• Eli Robertson
    6
    Hi philosophyforum,

    My name is Eli Robertson and for the past year or so I've been working on a philosophical theory. As you can judge by the title, I call this theory "Boxed Reality". This theory draws on concepts such as Idealism, Existentialism, Determinism, Immaterialism, Agnosticism and Phenomenology among others.
    I'll post the first chapter here, and based on what kind of responses I get, I'll post the remaining chapters.

    The first Chapter is just an introduction to the theory. It doesn't go into the major complexities, merely providing an overview; the second Chapter is where the theory really starts.

    Thank you all for taking the time to read this. Please, don't hold back in your criticism or comments.

    Chapter 1: Introduction
    https://www.scribd.com/document/332948747/Theory-of-the-Boxed-Reality-Chapter-1
    Thanks all!
    Eli
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    Reveal
    Theory of the Boxed Reality: A Philosophical Proposition Chapter 1: Introduction
    Before we begin, I would like to thank you for taking the time to read this. Many hours have been dedicated to the planning, designing and writing of this theory. Theory of the Boxed Reality proposes a new way of looking at the world around us. It seeks to answer supposedly unanswerable questions, as well as questions science has posed to man for time immemorial.
    I’m not a psychoanalyst nor a scientist. I don’t claim to be anything I’m not. I’m not a tin-foil hat wearing “flat Earther”. I’m not a dreamer. I’m a realist; this is the basis of the theory.
    I’m not putting this idea forward for it to be ridiculed or savaged by what we consider to be the pillars of the universe: mathematics and science. To understand, to have an open mind about this theory; you must be able to detach yourself from what you were taught as fact. Einstein’s theories of relativity; Newton’s laws; Lemaȋtre’s theory of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe. You must, for the sake of the pursuit of knowledge, question what the majority accepts as fact. My theory of a “Boxed Reality” presents not a solution, but a new, modified way of thinking about yourself, others, reality and your place in it. I was born into religion; and I’m not ashamed to say I saw through the
    façade they berated us with in Church. However, during my stay at a Catholic school, I began exploring alternatives to what we had been taught during services of worship; an omnipotent, all-knowing, all-forgiving God that created the Universe in 6 days - it didn’t sit well with me. I explored
    branches of philosophy: metaphysics; externalism; determinism; epistemology, then I stumbled upon solipsism. The idea of not being sure whether anything or anyone exists outside of your own mind is a hard one to wrap your head around. An early version of solipsism (solus, “alone”. ipse, “self”) was developed by Gorgias, an Ancient Greek philosopher. George Berkeley and Rene Descartes both made significant contributions to the philosophy from the 1600’s through to the 1700’s before it modernized into what we know it as today.

    My theory (hereafter referred to as “TBR”) does not specifically call on
    solipsism, but its mention here is important. Rather than solipsism; the
    psychopath’s dream, TBR calls heavily on Idealism; the Subjective branch
    in particular. Subjective Idealism is a very important branch of Idealism in regards to its stance on the mind and the world that it perceives. Subjective Idealism w
    as an idea of George Berkeley’s, an Irish philosopher that did most of his work in the 1700’s. On Subjective Idealism’s most basic level, it states that only minds and mental contents exist. Berkeley then went on to deny the existence of the non-mental, an idea termed immaterialism. Idealism, though actually a broad group of closely related ideas, states that reality is a mental construct, or otherwise immaterial. Absolute Idealism draws on this idea, asserting that there is a single, all-mind encompassing reality. TBR builds on this idea, seeking to create a new way of looking at what we know as reality. If we were to hypothetically accept Berkeley’s theory that only minds exist,
    we would have to question whether his theory supported the presence of a “soul”
    . TBR states that the soul is a not a physical being, but an eternal mental companion. The existence of such a concept is absolutely fundamental to TBR. So instead of using Subjective Idealism in its most widely accepted modern form, we will draw lightly on its ideas and rules, using it as a foundation upon which to build TBR. The soul is what I term a “Cross -Life Identifier”. The term sounds fairly modern and technological but the soul is neither of these things. It is a non-physical, non-aging construct serving a main purpose of mental identification. To understand the concept of mental identification, we must delve deeper than simply a definition. TBR subscribes to the theory of reincarnation.
    When one’s mind ceases to work, it ceases existing on a mental plane. Thus, you are dead. What next? Almost instantaneously, you are born. Possibly in this reality, perhaps in another. But that doesn’t matter – you have reincarnated, however with no actively accessible memory of your past lives. If we were to hypothetically take reincarnation as fact, it would explain the seemingly unanswerable question that has plagued the mind for millennia. What happens after death?

    A good example of what I’m about to describe is this: have you ever had a strange dream? A dream
    that didn’t make sense? Or even a dream you would assume was based on real life? Perhaps you saw a notable building, or you were at a beach. TBR states that some of these dreams are memories of a past life, either originating in this reality or another. These memories are stored not in the mind, but in the soul. At the point of death, the mind ceases to exist, but not the soul; keeping in mind it is non-aging, thus making it what we would term “immortal”. During the reincarnation process, the soul moves into its new mind (hence its definition as a mental companion), stockpiling memories of past lives. This concept does a good deal to explain mental phenomena such as déjà vu, pareidolia, and even false memory. In conclusion of this introductory chapter; I sincerely hope I have introduced the theory in such a way that others can understand. A summary of what we have learned so far according to TBR:
    Only minds, mental contents, and the soul exist;
    The soul is an eternal mental companion;
    There is a single, all-mind encompassing reality;
    When one “dies”, reincarnation is imminent.




    Hello Eli. Thanks very much for posting this. As you said, this is simply the introduction. I look forward to first chapter of the theory itself. But for now, since a thoughtful proposal deserves an equally thoughtful and hopefully helpful response, here are a few impressions... (sorry for the sloppy copy and paste job of your intro. I did it so I could read it while responding)

    The first few paragraphs of the introduction may be doing a possible disservice to the eventual theory.
    It comes across as somewhat defensive. You state:

    "I’m not a tin-foil hat wearing “flat Earther”. I’m not a dreamer. I’m a realist; this is the basis of the theory. I’m not putting this idea forward for it to be ridiculed or savaged by what we consider to be the pillars of the universe: mathematics and science. To understand, to have an open mind about this theory; you must be able to detach yourself from what you were taught as fact. Einstein’s theories of relativity; Newton’s laws; Lemaȋtre’s theory of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe. You must, for the sake of the pursuit of knowledge, question what the majority accepts as fact."


    This seems unnecessary and a bit distracting. It may appear (unintentionally) that you are asking the reader to be unscientific in the name of having an open mind. I sincerely doubt that this was your intention, as it seems contradictory. At least it did to me. Perhaps some slight rewording might avoid that.

    Toward the end of the introduction, you write:

    "In conclusion of this introductory chapter; I sincerely hope I have introduced the theory in such a way that others can understand. A summary of what we have learned so far according to TBR:
    Only minds, mental contents, and the soul exist;
    The soul is an eternal mental companion;
    There is a single, all-mind encompassing reality;
    When one “dies”, reincarnation is imminent."


    Some rewording may help the reader here. When you say "what we have learned so far", it sounds like the premises (which you may intend to build upon) have been demonstrated so far or are self-evident.
    Unfortunately, they are far from being demonstrated, at least in what is given so far. If you intend to provide evidence later on, it would be clearer to say so at this point, imho.

    Hope my two cents is helpful. Take it with a grain of salt, as i am merely a reader of philosophy, not a teacher nor an expert. I find the subject matter very intriguing. Looking forward to where you are going with this theory, which has much potential. One wants the runner to have their best race, and not trip up on something relatively small.

    Thanks again for sharing! :) (Y) (L)
  • Eli Robertson
    6
    Hi 0 thru 9.

    Thanks for your critique, I'm glad you enjoyed the read! My intention wasn't to be unscientific, but to show that science and math are just constructs of the mind (a concept just barely touched on in Chapter 1).

    Chapter 2 is much longer and goes deeper into the theory, explaining some of the concepts learned in Chapter 1. Later chapters go into arguments against contradictory theories, as well as provide evidence for mine.

    Thanks for your input!

    Eli
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    science and math are just constructs of the mindEli Robertson

    without which you would have no computer to express your ideas.
  • Eli Robertson
    6
    without which you would have no computer to express your ideas.Wayfarer

    Hi.

    I totally agree with you. Science and math are staples of our reality, I don't deny that. I know a lot of what I'm saying contradicts itself - but the next Chapter really touches on the concept of an immaterial, or constructed, reality. If we look at reality as a mental construct, we can then say science and math are also mental constructs. However, I'm not disregarding science and math whatsoever. . I apologize if my word choice made it sound that way.

    Eli
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    Not a matter for apologising.

    I did take the time to start reading your piece, and will provide some feedback. It will blunt and brief, but this is a public forum.

    (I have to enter a credit card to re-visit your piece, because I've subscribed to Scribd before, and it knows who I am, I can't view anything without entering details. Before, I did have a quick read, but you lost me at 'solipsism'. Solipsism is the idea that 'only my mind exists' - not 'only mind is real', like idealism, but only my mind is real. There are quite a few posts about this idea, which I regard as symptomatic of the narcissism of our culture. Not saying you're narcissistic - it's just a general comment that comes to mind when I read about solipsism.

    Einstein’s theories of relativity; Newton’s laws; Lemaȋtre’s theory of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe. You must, for the sake of the pursuit of knowledge, question what the majority accepts as fact." — Eli Robertson

    Of course. But you can't question, for example, gravity, unless you really can levitate. Look, I also regularly argue against 'scientism' - the idea that 'the scientific worldview' is normative in the way that the biblical worldview once was. But I try and do so on philosophical grounds (and cop a fair bit for it also, I might add). But saying, 'put aside the fundamental discoveries of 20th century science' is a big ask. Myself, I would try to argue for a philosophy which accomodates such discoveries.

    Only minds, mental contents, and the soul exist;
    The soul is an eternal mental companion;
    There is a single, all-mind encompassing reality;
    When one “dies”, reincarnation is imminent."
    — Eli Robertson

    To be blunt, this could be cribbed from 'introduction to Vedanta' or any number of spiritual or new-age books. This isn't to say that it doesn't have an element of truth in it, but philosophy in the West doesn't necessarily start from those premisses.

    Long story short, I don't think you're going to find a receptive audience on this forum. You seem a nice person, well-intentioned, you write well, but it might be wise to 'pick your battles' a bit better.
  • Eli Robertson
    6
    But I did have a quick read, but you lost me at 'solipsism'. Solipsism is the idea that 'only my mind exists' - not 'only mind is real', like idealism, but only my mind is real. There are quite a few posts about this idea, which I regard as symptomatic of the narcissism of our culture. Not saying you're narcissistic - it's just a general comment that comes to mind when I read about solipsism.Wayfarer

    Hi. If you had read just onto the next paragraph you would've seen I was just mentioning it. My theory actually rejects solipsism entirely.

    Of course. But you can't question, for example, gravity, unless you really can levitate. Look, I also regularly argue against 'scientism' - the idea that 'the scientific worldview' is normative in the way that the biblical worldview once was. But I try and do so on philosophical grounds (and cop a fair bit for it also, I might add). But saying, 'put aside the fundamental discoveries of 20th century science' is a big ask. Myself, I would try to argue for a philosophy which accomodates such discoveries.Wayfarer

    I'm not questioning gravity; it's there. I'm not disregarding science and math entirely; but I believe firmly (and I state this in my theory) that reality is a mental construct. If reality is a mental construct, what does that make math/science, which attempts to explain the physical workings of reality? My theory relies heavily on Idealism as you can tell - and if reality is a mental construct, then the laws and rules made to accommodate it must then also be mental constructs.
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    My theory actually rejects solipsism entirely.Eli Robertson

    Sorry! Didn't get that far. As I say, can't get back into Scribd.

    I believe firmly (and I state this in my theory) that reality is a mental construct.Eli Robertson

    But the problem is that some ideas have physical consequences. If you have a theory that predicts some result, and the result contradicts the theory, then you have to update your theory to accomodate the results, don't you? Whereas, if you were only dealing with mental constructs, this couldn't occur, could it?
  • Eli Robertson
    6
    But the problem is that some ideas have physical consequences. If you have a theory that predicts some result, and the result contradicts the theory, then you have to update your theory to accomodate the results, don't you? Whereas, if you were only dealing with mental constructs, this couldn't occur, could it?Wayfarer

    It could definitely occur in my theory. As I said before, Chapter 1 is simply an introduction to the theory; it sets out the most basic rules and premises of said theory. So far, we've just barely touched on reality being a mental construct - I plan to evidence this further as well as present arguments for contradictory theories in later chapters. i also believe it was George Berkeley that argued a similar point and came up with a really good response for it - I'll see if I can find it again.

    In my theory's view: the "physical consequences" you talk about are once again - mental constructs. Maybe not "constructs", but you get what I mean. These physical experiences and "consequences" are all in the mind. And once you start to understand that idea, that everything you perceive as physical is all in the mind, you start to understand the theory on a bigger scale.

    Eli
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    I plan to evidence this further as well as present arguments for contradictory theories in later chaptersEli Robertson

    Well, this is as good a place as any to hash the ideas out, as it's a forum. But, you can't leave it at 'you get what I mean'. When you're talking about the nature of knowledge, it requires exactness of language. So the question remains - if I have a theory which makes a prediction, and the prediction doesn't work out, what is it mistaken in relation to?
  • Eli Robertson
    6
    if I have a theory which makes a prediction, and the prediction doesn't work out, what is it mistaken in relation to?Wayfarer

    I don't understand. Could you give an example?

    Eli
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    but I believe firmly (and I state this in my theory) that reality is a mental construct.Eli Robertson

    But why do you believe this?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.