I suspect a lot of people have difficulty recognizing that what they believe about the world may not be representative of how the world actually behaves. I certainly do, frequently.

Like with politics, people think they need to go vote and march and stuff to effect change, but if you're willing to accept the idea that there are limits to your ability to perceive the world and your perceptions are misleading, you can pretty reliably go and see that isn't true.

You can also decipher deeper realities like you can basically put whatever you want on flat bread, or that you dadskf;'akse'wfaegqrwt;'lj'a fuck my brain. I'm asd I'm not sure what I was trying to say.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] muddi@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Interestingly I was having a conversation with myself about this. That ethics, law, and other normative systems are just sets of rules, just like how physical reality follows laws of nature.

The difference is that the "metric" of reality is existence itself — the measure is that something exists, or it doesn't: there isn't anything that violates the laws of nature that exists.

But in the human realm, there must be some metric ("good" vs "bad" ) that drives measures (ethical/legal/profitable/etc. vs not). But also there are indeterminates (neither moral nor immoral) or disputes, because there are many systems under existence (your moral vs my moral).

I also don't know what I was trying to say tbh, someone started screaming on the bus at that point. I guess basically just that humans tend to silo their conceptions of things which don't match up with each other perfectly already, let alone realizing that the ultimate reality of things doesn't give a fuck about our conventions.

Building a perfect system or even a minimally common-to-all system seems like a fool's errand, like liberalism "we just need to declare human rights that no one can disagree with, and then no one will violate them" fucking Kant and Rawls

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago

You have discovered ideology

[–] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

The difference is that the "metric" of reality is existence itself — the measure is that something exists, or it doesn't: there isn't anything that violates the laws of nature that exists.

What exists? Everything!

[–] IceWallowCum@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

You'd like reading Marx, if you haven't already