What is Real? 

In my work , I endeavor to be as clear as possible to the most people and as large as range of intelligences as possible. Philosophy, The agents typical of philosophy, The philosophers of the profession, on the other hand , seem to start with what is most obvious and through maneuvers and of deconstructing and dissecting meanings of terms, by doubting what is apparent and what is right in front of them, come to some sort of any sort of Thierry that at any moment is a pause in the ongoing development and growth or evolution of understanding, to therefore talk about what is more real of what is apparent. For a broad term this is called metaphysics, and often enough with no hesitation it can be called ontology. 

Philosophers seem to function this way automatically. It seems that the idea of doubt is somehow reversed, such that the end result of the doubting it seem to be more true or of a more fundamental occurrence of the apparent reality. This route and method constitutes probably every percentage of philosophical book and author that anyone would want to look for. There are maybe two that I know of out of maybe 100 that do not use this method. 

Because to me it is not the route of doubting that leads to some sort of foundational base that ends up to constitute what is apparent. To me it is the end result that must be doubted; this is where doubt becomes significant and not merely a producer of discursive fashion. It is here that philosophy endures. 

What’s more is that most philosophers are looking forward has their philosophy. Even while they look to past authors and historical philosophical books, and see themselves as delving into a tradition that is established arguments already made to thereby allow the new philosopher to synthesize these past arguments and hopefully come up with a new significant ontological proposal. but they are not viewing it as a past because they’re reviewing it as a means towards their future. It is this kind of reversal that I am meaning when I say that so many philosophers seem to be using meaning in reverse.

We might hear Kierkegaard and I think maybe even Heidegger, as well Badiou comes to mind; The philosopher is concerned with one thing and this one thing is all too concerned with the past. Some Conventional philosophers would want to take this in as a sort of irony and argue their future career upon the folding and obscurity that these passages might denote to support their endeavor. But I take it merely as a statement of fact. There is no future to be concerned with because the future has already been determined, and this is why the philosopher of significance is concerned with the past because he is trying to figure out how it is that the future can unfold and no other way then it does and indeed it is at this moment. 

So it is that even as I say that I am trying in my work to be as clear as possible and what I’m saying and to be able to be approachable by people of even fair or averageintelligence, I really find that the deceivers the clerics the bishops of philosophy have gotten to them first. So sure are the simple minds of the belief that anything true must be complex and hidden behind a veil of intricate and involved discursive ramblings that given the most simple idea most if not all turn away the first sentence from it’s obviousness; so many today doubt themselves because of the mysterious veil of religion that conventional philosophy as errected by it’s traditional method. And this is so much the case that even the philosophers themselves padded in seats of long names and prestige, initials of credentials, that the philosophers themselves cannot even comprehend the meaning of a simple and obvious statement. They argue their involvement and complexity of what is really real; they enforce illusion upon the people around them and establish a higher key of religious power and dominion below them.

So it is at the end of my philosophical endeavor, which is indeed just the beginning, I say reality is that which is all around us and that this is most true. The dog That walks in front of me; The house through the woods, The sidewalk under my feet;  The grass. We can find nothing more true and real then these. 

From this, we can begin to speak about what is significant, begin to unravel the modern religion of reality. We find the entrance into what is offensive to those traditional spaces of power, what is not real, but true.  Not concerning ontology, but more, teleology. 


  1. Yes be clear. I myself like to create simple circular arguments that prove an almost spiritual truth. Every so often I hit upon a set of coincidences that when strung together create an obvious truth.

    1. I try to be clear and simple, straightforward sbout what im saying, but all too often, people are simply incapable of reading the simplicity. 😝

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s