cringy little epistemological "philosophy" essay-paper-thingy that i made a few weeks ago !!

Preface

Man has, through the invalid lens of his conscience and awareness, theorized and later established the philosophies and systems with which we choose to find an unquestionable truth and veracity within. The aforementioned is derived from the essential aspects that are applied to our mind and intellect, derived in the sense that they are holistically and to the highest regard, artificial and of an unnatural existence. Organisms exist, intrinsically and without the prospect of an opposition or contradiction in the confines of their state of existence–they are of absolute existence and cannot be regarded as the inverse; but the things which these organisms have brought into existence exist, too. The dichotomy that one may find in these two existing concepts is that one is derived from pure nature and one is derived from mere conceptualization. Despite this, we have chosen to adhere to these conceptualizations and entrust in them the elucidation of our respective purposes, paths, and necessities; what this choice has seen, in consequence, is but perplexion and absentminded following. We have found an ostensible verisimilitude in these concepts and subsequently distanced ourselves from the absolute authenticity of existence and what is (meant to be) real.

Axiom I: The Circular Fallacy of Knowledge

The fallible yet consummate nature of the human mind is what entails its incongruent and ever-permuting ideological structure; the creation of complex and nuanced thought stems from these inherent facets: logic, reason, and ethics.

Ideology, philosophy, and axioms come from reason – subjective. Arithmetic and language come from logic – perceived as objective, though are truthfully subjective as they are, like all else, entirely fabricated concepts that do not involve nature. Morality, among other human-made concepts, comes from ethics – subjective. All of these concepts and notions are but sapient postulations which merit no existential value. 

Understanding and apprehension of knowledge is what leads to the state of knowing; one cannot postulate their own thoughts without possessing the requisite knowledge. Knowledge, however, is a contrivance of the human mind; it is the interpretation and perception of objects within nature–what can be described as natural knowledge–and later, as humans developed more complex systems and interpretations thereof, the understanding of our own creations and ideas–this would be factitious knowledge. In essence, this state of knowing is innately erroneous, following a circular fallacy, a loop within itself in which one seeks knowledge forged by other individuals and reaches an essentially false state of knowing; there is no knowledge, nor is there a state of knowing, in the context of factitious knowledge, for it is perennially enmeshed within subjective interpretations. Conversely, natural knowledge is the instance of knowledge that can be deemed, in some capacity,  to be of plausibility; for it isn’t based upon our own ideas, rather nature in its unaltered form. 

What ineluctably stems from this theory is the fallacious refutation that knowledge is the understanding of nature and all of which originates from it. In the study of science, this is true, however in a general context human reasoning is fundamentally unnatural, as our ideologies are but extrapolated forms of dogmas and propositions formulated by those who precede us and those who precede them. Certain ideologies are relative to or come from things in nature, but only to an infinitesimal extent. These ideologies abstract natural and intrinsic concepts and permute said concepts so that they adhere to the subjective narratives of those who conceive them. 

(Diagram of a brain processing perception into ideology, with labels: "nature → perception → alteration → ideology")

Our creations are flawed, insufficient for attaining an adequate understanding of nature and its respective anomalies. A minute portion of factitious concepts are utilized as mediums of thought or explanations for the ambiguous; what transcends the intellectual threshold of the human mind. In thought, theology is used as a channel to elucidate reasons as to our existence and to postulate the endowed path of humanity. Evidently however, this is a mere contrivance of the human mind—like everything else, everything that we are capable of conceiving. (this part is so fucking vague i dont know why i didn't go more in depth)

Axiom II: Conceptualization of Equity

Humanity, over the course and chronology of its existence, has concocted and permeated complex structures and systems as to how to live. Politics, economics, law, and work, among an extensive plethora of other systems, are instances of attempts at achieving societal stability—stability as a species. These systems, however, fail in their cause to unite humanity in an auspicious way, by virtue of their precipitation of inequity and conflict; war, famine, injustice, poverty, and things that serve a veritable detriment to humanity and the unanimously coveted notion of societal stability are attributed to this. This is simply because, in all woeful frankness, individuals are simply incapable of conceptualizing wholly just ideologies, systems, or ideas, for even a diminutive display of selfishness can be found in whoever, as we are all driven by and tenacious in our ambition for whatever, subconsciously or consciously. Ambition is one of the most fundamental rudiments of humanity, for it is, alongside other cardinal factors, what has allowed us to progress and advance thus far—it is a key aspect of survival—the primitive and most intrinsic aspect of human existence. We can attempt to rationalize; to construct complex thought, concepts, systems; to delineate the meaning of things shrouded in ambiguity, but every endeavor to do so returns to survival.

(A utopia is as infeasible and implausible as the prospect of a perpetual source of energy, due to natural, ideological, and ethical discrepancies.)

In reflection, we are collectively living in the context of a faulty and equivocal web of systems conceptualized through the restrictions of our conscience and our natural incapability of apprehending or cognizing what is beyond us. Humans were objectively not supposed to lay dormant in the embrace of material contrivances so far devised by themselves, overindulging in the creations and ideas of their predecessors. There is an ineluctable point to be reached at the very ‘pinnacle’ of society, wherein our striving for enlightenment and progression is abstracted from us—a point in which we have achieved everything there is to be achieved, cognized everything there is to be cognized, and created everything there is to be created.

Though there is a sliver of veracity in the axiom that our creativity is boundless, the very thing which drives that same creativity, in a sense which does not lay in the domain of the arts, is the need to progress and advance forward; we will inevitably grow past that need, that necessity, and remain stagnant as we bask in our anachronistic makings. We are but finite beings in an infinite plane.

Axiom III: Subjectivity of Morality

In a case analogous to that which is elaborated upon in the circular fallacy of knowledge, morality is seemingly entirely subjective, or a simple postulation of human thought. A derivative of ethics, interchangeable in terms of origin, it is the threading that the laws and dogmas which we unanimously conform to are binded by–conspicuous in this prospect, however, lay the blatant subjectivity of its truth and correlation to our existence. Truth is the distinction of right or wrong, something that is applicable to almost every asseveration and axiom–morality seeks to demarcate this concept of truth by applying it to the condition of our values thereof. The authenticity of said values, though, is also in a general matter, entirely subjective too. This then proposes a conundrum–the actual necessitation of adherence to these dogmas and laws, a question which various philosophers have reciprocated with multifarious notions that bear stark discrepancies to one another.

As the concept of a society is, in practice, impossible to effectuate; for, through the passage of time, the members of said society will be bound to question the truth of the laws that it is built upon and subsequently instigate total incredulousness towards them–it is to be noted that it is impossible simply because of what it is built upon; morality. To expound this instance, the framework of all cultures is composed predominantly of the values that they attend to–that system is also what oft precipitates the deterioration of said cultures. Seldom have we borne witness to these diminishments because almost all societies, specifically their values, run on insidious fallacies within themselves that of which deter the arousal of deconstruction or opposition. A government which focuses itself on the axioms of a religion, as thus, will respond to any objections to its equity or rationality with the simple rejoinder of, “because the scripture says so,” and so forth–a law can be purported, ostensible, as can it be of good conscience and ethics. The lamentable truth that is to be found amidst this argument is that the latter can’t, on no account, be achieved through the means of the cognition of ethics instilled into the sapient mind, as in consensus, the reliability of those ethics is subjective and cannot be concurred upon by the sapient majority in one union, devoid of opposing beliefs or ethics. 

All that is subjective is defective and cannot be confided in; nothing can be truly achieved through subjective or empirical processes of cognition, for they propose only contrasting notions that deviate from the objective–the truth. In its entirety, the truth can be found in every facet of the universe, for there is a right and a wrong that can be applied to almost everything–a synonymous assertion cannot be made for the likes of morality, regarding its truth and validity. To say that morality is naturally applied to the oversights of the human mind, and has always been throughout chronology, is to imply that it is not a developed system, rather an objective truth. This would simply contradict the discrepant nature of this morality amongst those who pertain it.

(PLEASE COMMENT ANY QUESTIONS OR OPINIONS!!)