We often believe freedom is given by certain governments and that repression is practiced by others. The truth relies in the fact that no one is completely free, whether you are democrat or socialist, or from any other political or ideological movement, you’re a slave to your beliefs. Constantly we are told what’s right and what’s not, and for the sake of the continuation of society, those wrong and right commandments has protected us from self-destruction. Unfortunately, in other occasions it unleashed atrocities that displayed the brutal side of our nature.
All that I described comes down to these questions: what’s truth, what’s not? Do we really perceive reality as it is?
Reality as we know it, is subjective, every person interprets their reality differently. However, as social beings we have the capacity to create not only an artificial environment, we also create a “collective illusion” from it, or what I describe as a mechanism to overcome and overlook group problems.
To overcome because it gives hope in times of uncertainty, and hope brings the courage to do something about an unpleasant circumstance, and at the same time: to overlook long lasting problems that doesn’t have an everlasting solution, like natural disasters, poverty, unequal share of power, crimes, among other things. From the instant we born collective illusion shapes our interpretation of reality, for example someone who was always constantly rejected by known people, will develop overtime deep insecurities and the notion that people are generally apathic. That person will find comfort in others who think alike and with any who reinforce its judgment.
In a positive existentialist view that individual would most likely interpret reality differently. Every favourite song, the way we dress, our preferred food, sport team, tv show, movie, travel destination, our likes and dislikes are all product of an external force we create collectively. Is a colossal cloud that rains overwhelming hints of what’s acceptable, what’s not, or what’s great, what’s ordinary. In a way it shelters us from things we can’t change, at the same time it restrains us from the ability to see beyond what seems obvious, and face problematics that needs practical solutions.
Who are the promoters of collective illusion?
Culture: it’s the root of collective illusion, is a set of traditions, believes, and practices that are passed from generation to generation which distinct one society from another. To be part of a culture is to accept a specific world view, or otherwise be left apart.
Political system: with culture we have many benefits, even an instauration of a political system, a system that impose certain stability over the mass using national pride propaganda, and a lump of optimism. None political system is perfect and all have secrets that will not be exposed anytime soon, for unknown reasons, reasons that surely would affect profoundly the dynamic and stability of an entire population.
Media: not surprisingly the media as we know plays a notorious role promoting collective illusion. Apparently, medias are trustful, they are? To some degree. Each one of them follows an agenda, and a 100% honesty isn’t included on the list.
Advertisement: the last and not the least, the advertisement industry that constantly appears on the internet, the tv, radio, newspapers and magazines, it's an industry that numbs anyone, it makes any person feels the urge to buy something, or use an unnecessary service, or to seek for idealistic standards. It makes many miss the axis of their personal problems and an emotional fulfillment.
This world view also has some hidden traps though. 1) There is the danger that you will misinterpret and oversimplify reality. And even worse you'll learn the victim mentality and put the blame on a shadowy "Big Other". Yeah elites pull the strings behind the curtains but most problems in the world are caused by human stupidity, ignorance, laziness and indiference. traits which the elite exploits to the fullest of course, but the blame is on us. 2) The danger to promote anarchical anti-state views that are nothing more than controlled opposition actually to balance the sytem from the inside. Most anarchic organisations have a hierarchy, (lol, which is contradictory to their supposed nature, but its natural as they are a tool of the elite). Nationalism is not a bad thing and its not all based on propaganda there is genuine nationality based on locality, common history and traditions and genetic similarity. 3) About advertisements, well its not just a small side effect. most of society today is based on corporatism. this is what mostly rules the world. consumerism culture is the modern religion. even governments today are a private corporation.
as for the matrix well... keep the masses distracted and subjected to fear and a sense of obligation and you will succeed as a leader. give the masses total freedom and you are again doomed cause human passions will make society a dystopia. its a tricky balance thats why we are responsible for changing noone else but ourselves first of all.
It's a good analysis. I didn' wanted to make it look like a black and white point of view, I just wanted to point out the fact that we all form part of something but is not exactly what it seems to be, it always hides another reality. A few weeks ago I went to the capital of my country and visited two of the best malls, like any malls you can find many things, including a lot of food, places where to eat something. What had me intrigue was the tought that those who were there visiting and buying, are part of a minority who has a privilidge more than the 50% of the population of my country doesn't have. It just got me thinking, how aware are the people who visit the mall of the missery that sorrounds them? From you leave the malls you start seen the old lady begging for money, abandoned childrens, people in the streets selling water, or junk food, others washing cars, for little money, an income that just allows them to think of one need: the possibility to eat 3 times a day
Hmm. . . interesting. Are you relating this to some scientific theory? Like Stephen Hawking does not believe in the concept of free will. Because everything that will happen, has already happened. . . someplace else in the universe. It is called the "Loaf Theory".
So looking at this possibility, then it becomes possible that we are in some huge computer simulation. It would also seem to be supported by our issues observing behavior of small particles. Quantum theory, while it is proven to be very accurate in predicting behavior of subatomic particles, conflicts and contradicts the laws given to us by Einstein that govern the behavior of larger objects.
In fact, it seems that when we analyze smaller and smaller particles, we only find smaller things. We are never able to find the actual building blocks of matter. And the particles we do find, seem to have a duality about them that is not clearly understood. We don't even understand how they create objects that appear to be solid in our version of reality.
It is funny how your observation was almost spot on when it comes to the actual research data. You might want to look into it.
Stephen Hawking on free will
“Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals?
There's some interesting ideas here but it's very wishy washy, it lacks rational coherence. For example:
"Reality as we know it, is subjective, every person interprets their reality differently."
Reality is objective, science does a really great job of determining that by removing subjective experience and by measuring things in a way that rational people can agree on. Subjective experience is certainly true but again we use tools and methods to help us overcome that human limitation.
We use speedometers to tell us our speed on the motorway because our subjective experience of that can be misleading and differ from one another.
We certainly can create collective illusions and we do, but it's something that as humans evolve and become smarter, our ability to use rationality, logic and science to tell us what is objectively true, get's better and more accurate.
Not everyone believes that "freedom" is given by governments. In fact there's a libertarian movement online which believes quite the opposite, that absence of government is what leads to liberty and that we can live together without the need for an authoritative body that controls us all.
if what you really, genuinely care about is freedom and individual liberty and you've not read up about libertarianism, then I suggest you go start reading!
Well is your point of view, and the MyTake is more a reflexion from something I noticed, it might has flaws but everything has it, even science, however as you said, science has help us be more objective but science it self, or it results can be interpret differently and be manipulated to serve a porpouse.
The scientific method has mechanisms built into it to help prevent people manipulating it. So science is performed to a set of standards which helps protect it.
Scientific findings are backed up by experiment, they are published in journals which contain the methods used to create the experiment so that anyone else can perform the experiment and confirm/deny if it works. The work is then peer reviewed by other scientists who can question the methods used and show counter evidence.
Good science cannot have the results interpreted differently, they contain experiments which show very concretely that natures behaviour is one way or another way.
Sometimes bad science is published but the peer review process allows other scientists to find errors with publications, and publish rebuttals or corrections.
It's not an absolutely perfect system, but it does contain good mechanisms for correcting errors.
Well someone googled philosophy and drank a gallon of kool-aid.
"Reality as we know it, is subjective, every person interprets their reality differently."
You use the word reality, I don't think you know what it means. Reality is the exact opposite of subjective. Abstract ideas like happiness or purpose of life are subjective, reality however is the definition of concrete, inescapable fact.
As for governments and conspiracies, I have no doubt that our government keeps its secrets, but try not to get your political position from watching movies ok? we have enough idiots as it is😒
You can't say the reality of a rich person is the same as someone poor, or the reality of someone who lives in a desert is the same as the reality of a person who lives in the jungle, you can't even say those who live in a same eviorment has the point of view from it. In a dangerous neighbor hood a criminal will see as paradise, the average person will se it as a umpleasant place, therefore reality is subjective.
Your experiences are subjective, but not reality. You are using words in places they don't belong.
Two people can have a different experience of the same math class. One may like the teacher the other may hate him. One may pass and find it easy, the other may fail because it was too hard. Neither experiences changes the reality that 2+2=4.
It's ok to be wrong, I made the exact same mistake before😅
Since our experiences are subjective, reality is subjective as well, there is not an unique reality, there are several as part of each person perception of their enviorment. 2+2 is 4, and that's math, it doesn't work the same in the everyday life, because is not an exact science, it has infinite posibilities that are not posible to reduce in one single answer, the closest we can get to an exact answer from our enviorment or the reality we stay in touch with is thanks to epistemology, science, stadistics, however they end been called "theory" and theories change overtime.
Right, so you don't even know what a scientific theory is. Maybe you should go back to 5th grade and re learn that before you try and make sense of epistemology.
what you seem to be a proponent of is solipsism, or the belief that reality isn't real and no one can ever "know" anything. which ultimately leads to nihilism I might add.
Regardless that's the opposite of being an epistivist, so AGAIN you are using words where they don't belong because you have no fucking idea what they mean.
Or you are intentionally distracting from an easy as shit concept to grasp, which is that our perceptions do not alter reality. If that were the case a tree wouldn't make a sound if it fell in the forest with no one around. Wishful thinking could make pigs fly and every lunatics delusions would be equally as valid as the facts that we test and show evidence for. Which is not the way our universe operates, I'm sorry.
people like you make me so thankful to be in private school😒
Sure kid, I guest you're totally right, or maybe I am, or maybe you're interpreting reality from a different scientific discipline that has nothing to do with psychology. Either way we don't see each other opinion as valid. I made the MyTake as part of a personal reflexion of something I noticed, taking in account many things I've study from psychology. You can go ahead and say anything you want, it will not change my opinion.
Is "kid" supposed to be a refutation of the point that you're trying about shit you never learned? Oh no I'm younger than you and know things, the fucking world is ending😒 whatever, I don't like arguing with a brick wall who won't listen anyway.
"I don't like arguing with a brick wall who won't listen anyway".
Who won't listen to someone with a square mindset? I've been open to your perspective, you don't really understand how broad science is. A single concept, a single phenomenon can have various interpretations in science, and that have rise argument within the scientific community. I hope you don't end been those square mind scientist that just stick to theories, and concepts without even considering the possibility of appreciating things from different angles.
Umm, no. You JUST FUCKING SAID that nothing I said would change your mind. So you haven't been open to anything I just told you.
Shall we call you a liar now on top of a fool?
"I made the MyTake as part of a personal reflexion of something I noticed, taking in account many things I've study from psychology. You can go ahead and say anything you want, it will not change my opinion"
You claim to have studied psychology, but don't how that theories are a body of knowledge that works on a foundation of proven and observed FACTS. Theories aren't just assumptions that scientist pull out of there asses an think just might be close to accurate. You don't know how things work.
You know what your problem is? you want to be able to believe whatever the fuck you want and have no one call you stupid because "anything can be interpreted." Just like a religious person conflating faith and evidence as the same thing. They are not.
Psychology? Not as exact as other scientific fields. That may be why you think like that if that's the only science you know.
Geology, physics, chemistry, and biology are different. They deal in hard evidence, not people's opinion on how much nature vs nurture etc. your opinion on gravity, plate tectonics and evolution mean absolutely dick because evidence is what we have and we've proven these things beyond all appropriate standards of satisfaction. If you've graduated middle school then you'd know that. Or at least I learned that in middle school, but like I also said, some schools are better than others.
And just to be clear. To be open to something doesn't mean accept it completely, it means see it as an alternative believe, without setting apart your own believes. I first assume you were wrong, then I just thought maybe you were giving an interpretation from another scientific perspective, I got open to that perspecrive even tough I didn' t share it. And theories by the way always change they are not static, better ones appear every certain time. I almost forgot to ad, the human mind is very complex, it can't be fully quantified, psychometry has help with that, but for the most part it's better suited for a qualitative scientific approach.
You took the simplest concept, ignored everything I said, and made nothing but tangental arguments. You're a pathetic half ass, armchair philosopher who gets his views of life from watching the matrix😒 You are in no position to call me nuts.
Elon Musk has expressed that we do not live in basic reality but in a created reality that is being artificially "sweetened" with technology by (my expression) the Architect (s).
I did it from a psycho social perspective, which is different from other scientific fields. I should have make it more clear. And with the last thing I wrote I wasn't referring to a literal matrix like in the movie, it was a metaphor. What I wanted to say is that there is always something beyond what's apparent.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions