SimplePhilosophy

Philosophydoesnotneedtobecomplicated

ReadthisandotherworksbyLuisFominayacompletelyfreeatwww.neytopia.com.

2016LuisFominaya

Introduction
ThepurposeofthisbookistopresentthewayIunderstandrealitybytacklingdifferent
philosophicalproblems,aswellastoofferargumentsagainstcertaincommonbeliefs,manyof
whichareconsideredselfevident.Iwillpresentsomeaxioms(sentenceswhichexpressanidea
withoutfullyexplaining)thatwillbethefoundationofmyphilosophicalsystem.Theyarenot
absolutetruths,butratherpersonalbeliefswhichIfindmakemoresensethanothers.
Itrytoofferastructuredguideforcriticalthoughtaccessibletoasmanypeopleas
possible.Todothis,Iwillnotpresumethereadertohaveanyknowledgeofeitherphilosophyorits
history,andwillavoidbothcomplexsentencesthatholdnomeaning,aswellasunnecessarywords.
Perhapspeopledonotneedphilosophyasmuchastheyusedto,becausenowboththe
foundationandtheboundariesofthecommonunderstandingofrealityarelaiddownbythenew
branchesofphysicshowever,thinkingaboutthedifferentthingsthatmakeupourrealitystill
affectsthewaypeoplethinkandeverydaydecisionmaking.Thatisthemaingoalthisbook
pursues:toshowthepracticalutilityofstructured,criticalthinking,asopposedtoahighlycomplex
butbarelyintelligiblediscourse.
Inordertofulfillthesepurposes,thisworkisstructuredasfollows:abriefdiscussionabout
thebasisofmytheorywhichwillpresentitskeyconceptsandargumentsasshortlyaspossible,
followedbythedevelopmentofalreadyintroducedideasandarguments,aswellasofnew
problems,discussedatlength.Thefirstsectionisfarmoreimportantthanthesecond,andwillonly
takeaverysmallsacrificeoftimeonthepartofthereader.BecauseIusesomeabstracttermsthat
haveaveryspecificmeaning,Iwilldefinethembeforeusingthem,andthereisalsoaglossaryat
theendofthebooktobeusedasreferenceatanytime.

IntroductiontoSimplePhilosophy

Let'sstartfromthebeginning.Iwillcallourfeelings,thoughtsandallthatwethinkabout
thementalcontent.Everythingweexperienceisincludedinthementalcontent.Andwhatdowe
experience?Weexperiencesomethingthatisoutsideofourmentalcontentwhichcreatesour
perceptionsandexperiences.Butwedonotknowifwhatcreatestheseperceptionsis,infact,how
weperceiveit.Perhapswhatweseeisaprojectionofsomething,andourmentalcontentisthe
screen.Wecannotknowhowtheprojectoris,becauseweonlyseetheprojection.Iwillfromnow

onusethenameultimaterealitytorefertoeverythingthatisnecessarytocreateinourmental
contentthepictureofwhatwecallreality,andwhichalsoincludesourmentalcontent.Itisthe
ultimatestateofwhatwecallreality.
Ourmindcontainsonlyapictureofultimatereality.Perhapsrealityandultimaterealityare
thesame,orperhapsnotthatwecannotknow.Whenweperceiveatreeusingoursenses,some
partofthatultimaterealityisbeingprojectedinourmentalcontent,andweidentifyitasatree.We
donotknowhow"thepartofultimaterealitythatprojectsthetree"reallyis,whichistosay,wedo
notknowhowthetreereallyis.Weonlyseeitsprojection,andcreatetheperceptionofthattree
perceptionmeaningthewaywerepresentapartofrealityinourmentalcontent.Becauseweneed
thetreetoformitsperception,thereisnecessarilysomepartoftheultimaterealitythatgeneratesits
projection.ThisiswhatIcalltobenecessary:toimplythatsomepartoftheultimaterealityis
neededtoexplainagivenperceptionIusethisinsteadofexistbecauseofthepreconceptionthat
isusuallyassociatedtothatword.
Thenaturalquestionthatonecouldaskfromthisdefinitionis:whatistherulebywhichto
decideifsomethingisnecessary?Ifaperceptionorideacanbebrokendownintoseveral
perceptionsorideaswhichcanbeexplainedasprojectionsoftheultimatereality,thenitisnot
necessary(accordingtoourarbitrarydefinition,ofcourse).Somethingisnecessaryifitisrequired
toexplainourperceptions.Returningtothetree,somepartoftheultimaterealityisprojectedon
ourmentalcontent,andwecallthatprojectionatree.Thepartofultimaterealitythatcreatesthe
treeisnecessarybecausewehaveitsperception,andthereforewesaythetreeisnecessary,but
theperceptionoftreeformedduetotheprojectionofthetreeisdifferentbecauseitisourmental
contentthatcreatesittheperceptionoftheprojectionitselfisnotapartoftheprojection,butan
externalmentalprocessinstead.Thisistosaythatwhenweseeamovie,theimagesthatareinthe
screenandourmentalrepresentationofthemarenotthesame.Weseetheimageofatreeandthen
wethinkitisanentityorunit,butitisnotnecessarilyanentitynoraunit,itissimplyapartofthe
ultimatereality.
NowthatIhaveattemptedtoexplainsimpleperceptions,Imustmoveontoabstractideas.
Iwillcallabstractideasthosepartsofourmentalcontentthatareacollectionofcomponentsthat
belongtodifferentperceptions.Forexample,theideaofentitycouldbeexplainedbyreferringto
theoriginoftheconcept:weidentifyseveralpartsofourrealitythatmovetogether,andthatremain
togetherthroughoutacertainperiodoftime,thereforeweidentifythecharacteristicofbeing
joinedthroughouttimewithbeinganentity.Thisis,ofcourse,aprocessweareunawareof,and
whichisperformedbyourmindinordertoclassifyrealityandextractknowledgefromthe
structureswecreate.Recognizingentitieshelpsusunderstandreality,butthatdoesnotimplythat
theyareanecessarypartofultimatereality.Beinganentityisnotapropertyofanypartof
reality,itissomethingthemindaddstoperceptionsinordertounderstandthem.
Icallthementalprocessofidentifyingexperiencesorabstractthoughtswithanentityby
inferringcommoncharacteristicsamongthem,thetaxonomizinginstinct.Thisinstinctiswhathas
allowedmankindtocreateknowledgethatcanliveonthroughcenturiesandwhichhasconquered
nature.Byfindingcommoncharacteristicsintheverydifferentthingsthatformreality,knowledge
istheninferred.Andthisknowledgeallowsforgreatercontrolovernature,becausemankindcan

learntoanticipateitsbehaviorseeinghowitbehavedbefore.Thisisthankstowhatisknownas
causality,theideathatsome"events"areresponsibleforothers.Throughobservationand
experimentswe"discover"relationshipsbetweenevents.Thenotherhumans,maybecenturiesafter
thosewhooriginallyhadtheideaforsomeexperimentortheory,continuetheirworkand
sometimesreach"laws"thatnatureseemstofollow.Andusingtheselaws,weunderstandreality
better,andareabletotakeadvantageofit,despitenotknowingwhynaturebehavesinacertain
way,ratherthanknowingitsimplydoes.
Allofthisisgreat,butImustpresentoneobjection.Yes,humankindhasachievedgreat
controlovernatureandisveryconfidentonsometruthsorassessmentswhichareeitheraproduct
ofthisgreatbodyofknowledgeoritsbase.Butarethesecharacteristicswefindincommonin
differentpartsofourrealityintrinsictoreality,oronlyaproductofourminds?Whereisthe
necessityinsayingsomeleaves,branches,rootsandatrunkformatree,insteadofseeingthemas
independentpartsofreality,themselvesmadeagainofcells,inturndifferentpartsofreality.Is
thereanyobjectivereasonthatisnot"becausethisishowourmindunderstandsit"or"because
throughobservationwehavedeterminedthattheyformatree"?
Thereisyetonebiggerrestrictiononknowledgetobetakenintoaccount,whichIcallthe
problemoflanguage:languageisacollectionofwords,whichinturnaremetaphorsofreality:
somesoundsorlettersthattogetherrefertosomepartofreality,duetoanarbitraryrelationship
formedbythedevelopmentofthelanguagetowhichtheybelong.They,however,donotreferto
theultimaterealitybecauselanguageisconditionedbythewayweseereality,andonlygivea
"name"tooursubjectiverepresentationofreality.Wordsaregroupedinsidea"pact"whichdoes
notrefertoanyintrinsiccharacteristicofrealityonlytoitshumaninterpretation.
Buttheproblemoflanguagehasyetanotherdimensionwhichmakesitsaccesstoanykind
ofuniversalknowledgeimpossible:asidefrombeingbasedonsubjectiverealities,themeaningof
languagedependsoneachindividual.Theinterpretationofanytermvariesdependingontheperson
(moreprecisely,ontheexperiencesandnature,andalthoughIwillnotgetintotheNaturevs
Nurturedebateonthispoint,Iwillpresumethatbothcontribute,butnottowhichdegree).The
meaningofastatement,nomatterhowsimple,ispersonal.Everysentence,everywordhasasingle
meaningdependingonthepersonbecausethementalcontentthatisinchargeofgivingita
meaningisunique.Perhapsitvariesveryslightlyfromanindividualtoanother,butitstilldoes
change.
ThesearethereasonswhyIbelievetryingtolabelultimaterealityusinglanguageisan
error,seeingasitis"supralinguistic",inthesensethatitcannotbeexpressedusinglanguage
becauseitexceedsitscapacity.Awordisawayofcallingacertainpartofreality,andnothingelse
itcannotofferinformationregardingwhatsomethingtrulyis(independentlyofhuman
interpretation).Languagecannotdefinerealitybutonlynameit,andpretendthatitcando
somethingbeyondthatistodenylanguageissubjectiveandarbitrary,thatis,todenyhumans
madeitandtodefendthatcallingsomethinga"tree"isinsomewaynecessary.
Thefollowingquestioncouldarisefromthislastdiscussion:iflanguageissorestricted,
howcanweimaginethingsthatdonotcorrespondtoreality,andtohaveideasthatarebeyond
language,whichwecannotcompletelyputintowords?Ipresentadistinctionbetweentwotypesof

language:thementalandthemateriallanguage.Thefirstistheoneinwhichwethink.Itisnot
boundbywords,anditrepresentstheideasanddesireswhichcannotbeboileddowntowords
withoutlosingthemeaningtheyhaveinourmentalcontent.Itisalivedlanguage,inthesense
thatourideasandthoughtsformpartofourmentalcontentaswords,butthesehaveaveryspecific
meaningforus.
Thereforemateriallanguageistheoneweusewhenwecommunicatewithotherpeople.
Whicheverthemessageis,itisbaseduponapactexpressedbymeansofnorms(orthographic,
lexic,grammatical,...)acceptedbyacommunityofspeakerswhichsupposedlyincludeseveryone
whousesacertainlanguage.Buttheimportantthingtorememberisthatthispactnecessarily
associatesthecontentofwordswithmetaphorsthatdonotrepresentreality(theproblemof
language),andbecauseofthat,whenwecommunicateweusethesemetaphors.
Theimportanceofthisdistinctionishowitaffectshumancommunications:nomatterhow
wellweexplainourselves,materiallanguagedoesnotallowustoconveyamentalmessage
completely.Whenweuseaword,wearereferringtoapartofrealitythathasaparticularmeaning
foreachperson,dependingontheirmentalcontent,anditisnottransferrableorcomparablewith
anyoneelse'smeaning.Itcanonlybelivedbythatperson,andtherestofthepeoplecanonly
superficiallycomprehendwhatanygivenwordmeanstoaperson,buttheycanneveraccessthe
mentalcontentthatcontainsandinterpretsthatwordbecause,basically,therearenotwoidentical
mentalcontents,norcantherebe(thatis,intherealityweknowandasfarasweknow),andevenif
weweretoaccesssomeoneelse'smentalcontent,wewouldstillbeinterpretingitwithourown.
Icallthisphenomenonthelanguage'sunbalance,whichcouldbeexpressedusinga
theoreminthefollowingway:everytimeamessageissentfromonespeakertoanother,some
meaningislostinthementalmaterialtranslation,andthensomemoreinthematerialmentalone.
Thehistoryofphilosophyisthehistoryoftheevolutionofthisunbalance:thewordsofafew
philosophersareinterpreted,andthentheirinterpretationsarereinterpreted.Wheneveranauthoris
influencedbyanother,henecessarilymodifiestheconceptsusedbecausetheyarenotdefined
"absolutely",butinsteadareonlypresentedandopentointerpretationandevenwhentheconcepts
aredefined,thereaderdoesnotfullysharethemeaningofthewordsused,andthusadifferent
messageistransmitted.Whatanauthormeanttosaybecomesdilutedandmisunderstood.Whoever
disagreeswithmeonthispoint,justtakealookatFriedrichNietzsche'sconceptofbermensch
andthisexampleisonlyafewcenturiesold!
Thisunbalanceismoreorlessharmfultocommunicationdependingonthefieldof
discourse.Forexample,whenwearetalkingabouteverydaysituations,suchasthoseflowersare
moreredthantheseones,althoughtheideasofflowerandredarenotcompletelysharedby
bothspeakers,thecommunicationisefficientandthemessageisreceivedquiteclearly.However,
everytimeandiscussionaboutacertaintopictakesplace,contradictions,errorsandlossesof
meaningappearfornottakingintoaccountthisdistinction.
Ifsomeoneintendedtohaveadiscussioninawaythatwouldbearfruitsnotpoisonedby
theproblemoflanguageasIunderstandit,everytermwouldhavetobedefined,suchas
emptinessornothingoruniverse,...Andevenwithsimplerwords,thistaskdoesnotassure
thatthemessagewillbeinterpretedasitisinourmentalcontent,aswecannotexpressourmental

contentusingwords,becauseitexceedsmateriallanguage.Iamwellawarethatthisalsoaffectsthis
discussionbutthereisalwaysanecessarylossofmeaning,andIaimtoreduceittoaminimum.
Mentallanguageisineffable,andonlywhopossessesitcantrulyknowwhatitmeans.The
greekGorgiassaidNothingexistsevenifsomethingexists,nothingcanbeknownaboutitand
evenifsomethingcanbeknownaboutit,knowledgeaboutitcannotbecommunicatedtoothers".I
wouldrephraseitas:ultimaterealityisnotnecessarilyreality.Evenifitwere,wecouldnotknow
itwithoutinterpretingit.Evenifsomethingcanbeknownaboutit,knowledgeaboutitcannotbe
fullycommunicatedtoothers.
Thepurposeofthischapterwastoshowthatmetaphysicsintendstocomprehendwhat
cannotbedescribedwithwords,whichIhavecalledtheultimatereality.Thisisthereasonwhyitis
afruitlesseffort.Science,ontheotherhand,triestocomprehendandexplainthewayreality
behaves,whichdoesproveuseful,evenwhenitdoesnotnecessarilyunderstandultimatereality.
TheparamountideathatIwantedtopresentinthischapteristhis:regardlessofwhathumankind
discovers,nomatterhowsureweareofourknowledgeofreality,ultimaterealitywillforever
remainelusive,aswecanalwaysdoubtwhatwehavediscovered.Theknowledgewecreatecanbe
veryusefultous,itcanbeusedasatooltoaccomplishmanythings,butitisnever,andshouldnot
bethoughtofasdefinitive.

EthicsandHumanBehavior

Whentryingtoanalyzehumanbehavior,thefocusshould,inmyopinion,beonacts
becausetheyaretheonlywindowintohumanwilltherecurrentlyis,asanymentalcontentexternal
toourownisinaccessible.WithactIrefertothechangethatapersoncausesonreality.Thismeans
thatanyanalysiswiththeintentionofproducingageneraltheorywillalwaysbeanapproximation,
butnotanecessarytruth.Toanalyzebehavior,wecouldthinkabouthowwemakedecisions
ourselvestounderstandhowothersdo.
Mostofmytheoryofhumanbehaviorisbasedonthefollowingidea:everymanhasaset
ofdesiresorobjectives,whichrulehowhebehaves.Thesedesiresaretheurgeeveryonefeelsto
maintainortransformapartofrealityintosomethingelse,thatis,thatwewantsomepartsofreality
tobeacertainway.Forexample,beingrich,thatourfavoritesportsteamwinsanimportant
championship,actingaccordingtoanidealofgood,etc.Pleasenotethatthisisapersonalopinion
basedonobservation,butreallynoonecanknowwhetherthisistruebecausewecannotaccess
people'sminds.I,however,believethatevenifpeopledonotreallyhavethesedesiresorgoals,
theystillbehaveasiftheyhadthem,allowingustoextractsomeknowledge,however"not
necessarilytrue"itmaybe.

BasedonthisideaIpresentmytheoryofthefavoritereality:Iidentifythisfavorite
realitywithakindofpersonalidealstateofthingswetrytoreachwithouractions.Thisistosay
thatwhenweactwetrytofulfillthebestwecanourwishesanddesiresbutthisishardlyever
possiblebecauseinordertoachievesomegoals,othershavetobesetaside.Therefore,everywish
ordesireisweighted,thatis,ithasavalueorimportanceforusthatallowsustodecidebetween
differentcoursesofaction.
Tounderstandthis,thereadermayimaginethatthereisasortoftableinourmind.Ithas
twocolumns,onehasthenameofeachdesire,andtheotheritsvaluethiswayeveryrowrepresents
adesireandit'simportancetous.Thisis,ofcourse,asimplificationofreality,butisgoodenough
tovisualizemymodel.Let'sassumesomepersonhasavalueof+100inthenotstealingrowand
a+20inthestealsomethingforpersonalprofitrow.Ifgiventheopportunitytosteal,withthese
values,thatpersonwouldnotdoso.Butifthevalueofnotstealingisreduced,forexampleto+15,
orthepersonalprofitofstealingincreasesenough(orevenacombinationofthesetwofactors),the
personwouldthensteal.
Thisisaverysimplisticexample,forusuallytherearemanyfactorsthatinterveneinthe
decisionmakingprocess.Perhapsthatpersonisangryatsomestore,andthatincreasesthe
perceivedvalue.Anotherusefultooltoanalyzedecisionmaking,whichisusedinmicroeconomics,
isindifferencecurves.Theseareusedtorepresentthedifferentcombinationsoftwogoodsthat
reportthesamebenefitor"happiness"toanindividual.Inthesecurves,everypointhasthesame
valueforagivenperson,soaswemoveinonedirectionoranother,wecannoticehowtheratioat
whichapersoniswillingtotradeonegoodforanotherchanges.Anillustrativecasewouldbea
personwhoisjustascontenthavingfourcouchesandtwobedsthanhavingtwocouchesand
threebeds.Heiswillingtotradetwoofhiscouchesforabedbutoncehehastwocouches,hemay
notwanttorepeatthistradeandnowvalueseachcouchhigherorequalthanabed.
WhyamItalkingmicroeconomics?Becausethistoolseemsusefultomeinunderstanding
humandesire.Everymanhashismanyindifferencecurves,andtoseethisitsufficestothinkabout
money.Therearethingswhichwearewillingtobuyatagivenprice,butnotatanother.Andifwe
havelessmoney,therearesomethingsthatevenifwecan,wewillnotwanttobuy.Andbeyond
money:perhapswearewillingtotradealittlesleeptowakeupearlierandexerciseorweareready
tosacrificesomegoodperson'sfeelingforthebenefitwereceivestealingsomething,althoughwe
arenotwillingtogoasfarastokillsomebody,whichwouldcostusalotofthatgoodperson's
feeling.
WhenIsaywebehaveaccordingtoourfavoritereality,Iamnotsayingthatanypartofthe
tableImentioned,northeindifferencecurves,areactuallyapartofourmentalcontent.Allofthat
isanillustrationofmytheory,andshouldnotbeconfusedwithsomethingthatisintrinsictoour
minds.Isimplypresentawaytointerprethumanbehaviorfromtheperspectiveofmotive.Usually,
wecannotknowtheaccuratevaluewehaveforeachdesire,andevenifwesomehow"know",
thatknowledgeistemporary,becauseitchangesovertimethisiswhymakingdecisionscanbeso
hard.
AsIhavementioned,Iholdthattheintentionbehindallactsisatendencytomaximize
ourhappiness,thatis,togetascloseaspossibletoourpersonalfavoritereality.Todenythismeans

topresumethatanindividual,givenasetofpossibilities,whereeachoneaccomplisheshisgoalsin
somemeasure,wouldnotnecessarilychoosetheonethatmaximizeshissatisfaction,butanother
oneinstead.Itshouldbeclearthatthisencompassesallkindsofacts,andIwillexplainthree
importantcasesnext.
Love.Iwillusethiswordtorefertothesituationwhereanelementordesireofaperson's
favoriterealitybecomesparamount,oratleastmoreimportantthanmostothers.Iamnot
exclusivelyspeakingaboutlovetoaperson,itcanalsobetoanidea,aparticulardesireortoan
ideal.Mytheoryexplainswhatisusuallycalledloveveryadequately:itisapartofourfavorite
reality,arowinthetablewhichhasahighvalue,comparedtootherdesires,makingthem
expendableorlessimportantdependingonhowmuchwelove.Andinthecaseoflovetopeople:
whensomeonecaresaboutthewelfareofanotherperson,andthelovergenuinelybelievesthatthis
loveisselfless,whathappensisthatthelovedone'swelfarebecomesanimportantpartofthe
lover'sfavoritereality,andhewillacttomaintainandimprovethatwelfare,butnotbecause
somethingexternal,anobjectiveloveforceshim,butinstead,hewillbemotivatedbyapurely
selfishimpulseorindividualdesire.
Martyrs.Apersonwhodiesasaresultofdefendingacause(understoodhereasan
ideologyordoctrinewhichisseenbymanyas"just")tendstoreceivetheadmirationandpraiseof
others.Christiansaintsaretheobjectofgreatveneration,nottomentiontheNazarene.Butwhydo
peoplechoosetosacrificetheirlivesdefendingsomecause?Thecommonlyacceptedexplanationis
thattheyareimmolatedfortheideologyinitself.Accordingtomytheory,however,whenthey
makethedecisionofsacrificingtheirlive,theyhaveseveraloptions,amongwhichsacrificing
themselvesholdsthehighestvalue.Isthereanyproblemorcontradictioninthis?Noneatall,ifany
itconfirmsmytheory:adesirecanhavesomuchvaluethatittrumpseventhewilltolivealthough
itleadstodeath,itcanbetheoptimalchoiceinagivenmomentintimetomakethatfavoritereality
cometrue.Onehastodieinordertobringabouttheirfavoritereality.
Altruism.Whensomeoneactsinsuchawaythatisseenasaltruistic,itmeansthatperson
hadsomeoptions,andtooktheonewhichapparentlybenefittedotherpeopleinsomeway.Acting
altruisticallywaspartofhisfavoritereality,anditwasmoreimportantthanothercourseofaction
whichhadsomeotherindividualbenefitbutthereisanindividualbenefitofsomekind.Evenifwe
acceptthataltruisminitselfformspartofultimatereality,altruisticactsaimtoactin
accordancewithaltruism,buttoactinsuchawayisadecisionmadebythatindividualbecausehe
valuesaltruismpositivelyandthealtruisticactionwillbetheonewhichgetshimclosertohis
favoritereality.Many"philosophers"aremarveledbythehumanbeing,thattheysayitisso
superiorduetoitsabilitytoactfromdutyorfromgoodinitself,asopposedtotherestofthe
knownspecies.Although,isthisnotlittlemorethananillusion?Ifdesirerulestheworldof
decision,wearenotbetterormorealtruisticthanfish.
Nowisthetimetopointoutthatourdesiresandwishesarelocatedinourownmental
content,andarethereforeinaccessibletoallothers.Thismeansthatwhatdrivesanactioncannotbe
accessedbyanyoneelse.Then,whenapersonjudgesanaction,thatpersoncannotjudgeitsreal
motivationbecausethatisimpossible.Heisjudgingeithertheactioninitselforitsconsequences.
Butwecannotknowexactlytheconsequencesofanactiononthepeopleitaffectsduetothesame

reason.So,unlessIamproposingafalsetrichotomy,theonlythingthatremainsjudgeableisthe
actioninitself.Iftheegoisticalmotivationofactionsisaccepted,thenitfollowsthatthesedonot
holdamoralvaluegivenbytheiractorstheonlywaythattheactionhasanykindofintrinsic
moralvalueexternaltoactorsisifsomethingexternaltohumansgivesactsthatproperty.
AtthispointIwanttotakeamomenttodiscussthenatureofacts.Whenapersonacts,asI
haveexplained,hetriestoshaperealityaccordingtohisdesires.But,whatisanact?Thebrain
sendsanerveimpulsethatcausesamovementinsomemuscles,andtheseinturnmovethebody.
Thebodythensomehowchangesreality:itemitssoundsthathumansinterpretaswords,itshootsa
gun,itmovesanobject,...Inanycase,anactisachainofchangesinrealitythatweperceiveand
theninterpretasaunit,butitisnotaspecialpartofreality.Reality,aspeopleperceiveit,only
containsmanyparts(atoms,particles,etc.)thatchange,butitdoesnotcontaintheactitself.Theact
isthehumaninterpretationofsomechangesinreality.Andifactsarenotintrinsictoreality,butan
interpretationofit,theyareonlypartofourmind,andtheycannothaveanyintrinsicvalueaside
fromthevaluethatthepersonprovideswheninterpretingsomethingasanact.
Therefore,whatisbeingjudgedishowanactioncomplieswithamoralnorm.Butthat
normisbeinginterpretedbytheperson,andthedegreetowhichtheactionfollowsthenormisalso
personal.Allthismeansthatwhatanyjudgmentthatclaimstobeobjectiveisactuallya
subjectiveinterpretationofapartofrealityasanaction,andthenanotherinterpretationofhowthis
actionfollowstheinterpretationofamoralnorm:thereisnothingobjectiveinanyofthis.Until
bothactionsandgoodinitselfareproventobeanecessarypartofultimatereality,Iwillcontinue
tosaythatmoralityisahumaninvention,whichIpersonallydonotaccept.Thispositionisknown
asamorality.
Everytimeanactionisjudged,whathappens,then?Thisisthemomenttointroducethe
ideasofRichardDawkinsregardingwhathecalledmemes.Iwillmakeabriefintroductionfor
thosewhoarenotfamiliarwiththeworksofRichardDawkins,andinparticular,Theselfish
gene.Dawkinswasthemainproponentoftheevolutionarytheoryofgeneselection,whichholds
thatnaturalselectiontakesplacenotatanindividualorgrouplevel,butatthegenelevel.He
defendedtheideathatbodiesaremeresurvivalmachinesforgenes,whichprovidethemwiththe
meanstoreproduceandendurethroughoutgenerations.Healsocoinedthetermmeme:anidea
thatispartofacultureandistransmittedbetweenitsindividuals.Dawkinsalsopredictedthatthese
weregoingtoseizecontrolawayfromgenes,andduetoreasonsIwillnowpresent,itismyopinion
theydidsolongago.
Iholdtheideathattheabilitytoevaluaterealityhasbeenofgreatevolutionaryimportance:
thosegenesthathelpedrecognizepredators,membersofthesamespeciesandthesurroundings
wheretheindividualliveshavesucceeded.Furthermore,Ibelievethatthereisatendencytoward
survivalmachineswithmorecomplexnervoussystems,withthebrainbeingtheflagshipofthis
evolution.Inhumankindinparticular,thiswilltounderstandrealityisstillveryimportantand
hasextendedbeyondgenes.
Alltheinformationthatcomestousisanalyzedandsorted.Thismeansthebrainisasort
ofmachinetounderstandreality:newinformationisanalyzedtakingintoaccountprevious
information,anditisaccumulatedasknowledgethatwillinfluencethewayweprocessnew

information.Takeforexamplethesituationwherewewitnesslightningstrikeforthefirsttime.We
havenotseenanythingthelikesofit:itistrulyloud,itlooksthreatening,etc.Thefirstthingour
braintriestodoisinterpretwhathashappenedandwhy.Ifwedidnotknowthephysicalprocesses
thatexplainthisphenomenon,wecouldthinkofitassomeunknownphenomenon,andthatwould
nothelpinanywaytoourunderstandingofreality,whichiscloselytiedtoourchancesofsurvival.
Thisiswhythemindtriestoextractmeaningfromsuchevents,andtheybecomeanactfrom
anotherbeing,anomenofan"evil"tocome,etc.Butinanycase,thereisaninterpretationof
somesortevenwhenwedonotwantto,ourbraininterpretsrealitybasedonwhatitalreadyknows.
Themaindifferencebetweenhomosapiensandtherestofspeciesis,therefore,howit
understandsrealityandusesthatinformation.Humanbeingshavedevelopedlanguage(whichcan
beconsideredtherootofallmemes,asthesearecreatedandareabletoreplicatethanksto
language)farbeyondtheimmediatelynecessaryinformationforsurvival.Languagehasevolvedas
thekeyinstrumentinthequestforunderstandingreality.Itallowstodissectandclassifyreality
accordingtoanagreement,andeveryonewhoacceptsitwillbeabletoaccessknowledgealready
discoveredandrefinedwithouthavingtostartfromscratch.Thismeansthattheunderstandingof
realityisataskthatcarriesonthroughgenerations,allowinggreaterprogressthananyone
individualorsmallgroupofindividualscouldachieveinalifetimethisis,incidentally,oneofthe
maindistinctionsproposedbylinguisticstodifferentiatebetweenhumanlanguageandanimal
communication,alongwiththeanimal'sinabilitytoproducenew"words"orunitsthatbeara
commonlyacceptedmeaningduringtheirlifetime.
Now,despitemyviewofmorality,Istillbelieveithasanimportantrole.Humansocieties
usecivillawtokeeporder,whichisbasedonsomeagreeduponrules,andinorderforthemtobe
followed,certainpunishmentsandpenaltiesarecreatedandmodifiedtoadapttocurrentevents.But
thepresenceoftheserulesdoesnotstopmanyfrombreakingthem,despitethepunishment.Thisis
mainlybecausetherearemanysituationswherethelawcanbebrokenorsidestepped,anddoingso
involvesabenefitofsomekind.Thereis,however,anotherelementthathelpsinmaintainingsocial
order:morallaw.Thissetofrulesbecomesapartofeachofthecitizen'sfavoriterealitytoa
differentdegreedependingontheindividual:somemaybetrulyconcernedwithfollowingthelaw,
whileothersonlycomplywiththemtoavoidpunishmentssuchasjail.Morallawhasthesocial
utilityofseparatingactsintogoodandbad,whichconditionsthefavoriterealityofeach
individualsotheydonotactagainstthecommoninterestsofallcitizens.Thisis,ofcourse,onlya
partofthecomplexphenomenonsocietiesare,butitisthereasonwhyIconsiderreligionstobea
stablesetofideas.IntheWest,christianityhasadistinctiveinfluence,butthemorallawofeach
countryvaries,andeventhoughsomecountriesdonotidentifygoodwithgod(thatistosay,its
individualsarenotmajoritarilyreligious),theydobelieveingoodinitself.
Butwhatisimportantisnottolosesightofwhatmorallawreallyis:adiseaseforthe
individualthatisnecessaryforsociety.Theindividualalwaysovercomesthemorallawtheyare
taughtbyreplacingitwithanindividuallaw,buthealmostneverunderstandsthathehasdoneso
whatImeanisthatinourmentalcontentthereisnotanexactcopyofthemoralswelearnfromour
culture,butanindividualinterpretationoftheoriginal.Despitethefactthatweshapeourpersonal
ethicswithoureverydayexperiences,manystilldefendwhattheybelievetobetheuniversalmoral
lawoftheirculture,whentheydonotbelieveinitthemselvesanylongerbecausetheir

experienceshavemodifiedit.Theindividualvssocietyconflictiscloselyrelatedwiththis
misconception:theindividualdiscoverssomethingbeyondwhatissociallyacceptedastrue,thatis
tosay,heovercomesthementionedmisconceptionandbecomesconflictedwithsociety'svisionof
somepartofreality.
GiventheviewsIhaveexpressedsofar,onecouldthinkIdefendsomeformofmoral
relativism.Absolutelynot.Idonotadvocateanysortofmoralityorideathattriestovalueanypart
ofrealityassociatedwithanimaginaryentity(actionsinthiscase).Moralrelativismisstillmoral.I
believejudginganaction,evenasrelativetoapersonorculture,isanabuseoflanguagewithno
meaningasidefromtheimpactthatjudgmentmayhaveonourselvesoronotherpeople.When
someonedoesnotunderstandaphilosophicaltheory,itisduetoacombinationofalackofclarity
bythetransmitteroftheideasthatembodysaidtheory,andalackofgraspbythereceiver.Itryto
makethemostimportantideasasclearaspossible,butthemessagewillneverfullyreachthe
receiverthequestionishowmuchIcanreducethe"ideologicalnoise".
Moraljudgmentcanneverbeabsolutenorobjective,andanypersonthatdefendssome
moralsystemorwhosayssometheoryexplainswhatIhavecalledultimaterealityiseither
willinglyorunwillinglywrong.Thisis,truly,themostarrogantandmendaciousminuteofhuman
history,moraljudgment.

Glossary

Ultimatereality:Allthatisnecessarytocreatetherepresentationofrealityinourmentalcontent,
andalsoincludesourmentalcontent.Itistheultimatestateorformofwhatwecallreality,or
sometimesuniverse,anddeterminestheideaofrealitythatweform.Itisnotaccessibleto
knowledgebecausethemindcanonlyinterpretreality,whichisitsprojection.
Reality:Realityisthewaywerepresenttheultimaterealityinourmind.Itisdifferentforevery
person.
Mentalcontent:Thoughts,ideasandfeelingsthatchangeconstantly,anditincludesreality.
SometimesIusethetermmindtorefertothesameconcept.
Perceptions:Theforminwhichwerepresentacertainpartofrealityinourmentalcontent.
Taxonomizinginstinct:Thementalprocessofidentifyingcertainexperiencesorabstractthoughts
withanentitybymeansofextrapolatingcommoncharacteristicsfromthem.
Tobenecessary:Tobeanecessarypartofultimaterealitytocreatesomepartofourreality.
Objective:Thatisnotbasedonthehumaninterpretationofreality.

Unbalance:Thelossofmeaningincommunicationduetothedifferencebetweenmentaland
materiallanguage.
Favoritereality:Stateofrealitywetrytoachievewithouractions,andwhichchangesconstantly.
Morality:Thesetofrulesusedtojudgeactions
Axiom:Asentencethatexpressesasubjectiveviewofrealitythatdoesnotderivefromanother
argument.