Understanding the Illusion of Contradiction in Articles

(Background music)

With so many articles written already, it should be no surprise that it would seem that I contradict myself. However, in reality, I am simply examining the same aspects from different viewpoints.

For example, I wrote that peace could be a liability, while having an entire directory on peace. Another example is me writing an article on how to find purpose; while also writing an article on how the need of purpose can be a liability.

What matters in philosophy is exploration. Specifically, the exploration of the same subjects at different lenses. When we examine the same issues at different lenses, we then can understand just how multifaceted reality is, and the truth, most especially.

All points of view are necessarily limited. Think of driving a car in a mobius strip. Every time you take a turn, you look at the world around you from a different angle. All lenses are limited just as our very own two eyes. No point of view can encompass the entire intricacy of something. You cannot understand something completely if you choose only one lens. You cannot see the entirety of the mobius strip track if you don't dare to venture out with your car.

Thus, the more lenses you add, the bigger your understanding of a subject becomes.

Short people see the world from a different lens, so are tall people. Yet, both lenses are examining the same surroundings. It is unjust to cancel out the perspective of the shorter person just because they are shorter than the average individual. It is unfair to prioritize the perspective of the taller person just because their height makes them attractive.

Society works in a very biased way, prioritizing the lens of those deemed privileged while canceling out the viewpoints of the underdogs of society. As much as you might invest into research, the research could be biased and could cancel out the hidden realities it doesn't address. Therefore, all conventional research deserves to be questioned, like those about neurodivergent people, but without their direct involvement.

We might never know how it's like to see the lens of very tall people when we will never be tall, like we might never know how it's like to be with ADHD empirically. However, their lenses are as equally justified as yours because they just show reality from a different perspective. Thus, inclusion of different perspectives is essential to understanding the bigger puzzle that is reality.

Reality is prone to conscious and unconscious subjective bias, and we are never entirely objective. However, some people change. When they change their perception changes as well. What you saw from one point at the mobius strip track is not what you necessarily see from the other half you've just been to half a minute ago.

The philosopher is like a driver that drives for the sake of seeing the world for what it is, but from the abstract sphere of reality, instead of the physical. He or she examines the same area or region from different points of the road system. That is what philosophy should be when used as a tool for research.