Idea: Preview

Relevance:     Universal
Nature of reality; Our capacity for understanding reality; Mechanics of reality; Ethics; Rights; Trust in politics

Section 1.
Reality is a fundamentally mysterious duality between the realm of [subjective] experience (a.k.a. consciousness) and the realm of physics (time, space, matter, and energy). It seems that we will never learn which is ‘most real’ because the realm of experience appears to be generated by the realm of physics while the realm of physics is dependent on and can be reduced to the realm of experience. The two are inextricably interdependent on one another, like two sides of the same coin.

Section 2.
The concept of God as a person and creator of the universe is the product of the not fully understood potential of language to create misleading concepts (especially unwittingly self-deceptive fiction) and the self-serving desire to be favored by an existence that is dedicated to making one happy. Instead, God is most sensibly interpreted simply as existence as a whole, one that is indifferent to one's subjective happiness or suffering. Subsequently, the question “does God exist?” is pointless and does not deserve to be even considered (and especially not answered). All we can say meaningfully is “God is existence” and “God is”.
     Furthermore, any inquiry into the nature of existence should be aimed at how one's subjective existence plays a part in the grand scheme of existence, and it should be performed through self-reflection and self-exploration, such as meditation. Therefore, by definition, it is one's own existence that is less certain than the existence of God.

Section 3.
Freewill is an illusion. All animals––including all people––are subjectively experiencing biological machines. Each person is controlled by their desires, and their desires can only be controlled by their other desires. The complexity of the interactions among one's desires gives one the illusion that they are somehow in control. However, this illusion is very easily dispelled if one commits themself to understanding the causes of their actions and behaviors.

Section 4.
The idea of morality—i.e. the idea of ethically right or wrong actions—is nonsense. Ethics is a matter of conflicts of interests, and the question of which actions are ethically acceptable or unacceptable is decided by the interests of the members of a particular group. This, in turn, is a product of the psychological sophistication of the members of a particular group and the environmental and economic circumstances in which they find themselves.
     As such, there are five motives for the creation of ethical standards of acceptable conduct. The most primitive of these motives is the practical dynamics of reciprocity (basically, “I won't harm you if you won't harm me.”). The second motive is emotional, specifically the drive of commiseration, which is the experience of commiseration with others through one's sense of empathy. The third motive is emotional, specifically the drive of love, which is a collection of desires to be intimately connected to other specific persons (the desires vary depending on the preferred type of relationship for a particular person). The fourth motive is also emotional, specifically the feeling of community and shared sense of purpose with other members of a group. The fifth and last motive is intellectual, which is the drive of rationality (including the desires for understanding and integrity).
     Besides the self-evident ways in which the first four motives function to establish a system of ethics, there is the less obvious motive of rationality. In order to appease this motive, people create various arguments to explain their relation to other persons within their group and within our entire reality. The claim of morality—ultimately supported by nothing but belief (i.e. wishful thinking)—is one example of such an argument. However, the most compelling argument is as follows:
     “No conscious life is more or less ‘objectively significant’ than another because no conscious life has any ‘objective significance’. This is because all significance is subjective, and the idea of ‘objective significance’ is nonsense. Anyone who acts with the idea that one conscious life is more or less ‘objectively significant’ than another is acting irrationally. But, of course, it is not unreasonable and perfectly normal for persons to have subjective biases regarding certain persons that are rooted in desires other than rationality.”

Section 5.
The idea of inherent rights is nonsense; rights can only be granted by one person to another. Specifically, a right is granted when a person guarantees to not take action against another person when the other person performs some specific action.
     People might have differing opinions about which specific rights they are willing to grant to others, but we tend to have a general agreement for most practical purposes. Based on this general agreement, which is consolidated and expressed through our governance structures, we are able to build a stable society.

Section 6.          
When electing officials to positions entrusted with administrative power in a society, the society is best served by electing people whose drive of rationality is greater than their selfish interests of personal gain.
Approval Rating
Egora, “The Worldwide Stock-Market of Ideas”, enables everyone to
– develop their own political philosophy out of various ideas,
– determine which ideas are most strongly supported by the people, and
– find the true representatives of the public will, to elect them into public office.