What is truth if you can’t accept truth? Before we play semantics let’s establish what truth is with no rhetoric.

Truth is a statement or proposition that accurately corresponds to objective reality or facts independent of anyone’s beliefs feelings or acceptance. For example the Earth orbits the Sun is true whether someone accepts it or not.
So what happens when individuals or entire communities literally cannot or will not accept a truth? Even when alternative interpretations are formally allowed the pursuit of those interpretations carries much higher social professional reputational and epistemic costs. These costs have little to do with the actual evidence and everything to do with protecting a preferred narrative.

This happens through several reliable mechanisms. Questions are reframed so that the uncomfortable truth appears irrelevant confused or in bad faith. Responses repeatedly appeal to certain authorities as final rather than evaluating claims on their merits. Challengers face ever escalating demands for proof while the dominant view gets a free pass. The result is that discourse is pulled back toward the accepted story no matter what new evidence or logic appears.

In practice this means many who claim to seek truth are actually liars. They refuse to accept what is demonstrably true not because they have better evidence or arguments but because doing so would cost them status credibility community standing or self image. The inability or unwillingness to accept truth reveals a gap between what is real and what people are psychologically or socially capable of admitting.

I am not interested in semantics games or gotchas. I want to know how philosophers understand this phenomenon. When a community systematically applies these mechanisms to suppress or distort certain truths are they still doing philosophy or are they engaged in narrative protection? Under what conditions does this kind of refusal become indefensible? How do we distinguish legitimate caution from motivated refusal of truth?

Serious answers only.

I was just thinking really deeply about why anything exists at all... Actually. I think about this question all the time. It has really really boggled my mind for a long long time.

I think i may have stumbled onto something here that kind of... Gives me a sense of satisfaction about not only why anything exists... But about the NATURE of existence.

Essentially what im asking is why is there something rather than nothing... Well ive had the realization before that nothing, cannot exist by the definition of nothingness and the defintion of existence.

But i just took that thought a step further and yielded a statement... A statement with a contrapositive which i believe has some pretty interesting insight into the question of why reality exists as we know it. My reasoning is as follows

If you had yourself a heaping plate of true nothingness... Okay thats a joke... If there were truly nothing... That would mean there were no limits, boundaries or rules. There would be nothing to prevent things from occuring. Nothing is inherently unstable. Nothing is literally infinite potential, and no boundary to stop that potential from occurring.

Nothing, is powerless to resist existence.

What is interesting to me is the contrapositive of this sentence...

Anything has the power to resist existence.

It seems to me this is true in the universe. Things decay... Things die.. things change... Things emerge then diffuse...

It is this statement and its contrapositive which gives the universe its tempo.

I feel like i stumbled upon the law of existence.

Thoughts?

Throughout my time studying philosophy, I found a recurring theme. When people would ask what I studied and I told them philosophy, they would always ask, “What are you gonna do with that?” While I knew they were coming from a good place, the question became tiresome and repetitive. I couldn’t help but wonder: have we really come to a place in society where we have forgotten the value of thinking deeply?

As modern people, we tend to think we are superior and more advanced than every civilization that came before us. But this is an illusion. We confuse technological advancement with moral, ethical, and contemplative progress. As 21st-century people, we have abandoned the very thing that has held our societies together. Wisdom.

The word philosophy originates from two Greek words. Philo, meaning love, and Sophia, meaning wisdom. Together, the word means “love of wisdom.” As Edmund Burke put it, “Wisdom is the foundation upon which the greatness of nations is built.” A society that prioritizes technological advancement over wisdom loses the very foundation on which it stands. What happens to a house without a foundation? It slowly begins to crumble.

Despite all this technology, we live in arguably the most isolated, depressed, and unwise generation that has ever existed. The same internet that was supposed to bring us together has driven us further apart than anyone could have imagined. Rome was not sacked in a day. It hollowed out from within, slowly, as wisdom gave way to spectacle, virtue gave way to appetite, and reflection gave way to distraction. We are not so different.

Philosophy is not some abstract subject reserved for academics debating the meaning of life. It was, and has always been, the bedrock that holds civilization together. It is the discipline that asks whether anything we believe is actually worth believing. It is what stands between a powerful civilization and a dangerous one.

So when someone asks, “What is the purpose of philosophy?” Tell them: philosophy is what a civilization looks like when it takes itself seriously.

Why can’t a single, absolute ruler govern the entire world, when national borders and group identities are ultimately human-made constructs?

If someone truly existed someone capable, wise, and just enough to lead all of humanity ,why wouldn’t we allow them to rule?

Yes, human society is complex. There are deep-rooted differences, conflicting interests, and countless structural limitations that stand in the way. But imagine, even if only hypothetically, that these barriers could be overcome. Imagine a person so extraordinarily capable almost godlike in wisdom, empathy, and judgment that they meet every expectation of what we consider “perfect” leadership. Would people really refuse such a ruler?

Human beings long for hope. They live for it, fight for it, and sometimes even destroy one another in its name. Many place their faith in distant, unseen ideals or deities constructs shaped by belief and imagination hoping for a better existence beyond this life. But if that longing for hope is so powerful, why not place it in something real? Why not in a leader who cannot promise a perfect afterlife, but can transform the suffering of the present?

Perhaps what humanity seeks is not domination, but unity a true league, not a fictional one, where people willingly contribute to something greater than themselves. A system where collective strength rises, not through division, but through shared purpose. And at its peak, not a tyrant, but a singular individual proven, capable, and worthy who guides rather than controls, who inspires rather than commands.

A leader who doesn’t just rule the world, but changes it suddenly, brilliantly—like a burst of fireworks across a dark sky, illuminating a path toward something that feels almost like heaven on Earth.

The only emperor of earth..

Is Hume saying that Causation is epistemological (something our human minds impose on the World to make sense of it..like Mathematics)and NOT ontological(like gravity is real independent of us,but not causality)?

If yes, this is well known isnt it? Even if you think for a moment,very few would deny it...as they say, Universe is under no obligation to make sense to 'us'..

Then, what was so revolutionary about Hume's ideas and 'The Problem of Induction' that Kant said awoke him from his dogmatic slumber?

Even if Causality isn't ontological,why does the speed limit of the Universe(which light travels in vacuum) want to preserve Cause and Effect?

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? - Matthew 5:13

Human beliefs have always fascinated me; over time and in different forms, they mold individuals, values, and entire societies, and prove to us the intrinsic power of pure thought. Would you like some examples of thinkers who changed the world for better or for worse? Just think of Marx or Pythagoras. And then, there’s a gray area beyond which the impact on the world becomes even more incisive: a subtle, almost non-existent line between philosophy and theology. Beyond it, historical figures like Christ shaped the story of humanity.

Christianity, unlike Judaism, and as its name suggests, shifts most of its focus toward its founder. This simplification is the natural evolution of monotheistic religions; it centralizes power in a single charismatic figure, while everything else falls into the background.

Other Jewish prophets do not disappear; rather, they become an added value. The excessive complexity, which was the primary reason for the rise of monotheism, finally disappears.

But how was Jesus Christ able to build all this? What, realistically speaking, were the main points of his philosophy? Welcome to ‘the philosophy of Christ’.

The first Christians were an apocalyptic movement; they preached that the end of the world was imminent. Christ himself emphasized this repeatedly, as attested by numerous historical and theological sources. He was a radical; philosophically speaking, passages such as “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” aren’t to be interpreted as violent, but as philosophical. To follow him meant leaving everything else behind.

Early Christian values such as radical equality, selfless love, and the community of goods were extraordinary for their time. Moreover, their rejection of wealth set them apart from the rest of the world. So great was Christ’s influence.

There were already several similar cults, like the Essenes, for example. But all of them lacked the universal nature of Christianity.

People like Nietzsche would theorize that this is a servile set of values; whether it still is in our days, I will leave you to judge. But try to imagine the times: Jews were encouraged to convert to the worship of the emperor. Their privileges were miraculously guaranteed, and those still loyal amidst this chaos of false messiahs were strongly encouraged to stay true to tradition.

And then Christ comes and says, “Hey, let’s subvert the hierarchy, let’s all become bros, and let’s start to spread the word among others too.” How to put it... it doesn't seem very servile. This is to say, it required bravery to be a Christian at the time.

In any case, this openness and these values should not be confused with progressivism. The impending apocalypse had inevitable consequences for how outsiders were viewed, and women's conditions weren't so good.

If it wasn’t for progressivism, and if they risked their conditions worsening, why did so many people throw it all away to follow him? Was he truly the Son of God?

It is not entirely clear whether Jesus referred to himself as the Son of God in the way we understand it. He kind of said we are all sons of God, yet every time he claimed this for himself, he did so separately. Did he mean he was literally the Son of God? Honestly, we don’t even have many traces of him declaring himself the messiah; scholars believe it was a messianic secret, something known inside the believers' circle, but which he didn't talk much about to others. The Trinity, on the other hand, is something still discussed by modern Christians too.

So why? Well, as I said, the power of rhetoric can change the world. And keep in mind the context: less education, more susceptibility, the wait for a messiah. The chance to take part in something greater.

However, returning to our analysis, he didn’t do it all alone. He chose twelve apostles, matching the exact number of the tribes of Israel. These men were crucial to the movement's administration, and each of them led their own group of followers. All the chosen ones were charismatic, good-looking men of the upper-middle class.

Right among these lies the one later accused of provoking his death: Judas. Whether or not Christ’s death was provoked by him, it is almost a proven fact that it built most of current Christian theology.

The story of Christ's death is told differently in each of the Gospels, but it is also recorded in various historical sources. Most Christian sources exalt the pain of Christ, fulfilling the vision of the sacrificial lamb in his role. Who knows, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Those don’t seem like the words of someone willing to sacrifice himself; and they are from the most ancient of the Gospels. Though in the two more recent ones, he respectively says, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” and “It is finished”.

Maybe he was scared? Maybe after suffering a heavy loss, the years that followed brought this construct upon him to justify the survival of the movement?

A whole lot of other things changed with the construction of the church. As time went on, it became increasingly clear that the end of the world was not imminent. With the increase in popularity, it became increasingly necessary to move away from Jewish origins, and Christ's importance grew into myth.

This also came at a price: radicalism. And whether for better or for worse, even though they gained power, they were forced to make compromises in order to get it. Tons of compromises. Does that mean Nietzsche would be right now? Regardless of everything, they still changed history.

Yet, if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? We can talk and debate over details, but one thing is pretty objective: the first Christians were pretty different from today's.

Messiah or God, Jesus was just a man provided with words. He didn’t do it all alone; Paul, the apostles, and many others played a significant role in his ascent, though he guided everything thanks to his ideology. And it still influences today’s world.

All of that is just a small part of why human beliefs are so interesting.

Is Hume saying that Causation is epistemological (something our human minds impose on the World to make sense of it..like Mathematics)and NOT ontological(like gravity is real independent of us,but not causality)?

If yes, this is well known isnt it? Even if you think for a moment,very few would deny it...as they say, Universe is under no obligation to make sense to 'us'..

Then,what was so revolutionary about Hume's ideas and 'The Problem of Induction' that Kant said awoke him from his dogmatic slumber?

Even if Causality isn't ontological,why does the speed limit of the Universe(which light travels in vacuum) want to preserve Cause and Effect?

Truth is objective, yet it is impossible to perceive it from an impartial point of view, and even assuming one day it will be possible, the way we process that information will remain subjective.

We are all similar enough, on a massive scale, to get a similar comprehension of the data we get; however, it is still possible that some people disagree over common sense, both due to logical errors or due to communication misunderstandings caused by brain differences. For example, a colorblind person will process things differently because of his condition, which can be easily fixed through language, while in the case of someone who messes up because of a delusion or a logical fallacy, in theory he could be aligned again with explanations, persuasion, or in case of mental health problems, appropriate therapy could work.

If two subjective views collide, or if a subjective view collides with a more objective truth, there is no difference. While usually a more objective truth has more resources to use to defend itself, in a debate a wrong/subjective truth, if well argued, can easily distort the objective truth. This is because the brain itself works on a subjective basis.

From a purely theoretical standpoint, having more grounded humans who follow a solid logic is the best thing for our species, for scientific progress, and for political and philosophical debate. To summarize: for the world overall. We can and should strive for it.

Yet, in practice, relativism reigns. The human brain is wonderfully good at justifying incoherence; no matter how inconsistent someone's reasoning is, if it is his reasoning, it is his treasure. And when someone gets mentally ill, sadly the prognosis usually isn't good.

That said, there are no differences between someone who is born, lives, and dies believing that 2 + 2 = 4 and someone who is born, lives, and dies believing that 2 + 2 = 5. Both will live and die believing something that is equally true. The objective truth has value only from a utilitarian perspective, but has no influence over the subjective experience.

Of course, striving for objectivity has not only an altruistic purpose; if you understand the world and its objective laws better, probably you will gain advantages more easily. Yet, as this premise says, it is impossible to reach absolute objectivity; you can’t detach reality from how you process it, from your opinions, from your history, etc. It can very easily lead to presumption.

Someone who firmly believes they are strongly objective, objectively speaking, probably is more similar to a relativist.

Relativism also has its bright side; it makes debate possible, lets us build our beliefs, and make up our delusions. Still, it should not become an excuse to refuse logic. I believe two smart people have all the means to understand each other. I will go further: I do believe that if two people are intelligent and disagree over something, at the end of the discussion one will change his mind, or they aren’t both intelligent/the discussion wasn’t in good faith.

To conclude, I believe relativism is an objective truth.

We all perceive the world in a relative way; a “true” truth is not intrinsically superior to a “false” truth. We all should strive to mimic objectivity, yet we should stay away from presumption.

​

> "It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of—namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious auto-biography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown. Indeed, to understand how the abstrusest metaphysical assertions of a philosopher have been arrived at, it is always well (and wise) to first ask oneself: "What morality do they (or does he) aim at?" Accordingly, I do not believe that an "impulse to knowledge" is the father of philosophy; but that another impulse, here as elsewhere, has only made use of knowledge (and mistaken knowledge!) as an instrument ... In the philosopher, ... there is absolutely nothing impersonal; and above all, his morality furnishes a decided and decisive testimony as to WHO HE IS,—that is to say, in what order the deepest impulses of his nature stand to each other."

- Nietzsche, *Beyond Good and Evil,* Chapter 1, Section 6

***

F **ucault famously hated the psychoanalysts and rejected psychoanalysis as a valid structure. This is really fucking funny considering that if you psychoanalyze F* ucault his positions all suddenly seem embarrassingly pathological...

For example:

1. F **ucault rejects psychoanalysts. Psychoanalysts would suggest this is because of his early negative experiences with a psychoanalyst who he hated and felt coerced by.

2. F$$ ucault is a naked advocate of the expansion of the will to power and views all social phenomenon thru the lens of domination/submission. Psychoanalysts would suggest this is because he is a sado-masochist and participant in BDSM.

3. F* *ucault does not ever mention or theorize about women in any of his works and seems completely uninterested in extending his analysis to womanhood or or the female experience. Psychoanalysts would suggest this is because he is homosexual and the woman is psychologically and metaphysically foreign to him.

4. F *ucault argues that all forms of societal punishment are baseless, that there is no criminal behavior, and that all behavior should be permitted without consequences. Psychoanalysts would suggest this is because he wants to see age of consent laws abolished in the West so that he could do in the West what he did in the East, which is have sex with Tunisian boys.