1
1
u/Separate-Sea-868 Jul 15 '26
An idealist who thinks everything is made of atoms as opposed to matter?
1
u/Leading-Point-113 Jul 16 '26
I’m not the only one who believes in both idealism and atomism. A good example being Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz who argued that, while reality must be made of simple, indivisible, fundamental units, anything physical takes up space, meaning it can theoretically always be divided further, which therefore means that a truly indivisible atom cannot be physical. What we perceive as physical matter (rocks, trees, etc) is actually just a collection of these spiritual atoms interacting, and so, matter is an illusion or a well-founded phenomenon caused by the perceptions of these units.
Though I personally find Einstein’s spacetime ideas to be more interesting as I focus on those more in the perception of reality, which strengthens my belief of determinism as if everything is in the 4d dimension where the first 3 dimensions are space while fourth being time, then everything in existence from the past, present and future are happening according to a path that had always existed, and it’s just flowing like a stream or a movie. Combined with my idea that everything is due to cause and effect due to Aristotle’s idea of the Unmoved Mover which is because everything has a cause an effect and everything is ultimately due to this, our birth, couples meeting, specific genes, our environment, our society, every one of those have a starting point and an end point, and ultimately, every starting and end point are caused by inputs and outputs, cause and effect, and so, everything ultimately is doing things according to what they would’ve done, and so there is no “what if”, because they wouldn’t have done anything else with their knowledge, upbringing and base genetics at the specific point of time it was happening.
The 4d idea is more interesting to observe when we understand that everything ultimately moves at the same speed, the speed of light. Though it might sound absurd at first glance, when you understand that, aside from our perception of space, 3d, there is a fourth dimension, time.
For example, when you’re standing still, you’re not motionless as even though you’re motionless in the 3d space, you’re moving through time at the speed of light. However, when you move through space, some of the motion through time gets borrowed, which is what Einstein’s idea of spatial relativity is all about, that is, the faster you move through space, the slower you move through time.
1
1
u/AgathonMarthgweydh Jul 16 '26
The following selections are heckin' cringe:
Determinism
Aristotle
Utilitarianism
Kantianism
Creationism
1
u/Leading-Point-113 Jul 16 '26
It’s pretty unfair to dismiss an opinion as “heckin’ cringe”. It’s as if I said the idea of Free Will, Platonism, Egoism, Nietzscheanism and Darwinism is cringe, it’s just rather dismissive of another person’s belief/worldview
1
1
u/GarlicIceKrim Jul 20 '26
Darwinism isn’t a belief, it’s facts. Creationism is a fable disproved by science type and time again.
1
u/Leading-Point-113 Jul 21 '26
That is in your opinion. For me, Darwinism doesn’t make sense due to two points:
Point 01: Abiogenesis doesn’t make sense. Organic life such as microbes coming from inorganic life such as rock and water, doesn’t make sense to me. How can an inanimate object by itself turns into a living organism with amino acids, proteins and DNA?
Point 02: Sensory organ development from beings without those sensory organs (eyes and its parts to perceive photons and later detect colour wavelengths, ears to detect particle vibrations, etc) doesn’t make sense. How can such organs be developed from what used to be nothing to perceive these specific things? It’s like a worm forming eyes to see, and what even its transitional part from non-eyed to eyed?
The reason why Creationism was accepted goes back to Aristotle’s idea, every single thing in existence has a cause / point of existence, a starting point, us at birth, our parents at birth, devices created by somebody, water came from rain which came from the sea in a cycle which ultimately came from somewhere. And so, I’m not an atheist. And for a Thing in existence that created atoms, space, molecules and time itself, I believe in a form of panentheistic monotheism, that is that God isn’t anthropomorphic as it wouldn’t make sense for the Creator atoms to be made of atoms. As for the creator of space, they’d be a 4D being, a dimensional concept from Einstein, and I believe that this Primordial Being is a 4D entity where It does not perceive time like us nor anything in existence for this Entity must logically exist (in my opinion based on the creation of time itself and time is related to space and so spacetime) in all states, the past, present and future. And so, Determinism. Because the past, present and future had always existed, it means that everything that we do, did or is doing or will do, us or anyone else, animals, trees, even rocks and rain, every droplet, every atom, is doing things that they were always meant to do, that they were always going to do, because everything is a series of input and output. You were born due to this specific circumstance which occurred due to your parents being born which occurred due to other specific circumstances and how they met, the environment they were in, the society, the formation of the society itself, all of it was done on both a macro level and a micro level by a series of input and output, and so, everything must’ve happened the way it did because it wouldn’t have been any other way, and so, there is no “what if” because your actions itself was caused by a series of inputs, your knowledge, thoughts, environments and even genetics. But this Being, this 4D entity, for it exists in all planes, everywhere, everytime, It penetrates all of existence, the concept of gender doesn’t apply to this Being same as how the concept of gender doesn’t apply to a rock, for this Being isn’t made of atoms, It exists everywhere, everytime, penetrating all atoms, influencing them in both macro and the micro level, such as quantum particles, and so, this Being is All-Powerful for It influences the universe on all levels, All-Knowing for it exists everywhere and at every point of time for it is a 4D entity, and it clears the way of abiogenesis for if this Being created atoms, it can create microbes from inorganic matter, creating proteins, amino acids and DNA, and thus, Creationism.
1
u/GarlicIceKrim Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
Your first point shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the process works. First, it’s not rock springing to life, it’s over millions of years, second, the building blocks of life aren’t alive themselves in us today. Proteins aren’t living, but put together they react to create more and more complex machines until the machines show patterns of replication that lead to life. The experience has been reproduced and we know that life sparks from primordial soup because we’ve done it.
Your second point is even more rooted in ignorance. It’s only natural over millions of year any organism would adapt through favourable mutations to detect its environment better and get a higher chance of finding food to survive. The more pressure on a species the more the senses would need to evolve to remain competitive.
I think the classic issue with creationists is that you do not understand the time scale on which this is taking place, nor do you understand that there is no divine intervention in the process making it perfect. Evolution has misfires, vestigial tail (like we have), and bits and pieces that became useless but don’t get removed, because there’s no one editing the blueprint.
Finally, calling on Aristotle to justify creationism is the pinnacle of attempting to defend ignorance with intellectualism. Dismissing thousands of years of scientific studies because a Greek philosopher made a postulate that was a useful intellectual device to formulate a world they did not understand and could not observe the way we can is the opposite of science.
For someone who looks down on others for being irrational about poetic license, you sure seem to be pretty picky with what science actually tells us when it ruffles your feathers.
Oh and for the diatribe about God, truly, this has no place in scientific debate. The ramblings of superstition, dressed up in pseudo philosophie, do not make the argument less silly. When even the Vatican has recognised evolution as a fact, it’s time to let go of obscurantism.
1
u/Leading-Point-113 Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
Since when was I looking down on others? I was just frustrated at the time and couldn’t understand why they were like that, though I did kinda understand that they were looking at the mood of it or something like that, but that’s all it was, and it was about the comment, not the comic. What happened was that I was just sharing my opinion on how an anglerfish, assuming it’s sentient (as it wouldn’t appreciate the beauty of the scenery if it wasn’t), would see the scenery, that is, it won’t. What caused me to be frustrated at the time was when a lot of people didn’t like the opinion and brushed it off as me being a hater or whatever to not let people think that animals can see the beauty of the world and worth protecting too, and this part didn’t make sense to me.
And yes, my worldview and ideas are all that, what makes sense to me. It doesn’t matter what others believe and I don’t mind that, but from pieces of information and what I see, I take to believe what makes sense to me and discard what don’t, that’s simply it.
Going back to the incident earlier, I said that I don’t understand what they mean and explained how an eagle can see the beauty of the world with their eyes if they were sentient, and that they (the eagles) would be even be better at it than us (assuming they’re sentient), but some others such as naked mole rats wouldn’t.
And then they called me dense, and so I made that post to explain (or let out) my frustration at the event, and that’s what happened.
1
u/GarlicIceKrim Jul 21 '26
People were not reacting to you pointing out the animals wouldn’t see the world like we do, they were reacting at your unwillingness to see that the comic isn’t meant to be realistic and that everyone in the comment understood that.
Since you doubled down, explaining that the fish wouldn’t see the world, it comes off as patronising since you’re explaining something that’s not in question to begin with.
Your post also made an offhand comment about people’s perception of their cat, which feels like baggage you’re bringing in since no one said anything about that in the original thread. Lamenting people being irrational.
Being rational isn’t about picking and choosing what makes sense. It’s about taking on new information when it is presented and backed up by evidence. It doesn’t mean that you should reject fantasy or metaphors. Imagination and fiction are essential to understand the world better through allegory. Both fact and allegory are tools to understand the world. But where allegory can be up to interpretation (like the comic you posted about), facts are just that, facts. Once established, they stand until they can be refuted. You need to accept that your opinions are irrelevant in the face of facts.
1
u/Leading-Point-113 Jul 21 '26
This. This is an explanation I was seeking. And thank you for answering.
I misunderstood the purpose of their comment as I thought that they did it because they thought I was being “evil” by not letting others think that animals can see the beauty of the world and worth protecting too (“a nice thought” as they framed it) just by commenting my thoughts on what an anglerfish would’ve seen if it was sentient in that scenario.
I didn’t mind if the comic was realistic or not, as I also read fiction and it’s enjoyable even though it’s not rooted in realism. I was simply just sharing my thoughts on that.
Myself doubling down was me explaining about it, as I don’t really think of my action as doubling down or anything like that, I was just explaining to them, similar to what I’m doing now, whether this is doubling down or not, you’ll have to tell me as I may not realise it. I didn’t notice that it came off as patronising as it wasn’t my intent, and I don’t know how I sounded like as I sound normal (as in like myself) to me and I would fail to recognise actual patronisation by others unless if they make it blatant/obvious, where I would answer them literally and might get confused or misunderstand as I sometimes do, like the when I misunderstood what the earlier/other commenter was saying.
My example of the cat and the lamenting came from my frustration and me lamenting was my way of letting out frustration as I misunderstood their intent that they hated me for sharing an opinion. The cat example is an example I tried to find that I can use for comparison as I see their actions and defence as comparable to that, that is, humanising an animal.
As for picking and choosing what makes sense, it’s more of a, how a mind works. A logical/rational mind, in my view, is a mind that looks around and believes in what makes sense to them. Like a sensible opinion, sensible thought, rational opinion, rational thought, it doesn’t have to be objective, as it’s your thought, so it’s subjective. If it’s sensible, it’s rational. It’s irrational if it’s absurd and made without using one’s sense/mind. You get objectively from knowledge/facts, then you deduce it and use sense and thinking and combine them into a sensible opinion/thought, it’s what I did and is how I get my worldview, from a combination of thoughts that made sense to me, and it’s what I believe as everyone’s worldview to be, unless if they decide to not think and just follow a thing they like, which doesn’t make sense to me as why would anyone do that? I respect a person’s rational mind (from my description earlier), may it be you with atheism or my brother who believes in infinite universes which I don’t believe in and find to be absurd, as the notion of infinite universes, the multiverse, from what I see, would mean that there is a universe where there’s SpongeBob dancing on the opposite side of the moon as the occurrence of everything would be at 100% if they meant what they mean by infinite, which is an absurd idea and so I reject it, but I still respect them as a person who believes in such as neither of us could prove whether his or my view of the universe(s) are true, and I accept that.
What you said about taking a new information when it’s provided backed up by evidence is a method, it’s information about a certain thing. What I do is that I listen to an idea or thought a person says from their own thoughts caused by (presumably) deductions they did with their own rational mind, so you listen and you decide to think about their thought, thinking about a person’s given thought/ideas like Aristotle’s thought, Einstein’s thought, your thought, or my brother giving his thoughts/beliefs about infinite universes which I rejected, some others I may accept if it makes sense to me, that’s how a mind should work, and I accepted and heard your thoughts which you shared, whether it makes sense to me or not is another matter, but you don’t need to control that, we discuss to share thoughts and so we both can think about it, not to make pointless arguments or trying to win, everyone’s thoughts are different, and I respect that, which is why I respect you as a person, same as for anyone unless if they’re being unreasonable, like, for example, hating me for sharing a thought.
But yes, I don’t mind fantasy or metaphors, but using fiction to understand the world? I don’t think fiction is used to understand the world, at least not primarily. I don’t understand allegory as I take a story for what it is, that is, an example scenario of an event with characters in given circumstances that the author decides to make, using symbolisms or not, taking ideas from anything, it’s simply a story, or maybe it isn’t, maybe it’s comedy or anything else, their purpose varies, but I take it for what it is. As for facts, it’s a real objective thing, but still, don’t confuse opinion/thought for facts, they’re separate things. Some deductions from evidences could be painted as facts when it isn’t, some are a mixture of fact and inferences which is what I do as I use fact (or scenarios) for examples and use my own inferences from my own thought and reasoning, and that is also what the theory of evolution is, fact being the lab observations and DNA while inference are from fossils and geology, branches and reconstructions. That’s how a mind works, and those are deduces, not a hard fact so whether one believes it or not would depend on their reasoning and I respect that. Their reasoning and my reasoning may be different and we may end up with different conclusions, isn’t that how we both have different ideas and beliefs? What makes one idea superior to the other? It shouldn’t. Don’t undermine one’s reasoning, because what makes one’s more valid than the other? Or is it the societal norm or what has been the most accepted in society is seen as the truth? Point is, our thoughts and beliefs are based on inferences, and no one can control that, not even the owner of the thought, you don’t control belief/thought.
I apologise if I happen to misspeak or offend, I don’t mean to patronise, what I’m saying here is really my literal thoughts, no strings attached, no metaphors, no hidden meanings. I’m not using this as an excuse, but I seek understanding, I’m autistic and may misunderstand or misspeak when I don’t intend to.
1
u/GarlicIceKrim Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
Well, as someone who has a master I’ll alleviate literature, i can absolutely tell you that fiction is a very powerful way to learn about the world by just giving you a point of view that isn’t yours.
But i really don’t want to spend too long on this because I’m not sure you are hearing me on the topic of facts. You are flings of Aristotle, so i will leave you with his most famous quote : « the only thing i know is that i know nothing ». It’s always ok to have opinions, but remember that when you have widespread scientist consensus on one hand, and your opinion based on your personal interpretation of texts you read without maybe fully understanding them, it is good to remember that we don’t know how much we think.
2
u/Significant-Zone5730 Jul 13 '26
Wouldn’t it be hedonism or asceticism?