Understanding 'Reality' through simplification

What is?

Just like the Religious concept of 'God', philosophy has the core concept of seeking the truth, often phrased as 'What is?'.

Again, just as religions have their different beliefs on what 'God' is, philosophers often struggle to agree on theories of reality. Renne Descrates was one of the major figure heads in modern philosophy; as well as a keen researcher in the theory of ''Criterion''. Basically put, the criterions of beliefs are the reasons behind the reasoning, and something the phiolosophers have always been divided on; and probably always will.

Like every philosopher before him, and most certainly every philosopher after him, Descrates was constantly in search of the truth. However, an opinion I have considered is this:

'How can there be differing opinions of what really is?' And the truth is, there can't be. Sure, there are always difference in opinions; but if someone is trying to conclude something so subjective as the concept of reality, surely there is only one answer? Afterall, if it wasn't percieved as something that CAN be concluded, what would be the point in arguing for or against it?

So then, it becomes apparent that such a subjective topic cannot be concluded, explained, summarised or rationalised by any one individual comment or theory. In order for reality to be reality (in philosophers' terms), it must be un-questionable beyond scope. Ironically, if this were so, reality would no longer be a concept; instead it would become a scientific path where mathematics and physics would conclude formulae around it; thus becoming a learned subject.

Some say that reality is anything that has proven material as evidence. For example, the chemical composites and bonds of a substance like carbon. However, something with the same origin (diamond/graphite) appear completely different in both physical appearance and structure.

This simple comparison can be seen as parallel to our own mental models of reality and our experience with reality. Both come from the mind, yet are completely different in most cases.

To further my own theory that reality cannot be explained soley on individual learnings, take this example into consideration.

In reality (according to my own thoughts), it would be impossible to lift a 1ookg weight in a squat. However, according to the reality of a trained weight lifter, it would be quite feasable to lift that kind of weight with relative ease. So, whose reality is correct? We are both correct in assuming individual performance, but in terms of reality as a whole; we are wrong.

To conlude that point: Neither model of reality is in-correct, yet neither is correct.

Therefore, anything that can be individually questioned within the human mind cannot (and should not) try to be summarised by philosophers.

Seem obvious? Of course it is. Simplifying a subject to this degree can allow one to rationalise without traditional or 'intellectual' influence.

To become aware of simplicity, (at least in my opinion) is a higher form of intelligence. This is truly how you can understand 'What is'.

However, in total contrast of this, one may find that in order to seek 'What is', they may find that there is less and less one can simplify, and therefore less that can be explained. This is frustrating to most people...which is why they try to fight theories with theories, to complicate a subject so far that they do not have to face the truth.

Remember, if you are seeking the truth, why complicate the lies?

To summarise these words, you must first formulate an educated opinion on a subject, using research and reading as your path; then you must criticise and simplify the subject as best you can to formulate a pure, yet still movable understanding.

Thanks for reading.