EPISTEMOLOGY : MEANING OF KNOWLEDGE

We all start living our lives(getting in our senses) after a point where it was previously controlled by other people. Our parents to be precise. We try to get to know things after a certain age. Before that, We are conditioned to accept the rules of this game as if we all are accustomed to this custom of knowing. 

As a result, we don't understand what does it mean to know something even beyond a certain age. Some people don't understand it in their entire lives. So philosophy seperates a special branch of itself to study the meaning of knowledge itself, viz. Epistemology. 

Philosophers love precise definitions. Let's define some basic terms in this discipline. 

Ok! Philosophers love to argue. Obviously, they argue better than scholars on internet or to be specific, trolls on Internet. The tools that philosphers have in an argument are with everybody. Philosphers just understand them better. 

1) Assertion :  Assertion is the linguistic act either written or spoken that possess some truth value. 

2) Truth value : It is not a measure of extent of how much right an assertion is ; rather it is a black and white state of an assertion being true, false or indeterminate. 

For instance, I am a boy is an assertion whose truth value can be established. But Am I a boy? is another linguistic act (questioning, let's say) but not an assertion. 

Again, 'I am a boy' and 'मैं एक लड़का हूँ' are different assertions (because of different languages) possessing different propositions. 

Proposition : It is the content of any assertion.

It is worth mentioning that attitude also counts while asserting something. Suppose I am telling you "I am a boy" but actually I am a girl but I just want to fool you. Something related to

Propositional Attitude : It is the mental state of the person asserting something. 

In the case when I am really a girl but I am telling you that I am a boy, I have a "propositional attitude of disbelief". 

On the contrary, there is something called propositional attitude of belief . 

But It will also be worthwhile here to define Belief itself. 

Belief : It is the propositional attitude of truth. I believe that I am a boy. This may be false. Obviously, Thinking and asserting something doesn't make it right. Also, I may have a propositional attitude of belief inside while asserting it and I still can be wrong. 

What It takes for a belief to be a fact, it is the truth value of the assertions about the belief. 

Here comes the big one! 

Knowledge : Knowing something, in philosophical terms, means to have a justified true belief about that thing. 

For instance, This is how life works. You are told that you were born on a particular date. What if your parents fooled you all the time telling you a false date? 

That's a different thing. Basically, in life, we first start believing something despite it being true or false. Obviously we assume it to be true. Then we develop a propositional attitude of belief. We then justify the statements by checking it anyhow. May be looking at the birth certificate. There you go! Now you know that your birthday is on the dates that your parents told you. It is no longer your belief but is now in your knowledge. And you are (may be) not being fooled by your parents. 

 Justification basically is finding out the truth value of believed assertions. Here, let me clear one thing that we can't justify a belief directly without relying on assertions. On the contrary, our beliefs are said to be constituted in small propositions, which we express in assertions and whose justifications we find to commit it to our knowledge. 

We say, If my belief corresponds to reality( an absolute forum of truth) , then my beliefs are true with respect to that absolute forum. 

The deductive arguments we dealt with in previous blog of the Socratic method come under this process. One premise basically is an assertion and the other, a related assertion which justifies the conclusion. 

How do we get justifications of beliefs

• But you were not that argumentative since birth. You first took the word for everything. This is said to be knowing something through Testimony. If the testimony was reliable, well Informed childhood. You took everyone's word for it when reading something, listening to a teacher etc. 

•  Inductive logic also works here. If I tell you that I have a pet and it is a dog. How do you justify that the pet that I am showing you in my backyard is really a dog? You have robust and well informed Beliefs about how a dog looks like. It is a first person observation about the dog, hence it is a dog. 

Gettier Cases : the paper that shook philosophy. 

So far so good! Now let's complicate it.Actually Edmund Gettier complicated this in the very first place. He proposed that sometimes Beliefs can be justified but they need not be knowledge.

In other words, he is actually saying that the definition of knowledge that philosophers believed for so long to be right was wrong. 

This, he called the Gettier cases. I call it, Coincidence cases (instances where people being true coincidently about their beliefs) 

For example, It is very common in India that when you are going to give an exam, your religious parents will give you Jaggery mixed with Curd to taste so that you get good marks in the exam. This is a kind of a ritual. 

Now even if you got good marks, will you say that this is because you ate Curd-Jaggery before exam? Of course, you can! Either in love of your parents or in love of the culture or ritual or religion, but is it truly the case? No! It is just a coincidence that you got good marks and you ate that before exam. Howsoever times you get the evidence of this ritual being justified, you brother, your friend all of them eating Jaggery mixed with Curd before exam and getting good marks, this Justified true belief can never be knowledge. 

And be careful because every religious ritual is basically a potential fool box, it can turn into a Gettier case and can fool you. Remember, 

Coincidences don't count in justifications!

This turned the philosophy discipline upside down. 

So, Knowledge is not a justified true belief. So, what is knowledge? Debates are going on till date. 

So, let's keep this concise here. In next blog, we enter the world of Karl popper who first made the distinction between Sciences and Pseudosciences. 

Keep Reading! Keep doubting! The only Salvation is in reading! 

Ok then! See you in the next blog! 

 

EMPIRICISM : DROWN YOURSELF

Hey Only brain Human bodies! Today is the day for Empiricism. Till Skepticism, The world had fallen in a deep abyss of doubt. René Fought with the "Evil Genius" by something called "Rationalism", 

Which is a way of thinking in which we consider that our senses may be false but the ideas that we develop in our minds can't be, if the ideas are thought in a truly rational manner. 

He went on thinking and concluded " I think therefore I am". Imagine René thinking all this today at 3,

  

Memes aside and aside Rationalism, there was another way of thinking regarding this, namely, Empiricism. 

Empiricism is the way of thinking in which we think that the immediate reality that we experience by using our sense organs is the ultimate reality. Reason and rationality may lead us to truth but observation of immediate reality by sene organs may beat rationality Sometimes. The self evident truths are all Empirical because you don't probe them. They  are true because they are! 

John Locke, An English philosopher, was a pioneer of this who began with this mode of reasoning. 

John believed that we all are born with a blank slate mind. Nothing written on it. We call it "Tabula Rasa" or the blank slate hypothesis. 

Nothing inherent about this World and it's reality. All of what we know about this World, we know by our sense organs. Locke agreed with Descartes in the sense that not everytime our sense organs give us correct information. 

Now whether the senses give correct information or not, He classified the properties of all Objects as 

1. Primary Qualities 

2. Secondary Qualities

Primary Qualities are those qualities that are objective in nature. Like :- mass, solidity, shape, size, depth, height, motion, etc of an Object are it's primary qualities. 

Secondary qualities are those qualities that are subjective in nature. Everyone will have a different description about the property. 

For example :- colour, taste, texturetexture, smell, sound it makes etc. are some of these. 

I mean, if there is an orange of orange color what kind of orange is this, light, dark, it all depends on our perception at that time. I am eating that orange, what is it's taste? Sour, very sour, a bit sweet! Depends on what I ate before that. 

The argument of Locke was that the distinction between the primary and secondary qualities explained the difference in the perception of the reality. Obviously you can't disagree on something's primary qualities, but you surely can on secondary qualities and that creates a deception of a fake reality sometimes. 

The next stage of this reasoning was achieved by George Berkeley, an Irish Thinker. He dismantled the empirical thought structure by this argument. 

If you try to ignore the secondary qualities for sometime, you loose even the primary ones and hence the whole of reality. For instance, 

Imagine a colourless Apple! You can't believe me. You are probably imagining one which is either transparent in which it is actually the colour of the background that must be imagined or white coloured Apple which is obviously a flawed imagination. 

Imagine a textureless one. Similarly you will not be able to. 

So, Berkeley's argument was that since the two qualities are so much interconnected with each other, you can be deceived in any of those two. And Since, you can be fooled by your senses regarding any of those qualities, There is nothing physical in this world. There are only perceptions. There are only images and no objects. That's what He said. 

               ESSE EST PERCEPI

               (To be is to be perceived) 

We need Perceivers in order to exist. This is something Allama Iqbal, The great Urdu poet, writes in one of his couplets, 

        

         हज़ारों साल नरगिस अपनी बेनूरी पर रोता है, 

         बड़ी मुश्किल से होता है चमन में दीदावर पैदा! 

Interpreting it in our scenario, The immaterial objects cry on their fate for thousands of years till a perceiver takes birth. 

Berkeley is scary, isn't he? But wait. He gets scarier. He argued that since everything is perception, we need perceivers to perceive us unless we will seize to exist. May be that's why I am awake late at night. If I slept, I will seize to exist. But What if Everybody went asleep someday at the same time because of some Serotonin conspiracy of some mad philosopher doing an experiment to check Berkeley's Empirical arguments? 

On this, Berkeley said that God must exist. God must exist as an ultimate perceiver. When nobody watches, he watches. From here comes, this threat to privacy Statement. 

So Berkeley ended his argument on a positive note when he solved everything by making God exist. But as we know, God doesn't exist. (Sorry!) So it makes the point scarier again with this much level of understanding. Moreover, just imagine, if God exists, and for God to exist we need another permanent perceiver. So say, God himself. Sounds too religious, right? Let it be...! 

This leads us to the end of Empiricism, The way of thinking that leads us to question the legitimacy of the physical world and of matter itself. Next we will move to Epistemology, the second branch of philosophy and will see how to make this world not get ceased again. Let's see Who brings back this world. 

See you in the next blog (Yeah, you are being watched 🤫) . 

Till then, Keep reading. 

The only salvation! 

       

               

METAPHYSICS :- THE NATURE OF REALITY

Hey Intellect thirsty folks! Let's start today's blog with a story.

 Long ago, There was a tribe of human civilisation living in a cave. They used to reside all inside the cave only and their only source of contact with the immediate world around them was the shadows of the outer World that used to fall on the walls of the cave from outside. They were not able to see themselves because of darkness but they could easily see the Shadows. As a result, 3-D was not even a concept for these people. They used to think that the world is 2-Dimensional.

One day one of the guys somehow, instead of seeing the shadows tried to touch them and due to the little light available around the shadows, He was able to see himself. Now He followed the light to reach outside the cave. Firstly his eyes were too full of light to see the World out there. But as soon as, things became normal, He was able to see the world. The World which was 3-D , beautiful colours all around and birds flying. He was so amazed by this discovery of this new World that in the ecstasy of this, He went inside the cave to tell his other friends about this. But the people inside didn't believe him saying," You were day dreaming, and if even this is true, you are now cursed by the devil for going out. We, the people of the cave, are destined to live in the cave. Our priest told us so." The curse part was even supported by the fact that his eyes were no longer able to see those shadows (obviously because of going out in highly intense light). There were a lot of evidences ( not proper) to support the opinion of the majority and the guy had none. 

The story is from the famous book of the ancient Greek Thinker Plato, The Republic. 

THE PLATONIC WORLD

Philosophers since time immemorial, are thinking about the crucial question of the nature of reality. The most ancient discussion about this is seen in the dialogue between Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle was firmly in the position that the world immediately out there is the only reality while Plato gave the thought of a Platonic world, A World of ideas, where material world is just interpreted as a set of ideas. The difference between The Platonic World and The Aristotlian World is that Platonic World includes the existence of all abstract feelings that only exist as ideas in nature like :- Love, hatred, cold etc. 

Plato Innunctiated these points in The Republic, viz. 

1. Philosophy requires you to question your beliefs and even to reach at the point where you may conclude that all your beliefs were false. 

2. Philosophy is approaching truth. It is never at the truth, It is always approaching it. That's why it is awesome. 

3. Our illusion about the world is this materialistic world view. In constrast to the cave example, The material bodies are the shadows in this case. The actual world is a world of ideas. The idea about your loved one, not the loved one himself/herself lives with you and so on. 

However bizzare the work of Plato seems regarding Metaphysics and the nature of reality, there are a few things that are true regarding this, 

1. There is no way to disprove the hypothesis. I mean, How do you detect a world of ideas. And of course you do, You can get a feel that a world of ideas exist. But only a world of ideas exist and no material world is something you can't risk a hypothesis but can't even disprove. 

This is like the statements of religion. Religious arguments about this world are also the same, right?! Statements you can't prove, because it has phrases like," When you observe it, it changes or Normal Human beings are not able to see the Divine".The problem with these statements is that It includes the condition that since you are a part of the delusion  , you can't detect it. 

2. The Hidden insight which is useful for us is that one should never fear the situation when we may loose all our beliefs and will be thrown in the abyss of doubts and doubts alone.

3. The World is really agnostic about the nature of reality. What is really real and what is apparently real may be same or different but we can't identify the line of divide between the two because the former may be just an idea(or both may be, who knows). 

An Urdu poet Jaun Elia writes in one of his couplets, 

               ज़िन्दगी समझ में आए कहाँ से, 

               पढ़ी है ये इबारत दरमियाँ से! 

Translating, 

              Life is and will be incomprehensible, for we all read this book from the middle. 

So, basically nobody has any idea what's going on. No wonder it is easy to fool people in the name of God and stuff.

But following Plato's reasoning, you can't say Religion is false nor that it is improbable. It is just one of the ideas and Plato would have been a kind of an opportunist guy who is Hindu today, Muslim tomorrow, atheist after that and Christian a month from now according to his needs. If everything is just an idea, we are able to believe whatever we want. 

CARTESIAN SKEPTICISM 

Coming back from Athens, The Thinker we stumble upon who thought about the nature of reality is René Descartes who gave a method called the method of doubts to tackle the question of what is real !  

Following the method of doubts leads us to the term Cartesian Skepticism which is being skeptical about anything in a rational manner. 

This method of doubts works on the analogy of basket of Apples. If you have a basket of Apples in which some of them are rotten. The only way to seperate the rotten Apples from the right ones is to turn the basket upside down and check one by one for the right ones and then put them in the basket again. 

He started by doubting the empirical beliefs. The beliefs that we get directly by our sense organs. What we see, hear ,smell , touch etc. 

Our sense organs fool us all the time. Ever saw your friend in a street full of people and then found that it was just a stranger?  Hot water feels hotter when your hand is already at lower temperature than the normal. 

These momentary deceptions of our sense organs that lead to question a particular incident or a sensory perception  was called " A local Doubt"  by René. 

But What if the local doubts are all part of a bigger deception? This was termed by René as "A Global doubt". A global doubt is doubt about existence of everything around and the interrelations too. 

Then an Idea blinked in his mind. He asked, what actually may be the reason of this deception? He then gave  " the evil genius" Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, there is an evil genius who planned this deception all along. The deception ranges from the idea of creation to the proofs supporting this to the existence of the individual himself. 

An English Philosopher, Bertrand Russell, also gave a similar "5 minute hypothesis", which was " What if the world is only created five minutes ago and all the proofs of it's existence before five minutes is just a planned propaganda". However bizzare this may seem, but there is no way to disprove the hypothesis. 

Bertrand's argument was somewhat agnostic about existence. He said why should we bother about existence or whether anything is real Or not when logically, there are thousand ways in which the world may have been created and there's no way to find out which one is our one. On the contrary, René was in a kind of existential crisis where he wanted answers. 

The thought that was Eureka for René was that, may be everything is a deception. May be the evil genius is also creating thoughts in my mind, but he can't plant doubts in my mind. I mean this must be voluntarily done by a thinker on his own. Doubt is someone's originality. Basically René said he may be dreaming it all but he must not be dreaming that he is dreaming. 

He was sure that He is Doubting and his doubting is without doubt a reality. Since, Doubt is a thought, it needs a thinker. Thus, René arrived at his Eureka statement which is I think the most popular statements in metaphysics and philosophy, 

COGITO ERGO SUM 

( I THINK THEREFORE I AM) 

A doubter must exist in order to doubt. This was the first Apple that René took back in his basket. Using this, He then started reasoning, and brought back God in his belief basket. He said, God also must exist. 

All this is compiled in his books Mediations on first philosophy and discourse on method. 

This is not over yet. The next is Combating Skepticism. That would be the end of all of Metaphysics. These stuff that I write in my blogs are the most popular works in philosophy. There is always a large pile of work in front of me before I start with a certain topic. Obviously I can't tell you everything. But This is what an undergrad of Philosophy must be knowing by the end of his first semester. 

The plan is that I will complete this philosophy section in it's totality making you aware with the briefs of all of philosophy that happened till date. Then I have thought to proceed in multiple directions. 

The current directions in my mind are, 

1. Change the subject. I can teach you by my current understanding, Undergraduate Physics, History, Economics, Political philosophy, Sociology, Psychology. I know this much only unpto the level of a normal undergrad. If you want a particular out of this and you read upto this point, you can directly request in the comments to write about these. 

2. I can drown myself in the sea of individual philosophers and tell you about works of individual philosophers by reading their books and writing about them with titles like :- Revisiting Neitsche or something like that. 

3. I can begin with Marxism. This is my most fascinating dream to explain Marx to the normal public so that they may know more about Communism and why the Spectre of Marx still haunts the leaders of today. 

4. I can begin on writing social issues which I don't like to do as you know, I don't want my blog posts to be trash can of opinions based on certain ideology that I follow. You will also complain I am biased( which of course I am) . 

5. I have a few good Urdu poets and I am fond of poetry in this language. I can teach you the basics of Urdu poetry with how to interpret poetry in its utmost imaginary reality. Explaining the trends in Urdu poetry, including progressive age, postmodernist age and so on. 

Please comment which path you want me to follow after the philosophy section is over. This is to be done in comments section. If nobody comments, I will do what my mood swings will tell me to do at the time of decision. 

As the Sanskrit phrase goes

               सा विद्या या विमुक्तये 

( knowledge is what frees you) 

So Read and keep reading. The only salvation. 

Ok then! See you in the next blog. 

TYPES OF QUESTIONS : CLASSIFICATIONS IN PHILOSOPHY

Once we are equipped with the philosopher's toolbox i.e. The Socratic method of reasoning, We are ready to dive into the questions of Philosophy. 

So were the Intelligent people of Ancient times. 

In this Blog, We will look into the types of questions that our Ancestors have asked and thus the classification of the discipline of philosophy according to the different questions. 

Ancient Thinkers in Athens began by classifying ideas around them as "Philos" and "Mythos" , today known as "Science" and "Storytelling" respectively. There were people like Homer who thought we can understand this World through Stories while there were people like Socrates who decided to investigate the truth of the World via Scientific method. 

Philosophy was, in ancient times, the only discipline existing along with literature. It was called the "Natural Philosophy". 

Everything was philosophy back then. With time, thinkers needed to classify their discipline to enhance the conversation specialisation. 

The Discipline of Philosophy is divided into Three major types, viz.  

1. METAPHYSICS 

2. EPISTEMOLOGY 

3. VALUE THEORY 

Metaphysics:-

The question of Metaphysics is simply "What is the Nature of Reality?" Elaborating it, There is a World out there. Is the things that we see in this world and consider them to be real are really real? What do we mean when we say something is real? Is anything real? If yes, then can a distinction be made so that we may differentiate things as real or not-real? If not, then There must be a structure of virtuality present. What is the nature of virtuality? These questions dates back to a dialogue between Plato and Aristotle which leads us to the debate of the ages, Plato enunciating the idea of a Platonic reality while Aristotle putting his feet on the ground. 

Now a days where we feel proud to call ourselves Scientific, Metaphysics is very easily discredited by Scientists. But, This conformist approach should be abandoned. The ideal approach, in my humble opinion is not to reject logical arguments like this. For the case of Religion, Religion is nowhere comparable to Metaphysics. Metaphysics is questioning, Religion is answering, and you know, you can question anything, but you can't answer anything by saying any random story. 

Religion can be kept in the "mythos" Section which I don't mind. 



In the Black Cat analogy shown above, Religion is like sitting in the dark room and telling stories about the black cat specifying that it has special powers. 

Moving on... 

Epistemology :-

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy which deals with the question of knowledge. The knowing of knowing itself. How do we know things? Is knowing a global phenomena? "Episteme" Is the word given for the way of knowing something. 

There is a long debate in this field concerning many famous figures namely two of them being Newton and Leibniz. The debate of something called "Ontology" and "Epistemology". Newton and many other Realists today say that knowledge about the world works on this hypothesis, 

There is a world out there independent of us. We interact with it through scientific methods to get Unique Facts about the World which is true for everybody. 

Whereas Leibniz and many Radical Theorists believed that 

We are a part of this world. So, we influence this world. So, in no way we can get to the absolute truths but only the half truths, my reality and your reality. Basically, The observer affects the Observations, Hence nothing is really real. Everything is your reality, my reality, their reality and so on. 


Epistemology concerns with the mode of questioning itself and whether it is dependent on some other logic or not. Whether Questioning is the last resolve of knowing. So we question the questioning itself to validate the questioning. Yeah! makes sense! 

Value theory :-

Is there anything of some value in this world or not? The previous two branches were so rigorous that we are left with this question. So, Value theory deals with the question of morality and ethics and what to belief and what not to in order to live a life. 

It is divided into two sub-disciplines, viz. 

1. Ethics

2. Aesthetics

Ethics  refers to the morality section and Aesthetics concerns with the idea of beauty, Objective beauty. What to consider absolutely beautiful and you will be logically correct too. We perceive beauty as something subjective, but there exists something objectively beautiful and what is it's grounds, this is what we concern ourselves with in this. 

So, we came to the end of the classification blog of our discipline. From the next blog, we will begin with the discourse related to metaphysics, which is to tackle the nature of reality. There is going to be a rigorous series of blogs following which you will get a feel of doing a BA in philosophy (believe me, not all of them know this much) . 

Stay tuned, keep reading, the only Salvation is in reading ( not Bible, but "Libre") (Libre means being free, so being in a library means... You know what! Being free of course) see you! 🙃🙂

CONTINUING WITH THE SOCRATIC METHOD

Hey Rational Animals, What's up? So, we are to finish what we have started in the last blog, The Socratic method. 

The two more processes that are parts of the Socratic method are:-

1. The inductive method 

2. The Abductive method

The inductive method:-

Deduction works only if we have a complete set of premises about the matter we want to draw a conclusion of. But in real world which is ignorant, We can only work in terms of probabilities about truth of certain things because we never have the complete set of true premises . The simple reason for that is that the world's so big and probably limitless, so the truth about a certain thing can't be generalized. 

Let's take an example of cats. If someone tells you that he has counted the no. of cats in the Universe and it is 1 billion. Would you believe it to be true? No! You should not, because The Universe which observable may have this many number of cats but every second, lights from more distant galaxies are reaching us so our domain of counting is increasing with time. So, we can't be 100% sure that the figure he told us is true However reliable the guy is. 

So, basically, we never know everything about a certain topic so we can't apply deductive reasoning to everything and the world works on probability of a fact being true or false. 

Like :- You can't deduce by any logic that there is no God, you can just say it is improbable to have a God. 



So, let's see how induction works. Similar to Deduction, we set premises here. These premises are best to our knowledge true. And then we induce a generalisation based on the premises which is highly likely. 

Let's take an example, 

• Premise 1:- Vibhat ate some Momos yesterday. 

• Premise 2:- His Friend Abhishek ate some Momos yesterday. 

• Premise 3:- Both of them today have stomach ache. 

• Conclusion:- Momos probably is the reason for both of them getting stomach ache. 

Let's see, umm! But there may be other possible reasons, different reasons for both of them may be. May be Vibhat is Glutton kind of a guy who stuffed a lot of boiled eggs along with Momos that day. May be Abhishek got ache because of his haphazard eating habits which is out of schedule. 

Notice, however that the conclusion is an inductive conclusion where "probably" is used. It is claimed here that there is a higher possibility that the Momos are the real culprit. 

That's how Induction works. 

 In any Scientific research in theory,  Induction is used more often than Deduction. Science never claims to know the reason behind something with all certainty. It only claims that the most highly likely reason behind a phenomena consistent with the experiment is the scientific reason given and is justified. Science never claims to have a conformist approach to things. The people who compare Science with religious dogma are either less educated or unaware of the ways of reasoning. 

Moving on, 

But wait, Induction is the same process by which religion proposes certain things. Yeah true! But the matter of possibility lies there. Religion even claims to predict future. 

Induction may give a false hope in that case too. 

Let's imagine something. Let us assume that there is a substance named Croto.It is usually observed that the colour of Croto is blue after 10 years of it's existence. 

Before that, The colour of Croto is pink. Now if I found a Croto and it is pink. It means it is not older than 10 years. But this is again just a possibility because it is an observation about a few Crotos but not about all Crotos. We generalized the fact of it's colour using this observation. 

The same induction works for why you like certain things and why you don't like certain things. Why do you like to watch the next Marvel film? Because you have seen most of the previous ones and you have figured out that Marvel films are always lit. So, you conclude, that this film will also be amazing. It may not be so, but it is highly likely that it will be. 

The Abductive method :- 

Socrates, in his method, proposed something called a "dialogue", which is basically what it is, exchange of ideas by the above methods of reasoning. This dialogue happens between people which were called "Interlocutors". 

Interlocutors present there premises and conclusions and then debate. But the thing remains, just to propose one's own assertions and conclusions will not lead to truth. One must critically analyze the other person's arguments and try to disprove it. This method of eliminating all possible conclusions regarding a certain Debate is called The Abductive method. 

In a nutshell, eliminating all other possibilities by proving them impossible, One is left with the only possible conclusion which must be right. 

For example, 

Me :-

• premise 1 :-  Most of the Intelligent people have long hairs. 

• premise 2:-  I have long hairs. 

• conclusion :- I am intelligent. 

My friend Abhishek :-

• premise 1 :-  I had  a girlfriend who had long hairs. 

• premise 2:- She was stupid. 

• Conclusion:- Not all long hairs have big brains. 

• Abductive conclusion :- may be you are dumb too. 

Me :-

• premise 1:- But I have read philosophy along with that I am studying physics, learning a language and poetic skills about it. 

• premise 2:-  May be long hairs have nothing to do with intelligence. But, long hairs may reflect that one is so busy with one's studies that one doesn't get time to cut them. 

• Inductive conclusion :- I am an intelligent guy, may be not because of long hairs, but it is related to my intelligence indirectly. 

My Friend Abhishek then sends me this meme. 

Well! This leads us to end of philosophical reasoning. Now we are ready to have a look on various "-isms" And the reasoning behind them. Note that all "-isms" Use all the three reasoning methods, one more than the other in different proportions. 

But The basis of philosophy ends here, now comes the parts which You will love to hear and as Aristotle says, 

"You can entertain an argument, without agreeing to it". So! Be ready for this journey. 

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? INSIGHT INTO THE SOCRATIC METHOD

EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE IS JUST AN APPLICATION OF PHILOSOPHICAL METHODS. 

Why do you need to care about Socrates? About Stoicism? Skepticism? Or any other -isms? You must have heard people who claim they don't belong to any "-isms" anyhow. It's quite amusing to see how people think just asking silly questions about existence or just thinking about how the world must function, how the economic systems progress is Philosophy. Thinking about these topics in philosophy are just like talking about black holes only in physics. These questions are part of just a populist culture. 

Philosophy is an account of how we humans reason things. It is the "way" of asking any question and trying to contemplate answers regardless of what question you ask. It may be the most common looking question that you encounter in your lives. And since every Scientific discipline is just asking questions and trying to give answers, philosophy has to do with every discipline. 

MAN IS A RATIONAL ANIMAL. 

~ ARISTOTLE

Regardless of the fact that women are also rational ( politically correct statement), this statement can be regarded as the reason for philosophy to exist. 

Rationality is the basic trait of Humans.It is the way of reasoning that Humans have cultivated to see how one occurrence leads to other and how one fact is connected to other fact and how by arguing, one can make a logical sense between two facts. 

The most primitive philosophical method is The Socratic method. 

Socrates, The Greek philospher gave the most primitive way of reasoning known (may be the only till date) . 

Many of us are not good at arguments. At least, Not in the true rational sense. If forcefully spitting nonsensical arguments just to win an argument is on stake, then I think many of us will upvote themselves. Comparisons of two facts not so ever related, misrepresentation of the argument altogether and many other seemingly savage qualities are part of today's popular tweet culture. 

Plato never said that but you know, many of us are Plato in our own minds. 

So What is the correct method to reason following which you can be sure of one thing that the conclusion is really of some value and not some trash resulting from a trashy argument? 

THE SOCRATIC METHOD HAS THREE WAYS OF REASONING, VIZ. 

1. THE DEDUCTIVE METHOD

    

    In the Deductive method we begin by setting premises. What are premises? Premises are assertions that we think are true best to our knowledge and then lead to the conclusion based on the interrelations of the assertions. 

In short, premises lead to the only possible conclusion. 

For example, 

•Premise 1 :- All Animals are Mortal. 

•Premise 2 :- All Humans are Animals. 

•Conclusion:- All Humans are Mortal. 

In this kind of reasoning, you can see, there are two premises, which are based on truth that one knows best to one's knowledge, and thus, concludes the only possible conclusion. 

Now just a bit of change in premises and see how conclusion changes, 

• Premise 1 :- All Animals are Mortal. 

• Premise 2 :- All Humans are Mortal. 

• Conclusion:- All Animals are Humans. 

Sensed something illogical? Yes! What exactly? 

The thing is both the premises are correct. But The two premises do not lead to the given conclusion. There are Animals that are not necessarily Human. 

So you can see, in any of your reasonings in life, there may be many types of mistakes, viz. 

• The premises are not true. 

• The premises are correct but the conclusion drawn is wrong. 

And so on. 

You see, in a rush of an argument, we sometimes bluntly conclude something out of something so haphazardly without knowing that Socrates gave the correct way to do it. (At least He Told the possible ways of being wrong). 

Next we will have a look on the other types of methods in the Socrates way of reasoning, viz. The Inductive method and The Abductive method. 

Let's do it in other one. Ponder over it. Are you a person with good arguments, or just any random egoistic guy who thinks winning arguments is more important than really knowing something. 

This series is going to be long. After the Socratic method, we are going to look into the philosophical pathway that many wise men of their times used to ask some of the most common but important questions and how they started new "-isms" And how all -isms , however bizzare they seem are based on the correct ways of reasoning and are more logical than your reason of why you wake up and then want to put every other thing in your mouth till night and say that you are hungry. 

Let it be short but let us assume future blogs will be stuffed with lots of reasoning and logic. 

And thus, this photo was related. 

ORIGINS AND ORIENTATIONS OF OUR HYPOCRISY

When people talk, they lay lines on each other, do a lot of role playing, sidestep, shilly-shally and engage in all manner of vagueness and innuendo. We do this and expect others to do it, yet at the same time we profess to long for the plain truth, for people to say what they mean, simple as that. Such hypocrisy is a human universal.                         

       ~ Steven Pinker 

Hypocrisy is an evil trait, that's what we perceive it in objective terms. We tend to criticise people who are not upto their words and this criticism may range from humiliating to public shaming to gossiping and so on. Now, the matter of discussion here is that there is a field of Psychology called Psychoanalysis that claims to explain this human behavior of hypocrisy and the reactions of people toward hypocrisy. Some claim that it is a conscious act that people do for personal gains(Majority,because you know we pretend to be woke inside but we do that being stupid) , some say it is an unconscious act of folly, others radically assert that this is in our subconscious to be a moral hypocrite ( this is a common belief in the new woke culture which shows an unnecessary sympathy to every other crime that people do by saying things like, "Oh! Bad is necessary for the existence of good" and many such words with no justifiable evidence). 

This is an attempt not to sympathize with people who are hypocrites, neither is this an attempt to criminalise the trait further, but to explain the term Psychoanalytically using Carl Jung's and Sigmund Freud's ways of seeing it and then adding them in a proper ratio so that eventually we don't emotionally react to hypocrisy when we encounter it in ourselves or in others but to responsibly sort it by either acceptance or by honest rejection. 

HYPOCRISY IS A GREY TRAIT 

First of all, we have to admit a simple fact that hypocrisy is not a black and white term(which most of the things in this world are) , whether you are an hypocrite or not is not the correct way to reason it. Not all hypocrites (or those who are falsely called so) are the same. There is a wide range of this hypocritic nature. Different behaviors depending upon different circumstancial conditions are seen. 

OBVIOUSLY THERE EXISTS CONSCIOUS HYPOCRISY WHICH IS EVIL 

But this is more subtle than you think. There is a basic nature of human beings, need for assurance. We want assurance of good days more than the good days themselves. This is because we fear the mentioning of dystopia more than the dystopia itself. The reason we don't fear actual dystopia is biological. Adaptability is the reason. Of course, if something bad happens, we try to adapt to it. Adaptability requires you not to be nostalgic about old days and not to be fearful about the new normal. Basically, Since you are programmed by someone ( God may be) to act vigourously during bad times, your psyche becomes numb at times of Catastrophe. 

This can be used by a street smart guy like a politician to fool you by serving you a delicious meal of thought about good days or by your boyfriend about how "happily ever after" you will live with him after marriage ( If you are psychologically mature, you know that everyone of us is a potential monster in our minds, so this ever after will happen never after marriage) . So, the point is not whether you taught the guy a lesson not to mess with your mind with fake positivity but it is that Can you resist the temptation of the sweetest drug in this world, "POSITIVITY". 

UNCONSCIOUS HYPOCRISY :- THE SIMPLEST CASE 

Mark Twain said, "You don't have to remember anything if you speak the truth".

But let's reconsider this thing. Many times, the Definitions of truth and falsity are so sublime that we unconsciously develop a memory in our minds having records of your own truths and the truths of the society separately. Let's see what exactly I meant.Suppose you are a boy born in a patriarchal family which always gives you an upper hand over the woman of the family. But you are a well educated guy now and according to a hidden norm of this world, the sign of a well educated guy is that he should be politically and socially correct. Your political and social correctness tells you "Respect woman, Equal Rights blah blah" ( please don't hit me for this, I am no misogynist). But you have your emotional needs according to your conditioning. You have always seen your mother taking care of needs of your father, serving him tea in the morning and so on and so on. 

Now what is your truth? Are you a patriarchal guy inside which you always hated because of your ideology of being a feminist? Or are you a feminist who is constantly fighting patriarchy within himself.In a wider picture, the truth here is subjective. Your conditioning was not in your hands; so inside you , there is a desire for a caring submissive woman (which is not a bad desire). My god! You must be very careful here because fighting with the inner patriarchy is necessary but not this radically by cutting off your emotional needs entirely. Obviously you have a choice to select a partner of your taste. 

Thus, In this case, you may unconsciously become a hypocrite occasionally in front of your girlfriend may be wishing her to be submissive on one hand but also saying things like you want her to have equal rights. 

In a nutshell, 

What we sometimes believe is not according to our adaptation. It takes time for anyone to adapt to a particular right belief. So, the judgement of hypocrisy should let go people who are in the process of self correction. 

SUBCONSCIOUS HYPOCRISY :- THE DAILY HYPOCRISY WE ACCEPT OURSELVES TO LIVE BY BUT DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS 

 

So yes, There is an intrinsic truth in the statement that we all are morally hypocrites. 

There is a couplet by Kabir Das, a Medieval Poet in India, 

 

कथनी मीठी खांड सी, करनी विष की लोय |

कथनी तज करनी करै, तो विष अमरित होय ||

Deconstructing it, Kabir says that you have preachings like sugar but actions like poison. 

You should leave preaching and act well so that the poison becomes an immortal syrup. 

This is apt , But, Just imagine what will happen when you encounter someday that you were being a hypocrite about something. You feel bad inside obviously, but your brain starts thinking that how can you get rid of this feeling, this feeling of being a hypocrite. And obviously we look for a temporary solution to give counter reasons of why we are not. But, when that doesn't seem fruitful, we look for  a permanent solution of whether we can act well to rectify our hypocrisy (which is seemingly healthy). But suppose that also is not possible ( and believe me, there are circumstances when rectifying your actions are not that easy), then you adapt to it and you literally start living with your hypocrisy. This may be for greater good, or may be a regretful decision. Like a politician, who knows the truth or the right way, but the narrative that his party wants to lay in order to serve their populist agenda, makes him either not to speak about those matters when asked about or to support unwillingly. So कथनी can't be Foresaken in times when कथनी is your only करनी.

But our point is the saturation state of this kind of a person who compromises with his judgements of truth. The person, in a course of time, starts unconsciously believing the falsity he unwillingly supported and then the inner conscience that "he is wrong" is pushed to the subconscious.

Now the question is, how then is he a hypocrite if his beliefs now are according to his will and actions? This question arises only because we don't understand the science of beliefs. The sublime nature of beliefs makes them complicated. You know many times your Self (That is You) has a varied set of beliefs, your one part of mind may believe one thing, your other part may believe the exact opposite. 

Freud classified different Selves of us in three parts, viz. 

1. ID 

2.Ego 

3. Superego 

The ID is Hedonistic. It is always after personal desires irrespective of it's legitimacy. 

The Superego is the constant urge of us to follow the norms of the society. 

The Ego is the balance of both. 

So sometimes, we don't even know that we are being a hypocrite because once we identified ourselves, we adapt with it and then forget about it( just like we forget the physical pain, when we distract ourselves by watching TV may be) 

We forget our hypocrisy once we adapt ourselves with it. 

 

CONCLUSION 

See, it's so normal to be called a hypocrite now a days where the liberal culture forces you to believe certain things for being politically correct. So I think we should be careful about the word because the more you use a word, the more likely it is that it may loose it's meaning. 

In a nutshell, "SAVE THE MEANING OF HYPOCRISY SO THAT IT DOESN'T BECOME A TABOO AS IF BEING A HYPOCRITE IS BEING A WITCH OR SOMETHING".

Next blog in this series will be related to this picture 👇

IS YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS PREDICTABLE?

In the Last blog, I gave a hint on what would be the next blog about, by a picture, 

 In this picture, you can see apparently it is an irony how the all similar looking fellows are mocking the different looking "in formals" guy calling him a conformist. Although This hypocrisy of the woke culture and the obsession of being unique is the most recent thought process one can think of ( Yes, this is your capability memers, you can't think out of the box, you only go with the flow) , There was a philosopher named Hegel who saw this pattern before the birth of any memer I guess, and he tried to Explain it in his so called "Dialektik" or Dialectic . The question that  we are addressing in this blog is much more generalizing than this meme,  the question is "Is there any pattern between successive selections of beliefs? Can we say we are organisms with free will Or we are just programmed individuals who think systematically, always programmed to think differently within their own range?" 

By the way, He is Hegel ☝(was) 

EXPLAINING FREE WILL AND CULT CULTURE IN TERMS OF HEGEL'S DIALEKTIKS 

Dialectic is a way of speaking in which we talk in terms of three processes, viz. 

    1. Thesis 

     2. Anti-Thesis 

     3. Synthesis 

Hegel said that if we see historically, the thought processes toward cultures , politics and so on first begins with a thesis, which is the primary way of thinking about any topic. 

Then comes after a span of time, Anti-thesis, where a counter argument of why the present thought process is flawed and why Anti-thesis is the more correct way of thinking about the topic, comes into picture. Although both the thought processes are extremely radical in their own ways, at that time, the mass majority finds the new cult more progressive or more apt. Then there comes a third stage of synthesis where both the thought processes come to a balance and then we naturally progress towards a natural equilibrium. 

"YOU CAN FIND IMPORTANT PARTS OF YOURSELF IN HISTORY" 

~ HEGEL 

FRENCH REVOLUTION 

For example," In the 18th century France, where we first saw a revolution in 1789, the Monarchy was crushed by the working class, and new ideals like equality and freedom came into picture. 

If you are a Hegelian, you will ask, what the working class was thinking in 16th century? Because obviously, France was in the hands of Monarchs for a long time. Why they didn't think of these necessities before? Hegel argued that the Human consciousness takes time to build a new consensus or a new thought which in those days, were incomprehensible.

 Then, slowly and continuously, the masses got to know that they deserve freedom and all and then an Anti-thesis of Monarchy happened in 1789. But The Anti-thesis also went to an extremely radical outcome when Napoleon took over who was among the working class ( He came from a humble background) Who thought if a Non-descendent or a "Not a king" guy ruled the state, then it would be better. Here on this point, A Hegelian would have argued that why Napoleon couldn't sense the problem that might arise for the people in his regime? 

A Hegelian answer to that would be, the Anti-thesis and Thesis statements exist locally as the perfect solution to the problem at hand. 

Here we see, after the defeat of Napoleon, people accepted the conservative absolutism which sort of existed before Napoleon. Here we again revert back to The thesis, people saw the Salvation in previous system because they were fed up of Napoleon. This tug of war finally ended on a synthesis of both the ideas in a Democratic system where the working class rules in terms of voting, and the new class of rulers called politicians rule in terms of their work to serve the nation, which is obviously the best version of distribution of power till now. 

Now comes the important point, Can, by following this process of Dialectic, we predict what next thought process will be acceptable by the masses in majority? This is sort of predicting the future. And you know "Big data" 

Exists for the same purpose. They are literally  going to read your minds and decisions by using statistics and Hegel's Dialectics blah blah... But let's see... 

Hegel didn't say anything for that matter. His saying on this was simply "We can find important parts of ourselves in history".

But If we think a bit, we will find the approach of dialectic works on the assumption of local Blacks and whites (extremely radical solutions) but eventually the fate of this world is grey. A mixture of both the extremes. Now just after a food of thought, we can think that there also exists a binary between the radical approach and the slow progress or the grey approach. So, Just Following the Hegelian Dialectic, we can take a leap of faith to generalise that the after the synthesis of the two ideas, sometimes people may not get quenched by the synthesis of the two, and now they need a change again. Either they revert back to the old Antithesis or Thesis worlds for sometime or a basically null appears in the global scenario where nobody has any solution to the existing problemproblem till a new black or white appears and then following the same Hegelian approach. 

You can apply the Hegelian approach to almost anything. The feminist movement that you see, the mechanical life in a capitalist culture and the new woke culture that you see. 

So if we look at the meme again(to which you will not be able to laugh now, you never thought this meme was this serious, right?) 

Obviously the joke is on the woke idiots, who are all conformists with the idea of being woke and living a Bob Marley like life. But, wait a minute, If we apply Hegelian food of thought here, we can just explain that this guy in the formals is the new revolutionary of his time who will bring a new kind of Capitalistic woke culture where the life would not be too haphazard like the woke culture but also not too disciplined like a typical mechanical life in a purely Capitalistic regime. So instead of laughing, You should appreciate the philosophy here ( just kidding, please don't call me a woke, 😖) 

You should not think being a rebel always means to crash the system and not follow the rules, when everyone is not following the rules, you can be a revolutionary by following them. But obviously, one should not function just for the sake of being a revolutionary and so on. If breaking rules is the reality of your time, do it. It all depends on what you perceive as correct (obviously, you will be called an idiot by others and may be you are one!) 

 AS WE ARE ALL WOKE POSITIVE PEOPLE, WE WILL END THE DISCUSSION WITH SOMETHING POSITIVE(NONSENSE) 

WHY HEGEL NEVER GETS IN TROUBLE WHILE INTERACTING WITH NEW GIRLS AROUND HIM? 

BECAUSE HIS NAME IS A FUCKING START OF A CONVERSATION ( HEY GIRL) (SORRY 🙃) 

Next blog has it's illegal relations with this picture:- 

  

STAY TUNED, READ MORE (THERE'S NOTHING MORE REAL THAN A FICTION BOOK) 

IDEOLOGY SUBSCRIBES YOU

The postmodernist philosophers claim that we now live in a post ideological era. Nobody really subscribes to any particular ideology anymore. 

The cult Of Cultural Marxism is over, capitalism was criticised well enough by Marx so nobody today identifies himsef/herself as a capitalist (at least not in this way so that it looks evil, you know we all have a habit to justify our shit by calling it muffin).Also the actual philosophies of the 19th Century are also changed a lot in these years by intervention of people who subscribed to the ideology in those days. So do we live in a world where nobody believes truly in anything but just faking it for the sake of Political and Social correctness? Of course, Calling yourself a Marxist will lead you in trouble among your wanna be intellectual friends and being a capitalist too. 

In the series of blogs,  we are going to discover, are we truly free not to choose in this world of post ideology or your consent about not to choose can be manipulated by a certain class of people deliberately and how it is already in process. 

There's an old saying that if you don't choose your politics, Then any politics will choose you,then you can't complain. I Think The similar case is with Ideology now a days. 

IF YOU DON'T SUBSCRIBE TO ANY IDEOLOGY, THE IDEOLOGY SUBSCRIBES YOU AND THEN, YOU WILL NOT EVEN REALISE HOW THE WORLD IS RUNNING ONLY IN THE HANDS OF A FEW GODDAMNED PEOPLE. 

So, let's start the deconstruction with the first in the series, 

SELLING POSITIVITY AND THE ILLUSION OF TRUE SELF 

If you are a youth in today's world (so I am sorry, you are already brutally mind fucked) ,  it is highly likely that you know about or you listen to some of the motivational speakers and positivity whistle blowers all around the globe. These Goddamned people make life black and white, either you stay positive and lift yourself up, or stay negative and lo! You are fucked and this fake victimization of procrastination that this fucks people's life, only hardwork can bring success and so on and so on. Also a fake narrative of " O find your true self blah blah", "Unleash your Hidden potential blah blah, you are the hero of your life, the driver of your car, the boyfriend of your wife and so on and so on".

So let's deconstruct this, first of all, 

1. This world is not working in only two moods of living, i.e. you are not just either a sad guy or a happy guy. You have a continuous series of moods that ranges from extremely delighted to extremely sad and indifferent and depressed and so on and so on. And what mood are you in is not going to stay forever and according to the 20th century psychologist Howard B Cutler, who wrote numerous books with Dalai Lama( that laughing buddha type guy of buddhism, yes) one of which is The pursuit of happiness,  "We have a basic level of happiness to which we eventually return after any sudden blow of sadness or after extreme joy or ecstasy".Read this book, you will know a lot about yourself which you don't know psychologically and neurologically. And I am not a buddha guy ( also I think Buddha was anti woman when he left his family for enlightenment, well if you are in existential crisis, then why you married in the first place?), but this book is not about Buddha, it's about you. So read if you wish to. Thus , there is no rush to stay positive and happy,you are going to be, this is in your psychology. 

2. The fake narrative of unleashing your true self or find your true self. "O you are not really what other people perceive you, you are what you see yourself, you are what you are in private and so on and so on! " You know these people can even persuade Hitler before he was committing suicide, that you are not What they call you, what they see you and so on, and then Hilter would be filled with possivity again and will kill more Jews. 

You know, What do you think, who is easier to fool, one guy, or the whole world? How do you know that the world doesn't know you better than yourself? We have hundred ways of justifying your shit calling it muffin (I used it before, sorry) . You know may be, here there is no inner self, no true self, only reflections are the truth, the masks are the only faces. There is no real face and you put a illusionary fake face over your masks because it is comfortable to think that you have a private space where everything is good and so on and so on. The symbolic reality that we see about ourselves define us, what we like, what we don't, what we complain about, what we hate, what we in envy seek for, what crimes do we want to commit? So, Subscribing to this nonsense will make you a drug dealer of positivity may be, but not truly yourself. And there is no true self, the symbols are the only realities. 

3. "Hardwork is the key to success",  after a few suicides and failures, " No no, you got it all wrong, Smartwork is the key to success", after a few more depressions because success didn't come again, and now the person thinks he is not even smart enough, " No no man, listen Discipline, Discipline is the thing". Then even after success when the person thinks his life is too mechanical, " No no man, Self discipline is new key" , and then the person tries to discipline himself to be happy and then he finds " O! I don't have a control over my happiness", which he falsely comprehends that he doesn't have a control over his self, which make him vulnerable and then he dies, and then the old wisdom guy comes again with a new proverb, " You know you can't teach a fish to fly" . 

You see, How conformist the attitude of being a wise guy is, you bluntly give a quote to any nasty mishap and go on advising nonsense to people which may be true for yourself or it is just a subjective reality. Wisdom is intrinsically cruel. 

4. Last but not the least, they are literally selling life advice and positivity. Just look around yourself, are not you living a life already, so isn't it too late to get an advice? Then they say, " It's never too late", my god no! 

Sometimes it is late, why we are so confirmed with one thought process, I don't understand! 

You know, you are in midst of the Volcano of life where the Lava of meaninglessness is there to eat you. This is your reality actually, there is only nothingness all around. You can't claim to sit there and say " Let's have a bonfire here" Just do something, what to do, why ask me, I am no life coach, just find yourself or get fucked. 

CONCLUSION :- 

You know, in a nutshell, I think, happiness is a very conformist category. It is a very naive word you can easily fool yourself with. You know, have you asked yourself why you like so much to watch Netflix instead of studying ? Why you seek short term pleasures? May be because you are insecure about whether the long term pursuits will make you happy or not and it is easy to see the returns of short term pleasures because they come early. 

Also I think this is a capitalist mindset to think about success within a materialistic desire world where everything including your desire is based on what others find cool, and what the world thinks beautiful! May be Success, is subjective to a very high order, may be the things that we loathe, "No! I don't want to be poor, I don't want to be jobless" and so on are where we or I or you or some of us will get pleasure and lasting happiness, we can name joblessness as something good, like :- now a days, freelancers or something like that. You know Leading Historian from Israel Yuval Noah Harari says that the time is coming when we have to think about new jobs because machines will take our place. 

To which I think there is no need to worry. Of course, they will take our jobs, so what? The machines have got it! Relax! And I think in that age, Humans would be able to do things just for the sake of doing them, not because of some money driven passion or job necessity. 

You know Art for the Art sake, Work for the work sake. (Utopia of course, but you know fuck it, I don't care) 

Moreover, The world used to run on trends before social media was there. These trends were set up by capitalist companies back then, they used to tell people what is good for them, what is that people should desire and so on. 

So, Since, Desire is not your trait, it is induced, we need to really think, do we need to be happy? Or it is just a fashionable desire, if yes! Then no need to rush, stay what you want to be, sad, happy, fake, natural. Take no pressure to confirm with society, be fake if you wish to, be indifferent if you are lazy or wish to be so. 

IF YOU FIND THIS BLOG NEGATIVE, THIS IS THE REALITY, 

IF YOU FIND THIS BLOG CONFIRMING AND YOU AGREE WITH IT, FUCK YOURSELF, YOU DIDN'T GET EVERYTHING I TOLD YOU. 

FOR A SMALL BIT OF POSITIVITY TO END THIS, 

YOU KNOW NEITSCHE SAID, " THERE ARE NO FACTS, ONLY INTERPRETATIONS IN THIS WORLD ".

 SO ABUSE ME, CALL ME A RETARD AND MOVE ON, YOU ARE FREE TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WISH EVEN IF YOUR WISH IS MANUFACTURED IN COMPANIES LIKE APPLE. 

I WAIT FOR YOUR CUSS WORDS IN THE COMMENTS. 

 Next blog in the series, is this picture!