Onequestions new philosophy...

Ok, so i was thinking today driving around with my lady...

Life is just one big movie. I have decided that i am watching this movie from my perspective. I have also decided that everyone else is just an actor, played by me with makeup on! It is like a huge virtual interactive 3d movie i am watching. First, i was the director and writer, then i was the actors, actresses. Now i am the observer, observing my wonderful play.

Now i am just going to sit back and watch the fireworks. Life will be so much more enjoyable now with this perspective.

NOT TRYING TO PICTURE THE LOVE SCENES.

reply to post by juveous


awww... but, they were for you!! haha

anyway 5 star rating 2 thumbs up and stuff.

reply to post by onequestion


Hey man, I think lots of people envision their lives this way - I do too from time to time. I think one of the problems with this viewpoint though is that it can become too easy to be disconnected from other people and not empathise with their needs etc - if you only see them as bit parts in your reality.

This is actually a really terrible philosophy.
This is not a unique philosophy to you, believe that. I believe that this philosophy is actually what 'they' would want if 'they' existed. It makes for delusions of grandeur, it makes you feel like you are important above all, for you are, after all, the director. It makes you selfish, it makes you believe that you are connected to everyone, and that everyone ought to be connected to you. It makes you feel like you're being watched, and that you are always watching.
I know people who thought like you. Well. I KNEW them, at least. I don't talk to these people anymore for... well, one of them has schizophrenia and has been in a hospital for like 3 months or something, and the others... well, the others are just jackasses. I'm not saying you are like this (although, from your other threads I can conclude a few things about you, certainly not that you're a jackass, though) but I am saying that this is an unhealthy philosophy.

Sometimes things happen that are just out of your control, that cannot have been scripted. This is why I KNOW that your philosophy is wrong. You may not think so, in fact, you may KNOW just the opposite. Just watch out, alright? Don't take this philosophy too seriously.

Originally posted by onequestion
Life is just one big movie. I have decided that i am watching this movie from my perspective. I have also decided that everyone else is just an actor, played by me with makeup on! It is like a huge virtual interactive 3d movie i am watching. First, i was the director and writer, then i was the actors, actresses. Now i am the observer, observing my wonderful play.

This view, that all of your world is somehow grounded in yourself is a form of solipsism, the view that you are the only person there is. Most people find this view highly counterintuitive, claiming that the existence of other minds is obvious, but really... it's very hard to argue with a solipsist. Many philosophers have tried and failed. I would say that I can't be certain solipsism is false and the external world exists independent of myself, but I choose to believe it anyway, and I don't see why solipsism makes you happy.

My favorite response to solipsists, those like yourself who claim that the whole world is really just some extension of their own mind, is to tie them to a tree.

reply to post by FrostyPhilosopher


If you see everything from a perspective on infinity, does that not mean that we are all extensions of each other?

If i live in a universe where by acknowledging and experiencing i create, and you also live in a universe where you create, but we coexist within an infinite universe, in our own universe, does this still not apply?

Someone told me we all live in our own paradigm, but our paradigms share each other at a rate of 20%, by sharing i mean we can only experience 20% of each others paradigm or universe, but we coexist within 40%(that 40% becomes 100% of a whole within itself) of another paradigm which creates itself into another paradigm upon the interaction. So basically we do live in our own universe, we just have universes that interact with another universe.

Saying anyone is wrong is like saying someone is right, when in fact noone knows.

reply to post by onequestion


It seems to me that what you are getting at with these "paradigms" is what Kant would have called the phenomenon/noumenon distinction. You are right that in some way we all live in our own world, we all have a unique phenomenal experience of things (e.g., You and I stand next to each other looking at a tree, it might look almost exactly the same to both of us, but you are seeing a tad more of one side and I'm seeing a tad more of the other.). Now, it is possible that our phenomenal experience of the world is radically different, but as long as we are able to interact and successfully communicate (e.g. I ask you if there is beer in the fridge, you say "yes," and I go over and find there indeed is beer in the fridge.), I see no reason to think our worlds are all that different.

Now, is there a world beyond the phenomenal? The noumenal world? Sure there is, I would say, but we can't say much if anything about it. But that's no big deal, important things like sandwiches, extra terrestrials, beer, and secret bases are all in the phenomenal realm, they are all subject to possible experience.

I just want to clarify,

this is the days philosophy, not my philosophy in general. lol

I agree with what you are saying Frosty... I somehow think that by describing our terms in paradigms only applies to us from our minds interpretation of realty, not the actual physical reality itself.

Well, sadly, there is a great rift (probably more than one rift actually) in today's philosophical community. I think I may be from one side of the rift, and you from the other, but I'm glad we can get along.

The great rift of which I speak is the Continental/Analytic divide. Continental philosophy generally includes Kant and the German Idealists, Existentialists, Deconstructionists, Postmodernists, and the like, and is loosely based around Europe (i.e. "The Continent"). Analytic philosophy is harder to nail down. It includes philosophers like the Logical Empiricists, Bertrand Russell, G.E. Moore, Sellars, Quine, David Lewis, and the like, and is predominant in the Anglophone world (i.e. USA, UK, Australia). The split is often seen to have started with Kant, with both sides claiming him to some extent, though I think most Analytic philosophers shun him. (Wittgenstein is another guy who is sometimes on one side, sometimes on the other side of this divide, but once again usually shunned by Analytics.) Anyways, I have studied in the Analytic tradition, so I'm more comfortable and less ignorant about that side.

reply to post by FrostyPhilosopher


I am happy people have their own philosophy, it gives me something to mirror mine own with.

I probably change what i am thinking on a weekly basis. Today i will be living in an infinite universe connected to everything, and tomorrow i will be something different.

Originally posted by onequestion
I just want to clarify,

this is the days philosophy, not my philosophy in general. lol

Don't want to sound overly critical, but perhaps it might be better for you to blog your days thoughts... you could put a link to it in your signature too.

It seems if you're going to be changing your position "daily" there's little point in addressing those posts of yours pertinent to daily views. Whilst I realise and appreciate that people do change their viewpoints on things, your attitude seems a little fickle and dare I say laissez faire, which isn't particularly conducive to reasoned argument.

reply to post by jokei

Don't want to sound overly critical, but perhaps it might be better for you to blog your days thoughts... you could put a link to it in your signature too.

Good idea.