r/RealPhilosophy

what if the biggest mistake we make when trying to understand reality is assuming that the human perspective is the center of it?
i’ve been thinking about this for a while, and eventually i started developing my own worldview. i call it universusism. the name comes from “universus”, meaning the whole. but universusism isn’t simply the idea that “everything is connected”. its main goal is to understand reality from the perspective of the whole rather than treating human experience as the starting point and the final reference for everything. one of the central principles is the question “why?” we can ask what something is and how it works, but universusism places particular importance on what lies behind those explanations. why does anything exist at all? why is there change? why does consciousness exist? does reality have a purpose? and if it does, where could that purpose come from?
another important part is the relationship between the whole and human perception. i believe that we experience reality through our own consciousness, which means that our perspective is always limited. we are trying to understand the whole while being a part of it.this also leads me to question things that humans often treat as fundamental, such as nationalities, borders and social categories. these things can be real in a social sense while still not being fundamental features of reality itself.
i also see existence as something constantly changing and interacting. humans, nature, consciousness, matter and the universe shouldn’t necessarily be understood as completely separate things, but as different parts or aspects of a larger reality. what i think makes universusism different is that it is supposed to apply its own method to itself.
i don’t want universusism to become a system that claims to possess the final truth. if the whole is greater than any explanation we can create of it, then universusism itself must remain open to criticism, revision and even rejection.
so i’m not presenting this as “i have figured out the universe.” i’m presenting it as an attempt to build a philosophical framework around one fundamental idea: we are part of the whole, trying to understand the whole, with a perspective that can never simply become the whole itself.
i’m planning to develop these ideas further and eventually write a book called “manifest of the whole.” i want to define the concepts more precisely, develop arguments for them, compare them with existing philosophies and seriously investigate where universusism could be wrong.
i’m posting this because i’m genuinely curious what people think.
what do you think is the strongest argument against universusism?

argues that naturalism cannot explain how we know subjective experience exists.

There are so many ways to exist, which one should i choose? What if we die without knowing that there was cooler way to live than we lived?

Or what if we made sense of any tragedy or suffering in a way that led to our life in one way, but same tragedy was dealt differently by different person, and they looked at the same suffering differently, and hence different lives. Not that any of the two lives would be better, both are unique in their own way, but what if we liked the later one more but we couldn’t ever know or discover that such living also exist?

When i mean racism is ok i mean modern racism should be ok and not treated wrong like cancel culture does, the definition of racism is the unfair treatment, discrimination, or hatred of people based on their race, color, or ethnic background, driven by the belief that one's own race is superior without any factual evidence. modern racism on the other hand has become a sloppy version where you make jokes or say the n word and cancel culture immediately calls you a racist. so i personally think that saying the n word should be ok in every single race, otherwise it would truly be racist for only black people to be able to say it. if you think about the roles got reversed where black people are supposedly the superior race as they treat white people like crap. but this is just an opinion, so please do not give personal attacks based on this post. i only wanted to know the thoughts of other people on this idea. NOT to offend anyone.

(im asian btw i dont mean to offend anyone) the post is edited

(note this is just a random shower thought dont take it too serious)

I’ve been thinking about how human emotions regulate our behavior and came up with a simple mental model for how these three connect:

Ego is the core (our sense of self and self-preservation).

Pride is the outer shield (how we project confidence and defend our identity).

Shame is the aftermath (what we feel when that shield breaks).

If humanity suddenly lost all three, what would happen?

On one hand, we might eliminate war, toxic status-seeking, and political defensiveness. On the other hand, would we lose ambition, art, and the social accountability that keeps people acting fairly?

I’d love to hear how others think this would impact society, motivation, and human connection.