Philosophy and the Recalibration of Truth

Brian He
Brian He
Nov 4 · 2 min read

There are a number of philosophers whose names have been immortalized. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and any other Greek-sounding name you can think of, like Yiannopoulos. Even a name like Nietzsche is glorified despite the man being objectively deranged and having a mostly crappy life.

It seems that everyone’s interest is piqued when the word “philosophy” is tossed around, likely because everyone has their own “philosophy” to be advertised. Hell everyone even has their own idea of what falls under the umbrella formed by this word. It can be extended to include concepts like morality, honor, and nobility, all of which are equally vague, illicit emotional response, and can actually mean anything depending on who you talk to. In the same vein, two people can Instagram caption a random esoteric quote and attach completely contradictory interpretations to them. If anything can mean anything, does anything mean anything at all?

Whenever we engage in “deep” conversations, a common dialogue ender is when someone brings up the point, “Everyone is different and has their own opinions based on their own life experiences, so we cannot do anything about that.” However, if you and me respond, “Yeah I guess you’re right,” and supposedly accept this notion, then why are we still intolerant of others’ philosophical differences when they oppose our own, and why do we behave as if our own character has been attacked? Us getting real quiet and critically evaluating what is being said is definitely cordial, active listening.

The fact that we do not bow to Marcus Aurelius, remain detached, and go meditate in a corner is evidence of, “Shucks everybody different *slaps head, shrugs shoulders*,” being unacceptable. Someone is right here, or at least more right, but not only is it improper etiquette to express why something is wrong — any retort you would have is as baseless as the very thing you believe is wrong.

That is because the scorecard has been bastardized by conflicting philosophies that cannot be more or less valid due to the crumpling, if not complete disposal, of said scorecard. Even the universal, biological imperatives of accumulating resources and increasing body count are dismissed because oppression and lack of commitment are bad. Never mind the Freudian notion that the former is actually just a feeder into the latter, so really there is only one quantitative measure, or zero if you decide to draw tally marks and some freaking guy erases them because you lost sight of what was really important. You lost sight of what was meaningful, maaan. Imagine getting your opponent into checkmate position after both of you spent the entire game moving bishops diagonally and knights in L-routes, until they start triple jumping your pieces because suddenly white is red, the sky is not blue, and the rules have changed.

Our subjectively-formed truths are engaged in a perpetual slap fight because the judges can’t agree on what constitutes a victor. Quantitative is morphed into qualitative after being viewed through philosophical lenses, and we end up in the same conversation talking about different things.

Brian He

Written by

Brian He

intersecting trueness consciousness and articulation

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade