Oh yeah. This post is gonna be a christmas special. You'll be treated to a senseless, nincompoopal argument on why and orange is not an orange. Enjoy.
“An orange is not an orange”
An orange is just a fragment of imagination that passed through the extremely inquisitive mind. After seeing a certain object, they ask, “What is this?” Their imagination runs amuck and a wild and improbable idea steals their mind, invades it and plants the thought, “That object is an orange!”
In the eyes of some, that object could be a pear, a watermelon, a pingpong ball, a chair or even the sky. The list is not exhaustive. The definition of an orange is thus dependant on the imagination of the unique mind, of every individual. As I have mentioned above, this fragment of imagination passes though the extremely inquisitive mind, in other words, every one of us as human beings are subject to the results of imagination.
How do you know that you see the same orange that your friend sees? Based on the concept that humans do not have access to the minds of others, humans are therefore unable to see what other humans see, hear what others hear and feel what others feel. Basically, humans cannot physically identify with other humans because this action cannot be proven by substantial evidence in this physical world due to the limitation of all humans, which I have already stated earlier.
An orange is not an orange because, as proven above, there is no definition of an orange which can be proven and agreed by a major consensus, owing to the fact that humans cannot identify with each other for they are bound by the rules of the physical world, which disallows humans from accessing and interacting in the physical world through the minds of others.
Therefore, the only ‘safe’ definition, which cannot be disproved, due to the universal truth that humans are inquisitive (this fact can be proven because YOU are a human, there for you know that you are inquisitive), is that an orange is simply the random result of allowing a fragment of imagination, which comes together with any question to satisfy the human’s desire for a question to be answered, to control the mind and plant ideas and thoughts. In some cases, the ideas and thoughts will define a certain object that a human sees in the physical world as an orange.
If the definition of an orange is fully dependant on the random imagination of such a fallible creature, a human being (which human being has not failed in his or hers own standard that one sets for oneself?), then how can an orange have a ‘standard’ definition? So it is possible for oranges to mean or be defined as anything. But in this physical world, there cannot be two definitions for any physical object. Only one is allowed. For if there is more than one definition, the second, or the other definitions of a certain object, may clash with the other definitions of other objects in the physical world, canceling out each other and leaving those objects with no definition.
However, since this is true, and also because an orange has more than one definition in the minds of humans (as proven earlier), the orange now ceases to exist as itself, for it could be anything in the minds of the human being, so it has no definition. . This leaves the orange with the only the option of non-existence, further substantiating the statement, “an orange is not an orange”.
In the statement, which I am trying to prove true, the first orange could have a different definition compared to the definition of the second orange, therefore the statement is true. Or both are non-existing, but if an object is non-existing, due to having definition clashes just as how I have explained earlier, how can an object be an object? So either way, the statement holds through, an orange is not an orange.
“But what if both oranges happen to share the same definition?” challenges the inquisitive mind. That however, is impossible and will never happen, because due to the uniqueness of the human mind, which edits the fragment of imagination that comes along to resolve the natural desire to answer to any and every question posed by the inquisitive nature of the human mind, and also because the fragment of imagination comes in many forms, always random and different, it is impossible for any two humans to have the same definition of an orange.
And because of this truth, an orange cannot be an orange because of the clash in definitions, which lead to non-existence, removing the idea that an orange is an object, an orange. Then how can we prove that an orange is an object in the purest sense? Because if an orange is not an orange in its purest sense, how can the statement make any sense? The fact is that anything in the physical world is an object and is true to its own definition. Objects cannot by themselves deviate from their own definition, but only stay bound to it. The only times it deviates is in the minds of humans, where the physical world in its own context exists. And the reason why it deviates, I have already touched on. All definition in the physical world exists and each one belongs to an object. In the purest sense, an orange in its purity is attached to its definition, defining the orange as an orange. However, in the minds of humans, this pureness of the orange is removed, because of the imagination and uniqueness of humans, as I have already mentioned above. So an orange in its purest sense is an object, but an orange as itself, in the human mind, where this statement is being discussed, is not. Therefore, an orange is not an orange.
The End
Thank you for putting up with that crap. By the way, that was your christmas present. Yes, you don't have to thank me. I know, I'm so magnimous and stuff but yeah, you really don't have to thank me for wasting seven minutes of your time on that. Merry Christmas!
No comments:
Post a Comment