesn't mean that because the universe cannot come from nothingness, it has existed since ancient times with God, and therefore, the universe is eternal ❌
- 〰 Before the universe was created, only God existed; there was no universe. Or if we involve the universe, then what is eternal is not the universe but God's power.
❇️ SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ETERNAL & KEPT ALIVE, WHERE THE ETERNAL IS INDEPENDENT (IN ITSELF), WHILE THE UNETERNAL IS DEPENDENT ON ITS CAUSE
- 〰 The universe or a specific state, or a certain possibility, or its diversity or relativity, depends on its absolute cause.
Because if there are two eternals that are independent of each other, from the standpoint of reason and faith, everything becomes contradictory.
BURDEN OF PROOF
Just because someone denies something, does that mean there's no burden of proof?
Many try to evade by saying, 'If it exists, then prove it.' But if I believe it doesn't exist, how do I prove it? So, is there no burden to prove for those who deny the existence of something? Is that it?
What's the trick here? Is it from a freethinker or a freakthinker?
If you reject something, it doesn't mean you're free to claim, 'No need to prove something that consider doesn't exists.'
BUT, PROVE THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO BE EXISTS❗️
Actually, when someone asserts something, there should be a reason.
And asserting the absence of something also requires a reason (burden of proof). It's just generally not understood.
If someone rejects something, at the very least there should be evidence showing the impossibility of 'its existence.'
Simply put, prove the absence of traces of something considered non-existent.
✅ Let's avoid speaking without evidence, assuming proof isn't necessary; that's how it is.
❇️ For example, 'There was a duck-headed apple strolling along the roadside this morning.'
Then someone refutes it by asserting, 'That didn't happen.'
I would counter with, 'Prove your denial.'
They should then say, 'There are no signs characterizing an apple (here, they must show the absence of signs - apple tracks, head tracks, etc.).'
✅ In short, denial still requires proof. Specifically, proof of 'impossibility,' because those making the claim are proving 'possibility of existence,' thus those refuting the claim need to prove the impossibility of its existence.
❇️ This doesn't mean those who reject don't need to prove; they still need to prove the absence of its traces, its impossibility.
DEGREES OF REALITY
Whether it's an illusion, a dream, a flying dragon above the rooftops, or even the most deceptive hoax, it's all real.
A dragon dancing while eating a flying banana over the rooftops? I believe it could happen.
Why? ...
- 1⃣ First, because everything influences our perception, allowing us to be aware of it.
- 2⃣ Second, it has an impact on us.
However, the question is, how real is something?
How influential is something? That varies, there are different degrees of reality.
RESPONDING WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF REALITY
Because once something has existed, it can’t be deemed impossible.
If something once existed and is then considered non-existent, where does it disappear to? Into absolute nonexistence? ❌
Or does what once existed disappear into existence? If so, its existence (still) isn’t impossible, just varying in degree.
SO OUR RESPONSE MAY DIFFER, but its existence remains.
DIRECT EVIDENCE❓ - SCIENTIFIC PROXIMITY
When things are distant, interaction is indeed possible, but if they are not distant, then this is a contradiction, where one must change.
In science, such undistance, which is not distant, can be observed in collision processes. Where the forcible proximity between one particle and another is pushed until they are nearly undistant, at a certain point, one of them will undergo destruction (some may split).
Contradiction is merely a mental reminder, a perception gone wrong (not destruction).
Because in reality, there is no contradiction. The concept of contradiction in reality is merely a change of one of the two conditions that cannot coexist simultaneously (without truly being absent).
Absolutely, not destruction, but rather, one of them changes, giving the impression of a contradictory process, where one must be absent. Which in reality is not destruction, but rather, one of them no longer possesses its original attributes (as if vanished).
OBJECTIVITY
The question❓THEN ...
The closest does not prove anything unless it only changes something into something else, so in reality, we never fully understand the state of something except just being always distant.
No longer about where the direct evidence is❓But how close your evidence is to the actual state❓
Consistent Probabilistic & Universal Consistency
✅ EVEN MORE FUNDAMENTAL, HOW CLOSE CAN OUR ARGUMENTATION GO BEYOND CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS, thus being more objective❓
- 〰 So the more objective, the higher the probability of the evidence.
📌 Consistency can also be surpassed when the argument goes beyond cause and effect, not just probabilistic consistency but universal consistency.
🔰 How to surpass cause and effect❓BY SEEING THE LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES BEHIND CAUSE AND EFFECT. THAT IS THE CLOSEST EVIDENCE - ALTHOUGH NOT DIRECT EVIDENCE
- 〰 The strongest proof doesn't always have to come through sensory perception, because knowledge based on universal logical consequences can be more fundamental than knowledge based on cause and effect, provided it has relevant evidence and ensures its universal truth.
SO DO YOU WANT DIRECT EVIDENCE WITHOUT COLLISION & WITHOUT CONTRADICTION❓❌
EXAMPLES & TRACES OF TRUTH
Believing based on the rejection of all possibilities ❓ABSURD ❗️
ARGUMENTATION REQUIRES EXAMPLES, TO SEE TRACES OF ITS TRUTH AS EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE, OR EXAMPLES ARE NEEDED TO SEE HOW FAR THE TRACES GO UNTIL THE LIMIT OF IMPOSSIBILITY THAT PROVES ITS NON-EXISTENCE
Not acknowledging the truth, even though there are possibilities that do not rule out its truth ❓ABSURD ❗️
Which category do you fall into ❓
