Idiosyncratic

I bought cigars, and it reminded me of Freud, Sigmund Freud that is.

Well there is a phrase accredited to him, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar…”

But on no account has he been ‘truly’ witnessed to have said it.

But it’s just a saying of how you should sometimes take things for their face value and delving into the matter doesn’t really matter.

But anyway, on my previous posts, I’ve been “disproving” a lot of things that are real, today, I’m going into a deeper topic, instead of its face value (because we all know how I treat value don’t we now?)

Well, I, my esteemed(and not so important) readers, am going to disprove reality.

Like how I would translate from Bakunin: the matter is only absurd, and inexplicable, because only the absurd admits of no explanation.

But here we have a meaning to ‘reality’(taken from dictionary.com); the state or quality of being real, resemblance to what is real.

Philosophy:

a.
something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.

b.
something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.

Let’s start with the first one, ‘the state or quality of being real’: the state and quality of something being real suggests that it is material and not idealistic, thus it is a fact that something to be material exists via metaphysical standards, but did you remember what I said about the scientific method?

-- The scientific method is the relationship of theories and proof; here, theory, being scientific theory, which is evidence of something being possible, therefore we have proof, but it is clearly stating that it functions on concepts that we accredit to, and tentatively subject it to. Therefore it is not real, because it is not, necessarily material.

So metaphysically, there are 3 rocks but that quantifies the the numerical content that we accredit it to, it is an ideological concept that is basically, the idea of the presence of the 3 rocks also accredits the idea of matter, something that takes space up, but then again, a lot of other things that are ideological that takes space up, such as computerized memory storage, which can only function and exist within the computer or a similar material device, then again, that would make it virtual reality.

So generally, the first point does not define the totality of what reality is.

Take for example a television: you can see the image, but you know for certain that the image depicted is not really in front of you, but it is there, thus making it ideological and by standards, somewhat virtually illusionary.

Now onto the second point, ‘the resemblance of to what is real: all I need to point out here is the word ‘resemblance’; not clearly a validated explanation to me.

And on the philosophical grounds, reality is something that exists independently with ideas concerning it, then if there is a conceptual intake as to what reality is, wouldn’t it make it more ideological than material, which clearly is a contradictive point of view.

And finally, ‘something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive’: so where do things derive from?

-- Concepts right? The ideological form of what we perceive to be real.

Which brings me to my conclusion, if reality is perceived concepts, making it conceded ideologies, such as a man who believes in Christ, would never usually think of the idea of evolution, and vice versa, or to be more exact, a person who believes that a god created the world would find it hard to determine that the world is billions of years of cosmic activity, which would only drag him to another level of reality to which others, who oppose the idea would claim is redundant and illusionary.

So then my endeared readers, reality is then truly undefined and immaterial, thus it is not objective and thus non-existent.

So it will be a generally invalid argument and debate as to what reality truly is. I think we’d have to define it ourselves, but if we all cannot agree on a standard, then is reality truly real then?

The answer is no, no matter how many things we agree on, it will only be validated if something is truly agreed on.

Some of you may try to differ from me, then again, there is no consistency, so where is the argument?

-Reality does not mean anything, I do not believe in it, and will not be as gullible and arrogant and ignorant as to say what objective it truly is.

So people, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but well sometimes, a cigar is not just a cigar.