SEDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY
I know many are interested in philosophy despite its dangers, and it has become a common secret, especially when social media has made it popular.
However, philosophy is introduced at a very high level, leaving beginners spinning and unsure where to start.
Not to mention the polemics in the world of philosophy that were previously closed but now easily accessible, which actually shake one's faith. Free thinking without proper guidance and other ways of philosophizing tend to make our thinking patterns wild. We start asking questions, searching for loopholes in pursuit of truth, but end up trapping ourselves in confusion.
That's why we created META Philosophy to organize our way of reasoning. To bring philosophy back to its original path."
Gradually Engaging in Philosophy
It's not easy, but if learned correctly, engaging in philosophy is not just about having opinions for the sake of life is so dynamic. It also enables us to recognize the limits of absoluteness that cannot be surpassed. Thus, in philosophizing, even though meanings overlap, we can still maintain our sanity by perceiving the boundaries of truth, avoiding getting trapped in absurd thoughts.
I will provide updates until we eventually delve into the realms of ontology and other aspects from the perspective of absoluteness.
I will try to explain it gradually and in a very simple manner.
However, what we aim to express is not just a relative approach but an absolute perspective, which, so far, is not widely popular among philosophers.
Dealing with the dimension of absoluteness requires special handling, so the explanations need to be slow and precise."
PHILOSOPHIZING WITHOUT BASIC STRUCTURE
Sometimes, after getting acquainted with philosophy, someone feels the need to contradict and question many things, but fails to realize the concept of absoluteness. As a result, it all falls apart.
It's actually quite simple. Why does philosophy create chaos? They are forced to play in the realm of relativity (without the foundation of absolute truth and without the foundation of absolute attitude - axiomatic - contextual), so they don't know the limits of impossibility (absolute truth). They keep pushing the boundaries of truth, thinking it is still relevant, even though it has long lost its context, disconnected, absurd, but they continue to force it. Let's not go that way.
Eventually, they get trapped in circular reasoning, and the worst part is they are unaware that they are engaging in circular reasoning just to keep contradicting, even though the answer has already been provided.
Violation
This is similar to the concept of "Restricted Area, Authorized Only" It's like jokingly (or cleverly) saying, "I'm hungry, I have a reason to enter, so can I come in?" and then entering, violating the rules.
Eventually, as expected, it leads to controversy. And there you go, constantly confused and blaming others.
❗️PHILOSOPHICAL DELUSIONS ❌
What's even worse is that they're defending nonsensical arguments based on❓Can it be questioned?❓Can it be thought❓Then it must be valid as a question or valid as an argument, right? However, what they defend is merely a figment of their imagination, YET THEY ACCUSE OTHERS OF DAYDREAMING.
Get Seremonia’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
For example...
- 〰 "This is possible because it can be imagined" | Although its existence is not clear yet
- 〰 "I want freedom" | Yet they can never truly be free, except within the confines of their ego being unhurt
They persist even though they've crossed the limits. Different contexts. But they forcefully connect them FALLING UNDER THE ❓ANALOGY (making it seem logical, even though it's absurd)
Example: "Humans need to argue" because❓"to ensure the truth" which❓"can help guide their lives" so that❓"they can find a meal" | Look at how they were trained in philosophy to dialectically argue smoothly, making it seem reasonable, orderly, neat, even though the context is chaotic.
In META, what matters most is establishing a standard first (absolute truth). Then we can play relatively as the dynamics of life and remain vigilant to see how far we deviate from the line of truth.
Even this was ridiculously denied by saying, "It doesn't deviate and it's possible because it can be done in reality." People like this are unaware that even though breaking the rules is possible, it doesn't mean the boundaries of absolute truth are wrong, even though that's not what actually happens.
Does violating the boundaries of absolute truth become valid because it can be violated, thus considering the absolute truth's limits as incorrect❓It's not like that, but rather, unknowingly, they are playing at the level of ideas, far from reality.
Example:
- 👉 Absolute truth = "a circle with no angles"
- ❌ Absurd = "but I have a circle and I can bend it into a square with angles"
These absurd attempts to refute what is forced upon them make them proud of being able to outsmart the constraints of thought. Yet, they are trapped in the world of foolishness.
What's even worse❓Here, their ego is satisfied, and unknowingly, their ego strengthens their support. Thus, their attitude becomes arbitrary, free, and their thinking becomes absurd. And they still think, "It's exciting, fun, a thought-provoking challenge, a thinking adventure."
That's why those who are familiar with philosophy can get trapped and forget themselves. And when introduced to METAPHILOSOPHY, suddenly...
- 1⃣ Their inner attitudes are exposed.
- 2⃣ The corners that falsely sheltered their ego suddenly detected mercilessly.
👉 It's because METAPHILOSOPHY is based on absolute truth, so it has realized the farthest limits of truth,
- 〰 thus, when there are thinkers who misbehave, their playground is immediately identified,
- 〰 and the boundaries of their playground are known, making it clear that they are rolling around, dancing aimlessly behind the bamboo (thinking no one knows, but metaphilosophers have already recognized their place).
〰〰〰
