Objective Reality with Two Thoughts Attached

A Long Time Ago

A Long Time Ago in a place far, far away Sigmund Freud burst upon some scene and in the process of this explosion created psychoanalysis. My brain, for one, has never been the same.

Last Tuesday, I hung out with my friend Nick for most of my non-working hours. And my question is what caused this decision? Nick is (probably) my best friend so that’s—most likely—the easy answer, but it’s not the whole—or only—answer. Actually, that’s not entirely true either. A perfectly good answer would be that there doesn’t need to be an answer beyond “Nick is my best friend so obviously we would hang out from time to time.” However, now, I’m wondering what causes this knowledge? How do I KNOW that Nick is my friend? One answer is, Nick is nice to me. Another answer is we make each other laugh. However, another answer, which is no more or less viable, is that there is a chemical reaction occurring in my brain when I see Nick that tells me he’s my friend just as there is a chemical reaction occurring in my brain when I eat a steak telling me I really have no qualms with killing such a tasty beast. I guess what I’m asking is how do we know the things we know? Where does the subjective end and the objective start? And is it possible that these two lines can blur?

Well, I suppose the easiest way to answer these queries would be to take them one at a time—and I’m, without a doubt, a fan of easy. I’m going to take them from the omega to the alpha, and I’m going to do this for one reason; I think the last question has an answer (I don’t want to start off this discussion with an unanswerable question; I need to feed the old ego) So, first do the lines blur? Is it even possible for the objective to slowly morph into some other subjective? The answer a person might look for would probably be “of course,” but that answer would also be absolutely (and totally) wrong. The truth is that there is an objective truth in this world, and although the fact that I’m incapable (probably too lazy) of finding it does not mean that it does not exist. To my mind, this can be broken down even further. Objectively, I exist. I can’t say anything about the rest of you solipsist fucks, but I’m here. Therefore, there must be some sort of objective truth, which in turn means that there is more to life than what we think we know. At some level there just “is.”

Second, where does that little subjective answer stop and that 600 pound gorilla (the objective) begin? To my mind, this is really the only question worth answering—which, of course, forces to me to ponder why I even bothered answering the last question. The thing is, while the answer to the question might not cure cancer or change the world in any physical, discernible way it will change the world in a very discernable, (mostly) faux-intellectual fashion.

So, there is objective truth in the world, but how do we peel away the onion to find it? Is it actually possible, or is the onion more of an infinite abyss and how does this really relate to whether or not Nick is actually my friend?

The truth is that there may be an objective truth behind human interaction—which is really just a repackaging of my first quandary—but it would be impossible to prove. To illustrate this I will use the theory (I think it was put froth my the great philosopher Phil Jackson) that states that every seven years we are entirely new people. That is, in every seven-year period our minds evolve into entirely different entities than they were seven years prior and this is totally dependent on environment. So then, in seven years would Nick still (objectively) be my best friend? The answer is—probably—“no” unless we were able to evolve in the exact same manner. So here’s the rub; is the objective even able to exist within a human context? To my mind, the answer is—again—“no.” The problem is that everything that we know we know is subject to change at any given instant. For example, Newtonian physics gave way to Einstein. While this sort of progress may bring us ever closer to some objective truth it also illustrates the singular impossibility of the human brain ever attaining complete omniscience. If this is the case, then no objective truth can ever be found, and I’ll never know why Nick is my friend or why I like steak beyond cursory explanations.

I guess the truth is that the metaphorical onion that represents me just doesn’t need to be peeled away. I am what I am and I do what I do and while there may be reasons for these actions, they are unknowable in the macro sense. I guess, all we can really hope for is that seven years from now everything will be exactly as it is now except a little better.


- The word “clubbin’” needs to be banished from the English language. The only context it should be allowed to be used in is when talking about how a caveman killed a sabertoothed tiger or asked a woman to marry him before dragging her back (with hilarious results) by the hair.

- A crossbow would be the perfect murder weapon. Think about this….I mean, I can’t believe no one has ever tried this. Gun residue or the bullet are always traced back to the gun, but how could you trace an arrow. It seems like it would be impossible though (I guess) to be fair there aren’t necessarily that many bow hunters around anymore so simply owning a bow might incriminate oneself. Still, owning a bow isn’t really a crime, it just means said person is a hick and that isn’t a crime, you know (though maybe it should be).