Plus and Minus: Foreword and First Chapter

Warning: Strange Translations might occur during lecture. I recommend to ignore the word(s), and to rather pay close attention to the context. Some Mistakes are inevitably due to the Translator I used, so please do not assume weird things if the text is weird. Telling me directly would be more helpful. Thank You!


Title: Plus and Minus

Genre: philosophy

Back: “The opposites seem to be found in everything imaginable. Why should a uniform knowledge, which can be derived from simple everyday life, be dispensed with in order to be able to lead a „real“ life? Why you want a „real“ life and how this can be achieved as safely as possible is explained in this philosophical work from the point of view of philosophical considerations and the experiences of young people.

Preface

The corona pandemic has been going on for well over one and a half year so far, and people are longing for normal life back. There is even a vaccine in sight, but it does not seem as if it is dying to conquer the world like a pandemic. Unfortunately.

At this point I thought to myself that there might be people who no longer know exactly how to resume their normal everyday life, simply because there was a new „normal“ everyday life in their lives. How many young people may not even know where to go because they have spent an important phase of their life in front of a device that is probably not yet fully understood, since even their parents do not know much about it? Probably a lot. In order to partially counteract this, I have decided to summarize all theories regarding the existence and its rules of the game in a collected volume and to publish them at the same time.

With this, I hope not only to help those who have had to experience huge disadvantages out of this pandemic, but also some of those people who may strive to answer similar existential questions, that e.g. came up in school, whose answer they never got. With this I would like to make it clear: In my opinion, these theories that I will present in this work are neither to be classified in the natural sciences nor in the humanities, but are a stand-alone general knowledge that is composed of the sciences mentioned. If you are worried that this book might bore you too much: It’s just theories. The aim of these notes is less entertainment, more usefulness and knowledge of what comes from guesswork. The words may sometimes be chosen rather arbitrarily, but then the interpretation of the viewer is in the foreground in order to gain insights!

With these words I wish you, dear reader, a good time reading this!

Enjoy it!

Why I do what I do

I started asking questions when I was a little kid. I often told myself that I couldn’t be completely normal, but I think that was actually very normal. But when I noticed that even my classmates did not deal so deeply with existence and its rules, the social conformity led me to never ask these questions in reality, with sound and vocal cords. A shame! If only I had known earlier that these questions were not self-evident, and if one day I had been tempted to write a book in which I would offer my help in the form of theories, I would have asked these questions earlier, and would have been closer to them followed up. But unfortunately it didn’t turn out that way. For me, in elementary school, questions like “Why do I want good grades at all?” Or “Why do I want to improve at all?” Were more important than the questions I should ask according to the curriculum. “Do I need that for the exam?”, Just as an example. At the time, nobody really asked what was the point of learning, the rules, let alone the Principle of „life“ which every one of my classmates apparently took for granted. So I thought I was just lagging behind with no sources of information and no way to keep up with these other individuals because they had other biological advantages. Today I know: That’s not true. As I said, I could have said that back then, too, if we weren’t here now. In any case, based on this assumption, I began to neglect my general knowledge. I didn’t understand the principle of “learning” because I didn’t ask. Although there was even a “learning to learn” project at our school, it was of very little use to a person like me, since I simply didn’t have a reason, and neither did I find any reason to ask about it. This went on until this existential crisis, which was often noticeable in only small trains of thought, then really (figuratively) exploded: Puberty suddenly began and I began to question why I would still be alive if I couldn’t do anything productive anyway. Why would I still have feelings that tell me that I’m fine even though I’m bad because my diet is in the can. Why are there good and bad things at all? How do you fix that? Why do I want something solid at all? For security? What brings me security? To survive? Am I just living to survive? No, I don’t want that, after all, everyone in society is talking about not having a job that you don’t want, but fulfilling the one that you enjoy, that makes sense! At least that’s how I thought at the time. If you can even call it „thinking“ … Feelings guided me for much of my life as they were the only logical indicator of my wellbeing for me. But things have changed since these questions. I tried to get a picture of the world. Best to deduce it to me. With nothing but logic and my limited general knowledge. So I started with my worst question: What is the world?

Is the world now the earth or the universe? But what if there are an infinite number of universes? And what if a new universe would always arise on the edge of these universes, which would also contain a completely new culture, a new species and new laws of nature, but we don’t know anything about it, and just learn something that is perhaps quite inconspicuous in the „whole world“ and is insignificant? So I defined what I knew. And at the same time described almost everything I needed to build my world from scratch: I started with plus and minus. Two mathematical signs that represent something positive and something negative for most people. These two things are also there to describe everything we see: Atoms. Atoms consist of an atomic nucleus, consisting of neutrons and positrons, and small, very light electrons that buzz around it. Now my philosophical intervention began: We start from the fact that everything consists of atoms. (Today I know: I should rather say quarks). Atoms contain both “good” and “bad”, each in the form of positrons and electrons. There is even something third, “neutral”, which then had to be defined as a mixture of “good” and “bad”, adapting to my view of the world. So basically the world consists of dualism. Aha. Also explains why humans are halfway symmetrical, and so do many things that have arisen in nature. Leaves e.g. mostly have a symmetrical shape. Or animals like butterflies. But none of this is perfect. So not perfectly symmetrical, not perfectly dualistic. Can I still say my hypothesis is correct and the world can be divided into two parts? In good and bad? Or good and bad? What is that? And is the good thing that I ask about it? Why do I even want to ask? Why do I want to learn and understand that? “One by one,” I had to tell myself. Let’s start with the question of the definition of good and bad: We generally understand good to mean something that is beneficial. Promote what? Well, when we do sport, we promote our health. When we learn we stimulate our brain and our adaptability. At work, it is good and even respected when we promote our productivity and performance. But what do all these things have in common now? We’ll see that later. First of all, the point of what is bad: It is generally spoken of when someone is disadvantaged, has died, something does not taste good, or a poor performance is presented, i.e. this performance could not meet certain requirements. So maybe we can define good and bad like this: Life is a target. With every shot we can either hit the middle or miss. The prerequisite for this is a clear definition of the middle or the point that is to be hit. If we meet now, we are right, we have done something well, deserve praise. If we meet somewhere else – which shouldn’t be that difficult to accomplish, given the huge area you can hit to be wrong – we have accordingly done something bad, that certain something of performance that we have provided, is therefore now to be classified as inadequate and thus as bad. So far, this always seems to be the case. In school, in nature and in other trains of thought, there is always a prerequisite that requires us as individuals through a certain performance (or through other random chain reactions, e.g. from chemistry or physics). I would also like to know why this is so. But even with my limited general knowledge, we come back to the question of the Big Bang and the origin of life. In order not to despair further and to keep the ball rolling, I would now ask the question, why do I even ask about it. Because why should I be disappointed now if I can’t answer that question? What did I even want to achieve by asking?

What did I actually imagine, what answer did I expect? That actually gets to the heart of the matter quite well. Because this question is exactly what is needed in order to define and set up exactly this prerequisite, as it is life after all. The work to be done for this would then be equivalent to an answer. Accordingly, the philosophical approach could be: The whole world is a question and we are the answer! But what exactly is the question? And what do we say Or what do we represent? Is it a good thing? Or something bad? Since we have defined the middle as the point where the “good” meets, and we humans represent the answer to the question of whether we can “meet”, I would simply deduce from this that we humans can survive, and that Good is. Because what question does nature ask of us? No. We have to find an answer ourselves. We are hungry. We are thirsty. These are the questions we have to answer. How we do it is basically irrelevant, at least from the perspective of the individual. Accordingly, one can also ask the question to other beings, and they would answer no, not end up in the middle, and therefore be bad because they are no longer alive. So we want to be good. We live. That’s a fact. It’s time for an overview. What would a picture look like that describes life and all processes in it? Here would be my suggestion:

The Life-Death-Model (# 1)

I should perhaps mention that this picture does not show my current view of the world, but it certainly still contains the information that gave me the idea to write down my ideas in the first place. So there is something to talk about, the comment section is looking forward to your criticism. The main thing is to make it clear here: This is my theory in its infancy. Do not be surprised if there are some logical gaps to be found every now and then, because if they exist, they can only be filled by you. So thanks again in advance for constructive criticism!

So, on in the text …

Looks a little colorful. Nice.

I christened it: The Life-Death-Model (# 1).

But how did I even designed it?

You are a body in a room. This body has energy, nerves, organs, etc. Animals have exactly the same properties. So you are an animal. A living being, which is indicated by the black circle in the center. Animals want to survive. So the best version of an animal has evolved over time: humans. Man has a brain. Because you have a brain, you have a consciousness. This means that you are able to perceive stimuli intensely, which you then perceive as “feelings”. These can be subjectively perceived good as well as bad stimuli. Good means it lets you survive, bad means it kills you. Or has the potential to do so. Then there is such a thing as social pain, remorse, and shame. All of this arose from the development of the brain. The brain still perceives working with people as good because it was previously shown to be able to survive. So whoever is tormented by others falls into the doctrine, in the „Void“ as I baptized it in the diagram, which is like symbolic death. Likewise, one can be responsible for falling into the void: Anyone who does not enjoy any connection to society to a certain extent and only blames himself for guilt and remorse takes action against an individual in society („anti -social „). Shame is basically the same thing, except that it is also possible to refer to your weaknesses, or natural, rare to unique characteristics, which should actually drive you to the effort. Whatever the case, those certain hormones or feelings make this technique stop working, and more and more people are unhappy for no reason. Evolution simply reached into the toilet to a certain extent.


I don’t think I have much more left to say.

Thank you for reading!

Veröffentlicht von Ventusator

Eigentlich bin ich manchmal ganz nett. Sometimes I may actually be nice.

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

%d Bloggern gefällt das: