3 Paradoxes That Will Change the Way You Think About Everything

Get 25% off Blinkist premium and start your 7-day free trial by clicking here: www.blinkist.com/pursuitofwonder or scanning the QR code. Thank you to Blinkist for sponsoring this video.
In this video, we explore 3 essential questions at the foundation of all our knowledge. Through these questions, we uncover the potential paradoxes and problems found in everything we know-or think we know.
Pursuit of Wonder books available here: www.amazon.com/stores/Robert-...
(Also available to more international locations here: pursuitofwonder.com/store)
Free Pursuit of Wonder Newsletter: pursuitofwonder.ck.page/newsl...
Instagram: / pursuitofwonder
Facebook: / pursuitofwonder
If you are interested in further supporting the channel,
you can contribute to the Patreon here: / pursuitofwonder
Special thank you to our very generous Patreon supporters:
Joseph Geipel
Congruentcrib
Diana Yun
Axel Alcazar
David Piadozo
Jacqueline Spaile
Zake Jajac
Footloose Labs
Alan Stein
Justin Redenbaugh
Christian Villanueva
George Leontowicz

[@PursuitofWonder]

As always, thank you for watching. Get 1 free week and 25% off a premium membership to Blinkist using: www.blinkist.com/pursuitofwonder. Thank you to Blinkist for sponsoring this video.

[@SrAlmeidaMedina]

You may enjoy studying philosopher Gustavo Bueno.

[@ripudamansingh4854]

Brother if you read hindu text like upanishad ( major 10 text ) then you will get all your answers

[@ianjohnson1723]

??,:-D;):-*:-!

[@pierre1119able]

I propose a solution to the Munchhausen Trilemma. There can be no belief without reason. It means that you can only believe something if you can also explain with reason to others that it is true. If challenged, your reason must stand up.

[@willb7392]

it's a fault in our language. instead of two questions. How do we know what we know?

[@fabianr9394]

Fun fact: The "Baron von Münchhausen" is also known as the "Lügenbaron" in German, which translates to "the lying Baron"

[@StockpileThomas1]

The Münchausens funded our church

[@drabnail777]

What's sad, is that in order to highlight some religious inconsistencies, he always uses Christians and never any of the 2 other Abrahamic religions even though the same fallacies apply.

[@timmy-wj2hc]

@@drabnail777 All religions are inconsistent, it doesn't matter which one he uses to exemplify the point.

[@CrazyLinguiniLegs]

I almost always tell the truth.

[@drabnail777]

@@timmy-wj2hc To the zealots and people who think those religions are more different than similar, it matters

[@slantize]

It doesn't matter if the car is objectively or subjectively red. Perhaps someone sees a different color consistently and their red is different than your red, but what is consistent is that it is always that color being called red that we can all agree on. Consistency is the definition of truth. And these consistencies form the fundamental basis for the justification of the ideas that branch out of them, including philosophical ideas.

[@Nickmares]

Perhaps it is a color that we can not perceive

[@lucystoner]

I've always thought the same thing.

[@Jeff-tu5ol]

What about amounts? I am wondering if for example two apples are objectively two apples. The word we use for two does not matter. All that matters is that we know the amount. And that is a fact?

[@lurkerrekrul]

I've wondered the exact same thing about color. We learn color by having someone point to a color and tell us what it's called. But until they invent a way for people to switch consciousnesses, there's no objective way to tell that colors look the same to everyone.

[@Joe-lb8qn]

Depends how the car is lit. Perhaps its white and a red light is shining upon it.or perhaps it is refracting light and actually has no colour like for example blue morpheus butterflies. But it would be true to say "i perceive that car as red and that butterfly as blue"

[@Thinkscape]

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." I like this quote because it highlights the beauty of embracing uncertainty and the willingness to explore the unknown. It encourages a mindset of curiosity and openness, recognizing that there is value in the process of inquiry and continuous learning rather than seeking absolute certainty.

[@gddurden7871]

aha

[@michaelprince6798]

I agree with much of what you said, we should be curious and open-minded, but we should also seek "absolute certainty" otherwise all we would have is mere speculation (which is what philosophers have).

[@hollawar1391]

love this thanks :)

[@sergioperez2594]

This is basically a critique to religion where you have answers to everything and "certainty" just based on faith...which means you really don't have any...😂

[@TheTruthKiwi]

​@@sergioperez2594yes, I was going to say the same thing :)

[@melneils9106]

At the end when the narrator says that someone out there, separated by distance or time & probably will never meet, is deeply connected by thought.... That was so powerful for me. Thank you for making this video; it'll help me in my conversations with those that think logic/knowledge are better than emotions/intuition. Of course it's all about the balance. ❤

[@originalkingalpha5116]

You're absolutely right! You're pretty too! I've subbed!🌹☺️

[@michaelramirez6877]

Can you see with your hands Ms. Mel?

[@originalkingalpha5116]

@@michaelramirez6877 You'd probably want to navigate that question towards someone who is blind. (Stevie Wonder enters the room.)🍿😎 #INTOUCHWITHREALITY

[@deanfraser419]

How do you know?😂

[@AbdulAzizSalman711]

How can we know if we are balancing? And how did you know?

[@Justwantahover]

Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced.

[@matswessling6600]

wrong. we have evolved to be problem solvers. thats what we do.

[@Reyna-uj8ed]

You perceive yourself as a problem solver.

[@chipwhitley]

But if we can’t draw conclusions from our experiences how meaningful can experience itself be? But if all we really have are conclusions we lose all sense of awe, wonder, and mystery and the joy of experience itself. But if all we have is exper-fml

[@Dilbag-yt]

Reality can only be experienced by overcoming fears. Fears are what keep us in the constant loop that we are here to solve something but nope. We are here simply to enjoy and be an example that others can do the same. There needs to be notable mention that by enjoyment doesn't mean lust, anger, greed, attachment and ego. These are the exact opposite of enjoyment.

[@Kevin-rs8pq]

@@matswessling6600 what is a problem?

[@gansita1983]

The older I get I realize we don’t know what we don’t know. There is also so much to know. And there is always half truth to everything. I also realize how easy some of us believe things that make zero sense to others

[@faulkgough1768]

That is the glorious rub of it all. The more you claim to know, the less you likely do. The more you state facts, the more they break down, and the more you expect others to think like you, the more they won't. This universe, in all it's Glory, is an insane contradiction from every angle. None of it makes sense, but it all works perfectly; we should not be here, but we are; Heck, even just the fact that we have found fundamental concepts of space and our minds to just be... "eh... deal with it..." leans heavily towards we are likely just as crazy as the universe... but, Feck it all, it is a hell of a ride.

[@gansita1983]

@@faulkgough1768 beautifully said

[@redpillnibbler4423]

Saying ‘there is much to know’ is a paradox in itself 😅

[@jackmehoff2363]

Believing things is comfortable

[@jeffmutch7640]

Come on! You know what is true. We all do. This nonsense is overthinking what we know is true by experience, history and outcomes.

[@gohorarsen5938]

like camus said “The struggle itself of being trapped in a bottle is enough to fill a fly’s heart. One must imagine fly happy”

[@nikmpup]

I am connected to all of you because I love you all and I'm constantly wishing everyone well, those near and far, human, alien, flora, and fauna ♡

[@Tehrawrzorz]

I suffer with severe depression and generally a poor quality of life. This channel helps me put meaning to all of it. Thanks for the great videos (and books too!)

[@Muldoon111]

I hope that your life improves. What are you doing to help yourself?

[@kwicnak4350]

There's people written about in the Bible put into situations for periods of a few years for learning and to be taken away from things happening. You will only ever get what you can handle and stronger people go through more to become that person. Don't turn away from it. Embrace the nothingness. Meaning is easier to see with less distractions.

[@szolanek]

Read David Hume. He will cheer you up.

[@Tehrawrzorz]

@@Muldoon111 Thanks friend. I don't have enough money for a therapist in my country, so I try to get outside, eat/sleep enough or express more of my thoughts through artwork. I find that the last activity helps me a lot. I'm not always conscious of negative emotions that I'm feeling, and they tend to be like a low background hum that tints my day.

[@seank404]

Ashwaganda

[@realnothingasitseems]

The blend of 2D and 3D in your animations are truly awestrucking.

[@ronaldpettifurd5957]

​@@Mike-xq7iblol

[@areyouavinalaughisheavinal5328]

I'm awestrucked by awestrucking, you're awestrucking.

[@areyouavinalaughisheavinal5328]

@@lilyeet1980 it is now, you're just jealous because you're not awestrucking.

[@jamesolson7179]

​@@lilyeet1980Maybe the right word should be awestriking.

[@HoneyTone-TheSearchContinues]

Or… amazing, or impressive, or awesome, or striking, or …

[@dhm7815]

Reminds me of someone I used to know. He would ask "why" about my choices. It was an infinite regression "why". It made him seem a philosopher because he said "Why?". When I was tired of the steps of regression he would present his arbitrary preference. If I challenged that, his feelings would be hurt. I, in his estimation, was ungrateful and hurtful because, he would assert, he was only trying to help. I no longer speak to him.

[@lorigulfnoldor2162]

I heard about "why-regress" as a real tool to self-knowledge and self-reflection, but there was a caveat: only a five of "why-steps" were required. Perhaps ten if you're a self-reflection maniac lol. But not, NOT infinite.

[@tbone9603]

Why?

[@coherentmud]

One thing I learnt at an early age, and it still holds true to this day, is that pain hurts.

[@andrewwatson5360]

Pain is a reminder that you are alive and experiencing the unique human privilege of self-consciousness

[@dadutchboy2]

and pleasure makes me pee white

[@justaguy2961]

Man your videos are something else. You have such an eloquent way of speaking, and I love that your videos always end around the fact that we're all connected and just trying to live our lives to the fullest. It really got me thinking when you said that quote about how "there's someone out there separated by space and time, yet deeply connected to me, that someone knows me well." It made me feel good. Anyway LOVE YOUR VIDEOS!!

[@minhkhuong6132]

wow.. thanks for words

[@jeremyhennessee6604]

@justsguy.. ironically enough, with this video and the challenging questions (without actual answers) it raises, everyone's assumed connectedness is just that. An assumption or theory without much in the way of tangible evidence to prove the proposition. It's probably good (for you) that you feel an.. awe-inspiring sense of interconnectedness with others/things, but I'm not certain that was the point to this video or any of the videos he puts out. * In regards to dear, overrated Wittgenstein's flies in a bottle analogy...it's interesting/ironic in many respects. That a fly in its own bottle (namely the various mental Illnesses he very likely suffered) would presume to know the way out for any of it's fellow flies. There's no way out of the bottle. Thoughts are flies bottled up in the brain , buzzing around pointlessly until they get caught in the Flypaper and buzz no more. The end .

[@CSM100MK2]

You're simple minded

[@ny3974]

Not going to lie, my head was hurting through 5 mins. But im after learning and will try to get expansion on my critical thinking and philosophy. Its a great channel BTW 🙏

[@Jermainetheintrovert]

Thank you I don't think you understand how much this channel has provided value to my life. Thank you!

[@puttfordoughdiscgolf9361]

You have put into words of thoughts I could never express about my philosophy of the world. I’ve always had a hard time connecting with people because I’m aware that everything I think or feel is just an abstract thought of the mind. I have a motto that is “I know nothing but what I’ve experienced.” Great video! Cheers.

[@bigredracingdog466]

The problem with these philosophical questions is that knowledge is not dependent upon syllogisms. It is dependent on evidence. For instance, an infinite regression back to before the Big Bang is unnecessary to establish that the earth exists because gravity pulled a swirling cloud of dust together. There is evidence for this in the composition of earth and the surrounding planets. The color red exists outside the human mind; it is that region of the visible spectrum between 620 to 750 nanometers. Whether your language calls it red, rot, rouge, أحمر, or 赤, it is still the color between those wavelengths and will be as long as there is visible light in the universe whether we are around to perceive it or not. Much of philosophy is just people believing themselves to be clever because they can play semantic tricks that only seem to make sense in the absence of actual evidence.

[@mikepalmer2219]

Stop over thinking things.

[@puttfordoughdiscgolf9361]

@@mikepalmer2219 Over thinking, under thinking, pre post present past thinking, underlying thinking. I think I must be thinking.

[@jonathanjonathan7386]

@@bigredracingdog466 what about if another creature, say a bee, perceives that spectrum between 620 to 750 nanometers as what you or I might perceive as say violet? Is it still red? or is red a combination of that spectrum and the perceptual apparatus that turns a spectrum into a colour?

[@bigredracingdog466]

​@@jonathanjonathan7386 Don't confuse the scientific definition of color to the perception of color. People do perceive color differently from one another, like that one house or car in every neighborhood that is a jarring color. It could be a cultural thing or actual colorblindness. Regardless of one's perception or aesthetic appreciation of color, the same wavelength of light is coming off that house. BTW, bees cannot see most shades of red. They see from ~300 to 650 nm, well into the ultraviolet region of the spectrum we can't see (ours is ~400 to 750 nanometers). Even though we can't see ultraviolet, we know it's there. We can detect it, measure it, and even use it with the right equipment.

[@natesmith3592]

Very well done. You always nail the breakdowns and I love the variety of quotes you tie in to all of your videos. Thank you for reminding all of us that we're not searching alone.

[@doomer2539]

Fun fact : the song at 10:25 is called Everywhere Exept Right Here. And he says : We can make the most of our time with each other in here , while we are still in here

[@themacocko6311]

Not sure I would call that a song.

[@abtix]

@@themacocko6311 I guess you could call it a piece, or more broadly "music", though I don't even necessarily see the need for all that, as for me, a song, music, and a piece, all mean the same kind of thing, unless we're talking more literally, in which only when it's the case that you're trying to be specific, that you use those terms. For everyday conversations, I call them all songs or music.

[@timurhyat]

This book was a series of four theological works that he wrote during his tenure as a Professor of law at the Nizamiyya. The first one was a summary of philosophical thought titled Maqāsid al-Falāsifa (Aims of the Philosophers), an exposition that follows Avicenna's philosophical doctrine. In Maqāsid, Al-Ghazali clearly stated that this book was intended as an introduction to Tahāfut, and he also stated that one must be well-versed in the ideas of the philosophers before setting out to refute their ideas. Tahāfut al-Falāsifa was the second work of this series. The third work, Miyar al-Ilm fi Fan al-Mantiq (Criterion of Knowledge in the Art of Logic), was an exposition of Avicenna's Logic that Al-Ghazali stated as an appendix to the Tahāfut. And the last work was Al-Iqtisād fī al-iʿtiqad (The Moderation in Belief), an exposition of Asharite theology to fill the metaphysical doctrine that he refuted and negated in the Tahāfut. This series clearly shows that Al-Ghazali did not refute all philosophical science as many scholars believe. Al-Ghazali stated that he did not find other branches of philosophy including physics, logic, astronomy, or mathematics problematic. His only dispute was with metaphysics in which he claimed that the philosophers did not use the same tools, namely logic, which they used for other sciences. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers

[@davidjohnson497]

I want to thank you for this video. It has given me some hope, as I struggle with questions. It defines some questions, some paths to answers, and leaves open lots of things, but that's ok. Thanks for the discourse that has me thinking more!

[@hanzflackshnack1158]

When I first moved to the projects I saw a guy get shot five times in the chest. I ran to the corner store and told the cashier what I saw. He responded, “It’s just drug ****. Don’t worry about it.” I realized from that day forward, nobody cares about actions. They only care about the context under which they were committed.

[@Justin-jp6jh]

Just finished you book and now found this channel. Love this stuff, thanks for doing what you do.

[@cobensemble]

This is such a well put together ad, didn't break the immersion for a moment, perfect.

[@defoedezign]

Truth comes from within…good luck explaining it to someone who hasn’t experienced it!!

[@ReynaSingh]

Existence is an inherent balance between every duality, a living paradox

[@deserttortoise2227]

The universe contains both dualistic and monistic forces. Electromagnetism is dualistic but gravity is a monopole. There is no anti-gravity.

[@barnalipurkayastha8233]

​@@deserttortoise2227that's just ignorant saying something do not exists we yet do not know

[@academicpresentations6062]

Atheists from India here?😂

[@talkinghand4839]

Without perception, you would not have duality or paradox.

[@jaye5872]

Idk if I would say it's a balance between every duality but I would at least say that everything in existence may ultimately boil down to some sort of paradox, at its most fundamental level.

[@sandygoldstrike6451]

I always love to see your new content. You videos are thought provoking and your books are a real treat. Thank you for all of the effort that you invest sharing your talent with the world.

[@Chelvam-so4qh]

Where to find the names of his books?

[@Dakktyrel]

Paradoxes always have a self imposed limits. Freeing yourself from the limits, frees you from nearly all of these 'problems'.

[@mikepalmer2219]

Exactly. So basically don’t over think crap.

[@mingalo2620]

Not really. Freeing yourself from the "limits" would mean assuming things instead of proving them. You're freeing yourself from the question, but it still exists wether you like it or not. You just decided not to solve it.

[@teban67]

I love this channel, thank you so much, keep up this beautiful work.

[@luizad4653]

This channel is pure education. I have become a bit obsessed with the channel, not gonna lie. It did change a lot the way in which I think about existance, reality, consciousness. Made me curious to read more around philosophy, astronomy and science. I feel wholesome after each and every one of your videos Pursuit of Wonder, thank you for creating this unique and purely awesome content❤

[@OfficiallyRonny]

wyd up?

[@jerylregina7392]

😂❤Yessss!!!!😅❤THANKYOU!!!! This content is my fav❤❤❤❤

[@haileykibaforever]

This is definitely not education. I like there videos. But this one is trash. The explanations would be better without trying to mix science and philosophy.

[@justinlaw9336]

Another absolutley stellar video! Ur productions always leave me feeling humbled, yet mentally enriched and fulfilled.

[@josephvillaceran493]

I didn't enjoy my birthday last 4th of July since my wife bought and used a part of our savings as a gift for me. The thought of her giving me a gift (even the simplest) was sweet but I got so furious to the point that I felt guilty. We've been saving for the future (iykyk), but again we live in uncertainty. Now this vid came up on my feed, it made me realise that the so called "facts" or should I say "predictions" are all pointless due to the uncertainty of life. We both have jobs, we both are professionals on our own fields, we both contributed to that savings account and I got furious just because she used a bit of it for my birthday. Now my guilt is still eating me up though I've already apologized before we slept that night. When we were still dating, I've always told her that life is full of uncertainties. And now here I am, so scared of the future, living for tomorrow and not seeing the beauty of today. Thanks for this vid and you've reminded me of who I was before. I love you man!

[@Dethneko]

Now I can only think of that one Cartoon Network (or was it Boomerang?) commercial: "Why are smurfs blue?" Grouchy Smurf: "We're not, we're green; adjust your TV."

[@jaye5872]

This was well put together! What a lovely presentation! 👏🏽

[@patrickguynn8900]

The answer of truth comes not from replying with an answer but rather through the action. Truth is revealed and one can only bare witness.

[@treesap2]

Very true. This is what happens when you subordinate participatory knowledge to propositional knowledge. There are many things that we know, but we are unable to describe it with words, because some knowledge comes from experience through participation. Western philosophies are much too focused on the propositional.

[@Moist_yet_Crispy]

The loop that we are based in is a recursive loop where recognition is the base case which breaks the previous loop and begins another. The older perspective doesn't factor in recursive loops and even when using a false base case, still over a long enough time line the problem of knowing solves itself by leaning into infinite regression. Meaning solving itself, not with an answer but with a negative answer or rephraising of the previous problem itself.

[@georgeclinton4524]

To use the metaphor of the fly-bottle: It's like being a fly, flying into a bottle, declaring that only what exists inside the bottle is knowledge and certainty, then trying to expand the area inside the bottle by bashing your fly-body into the glass. We all know the path into the bottle and can leave whenever we want.

[@charliewest1221]

Pardon me for my slackness. I'm slow on the uptake. How did the fly get into the bottle and who sealed the bottle?

[@georgeclinton4524]

@@charliewest1221 To answer your questions about the metaphor: It flew in the opening at the top; and No one. There's no lid.

[@Vincent_Beers]

And there's the formation of willful ignorance. Pretending anyone said anything about the bottle being sealed either before or after the fly goes in. When you are busy looking for ways to start arguments instead of paying attention and understanding, this is the basis for all misunderstanding and conflict.

[@charliewest1221]

@@Vincent_Beers ... and I suppose you are a fountain - nay, a paragon - of wisdom (the very antithesis of my lamentable ignorance).

[@redpillnibbler4423]

I like the term ‘Trying to think oneself out of a thought bubble’

[@joseville]

7:35 For the reasons given, it may be impossible to definitively proof the truth of any statement. Despite that, I think that knowledge is possible. Any "fact" that allows us to predict outcomes or plan for contingencies is knowledge because it is useful. It is knowledge because it is useful. It's like physicists. They have different models of reality and depending on the context, it may be enough to use a simpler model or maybe a more complex model is needed. The model may not be 100% accurate, but if it lets you make predictions, then it is useful and I would argue that its usefulness makes it knowledge.

[@dawniebug784]

You could argue that proof ≠ truth. Truth being 'what is'. Proof being 'referring to what was/is'.

[@joseville]

@@dawniebug784 According to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, within a valid mathematical system, there may be true mathematical statements which cannot be proven.

[@dawniebug784]

@@joseville Probably because the answer is not in the form of math

[@Vincent_Beers]

Math is just a language. When you recognize that, then you realize everything is math in the same way everything is English, Chinese, German or whatever other languages you translate the concepts into. The ability to explain something requires a language you can communicate with or it's just a useless thought in your head that can't be shared. Math, in general is simply the closest we as humans have come to creating a universal language. It's not perfect and it's still evolving, but it's much more defined and less ambiguous than the majority of languages used by the various tribes and countries of the world. You are free to try creating your own universal language to explain things, but globally, math is the best we have for now.

[@sethwick8348]

​@@dawniebug784but they are mathematical statements we are talking about. Godel's basically says any logical system is incomplete, there are always either true things that cannot be proven or untrue things that can be. It is a logical proof (math is simply an extension of logic) that logic is insufficient to completely analyze itself, yet alone reality.

[@cuLiref]

I quitted all my philosophy forums when I realized philosophical discussions were pointless. They're just ways to excecise your mind. But, if you're in it to understand like me. You'd get disappointed, then bored. It's just chasing after the wind

[@robertlandrum1971]

Logic is a much better class than philosophy. Philosophy is the study of other people’s opinions on how things should be in life. Logic is the process by which one can come up with such ideas on their own. Logic teaches critical thinking 🤔 and it’s that knowledge on HOW TO THINK CRITICALLY that is fundamental to a human’s ability to judge different philosophical concepts.

[@hnr9lt-pz7bn]

​@@robertlandrum1971So philosophy doesn't involve critical thinking?

[@herrweiss2580]

@@hnr9lt-pz7bn A philosopher does not need to be logical.

[@cuLiref]

@@robertlandrum1971 I agree... I'd rather study how to validate arguments and reasoning than reading and making assumptions about something I'd never understand

[@terminat1]

Quit.

[@otptm]

In the end: Everything is a belief and it requires a belief to believe a belief. Even existence itself and the "self" are based on a belief. Actually, nothing exists (no thing) and nothing IS happening (not "nothing happened"). This is an awesome video! Thank you for sharing.

[@clifford4393]

This paradox is akin to basic saying in Statistics: If you assume nothing, you learn nothing. Statistical models do basic assumptions, and learn through modelling. Then we check if the assumptions are approximately satisfied through the data observed. Remember, no models are correct, BUT some are more useful than others. To solve the paradox, we can focus on what is useful for you, or the society, i.e., practicality.

[@dielaughing73]

I agree, and can entirely satisfy myself with an answer to, say, the Big Bang question with "we don't know why it happened, if it actually did happen. Our current scientific understanding of the universe is only a model which we know to be flawed and incomplete." Call me simple-minded, but after overthinking everything into my 20s, at some point I realised that the big mysteries of life have been mysteries forever and I wasn't going to be the one to solve them no matter how much I scratched my head. To even imagine that would be the utter height of arrogance. Not having answers to imponderable questions has done me exactly no harm in the intervening years.

[@hanaanrosenthal]

What a well written and presented video. Thank you.

[@praveensurapaneni4272]

Increasingly with age, I'am realising that it is questioning that is the essence of human existence! Not finding answers ceased to cause anxiety, or worry anymore to me, for that is the norm considering the almost infinitely expansive nature of universe, and comparatively infinitesimal magnitude of human beings, and more so their temporally ephemeral existence in the big schema! But at an individual or personal level, increasingly, every time a question pops up in my mind I seem to feel alive and kicking!

[@katiejo1095]

Glad I have clarity. That was exhausting.

[@James-ng5bx]

And yes thinking about this is getting my eyes crossed

[@janicestevenson6496]

"What do we know and how do we know?" Thank you for this presentation. A book of meditations called Steps to Knowledge states it this way: "You want what you think you know... This constitutes the basis of your understanding of yourself and your world. In fact this constitutes the basis of your identity. You will find however, upon honest examination that your understanding is based upon assumptions primarily, and these assumptions have not been founded upon your experience to a very great degree, if at all. Today... devote your total attention to examining your assumptions, think about the things you really think you know, including things you have not thought to question before... You begin to see the difference between what you think you know and real Knowledge itself...Understanding this [difference] may be upsetting... but it is absolutely essential for you to give you the impetus and the desire to discover your true foundation in the world." (STK, Marshall Vian Summers)

[@sahilhotchandani3668]

❤❤gosh true words of yours indeed

[@lyrebird9749]

"How do we know?" We use our senses. It's called empirical evidence. We observe and measure. This is the scientific method for acquiring knowledge: 1. Ask a question 2. Construct / pose a theory that might answer the question 3. Collect information / data 4. Design experiments to test the theory 5. Compare expected results to observed results 6a. If experiments prove theory, report findings and invite independent experiments to also test the theory (peer review) 6b. If experiments don't prove theory, go back to step 2. 7. If independent tests also prove theory, the theory is accepted until further research adds to or posits additional theories. This is how human knowledge has developed over thousands of years. You can apply the same method to any theory, including the ideas in the video and the meditation book mentioned above.

[@amanitamuscaria7500]

or, Who Am I?

[@johnchapman5125]

Thank you!

[@bjrnerikjuel1459]

Luckily, knowledge is not "justified true belief" :) The interested may look up David Deutch's extensions of Popper, or Brett Hall's discussions of their work. And, as Feynman alluded to, we do not need to (nor should we) assume that absolute or fundamental knowledge is possible. It is perfectly possible to have knowledge about about a phenomenon or a process without it being absolutely true or eternal or fundamental. As long as our new conjectures provide explanations for hitherto unexplained problems, our knowledge is progressing. And even though there is no final, complete, or eternal goal of our progress, we can know more today than we did yesterday. great video, in any case !

[@bobjensen8040]

A very good summation of the state of man without God or a knowledge of the true nature of God. To sum up Richard Feynman's statement in one word, humility. No progress in knowledge can be made without humility. Great video.

[@thandofiltane9706]

Kiff video. Got some thinking and rewatching to do. And also... clever plug at the end there. haha. Real smooth like an earlier Grand Line Review/New World Review call-to-action.

[@dipaktrivedi1533]

What a way to express the human dilemma. Awesome 👍 🙏

[@jedandva3622]

My intuition makes it true. But true to only me and my perspective

[@chris-jy4im]

Excactly

[@Echo3_]

I really enjoyed this video, its the journey not the destination or what you will do when you get there

[@JamesWilliams-gv7zd]

Ive been caught in a paradoxical loop at the DMV. Love that place

[@0ptimal]

Yes, we seem to have our own relative demands on what it takes for something to be deemed true or real. Ultimately it may be the state of knowing that is most important, and not the trail of logic and truth that lead to it's existence, because everything under enough scrutiny ends up unexplainable at it's core.

[@TobyAva2023]

We will never know..if we DID!? It would probably scare us...really

[@Omni-rd6sb]

It was interesting hearing how 'knowing' itself falls into a paradox. As in, 'how can we know that we know,' but some objective truths must exist and we should continue to study and verify knowledge and even if there is no absolute truth, the search to find it definitely takes us places, or atleast we think it does.

[@neerajsaini603]

Best channel for getting depression symptoms

[@michaelrivera6989]

These are old dilemmas rooted in a lack of definitions of truth and knowledge. We can only have working truths and working knowledge. Ultimate knowledge neither attainable nor necessary.

[@TheAlf411]

Working truth aka relative truth. Hence ultimately truth is inaccessible. But humans aren't satisfied with relative truths, we want the Essence or the source. Hence the empty hole in our soul

[@michaelrivera6989]

@@TheAlf411 Your we definitely does not include me. I'm satisfied with the 3 lb mass between my ears and what it does for me.

[@psychonaut689]

@@TheAlf411 the difficulty with saying all truths are relative is that, this statement itself is an absolute one.

[@flightjam]

I came up with a quote a while ago relatable to the topic of the video. "We believe we know, but really all we know is we believe."

[@lynnfisher3037]

Who said that? Or do you believe Someone said it??

[@lynnfisher3037]

Who said that? Or do you believe Someone said it??

[@jimmymorrison8314]

Another beautiful video. Thank you. I think that, in our arrogance, we believe that there's such a thing as inevitably. We need to realise and remember that, we just simply don't know and, that's cool as.....

[@albertjewell1963]

9:49 "Sometimes you walk away simply feeling that you are part of the nature of things - that you've been heard, understood; that someone out there, who you'll likely never know, separated by potentially immense distance, and time, is deeply connected to you in thought, in sensibility, that someone knows you well." Can you just imagine how incredible life would be if every person on this planet knowingly had this other person somewhere else? Would it become everyone's life's quest to find this other person? Or would just knowing this person exists be enough?

[@explorer.samrat]

This channel provides really deep perspectives about life.😊

[@szolanek]

Prove it ! :)

[@Solo407]

This video proves it, is that enough proof for you? Lol

[@90-nirmitbatavia45]

Also the Paradox :- Will dad ever return after he went out to get milk 😭

[@kwasaathefirst6572]

That isn't a paradox, it's simply a question

[@helloworld_2472]

no ,he won't😂

[@lynngallerno4145]

When aliens bring him back

[@jsoto185]

I thought he went out for cigarettes..

[@MoteOfDust430]

Ahh, the ad never ends. lol. Thanks, that was awesome

[@twomananimations6958]

What a conclusion. This video was very good I’m subscribing. It’s very interesting how certain things have circular reasoning, that’s where sometimes we just need faith.

[@gi66itz]

I took a similar conclusion from this piece of the video. The difference between the scientific approach and the metaphysical/philosophical approach is what you have Faith in. The recursive questioning stopped by accepting something (the truth of a Theory or a Scripture) is limiting to our growth as a species. If we just accepted that God decides when we die or that we just die when we get old we wouldn't have questioned how our cells and biological organisms work and more people would suffer and die. That said, without the Faith that other elements in the equation are true (we exist, water is made of hydrogen and oxygen etc.), we would be frozen in recursive inquiry. In this case, Faith operates as a mock truth -- a control. Often in our divided culture science is represented as seeing Faith as an obstacle when it is as much a tool of science as it is in the everyday lives of the devout no matter which religion they follow. What is important in the end is whether you use Faith to help you find answers or you use it in place of an answer.

[@bille77]

The fact, that we can never stand on solid ground, IS the solid ground. It's solid and adamant AF, if one fully and completely realises this. ❤

[@faulkgough1768]

though you will never really touch anything, consider that your brain knows what is going to happen before it happens. You are living life in your past, slower than you can register, floating as a ghost, separate from cosmos... yet, it all works just as it should.

[@alexstone5116]

it's just energy bro, chill

[@faulkgough1768]

@@alexstone5116 I am chill, just stating facts... watch a few more videos on the topic of quantum theory, and heck, even paradoxes... or, really anything that makes you think about the universe around you. unless you are so at one with reality that you have surpassed the awe that it can be... and turned into a twat.

[@Napoleonwilson1973]

@@alexstone5116Define energy

[@Matisto1]

I see knowledge as a house of cards being build, until we realize one is faulty we can continue building. If one is faulty the house of cards breaks down (hopefully only partially) and we can restart with building our knowledge base.

[@MikeJones-wq7pg]

Just discovered this channel, excellent video essay!

[@barsanted]

I found the discussion on the Munchausen trilemma and the nature of fundamental truth really thought-provoking. It's fascinating how we grapple with the question of whether we can ever truly prove anything to be fundamentally true. In terms of philosophical progress, I believe diving into epistemology is crucial. Descartes' famous statement, "Cogito ergo sum" or "I think, therefore I am," serves as a solid axiomatic foundation. While acknowledging the possibilities of being a brain in a vat or even a program experiencing a simulation (which leads to radical skepticism), this axiom allows us to philosophically advance. Additionally, our primary perceptions through our senses play a crucial role. By relying on our five senses-sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste-we perceive the reality around us. These perceptions serve as another set of axioms. From this point forward, our philosophical exploration relies (in my opinion of course) on Evidentialism. Unlike rationalists such as Descartes, who hold a lot more presuppositions as self-evident, the evidentialist approach requires us to rely on evidence to support our beliefs and claims. Evidentialism requires us to provide evidence to justify its own validity. It's a self-referential loop that demands introspection. How can we provide evidence to support the concept of providing evidence? It becomes a matter of epistemic circularity. However, we can argue for the coherence and effectiveness of Evidentialism by highlighting its track record in producing reliable and verifiable knowledge. The success of Evidentialism in scientific inquiry and other fields demonstrates its reliability. Yet, we must recognize that this argument still relies on the assumption that evidence is the most reliable way to acquire knowledge. It brings us back to the circularity within the framework itself. Evidentialism requires evidence to justify Evidentialism. In essence, Evidentialism becomes a self-supporting system, where the justification for its truth lies within its own framework. It becomes an inherent belief that guides our epistemological endeavors, even if its direct justification remains circular. By acknowledging this inherent circularity and engaging in critical reflection, we gain a deeper understanding of the epistemic foundations we rely upon. It allows us to explore alternative perspectives within the realm of epistemology and question the limits and possibilities of knowledge. Overall, this video raises some very thought-provoking questions about the nature of truth and the foundations of our beliefs, shaping our understanding of the world. It reminds us to approach these philosophical inquiries with curiosity and a willingness to critically examine our epistemic frameworks. Sorry for the long text, but this subject is not a easy one to compress in to a more palatable small text. There is so much more I would like to elaborate, however, I believe I've been rambling enough as it is. Awesome video!

[@nil_nux556]

The only problem with this channel is that it's so good that you wanna watch all the vids when you should just watch one and let it digest.

[@lincolnpollack4299]

Love this channel❤

[@jamesmitchell7577]

Wild to think about how this is basically the adult version of a toddler asking “why?” to everything.

[@kirkgoshert7876]

Not wild. Pathetic.

[@pookiebeatthata1790]

These are the thoughts that came to me and my friend on acid as teens crazy how deep in thought I’ve been about just the way this place works we call life

[@silvadelshaladin]

And this is why you end up having a 700 page proof that 1+1=2.

[@nocturnalsingularity3138]

This reminds me of my daughter... She is 8, and she always infinitely regresses with every single second of every question she ever asked LOL

[@darkwoods7]

Right? My kids have challenged me on EVERYTHING I thought I understood.

[@CiscoWes]

That’s when we end up using the answer “because” 😂

[@mingalo2620]

One of the most interesting things about paradoxes, is that only after going into the helplessness of trying to solve them, you realize that we are built to ignore problems as much as we are built to solve them.

[@alisterwhite5714]

1. What do we know? How do we know? The assumption is that we can't answer one without the other, but the statement How do we know is based on the fact that we know at all. The main issue with this paradox assumes that we must know in order for a fact to be true, as if our inability to prove we know invalidates the world around us. How do we know can be answered without a human present. It is the basic understanding of how consciousness works. The question by itself describes the process by which humans perceive knowledge. We don't need to know in order for the ability to know to exist. 2. How can we prove anything is fundamentally true? Realistically, a paradox assumes two contradictions are true, by some means. So in order for something to be a paradox, you need to accept something initially. So the question assuming that you can't assume anything automatically discredits the paradox, because either it disproves itself, or it's not a paradox, because it's just a question. The 3rd reason to prove "paradox" 2 is stupid, because it acts as if senses are not a valid source of information. While yes, you need to validate the senses in this context, but it treats the senses as if it holds no logical value. 3. Can there be any philosophical progress? The only validity to this "paradox" is the assumption "if we can't have any absolute knowledge..." which contradicts the rest of this video, as it is an assumption of itself based on previous statements. The basis of this video is not paradoxes, but fallacies.

[@inkplays7747]

We can not think outside of logic and language ,even this is also logical .we are limited

[@themacocko6311]

99% of people think outside of logic everyday! Your statement is 100% false. Humans are NOT logical without massive effort. We are still 100% run by limbic brain. You're just another dumbshit on the internet talking about things you have zero clue about.

[@Miami7]

Richard Feynman was an incredible and amazing person. I've read all of his books and many of his works. "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is one of the best books I've ever read. Wish he was still around.

[@SolveForX]

The super presupposition is “I am.” It is the fundamental first principle. You can’t prove to anyone else “I am” but you don’t need to in order to know the truth - “I am.” From “I am” we derive all logic, reason and interaction with what we perceive to be reality.

[@MrMcSnuffyFluffy]

A great friend once said: "They don't know that we know they know we know!"

[@rennoc6478]

We can prove only one thing, that you as an observer exist. But you cannot prove that to anyone else only to yourself.

[@sammygreco]

Yeah this is true. I also don't find this sort of philosophy very helpful if it is used as a trump card in debates. Like a sort of "gotcha". Of course we can boil all knowledge down to "well the only thing I really know is that I exist". But if we want to move beyond that and actually have productive conversations (or to advance as the human race), we need to operate on the basis of agreed upon assumptions. Then once we agree to those, we need to operate on a basis of assuming statistical probability as fact. Like if one were to say "If I drop this ball, it will fall every time" should not be challenged with the necessity for absolute 100% proof, "and so therefore, we can't really say gravity exists". This is the opposite of productive or meaningful for the sake of navigating and learning about our reality.

[@rennoc6478]

@@sammygreco I agree with your assessment just in the context of the video I thought I would add this

[@frankss5145]

How do you know that? Who tells you that you exist? The fact that you percieve reality? This tells you only that the percepiton of reality exists, but doesn't tell you anything about you. Even the feeling of yourself Is Just a perception. Everything Is a perception generated by our mind, but we, as beings, may not exist at all.

[@sammygreco]

@@frankss5145 it's Descartes. "I think, therefore I am." If you are experiencing things then you exist in some form of capacity, somehow, somewhere. Whether our entire reality is fake is irrelevant, it is just a fact that you exist since you are perceiving this reality, fake or otherwise. And it's the only fact that can be proven. But only proven to you, since you can't be sure that anything, including other people, exist. Does this make sense?

[@frankss5145]

@@sammygreco It makes sense, but you're starting from as assumption, the one that even Descartes did. I think therefore i am. You can Say that this Is true for you, but Is an assumption that you do, for me isn't true for example. I have no proofs i exist at all, what am I After all? I can touch things, see things, i can also think about things, but can i see myself? I don't mean my reflection of course, but the Essence of me. Can i touch myself? Can i even think about myself? I can touch my body, sure, and i can think about my name, or about my personality, my Memories, but Is this me? Isn't this Just reality that goes into existence inside my personal and subjective experience of what Is Life? So, After all, even saying that i exist Is an assumption, and not a objective fact.

[@nickmet123]

Simply brilliant! Seems like the process of thinking is more valuable than the solution.

[@clintonrice525]

I can’t, and don’t wish to, dispute any of the content of this video. It called me back to high school geometry class, where there were postulates given that didn’t require proof, but without which no proof could ever be given. We all start with some instinctual model of our worlds, communicate with each other in imprecise, subjective language to share ideas and evidence, and hope to improve our knowledge models as we go along (“all” is probably an overstatement; some people seem to prefer a static model impervious to change, rejecting perception instead of modifying understanding).

[@tom-kz9pb]

As fallible beings, we have zero knowledge that is absolute. We generally do not know enough to justify having "beliefs". We should instead have "theories". For every theory that we hold as favorite, we should also have some alternate theories, or else we have not contemplated all the possibilities. All knowledge should be regarded as tentative.

[@Jackson_Zheng]

You can easily prove something to be true without it requiring a justification!😂 Example: Do questions exist? The answer is obviously yes. But even beyond that, it is impossible for it not to be true. If questions don't exist, then we'd never be able to contemplate it's existence in the first place. Therefore, the statement "Questions exist." is just one example of an objective truth. It requires no circular reasoning or any axioms. It's true because it would be a paradox if it wasn't.

[@Xxcyclonexx44]

Ideas only exist if you accept the premise that you exist.

[@Xxcyclonexx44]

I think all regression question logic will come down to whether or not you exist.

[@Jackson_Zheng]

@@Xxcyclonexx44 Of course I exist! If I didn't, how am I able to think and ask questions in the first place?

[@Xxcyclonexx44]

@@Jackson_Zheng you have taken you exist as fact. That is great, that also is a “axiom”

[@Jackson_Zheng]

@@Xxcyclonexx44 The type of "axioms" I'm referring to in my original comment are statements that are accepted to be true but are not self-evident - e.g. the ones mentioned in the video. My argument was that there does exist true statements that ARE self-evident (like the fact that I know questions exist), therefore it does not require any "justification" because the statement itself is the proof for why the statement is true. I guess it's also a type of axiom, but it's a very different type and one that is much more grounded and concrete than the ones mentioned in the video.

[@benmcreynolds8581]

I've had this hypothetical idea about how the universe works forever now. I look at ecosystems and I see that they recycle energy and find ways to keep a balance. So I can very easily imagine the greater universe's ecosystem following in that manner. Black holes are the perfect candidate for a galactic recycler. The other end of a black hole could be a white hole of unimaginable forces and could connect a tube between 2 bubbles that could represent universe's. Then the cycle can continue. Each universe has the ability to recycle energy and matter from itself to feed another universe, creating a ecosystem that is not wasting matter but converting/reusing the matter from old to feed the new. Just like how forest's exist on our planet. It's symbiotic and destructive and creative all at the same time. In my opinion, it's very messy, & abstract. The only set thing is Matter is recycled, converted not destroyed. *Just because matter is converted doesn't mean that it's stable. I feel like there's a probability of many unstable "universe's" It's chaotic but every now and then the conversion cycle could land on a stable form..? Just like how the forest floor is abstract. The underbrush, dirt, rock, is all abstractly situated. I feel like the cycle of the way the universe recycles matter would be very similar. Any matter that gets recycled would probably be converted into it's most basic essential form once it's thru it's process. Super heated gases, plasma, etc. Basically like a seed. A foundation of a universe being transplanted. Some work; Some don't. Idk? Just a gut feeling I've gotten from going on long hikes in the Oregon wilderness throughout my Life. 🧲🌡️📡🔆☢️🔌🔊🔋♻️🌐☯️⚛️ It's facinating how when we look around & we see all this complexity with-in the Universe. That complexity basically comes from: ~{"Differences"}~ The Factor of how "Differences" interact seems to be the key factor in keeping dynamic systems functioning. Such as: *{High pressure/low pressure, hot/cold temperatures, different densities, viscosities, turbulent flow, static electric charges/discharges, electromagnet waves. Different velocities/angular momentum. Different amounts of energy/mass/frequency/vibrations. Different boundary layers between different materials or physical regions such as: (Land/water/oil/air/soap bubbles/ atmosphere's/space. The different regions in space with different particle density/background radiation, solar wind/membrane layers/bubble's/cloud regions, nebula's/Galaxy's/Galaxy clusters/ Cosmic filaments/less dense regions of space compared to dense regions of space.) All of these things are basic differences but create a way for the dynamic engine with-in Nature to continue flowing and operating to create and convert energy.} Just Like How a battery 🔋 transfers + charges through a membrane layer to a - charged side. Like how regions of high/low temperature 🌡️ create winds. In water- add some factors and It creates ocean currents and flow. Then internally inside our planet it creates plate tectonics, planetary convection, geothermal activity, a magnetic field around our planet, to hold a atmosphere. The list goes on 🧲🌡️📡🔆☢️🔌🔊🔋♻️🌐☯️⚛️ The natural world around us is just utterly facinating to me.

[@lynnfisher3037]

Everything you just said is circular reasoning. You are pulling yourself up like the Baron and trying to escape the bottle, just as we ALL are.

[@alexstone5116]

I mean, cool that everything is cyclical but the question is 'why'?

[@skippy675]

​@@alexstone5116 "why" is a silly question though because asking why presumes that there is a reason. The most basic question i can come up with is why is there something instead of nothing? Already, I am stuck. I don't know if nothing, truly nothing is even possible. I don't think nothing is a possibility. Don't know this for sure. Can't know this for sure. But if nothing isn't a possibility, the questions about why did our universe come to be is still valid, but "easier" to answer. Because all that is took this form either by design or by chance.

[@alexstone5116]

@@skippy675 i think a human mind is incapable of comprehending anything that doesn't involve reason. This is why we have all these questions without a tangible answer

[@benmcreynolds8581]

@@alexstone5116 i dont think anyone can ever truly know from our current perspective. I think our best option is to observe our surroundings. Look at how a forest functions, or other environments? Seems like a good example that we could utilize as a comparable analogy? Maybe?

[@saraohara2504]

9:25 “Remaining unsure” seems like a humble and wise approach, but then aren’t we setting ourselves up to suffer from our own chronic indecision?

[@dielaughing73]

He didn't say not to make decisions. If you take a look at Feynman's life, you'll see he lived more than most of us could hope to and was not held back in the slightest by his philosophy

[@marcoantoniocontreras6591]

i have to comment on this because i have a new law that has happened to me that i dont know what to name, well i think its something but ive questioned myself over and over about it and it seems super logical. ive also asked very many people and they dont have an answer for it because they have experienced moments of it as well.

[@pretikewl76]

Any color has a consistent waveform. Regardless of how a person "sees" it, the wave does not change per that specific color. You may not see red the same way I do, but it doesn't mean it isn't red or true.

[@akid9675]

How do you know that?

[@arnoldlawrence744]

Thats why Faith is the substance of things is such a powerful statement

[@redmed10]

In formulating any philosophy the first consideration must always be: What can we know? That is, what can we be sure we know, or sure that we know we knew it, if indeed it is at all knowable. Or have we simply forgotten it and are too embarrassed to say anything? Descartes hinted at the problem when he wrote, 'My mind can never know my body, although it has become quite friendly with my legs.

[@adieldiedericks4563]

Very beautiful rendition of one of my favourite tunes❤

[@ZafOsophy]

Similar to the flies in the bottle. We are characters in a simulation, who want to see/escape the wires/conductors, within which we exist. The paradox is that it is impossible to exist outside the wires, because the wires 'support' the fabric of our being, in the same way dark matter supports matter, but we cannot detect it.

[@johndiss]

The simulation is a dream.

[@daultonlargena2800]

Everything is one.

[@ZafOsophy]

@@johndiss Yes, people who have Near Death Experience, describe life as a murky dream.

[@ZafOsophy]

@@daultonlargena2800 Yes, everything and everyone is connected, quantum entanglement.

[@NAYAINSAAN-ij9lb]

@@ZafOsophy does it mean i cant change my surroundings as my code wint allow ne ?

[@DaddyProws]

I came for 3 riddles and got so so much more!

[@Gandalf914]

The “flies in the bottle” analogy reminds me a lot of Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”.

[@michaeldoe4805]

Also known as a daily conversation with a 4 year old

[@jskrug1]

I'm a chemist and we know something is true when we consistently make accurate predictions using mathematics and modeling with the Scientific Method AND we further know when others independently make the same accurate predictions. We chemists and physicists are rigorously trained to think about truth and reality TOTALLY different from everyone else.

[@forbidden-cyrillic-handle]

This suffers from the same problem. You can't claim that you know and toy can predict, and yet in another instance you declare you discovered some substance that does something unique. Example, superconductivity exists. But the problem is that it works in uncomfortable environment for humans, it has to be very cold. So can you predict what substance will have the property of superconductivity at room temperature? No. Because you don't know. So you will have to find it. And after that, if the results can be replicated, you will claim you know it. And here is the larger problem. You replicated it on Earth, but the claim will be that it is universally true. That if there are aliens on some distant galaxy they will be able to reproduce it as well. That comes from the proposition the laws of nature work the same everywhere, because it looks this way. But I can hear the exact same logic from a flat earther, as they will proclaim Earth as flat, because it looks flat to them. Also "repeatable" doesn't mean "true". Do they teach you history of science? When Ohm created his U=IR, it was not accepted at all. He was forced to resign from the University he was teaching. The other famous scientist at that time have already tested that by stacking bateries in series and then they measured the current of shorted circuit. They measured and reoroduced the result independently that the current does not change depending on the number of batteries, so current cannot depend on voltage. And Ohm did the blasphemy against the holy scientific consensus and paid for it.

[@hermione_granger1326]

​@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle Holy Shit

[@jgunther3398]

that proves it's true to the satisfaction of the criteria of chemistry but doesn't prove it's objectively true. like the red car example. the video's about objective truth

[@blue_blue-1]

From not able to know to the feeling that you are heard.. Quite a leap.

[@tasantana1174]

The car is not red, it is actually a mixture of every color except red. The color red is a frequency that is being reflected and or rejected off the material. We actually do not see objects in the way that they truly exist we see a reflection of the object that light provides us. This is why with the absence of light we see darkness or the illusion of empty space.

[@andrewscruggs5906]

... I think the point of that story went wayyy over your head

[@Mx.Arcadia]

One can find absolute truths but only within a given system of belief. Philosophy is valuable as it grants the capacity for more systems which grants capacities for more contradictions to coexist peacefully.

[@ir0n2541]

A system of belief means you have made assumptions as truths, seeking truth within a belief system will eventually lead to circular reasoing, or starts off as an infinit regress and ends up in a circular reasoning. no matter how you approach it, the truth can never be truely established. it can only be assumed.