My Philosophy - Written in 2002



Throughout my life my spare time has lead me to ask questions. When I was little it was simple things, such as "what is that"", or "why is that?" With time, these questions grew as I did, and as soon as I began to question my own questioning, and my own recollection of facts, thoughts, memories, feelings, and even the influences of perception and analysis on these things, I knew that I was trapped for life, and that I would never escape philosophy.
The first area of philosophy that I looked at began when I was in 7th grade and I made the "outrageous" statement that there is no life. I still hold that belief today, but with qualifications. I believe that there is no life, as we presently define it. Society defines and considers the "life" of single and multi-cellular organisms as both a chemical process, and an intrinsic value held by almost all things exhibiting motion and decision-making ability. I believe that this is arrogant of us to classify these complex types of reactions as intrinsically better than some other complex reactions by things that we do not consider alive, such as the rock beneath us causing both volcanoes and earthquakes. I believe that human beings, and other creatures currently considered "alive" have no intrinsic worth, that they simply exist equal to all other matter (regardless of how complexly arranged), and that motion and 'intelligence' is simply chemical reactions in a being that can survive. To be more specific, each of the processes which the majority of people believe makes us uniquely alive, are simply directed reactions established by the balance and location of chemicals in the brain.
Emotions can be explained as an evolutionary response in order to protect survival. Emotions are fluxes in the balance of chemicals in the brain, which accomplish goals. These fluxes interrupt what is normally considered reason in order to protect survival. For example, if a person gets angry because their best friend was killed, the body is making that person angry so that more adrenaline is pumping so that they are stronger and may defend themselves or more people that benefit them. It is overriding "reason" because under normal circumstances, and with normal levels of adrenaline (maintained at a lower amount to lower metabolism and not use up food as quickly), the person may not have been strong enough to defend themselves. The emotion of love could force a person to sacrifice something about their life in order to secure a mate, and increase the chances of reproduction, which would ultimately benefit the survival of the original person more than if they had not made the sacrifice.
Moving to the topic of the meaning and purpose of life, I believe that the purpose of life is to survive, and that it has no meaning to anyone but us. If life has no meaning outside of ourselves, then each of us are only driving to reach the most desirable state. I believe that this state matches the purpose of life, in being survival. The concept of "The survival of the fittest" proposed by Charles Darwin relating to animals can be used to describe what everything in this world is moving towards. When a person has children, or when an asteroid is formed, the universe is trying to reach a point of stasis, a point where everything can survive indefinitely, and is therefore perfect. The reason that the universe is heading towards this is because when there are two objects, one object rapidly changing everything about itself and one object that is entirely still and static, the first object will continue changing until it changes into a state where it no longer changes. The states of being that will survive in these two objects are the states that are static. It is this concept that over time those two objects will become static that applies to everything in the universe. Every human being fights for its physical survival, the survival of its ideas, or the survival of its uniqueness. This can be observed by watching any human being and the actions they take to survive. The driving force behind this is if a creature does not fight to survive, it will die, and when compared to creatures that do fight to survive, there will be fewer and fewer creatures not fighting, until they are eliminated. In society, truth surfaces this way. Ideas that make sense to people remain and survive, while ideas that do not make sense are eliminated. False truths can exist in this way because they still survive by making sense, so we do not know they are false on a large scale, and are therefore allowed to exist and remain. Overtime all of these forces and concepts will change the constitution of the world to exclusively creatures that can survive indefinitely.
A study of the universe in my mind involves a study of three distinct things. These three things are the concepts of truth, perception, and law. Truth is part of the universe, because according to the philosophy which I follow, the definition of "universe" is simply the locations of known physical matter (atoms) at the different places on the x, y, z, and time axes. The study of perception is simply that our minds are not strong enough to be able to understand the location of all of the atoms, or even of most compounds, so our minds draw conclusions from what we see. This is the primary limiting factor of our understanding of this world and the laws which apply to it. This same lack of perception of atoms applies to people, because if we understood every atom of another person, we would see exactly what kind of person they are in what situation (by looking at DNA and chemical balances in brain), and what their intentions are for the future (by looking at the configuration currently in their brain). Since we cannot do this, we will never have a good understanding of ourselves or others in a social sense. It is my belief that people are justified to act on their perception, regardless of how flawed it may or may not be because their body, and their circumstances will have provided them with the best perception of truth that is possible for them, so they must act upon that because they have nothing better.
Because of the fact that we are only human, and cannot know the absolute position of particles at any given time, we have decided that we will make observations of patters and attempt to view the natural laws that are in place. The same way that are probably laws of physics, it appears that there are laws of economics, society, and every system that nature or humanity creates. I believe that this is due to the fact that every system created by nature or humanity is influenced by the actual existence of things, such as people and possessions for economics. If the bigger systems are based on smaller systems that follow the laws of physics, it would follow that the laws that the big systems follow are directly related to the laws of the subordinate systems. One example of this is the law of survival of the fittest, which can be applied economically, socially, politically, and in many other systems created by humanity, but it is still based on the concept of survival that I discussed earlier that applies to the particles at the lowest known level. The fact that the bigger systems that I have observed follow the same patterns as the lowest known systems leads me to believe that the laws I have observed for the lowest systems are in fact true. I am justified in making this conclusion because according to my perception and everything that I or others have ever observed, these laws hold true universally. Even if these laws were not true they are practical enough due to their successful application in everyday life.
One question that remains about natural laws is why. One could ponder for hours on why the laws that we have come to observe in physics are the way they are. I believe that the answer to this can be answered in the same way as the question of survival. I believe that the laws of physics that we observe everyday exist only because they can. No other laws of physics work in the completely unfathomable overriding system that allows existence of anything. The system that we live within is a combination of laws that fit in the overriding system.
Another question that this question raises is "what is the overriding system you speak of and how do you describe it?" Because I want to get a good grade, I cannot leave any of these questions that I raise unanswered. I do believe that there are infinite levels of overriding systems, of which, even the first is completely unfathomable but it still allows for the existence of the laws of physics that we currently observe. I do not think that this overriding system should be known as god. Instead, I prefer something like Plato called the forms. If there is an unfathomable overriding system within which everything exists, it would be degrading in my mind to give that system human-like qualities. I also do not believe that this system interferes with day to day life beyond its primary function of containing the laws of physics which we can actually observe.
I explain the existence of religion in other countries and covering the majority of the world by referring to the overriding system which I have previously referred to. The people who maintain a religion have observed the lack of explanation for the majority of motives for existence for any particle, or system. While I prefer not to give this thing human qualities, others do. Perhaps they do it so that they feel as if they will be aided in their struggle for survival if there is a being of compassion that is similar to them, but understanding and knowledgeable. I am very similar to how Plato and Nietzsche were in their times. I admit the existence of something I cannot explain (Plato called in the forms, and Nietzsche simply said that any god would have been separated from us and truth would be lost), others still believe in a being similar to man is the causation of all unexplainable events. From a scientific viewpoint, this explanation does not satisfy me, because personally I believe that over time, and by proposing theory and testing theory, science can rise above religion indisputably by explaining all of the mysteries of the universe with evidence which can be observed. One important test that will show when/if science rises above religion, if multiple people who have never met wonder about the same thing and come to the exact same conclusion based on their perceptions and experiences of law.
Although time acts like another dimension in most ways and is unchangeable, there are certain factors that must be simply accepted based on our perception in the same way we accept the laws of physics which we observe every day. The timeline that we see is unalterable, but the total amount of energy existing in any instant is the same, and the laws of physics which we can observe only work in one direction, in the same way that the gravity that we can observe only brings objects together.
As for Einstein's twin paradox theory, I believe that Einstein is confusing fact and perception when he says that when the two boys are united once again, that they will be of different ages. I believe that the each of the boys (relatively flying away from each other) would see each other aging very slowly, but this is not due to some special force related to the speed of light, it is just that it takes more time for the light bouncing from the other boy to reach each other. I differ from Einstein because I believe that as the boys are returning together, I believe that they would see each other rapidly, because they would be receiving the light from each other more rapidly than normal, until they both appear the same age to each other when they are united again next to each other.
I do not believe that the speed of light is absolute. One of my strongest arguments for this is historical. Most people thought that the sound barrier could not be broken, but we have broken it, which raises the question in my mind, "Why do so many people jump to impossibility when a new challenge shows itself?". We have broken the sound barrier, and even traveled many times the speed of it. I think that over time we will learn ways to overcome the speed of light. Another argument for why the speed of light must be able to be broken is that to show speed, one must use a reference point. If one is traveling towards a light source at what has been calculated to be c (I believe this will change, but I will use the established constant to make a point), then I believe that the light they observe will be traveling at 2c, relative to the observer. This shows that the speed of light must change, because in this universe there is absolutely no pure or non-moving reference point.
My favorite philosophers of all times would have to be Rene Descartes, Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Hobbes, and Aristotle. I am in agreement with Rene Descartes that the only thing we truly know is that we exist. I believe this because logically, he is right that this could all simply be an illusion, but something that is me does exist. I also agree with him in that there is a complete separation between perception and truth. I know that we are no where near a perception of actual truth in society, or in the world, so each must be treated as separate things with separate influences in society. I agree with Nietzsche to slight degree in that man is the only god by creating a false god to exist in place of uncertainty. I see this happening all around the world. His work as a philologist is very convincing to me, and I agree with him that if any god that did exist has no further impact on our world and can therefore be considered "dead." I agree with Hobbes in his belief that all humans are inherently selfish, which agrees with my theory on survival. I believe in a unique twist on Hobbes' theory, I believe that the self he speaks of can be projected onto another being or group of beings, as long as there is a connection or benefit to oneself. Charity work can be explained further than he took it in this way. We are all human and share many common traits, so by benefiting society, he is benefiting that part of "self", which could simply be considered a genetic adaptation intending to protect those who are remotely similar to him, and sexually compatible for the survival of the human species. I think that the reason humans form a society and do not backstab each other repeatedly is because we must submit ourselves to another to achieve increased safety and power, which in the end benefits self. Aristotle's work on perception and truth is very exciting to me. The idea that we give things relative form by conceptualizing any property of it is true in my mind. I believe it to be true because although something may exist in truth, if someone does not perceive of it, for all practical purposes and applications it does not exist to us.
Each of the theories that I have proposed in this document was concluded in my mind after a large degree of contemplation of whether my perception of truth is too clouded, and whether each of the theories makes sense with what I see every day. I have found that the best way to come up with accurate theories that reflect truth in the most efficient way is to accept absolutely nothing without proof, and even then question it and give it possible cause not to be. It is in this way that I have derived this, my philosophy on life, the universe, and everything.