Andrei Ranete
New Member
Here is the diagram of meaning, visualizing the objective objective of humanity:
The most elegant part of this understanding is that it does not assume anything.
Initially, only officially religious people I talked to immediately denied the validity of this understanding, as within it, religion is defined as illogical idea, mistaken belief. While it is understandable that this idea seems biased, it is reasonable when we remember that no other official definition of religion exists. What else could it be defined as? The best attempt at defining religion I am aware of is as belief in a soul and/or life after death. However, even if it may apply on all major religions, and even if we assume it applies on every single minor religion in the world, the point is that an official religion can be easily created, and it could be created without including the idea of soul or alike. This may be pedantic, but it is technically correct. Religion is illogical idea, indeed, per definition. I argue it is the best definition because religion clearly means something and no other definition is better. This is though just a semantic issue, so one must not agree. It may be simply useful to know what I mean by religion to understand what I mean. In any case, religions are illogical ideas, even if one disagrees to define them so.
The apparently opposite life philosophy that would deny this possibility is nihilism, the uncritical assumption that life does not have meaning. So, this includes people who assume the only possible meaning a human can have in life is subjective, as in usually whatever feels right.
This seems to be this philosophy’s greatest problem. This is based on the idea that science does not have to be based on what is considered logical. Perhaps the most famous example of this is the discovery of the benzene compound by someone who had a dream about a snake eating itself (Rocke, 1985). This may be a bizarre exception, but an exception demonstrates it is not true that a hypothesis must be based on evidence to be a useful hypothesis. This means that no idea should be rejected without proof, just as no idea should be accepted without proof. There is no practical difference between the view that only based hypotheses are real hypotheses and that no hypothesis should be denied. This is because, in practice, logic dictates that resources should not be spent on any idea. Indeed, today most hypotheses that are considered scientific are not tested or are barely tested, since we have priorities. The difference is simply that baseless hypotheses should be considered the smallest priorities, instead of not being priorities at all.
To never assume anything is considered the epitome of science, which is why never assuming anything, including the impossibility of something, especially when assuming is unnecessary, is a better scientific understanding. Indeed, I would argue that this is best because this would remind people that their seemingly self-evident beliefs may be wrong, which they often are. Yet, nihilism is somehow perceived as reasonable. Based on what can a human make such assumption? As it is known, no field of science is understood comprehensively. Humanity understands scarcely 5% of all matter in the universe and 95% of it is invisible (NASA Science, 2019; Farnes, 2018). Humanity is clearly not a credible source on this matter.
Yes, it is possible that an invisible unicorn has followed you since your birth, or that an invisible man has watched everything since the universe was born, but they can be ignored as many people always had. Unless you can argue that their possibility, no matter how remote, matters to humanity, there is no reason to care about them. The possibility of an objective objective cannot be ignored, partly due to the desire of many people to be always right, yet more importantly because no decision can be objective without this possibility. Without an objective objective, religious people may believe that the end is nigh, for example, and so carelessly use resources. This can result in a worse life for everyone. And this is just one way religion is immoral. The book explains more precisely how religion is the cause of most human problems, and how critical thinking can solve them, often instantly. One may argue that if humanity were purely logical, such an intermediate objective objective would be pointless. Yes, this theory does not explain an ultimate objective objective, but an intermediate one which is equally crucial. Nevertheless, in the ideal scenario where at least the majority thinks critically, this objective idea would still be best. Pragmatically, humanity would act as if they acknowledge my theory anyway, and scientifically, or philosophically, my theory is best as it assumes the least. It probably should be noted that science is simply defined as knowledge, wisdom, in the theory, while religion is, again, defined as the opposite. These definitions may seem oversimplified, but I think that is because the contemporary definitions are overcomplicated. Another important point to realize is that whether we can imagine something to be possible, is irrelevant. Presumably, ancient people could not imagine how most of current technology works, yet it would have been clearly wrong to assume current technology is impossible. Just like something must be proven, indicated, right to be considered right, something must be demonstrated wrong to be considered wrong. Otherwise it is simply an unproven idea.
To recapitulate, the possibility of an objective objective, as long as it is not disproved, is essential to human life. Perhaps this has been what the reader has been thinking: The question is not essential! Yet, without it, the only reason to live, the only reason to act, is emotion and/or imagination, which are clearly subjective, based on whims. Therefore I believe it is essential. A human may argue they do not need anything else, but clearly the majority of people today care about it as a lack of sense is the main reason why pure science is considered a limited understanding of the world. The fact that there is an objective objective is unproven, the fact that we should search for it is rational because an essential question rationally requires answering, and if for no other reason, because there is nothing else to do. In an ideal world, the objective objective is practically useless, but still technically correct. In the current world, the objective objective is all it needs to solve almost all its problems, and eventually perhaps all problems. Indeed, I would argue that even if we assume this idea is technically incorrect, it should still be promoted.
How is this understanding essential to humanity? Because it describes objective morality, one thing humanity always claimed to desire. If an objective objective may exist, then it means it must be what we must do, per definition. Since we do not know it, we must find it, or find whether it exists. Therefore, even though there is no reason to believe humans have any inherent value, humans have potential value due to the objective objective. Humans have value because they can study and so eventually discover the objective objective. This is a utilitarian ethic that is objective and as such can objectively answer any moral question. The most basic examples are that murder, destruction and theft are immoral if they slow down humanity’s progress toward the objective objective, so they are usually immoral. As such, the most moral action is research, exploration, critical thinking. For now, I avoid publicly answering controversial moral dilemmas because people may not like the answers, and therefore deny this understanding no matter how true it is. In any case, there is nothing to worry about from a moral perspective considering this theory as humans have value, be it potential. Potential value is not the same as certain value, but is better than no value. For example, if it seems like slavery is moral according to this theory, that is not true. Slavery is immoral, not because there is something inherently wrong with it, but because humans tend to be more productive, especially in an intellectual way, when they are free.
If the objective of life and the objective of the universe seem like completely different notions, it should be mentioned that life is not defined, despite attempt (The Science Network, 2011). The reason for this may be our lack of words, or it can be that there is no inherent difference between so-called life and the rest of matter. The possibility of the meaning of life does not necessarily mean that what is considered life has meaning, yet the universe may have a meaning, existence may have a meaning, and life, as it is known, through it.
Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with believing an objective meaning to life, an objective meaning to existence, and therefore to life as well, may exist. If it may exist, rationally means we should try to find it, even if we have no or little clue now. The little clue we may have is science. Obviously, not all actions progress science equally, so some actions are better than others. Therefore, this understanding would grant morality to science, a utilitarian morality not very distinct from the one which already exists. The primary difference is that this morality is objectively based in the logical inferences of a possibility. Therefore, humanity can have a morality based on science. This could of course revolutionize humanity, if the objective objective, or lack thereof, was not assumed to be understood due to religion, be it an official one or nihilism.
The most elegant part of this understanding is that it does not assume anything.
Initially, only officially religious people I talked to immediately denied the validity of this understanding, as within it, religion is defined as illogical idea, mistaken belief. While it is understandable that this idea seems biased, it is reasonable when we remember that no other official definition of religion exists. What else could it be defined as? The best attempt at defining religion I am aware of is as belief in a soul and/or life after death. However, even if it may apply on all major religions, and even if we assume it applies on every single minor religion in the world, the point is that an official religion can be easily created, and it could be created without including the idea of soul or alike. This may be pedantic, but it is technically correct. Religion is illogical idea, indeed, per definition. I argue it is the best definition because religion clearly means something and no other definition is better. This is though just a semantic issue, so one must not agree. It may be simply useful to know what I mean by religion to understand what I mean. In any case, religions are illogical ideas, even if one disagrees to define them so.
The apparently opposite life philosophy that would deny this possibility is nihilism, the uncritical assumption that life does not have meaning. So, this includes people who assume the only possible meaning a human can have in life is subjective, as in usually whatever feels right.
This seems to be this philosophy’s greatest problem. This is based on the idea that science does not have to be based on what is considered logical. Perhaps the most famous example of this is the discovery of the benzene compound by someone who had a dream about a snake eating itself (Rocke, 1985). This may be a bizarre exception, but an exception demonstrates it is not true that a hypothesis must be based on evidence to be a useful hypothesis. This means that no idea should be rejected without proof, just as no idea should be accepted without proof. There is no practical difference between the view that only based hypotheses are real hypotheses and that no hypothesis should be denied. This is because, in practice, logic dictates that resources should not be spent on any idea. Indeed, today most hypotheses that are considered scientific are not tested or are barely tested, since we have priorities. The difference is simply that baseless hypotheses should be considered the smallest priorities, instead of not being priorities at all.
To never assume anything is considered the epitome of science, which is why never assuming anything, including the impossibility of something, especially when assuming is unnecessary, is a better scientific understanding. Indeed, I would argue that this is best because this would remind people that their seemingly self-evident beliefs may be wrong, which they often are. Yet, nihilism is somehow perceived as reasonable. Based on what can a human make such assumption? As it is known, no field of science is understood comprehensively. Humanity understands scarcely 5% of all matter in the universe and 95% of it is invisible (NASA Science, 2019; Farnes, 2018). Humanity is clearly not a credible source on this matter.
Yes, it is possible that an invisible unicorn has followed you since your birth, or that an invisible man has watched everything since the universe was born, but they can be ignored as many people always had. Unless you can argue that their possibility, no matter how remote, matters to humanity, there is no reason to care about them. The possibility of an objective objective cannot be ignored, partly due to the desire of many people to be always right, yet more importantly because no decision can be objective without this possibility. Without an objective objective, religious people may believe that the end is nigh, for example, and so carelessly use resources. This can result in a worse life for everyone. And this is just one way religion is immoral. The book explains more precisely how religion is the cause of most human problems, and how critical thinking can solve them, often instantly. One may argue that if humanity were purely logical, such an intermediate objective objective would be pointless. Yes, this theory does not explain an ultimate objective objective, but an intermediate one which is equally crucial. Nevertheless, in the ideal scenario where at least the majority thinks critically, this objective idea would still be best. Pragmatically, humanity would act as if they acknowledge my theory anyway, and scientifically, or philosophically, my theory is best as it assumes the least. It probably should be noted that science is simply defined as knowledge, wisdom, in the theory, while religion is, again, defined as the opposite. These definitions may seem oversimplified, but I think that is because the contemporary definitions are overcomplicated. Another important point to realize is that whether we can imagine something to be possible, is irrelevant. Presumably, ancient people could not imagine how most of current technology works, yet it would have been clearly wrong to assume current technology is impossible. Just like something must be proven, indicated, right to be considered right, something must be demonstrated wrong to be considered wrong. Otherwise it is simply an unproven idea.
To recapitulate, the possibility of an objective objective, as long as it is not disproved, is essential to human life. Perhaps this has been what the reader has been thinking: The question is not essential! Yet, without it, the only reason to live, the only reason to act, is emotion and/or imagination, which are clearly subjective, based on whims. Therefore I believe it is essential. A human may argue they do not need anything else, but clearly the majority of people today care about it as a lack of sense is the main reason why pure science is considered a limited understanding of the world. The fact that there is an objective objective is unproven, the fact that we should search for it is rational because an essential question rationally requires answering, and if for no other reason, because there is nothing else to do. In an ideal world, the objective objective is practically useless, but still technically correct. In the current world, the objective objective is all it needs to solve almost all its problems, and eventually perhaps all problems. Indeed, I would argue that even if we assume this idea is technically incorrect, it should still be promoted.
How is this understanding essential to humanity? Because it describes objective morality, one thing humanity always claimed to desire. If an objective objective may exist, then it means it must be what we must do, per definition. Since we do not know it, we must find it, or find whether it exists. Therefore, even though there is no reason to believe humans have any inherent value, humans have potential value due to the objective objective. Humans have value because they can study and so eventually discover the objective objective. This is a utilitarian ethic that is objective and as such can objectively answer any moral question. The most basic examples are that murder, destruction and theft are immoral if they slow down humanity’s progress toward the objective objective, so they are usually immoral. As such, the most moral action is research, exploration, critical thinking. For now, I avoid publicly answering controversial moral dilemmas because people may not like the answers, and therefore deny this understanding no matter how true it is. In any case, there is nothing to worry about from a moral perspective considering this theory as humans have value, be it potential. Potential value is not the same as certain value, but is better than no value. For example, if it seems like slavery is moral according to this theory, that is not true. Slavery is immoral, not because there is something inherently wrong with it, but because humans tend to be more productive, especially in an intellectual way, when they are free.
If the objective of life and the objective of the universe seem like completely different notions, it should be mentioned that life is not defined, despite attempt (The Science Network, 2011). The reason for this may be our lack of words, or it can be that there is no inherent difference between so-called life and the rest of matter. The possibility of the meaning of life does not necessarily mean that what is considered life has meaning, yet the universe may have a meaning, existence may have a meaning, and life, as it is known, through it.
Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with believing an objective meaning to life, an objective meaning to existence, and therefore to life as well, may exist. If it may exist, rationally means we should try to find it, even if we have no or little clue now. The little clue we may have is science. Obviously, not all actions progress science equally, so some actions are better than others. Therefore, this understanding would grant morality to science, a utilitarian morality not very distinct from the one which already exists. The primary difference is that this morality is objectively based in the logical inferences of a possibility. Therefore, humanity can have a morality based on science. This could of course revolutionize humanity, if the objective objective, or lack thereof, was not assumed to be understood due to religion, be it an official one or nihilism.
