Notes On "Why I Dislike the World" Article

In this article I will address the reception I recieved thus far from my latest personal-based article, "Why I Dislike the World", and add more insights concerned with it. This is also a meta-philosophical article, concerning the philosophy behind the article I'm will be addressing. If you have yet to read the original content, click here.

There seems to be a common misconception in the reception of the article, stated in the title, thus far. While some may believe I hate the world, I do not hate it at all, I simply dislike it. Disliking can be defined as lesser than hating, or a lighter version of it. As to why of course I stated in the article. It can also be considered a contradiction to liking something, and not liking something does not by itself indicate towards hatred.

Secondly, I tried adopting to the world before I was diagnosed with my disabilities, but didn't managed to completely do so, and nowadays I enjoy my partial seclusion from the world, where I can better filter the stimulation I receive from it. Life was harsher in that process, and probably reflected poorly on my overall happiness. To this day I am so happy for finishing school and have a greater freedom to dictate my life the way I believe is optimal for me.

When it comes to the world being changed, perhaps it will be better able to tolerate people with disabilities in the future. However, as long as terms like "autistic" and "sensitive" are used as words of either offense or ridicule, there is still a long way to accept different people of all of humanity's spectrum of individuals and their conditions.

The philosophical part of the article is when I address the power of our personal biases on our perception of the world. In fact, the entire article was written as an example to the claim that much of our external experience depends on our personal and collective development, which is subjective.

But, of course, that would create a problem: what is the difference between a perception and an opinion, and what is their relationship with the concept of philosophy? Wouldn't anyone who has an opinion, based on their personal experience, come to the territory of philosophy?

Not necessarily. In my native language, philosophy is literally translated to the creation of opinions and ideas. Thus, a philosopher is necessarily a creator of opinions and ideas, whether or not they use anecdotal evidence. In this case, I used my experience with life as anecdotal evidence as to why I think the way I do.

Take note that evidence itself can be subjective to the receptor, making it interpreted differently by different people, leading them to different conclusions based on the same evidence. Hence why different philosophers have reached different results in their work based on the same perceived information/knowledge. Hence the freedom in philosophy — the freedom to choose and adopt your own opinion distinctively. Thus, much of a philosophy depends on a philosopher's personal bias and how they catch the same object (life, the world and so forth).

In addition, a personal opinion is necessarily a perception, but the latter isn't necessarily an opinion that is subjectively held. The beliefs of philosophers, arguably, are their opinions based upon their observation and contemplations of the world. They evolve into perceptions once they are established and are labelled under a title. Thus they are recorded and become an external product whether or not said philosophers resume holding them. Hence the threat of dogmatism that exists in philosophy; the threat of non-detachment from your own formed set of ideas.

And finally, perception is necessarily an ideology, and an ideology — philosophy, whether that philosophy is personal or collective. The difference, arguably, between a philosopher and a “normal” human being, is that the former dedicates more time and effort into making their beliefs a product with a name and with a planned logical structure, regardless of the content of it and its source. In other words, a philosopher is a content creator of ideologies/methodologies.

In conclusion, philosophy is a very broad term, as everything can be subject to philosophization, AKA, logical reasoning that is often channelled by different biases. Neo-feminism, for example, is the contemporary version of feminism that is biased towards females and their experiences with what they call “the patriarchy”.

Philosophy is more than just the observation of things and beings. It is the creation of ideas and opinions/ideologies through the gathering of information and through the training in the art of logical reasoning. Observation is one way we can gather information, but contemplation can also be used, not necessarily exclusively, in the process of founding an ideology and its different premises and arguments.

Hence my own foundation of what I call Rubinshteinian/Rubinshteinic Individualism, a philosophy that was a product of observing the world and contemplating it and my experiences of it. This led me to the conclusion that much of what the external world has to offer is not worth our suffering, and that said suffering is unnecessary and avoidable to an extent. This is why I personally dislike the world, when I can be happier and calmer in my own company. However, I do not and would probably not abandon the external world entirely.

Even if we dislike the world, we should not underestimate its functionality to our lives as long as we live amongst civilization. Hence another conclusion in my philosophy: society is necessary to an extent as long as we are not completely independent from it and from interacting with it. Whether we dislike it or not is irrelevant because our attitude towards it won't necessarily change it. If anything, the original article is indeed an example to when philosophy is impractical at times, due to the same reason I just gave.

Because no matter how bitter I will be towards people throughout the world, I live to work. I live to philosophize. I live to work.

Hail Philosocom.