What is the nature of reality?

I wanted to call this, ‘On the nature of reality’ but that sounds like a thesis or something. This is not any such thing. It’s only my thoughts, like about 80% of everything else on the Internet (and in a lot of academic writings too, although we are encouraged not to notice this passing of opinion as fact by those in authority and we want to use their writings as facts and footnotes in our lives and in our essays). We tend to ascribe authenticity to other people’s thoughts and opinions far too easily. It’s easier than fact-checking or thinking for ourselves.

I read somewhere that Karl Marx was upset at how people took his book so seriously when it was only his theory. However, that may not be true. Perhaps it really was his goal to change the way people thought. Didn’t he say that religion is the opiate of the masses? Meaning that it is like a drug which makes people complacent, I think? However, it isn’t only religion. There are a lot of people who are not religious. But they are lazy, sloppy thinkers who don’t want to question the status quo. So it isn’t only religion. I do think he was right though, that people who are members of a group such as a culture, or an organisation which becomes a culture within a culture, often become complacent. And of course Karl Marx recognised this, which is why he wrote the Communist Manifesto. This is of course, only my opinion. Because he is dead and we can’t actually ask him outright. And I am lazy, and haven’t actually researched any of this, I’m just typing out my thoughts.

The main problem with replacing a system with another system is that once the change is over and things settle, people simply slip into the replacement system and stop thinking again. That’s how humans are, we adapt but we also spend a lot of time trying to stay safe and within a system so that we fit in.

How can we encourage people to think more? Well, we can’t. It doesn’t seem to be natural. And there are repercussions. For one thing, it can be too tiring after a while. Mentally and then physically. It does take a toll, to be so mentally active every day. I am sure there would be other issues that would arise. Dissension, confusion and more. Lack of stability.

I realise this does not yet appear to be my thoughts on the nature of reality. But thoughts affect our perception of reality. And when I read, I think much more. Fiction or non-fiction. It doesn’t matter. Thoughts arise like sparks, sometimes too fast to catch.

I have been reading philosophy. Which has created an uncomfortable problem for me. The problem isn’t that reading certain sorts of writings teaches me anything, although it often does. I like to learn, whether it is that I need to examine my ideas and restructure them, or whether I need to examine the origins of my ideas. The problem lies in the fact that so much of what I have been reading seems to confirm my own beliefs about the world, the nature of reality, belief and humanity.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s Greek philosophy or anything else that came after (so much of Western thought is based off of Greek thought from centuries ago). Whichever it is, even Latin American Grassroots Theology for example (which impressed me very much), I find myself thinking that parts of it fit with my own personal philosophy.

And then I wonder; Are my thoughts my own? How much of my thinking is based off of life experience, and how much is based off of reading other people’s ideas and adopting them without questioning them. How much of my reality is based off of the particular form of reality that our cultural systems engender?

There must be situationally-based examples of course. Fire will burn you. I was told this and did eventually find out that it does do that. But not deliberately testing it. I found out when I was careless, and burned my finger. I believed what I was told when I was a child because I learned over time that when adults or your elders tell you something, they know because they have more life experience.

But what about things that we aren’t really told? Or we are told as a matter of course, during school, but we so easily forget. Like systems such as those that are used as a basis for society. The capitalist system is not very good. It encourages people with resources to use them to make profit. But that means they don’t have to feel responsible for the others who rely on those resources.

For example, perhaps you own land with a natural spring of clean water and you charge people living around you for using it. But one day you sell that land and the rights to the water. You get money (presumably a lot) but what happens to the local people who need the water? The person you sell it to will want to make a profit so they will charge more for the water. Or perhaps they will stop locals from using the water and build a water bottling plant and sell the mineral water around the world.

Or you work in a company where you can only get anywhere by being aggressive about promoting yourself. It’s very difficult to work within such a competitive system without ever hurting anyone else. People who say they are self-made are ignoring all the others who they stepped on to ‘get to the top’. Unless you really did make money by selling something you made absolutely by yourself, you’re not self-made. Your success means that others were pushed back or perhaps lost everything. Or your success is dependent on the help of others, networking, sharing resources.

I don’t know where I’m going anymore. I think what I am trying to say is that we don’t exist in the world on our own and we need to consider others as being important too. I wasn’t planning on writing about this, I was trying to think about perceived realities vs what is ‘real’.

I think I need to read a lot more.

I do wish a few more authors were female though. I looked at the index of a particular book on philosophy and not a single female name was listed. Yet there are and have been female philosophers and theologians. A handful of female writers are listed in other books on philosophy and theology, I noticed. I do get sick of them almost always being labelled as ‘feminist’. Women can think about other things… and not just ‘grassroots theology’ as well.

It is true that women as a whole are a little more geared towards the grassroots side of things, because of the way most cultures and societies push them into the sphere of the home, childrearing and menial tasks. This gives a person (of any gender) a particular angle (or perhaps bias)from which they approach most issues. For example, I loved studying theology but I felt that it did not often take the everyday ordinariness of life into account. Writing pages and pages about God and man is fine, but what about lunch?

Many theologians and philosophers think (perhaps on subconsciously) that they are above these things, the mundanities of life. But if you see blood, feel warm flesh, have to clean up messes or prepare a meal or whatever else that is profoundly human and ties you to the realities of the human body and it’s frailty, theology and philosophy become occasional treats (flights of fancy, perhaps) that are not the most important thing after all. The most important thing is to achieve a balance. Many people never achieve proper, satisfying balance in their lives.

I like eating. I like thinking. I prefer thinking to most other things, but I think best when reading and writing to supplement it. I would enjoy a job where I get paid to think, read and write. But it is not sensible. And whatever else I am, I accept that the sensible choice is to continue.

Have showers, eat food. Buy things, work at a job. I wish so much that I could read and write and think, and listen and talk too, about my favourite topics, and not have to do all the other mundane things. If I could find a housekeeper who would take care of a lot of those things for me. Ah, that would be wonderful! But no, reality ensues.

Well, let’s leave it here, in dreamland, I must publish this since it has been in draft for a few months now.

Have a great day,

God Bless you

:D