r/RealPhilosophy

Can a historian truly understand the past? Wilhelm Dilthey believed this was the central question of historical inquiry. Against the positivists of his age, he argued that history cannot be studied like nature because human actions are shaped by meanings, values, and lived experiences, not merely by causes.

​

For Dilthey, the historian's task is not simply to explain the past but to understand it. Through interpretation and empathy, historians attempt to reconstruct how people experienced their world. But can we ever fully understand those who lived centuries before us?

Have you ever played The Landlord’s Game?

Probably not.

Most people haven’t.

But you’ve definitely played what it turned into.

It was created in 1904 by Elizabeth Magie. And it wasn’t originally meant to be just a game. It was meant to be a demonstration, something you feel while you play. A way to show how money concentrates, how rent traps people, how ownership quietly decides who gets to keep going and who gets eliminated.

It already had the bones of what you’d recognize today. Property. Rent. Penalties. A loop of accumulation and loss.

Then something happened to it.

It got simplified. It got rebranded. It got turned into something easier to sell.

By the time Parker Brothers released it as Monopoly, most of what made it a critique had been stripped away. The system stayed the same, but now it wasn’t trying to show you anything anymore. It was just something you played on a rainy afternoon.

And that’s the part I want you to notice.

The meaning didn’t disappear.

It just changed owners.

What you call Monopoly is not the beginning of the story.

It’s the latest version you were handed.

And that pattern doesn’t stop there.

It shows up everywhere once you start looking closely.

Take music.

In 1965, The Beatles released Yesterday, one of the most covered songs in modern history. Even its melody caused quiet debate in music circles because Paul McCartney reportedly composed it subconsciously, later confirming it bore resemblance to earlier ballad structures he couldn’t initially place. It didn’t emerge in isolation, it sits inside a long tradition of pre-existing harmonic progressions that were already circulating through classical and Tin Pan Alley songwriting.

By the late 1960s, Led Zeppelin became one of the most cited examples in music plagiarism law. Their track Whole Lotta Love (1969) closely mirrors lyrics and structure from Willie Dixon’s blues song You Need Love (1962). Dixon eventually sued, and the case was settled out of court in 1985, with later releases crediting him. Many other Zeppelin tracks would also later be subject to legal scrutiny over uncredited blues adaptations.

In 1970, George Harrison released My Sweet Lord, which was taken to court in the landmark case Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music. The judge ruled that Harrison had “subconsciously” copied The Chiffons’ He’s So Fine (1963). He lost the case and was ordered to pay damages, one of the first major legal recognitions that even unconscious similarity could still count as infringement.

In 1977, The Rolling Stones released Some Girls, an album deeply rooted in American blues, country, and disco traditions. While not defined by a single lawsuit, it existed within a broader pattern of British rock bands drawing heavily from African American musical forms that had already been repackaged and commercialized across decades.

Nothing here is purely original.

Everything is recombination.

Even in more modern disputes, this pattern continues. In 1992, Radiohead released Creep, which was later involved in publishing disputes with Albert Hammond and Mike Hazlewood, the writers of The Air That I Breathe (1972, The Hollies). The claim wasn’t about direct copying of lyrics, but about melodic and harmonic similarity strong enough that the writers were eventually credited as co-authors and granted royalties.

So what looks like invention is often a rearrangement of inherited structure.

Borrowed rhythm. Borrowed phrasing. Borrowed emotional shape.

Not theft in the simplistic sense, but continuity that sometimes crosses the legal line once it becomes too recognizable to ignore.

And music is only the clearest example because it is easier to measure.

The same pattern appears in law, in language, in storytelling, and in religion.

Judaism preserves earlier Near Eastern covenantal traditions and reinterprets them into monotheistic form.

Christianity emerges as a reinterpretation of those same texts through the figure of Jesus of Nazareth.

Islam later repositions many of the same prophetic figures into a new theological framework.

Each one is historically traceable.

Each one is internally distinct.

And yet each one is built from shared narrative architecture.

Not copies.

Not opposites.

Successive reinterpretations of a shared source field.

Even institutions understand this instinctively.

“Either the church is true or it is a fraud. It is the church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.” This is Gordon B. Hinckley, the 15th President of his church.

That kind of framing forces a binary choice onto something that history rarely presents in binaries.

Because systems don’t usually survive by staying unchanged.

They survive by adapting just enough to remain recognizable.

Which brings us back to the same question underneath all of this:

If ideas survive by changing, then what exactly are we evaluating when we call something “true”?

Are we judging origin?

Or are we judging the most successful version of a story that refused to stay still?

And perhaps what’s being described is also quietly doing the describing.

Reality is strange.

We wake up, make coffee, grab our keys, go to work, come home, and repeat. We question our jobs, our relationships, and our purpose, yet we rarely question the stage on which they all appear.

Not why the Sun rises or the Moon sets, but why there can be a why at all.

How can a question exist? How can there be both an answer and no answer? How can being conceive of non-being, and non-being define being? How can I exist while imagining my own nonexistence? Every answer seems to become another question, as if they endlessly exchange places.

My thesis is this: reality itself is not what confuses us, our interpretations do.

Consider color. We know that red corresponds to certain wavelengths of light, but no scientific measurement has ever captured the experience of "red" itself. Instead, we attach meanings to it: love, rage, danger, passion. Black becomes evil or emptiness. White becomes purity or innocence. Yet none of those meanings belong to the colors. They belong to the minds interpreting them.

Reality functions the same way. We mistake our descriptions for the thing being described. We stack beliefs, labels, identities, and stories onto reality until we confuse the map for the territory.

Someone might object that interpretation is unavoidable. After all, we cannot experience reality without a mind interpreting it. I agree. But that does not mean the interpretation is reality. A map is necessary for navigation, yet no one mistakes the map for the landscape. The usefulness of an interpretation does not make it identical to what it interprets.

This is why the deepest philosophical questions often refuse to stay answered. The moment we define reality, we have already replaced it with a concept about reality. The answer becomes another question because every explanation is still an interpretation.

Perhaps reality cannot be fully spoken because language transforms experience into symbols. Perhaps it cannot be fully thought because thought divides what simply is.

If that is true, then the closest we come to reality is not by collecting better interpretations, but by recognizing their limits.

Reality does not need our meanings to exist.

Only we do.

Philosophy is subjective so why argue and disagree. No wrong no right, why not a friendly debate? yet people scrap and fight like toddlers as if there is a right answer in the vast possibilities there are in the philosophy.

Voltaire viewed religious fanatism as one of the greatest threats to human freedom, reason, and social peace. His critique was directed less at religion itself than at intolerance, dogmatism, and the use of religion to justify persecution and violence.
His views can be summarized in several key ideas;
Fanaticism destroys reason.
Voltaire believed that fanatics allow blind faith to replace critical thinking.
He argued that when people believe they possess absolute religious truth, they become willing to commit cruelty in its name.
Fanaticism leads to violence.
He pointed to events such as the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre as evidence that religious extremism could produce mass murder and persecution.
In his view, history showed that intolerance often caused wars and suffering.
Tolerance is essential.
In Treatise on Tolerance, written after the wrongful execution of Jean Calas, Voltaire argued that people of different faiths should live peacefully together.
He maintained that governments should protect freedom of conscience rather than enforce religious conformity.

Religion should promote morality, not persecution.
Voltaire was a deist, believing in a creator but rejecting many doctrines and the authority of organized churches.
He thought religion should encourage ethical behavior instead of encouraging hatred toward those with different beliefs.
One of Voltaire’s most famous descriptions of fanaticism comes from Treatise on Tolerance:
“Fanaticism is to superstition what delirium is to fever.”
By this, he meant that superstition is already irrational, but fanaticism is an even more dangerous condition because it drives people to harmful action.

Voltaire’s criticism of religious fanaticism became a cornerstone of the Age of Enlightenment. His writings influenced later ideas about:
freedom of religion,
freedom of speech,
separation of religious authority from political power, and
the importance of tolerance in pluralistic societies.
In short, Voltaire argued that the greatest danger was not sincere religious belief but the certainty that one’s own religion justified oppressing or harming others. His remedy was reason, tolerance, and respect for freedom of conscience.

KAIORISM

A Philosophical Framework of Action Under Uncertainty

Definition

Kaiorism is a philosophical framework concerning the timing of action under conditions of uncertainty.

Its central claim is that the right moment to act need not be the perfect moment. Because human knowledge is inherently incomplete and opportunities are finite, wisdom lies in recognising when continued waiting ceases to provide meaningful benefit.

Kaiorism does not reject preparation or patience. Instead, it argues that preparation should eventually culminate in action.

⸻

Motto

“The right time need not be the perfect time.”

⸻

Central Thesis

Action becomes justified when the expected benefits of continued waiting are outweighed by the opportunities, resources, or possibilities placed at risk through delay.

This transition is called the Kaioric Threshold.

⸻

The Kaioric Threshold

The Kaioric Threshold is the central concept of Kaiorism.

It is defined as:

The point at which the expected value of waiting becomes less than the expected value of acting.

Before this threshold:

* Waiting provides meaningful information.
* Preparation improves outcomes.
* Delay is justified.

After this threshold:

* Waiting produces diminishing returns.
* Opportunities begin to decay.
* Further delay becomes excessive.

Kaiorism does not claim the threshold can always be identified with certainty.

Instead, people must estimate it using judgement, evidence and experience.

⸻

The Kaioric Measure

The Kaioric Measure is an optional reflective tool designed to help determine whether someone has crossed the Kaioric Threshold.

It is not mandatory.

It is not intended for split-second decisions.

It is intended for situations involving uncertainty, procrastination, long-term planning or hesitation.

The six questions are:

1. Am I still gaining meaningful information?
2. Do I have a genuine reason to wait?
3. Am I seeking improvement or perfection?
4. Is waiting reducing uncertainty or creating it?
5. What is waiting costing me?
6. When will I stop waiting and reassess?

The Measure is designed to encourage reflection rather than dictate behaviour.

⸻

Fundamental Principles

1. Incomplete Knowledge

Human knowledge is inherently limited.

Every decision must ultimately be made under uncertainty.

Perfect certainty is unattainable.

⸻

2. Opportunity Finitude

Opportunities are finite.

Some disappear entirely.

Others diminish in value over time.

Waiting therefore has an opportunity cost.

⸻

3. Diminishing Informational Value

Waiting is valuable only while it continues to produce meaningful information.

Eventually additional waiting produces progressively smaller benefits.

⸻

4. Sufficient Justification

Action requires sufficient justification rather than perfect justification.

The pursuit of perfect certainty often delays action unnecessarily.

⸻

5. Retrospective Perfection

Perfect decisions are usually recognised only in hindsight.

Perfection is therefore an unreliable guide for present action.

⸻

Types of Waiting

Necessary Waiting

Waiting imposed by reality.

Examples:

* healing
* growing
* natural processes
* contractual obligations

Necessary waiting cannot simply be eliminated.

⸻

Instrumental Waiting

Waiting undertaken to improve future action.

Examples:

* studying
* practising
* gathering evidence
* learning skills

This form of waiting is encouraged.

⸻

Excessive Waiting

Waiting that continues after meaningful benefit has largely ceased.

This is the principal target of Kaiorism.

⸻

Virtues

Kaiorism values:

* Practical Courage
* Judgement
* Initiative
* Experience

⸻

Vices

Kaiorism warns against:

* Paralytic Perfectionism
* Indefinite Deferral
* Opportunity Neglect
* Excuse Addiction (“not yet”)

⸻

Theory of Failure

Kaiorism distinguishes two kinds of failure.

Active Failure

Failure resulting from action.

May produce:

* knowledge
* experience
* improvement

Often considered constructive.

⸻

Passive Failure

Failure resulting from inaction.

Usually produces:

* missed opportunities
* little new knowledge
* continued uncertainty

Kaiorism generally considers passive failure the greater danger.

⸻

Epistemological Position

Kaiorism argues that certain kinds of understanding are obtainable only through participation.

Some knowledge cannot be acquired merely through observation.

Action is therefore not only the consequence of knowledge.

It is also one of its sources.

⸻

Relation to Time

Time is not merely something that passes.

Time changes the value of opportunities.

Delay can either improve or destroy a decision depending upon whether waiting remains useful.

⸻

Practical Uses

Kaiorism can be applied to:

* education
* careers
* leadership
* entrepreneurship
* creative work
* research
* revision
* personal decision-making
* overcoming procrastination
* distinguishing preparation from perfectionism

⸻

Major Objections

1. The Threshold Problem

How can someone know they have reached the Kaioric Threshold?

Kaiorist response:

Absolute certainty is impossible.

People must estimate the threshold using judgement, evidence and experience.

⸻

2. The Recklessness Objection

Does Kaiorism encourage people to act too early?

Kaiorist response:

No.

Kaiorism advocates sufficient preparation—not impulsive action.

Waiting remains valuable while it meaningfully improves future action.

⸻

3. The Outcome Objection

What if additional waiting would actually have produced a better outcome?

Kaiorist response:

That possibility always exists.

However, every additional period of waiting carries its own opportunity cost.

Kaiorism evaluates expected benefit rather than guaranteed outcomes.

⸻

4. The Relativity Problem

Isn’t “the right time” subjective?

Kaiorist response:

Often yes.

The Kaioric Threshold depends on context, values, goals and available information.

Kaiorism therefore provides a framework for judgement rather than an algorithm.

⸻

What Kaiorism Is Not

Kaiorism is not:

* reckless
* impulsive
* anti-planning
* anti-learning
* anti-patience
* opposed to preparation

It simply argues that preparation should eventually lead to action.

⸻

Philosophical Character

Kaiorism is intended to be:

* practical rather than abstract
* optional rather than prescriptive
* reflective rather than dogmatic
* open to criticism and revision

Its purpose is not to tell people how they must live.

Instead, it offers a structured way of thinking about when waiting remains worthwhile and when it has become excessive.

⸻

Summary

Kaiorism is a philosophy of timely action under uncertainty.

It recognises that uncertainty is unavoidable, opportunities are finite, and perfect certainty is unattainable. Rather than seeking flawless conditions, it encourages people to act once they possess sufficient justification and meaningful preparation. Waiting is valuable only while it continues to improve future action; beyond that point, delay itself becomes a cost.

Core maxim:

“The right time need not be the perfect time.”

I think he has good philosophies and writing but a horrible man

Our philosophical prescriptions should be based on physical descriptions. When we look into the physical with science we not only confirm the truths Nietzsche had once discovered but we do so under a new light which makes our prescriptions even better.

Evolutionary biology: The peer bonding and tournament species behaviors explore two distinct evolutionary strategies. Peer bonding behavior fits within the herd tribe archetype, cooperation is its optimum. Surviving by relying on each other with "altruism" and socially conducive behavior being preferable. The tournament species are more competition based, think the sole lion of a pride. Their behavior is centered around selfishness, making sure they are the only ones passing on their genes.

Both strategies have the same goal of passing on genes, in this even the origin of altruism is selfishness. Oddly enough(or perhaps expected) humans fit in both categories. Today we value peer bonding behavior, the reality that we have to engage in tournament species behavior remains, but undoubtably altruism is seen as the good. This wasn't always the case as Nietzsche remakes within his works. This new lens of looking at things makes his philosophy richer and allows to build on its foundation. This approach more grounded in empirical truth yet still relating to philosophical evaluative truth is how I think philosophy is in its greatest form is.