The parameters we use to define what will be understood as objective are constructed by the same system we will use to apply the concept to any given issue. So if you define the rules for objectivity and you stand by them, then you are being objective.

A different issue is to ask about the existence of a real world that might be distinguishable from our understanding of reality. The 'real' world being that which is to be understood and exists in spite of our observational flaws, and 'reality' being that part of the 'real' which we perceive and understand.

Then there would be a permanent disparity between the two, in part because we believe there is a 'real' world beyond our understanding and in part because we don't fully know it yet.

So is that part of reality we already know objective? Yes certainly, because we have conventionally define what will be objective. Is it real? It is reality, and that is enough for us to have a strong grip on the real.

All three are possible.
You don't even have to be korean to be a k-pop star. I'm pretty sure that at least a few of EXO- M are Chinese xD

-And is there such a thing as 0 possibilities of something happening in our lives?
Why, of course :) In your life, you won't not experience death.
Because until you die, you can't say that it's not possible to not experience death and when you do die... It's been made possible :D

Listen to "Panam Padaithavan" Movie song: It is in Tamil language.

Quote:

kan pona pokkile kaal pogalama
kaal pona pokkile manam pogalama
manam pona pokkile manithan pogalama
manithan pona paathaiyai maranthu pogalama

Unquote

Its meaning. "Should we blindly go in the direction where our eyesight takes. Should our mind go in the direction where our leg takes. Should man go in the same direction as mind takes. Can we afford to forget in the process, our ancestors good and kind words of advice."

We should decide based on this advice.

Everyone is as everyone is physically manifest within the same time frame, the only time frame there is. This could be about the multiplicity of time frames, with the possibility for different minds to be present in different or parallel time frames; or of there being more than one instances of consciousness; or there being just one original mind, while the rest being figments.

This we learn from the scriptural accounts that there being life hereafter, there is a possibility that when someone dies the consciousness of that person thus have been freed from the constrictions of the time frame, could be at the deathbed, at the end of the world, at the day of judgement, all at once.

This might not be the simplistic case of there being a parallel universe, hence a parallel, or countless parallel time frames for each for each of the countless universes. This might instead be about the possibility that the consciousness could expand in capacity, to become better aware of the temporal phenomenon, as if to be present in the future, in the past as well in the present. I must admit the idea of everyone being conscious at the same time is quite interesting thought.

The simultaneous existence of different minds as different manifestation of the same universal consciousness is in theory possible – as is everything else in philosophy. This suggests that all minds are originally born out of or into the singular universal consciousness; there are no fakes or figments of imagination to act a real people.

Consider the instance of an ocean. Just as waves rise upon to the surface of an ocean to traverse across its expanse, there are the minds born upon the ocean of consciousness to travel through time. Just as waves are upon the surface of the ocean that run abreast, collide, clash, and mingle, the minds are along the dimension of time, where they could observe and interact with each other.

Just as two people can see each other and interact with each other, one aspect of the mind that is strong could observe the one that is relatively weak, or set to oppose the first. This might be how we come to feel good or bad about the merits of our actions, when we feel remorse, guilt, gratitude, satisfaction. We might just be like the micro versions of the universal consciousness.

Best Answer:  Learn to appreciate all the things you have that money cant buy - health, happiness, love, ur ability to see, hear, touch, feel (things that we take for granted every day…).. Life is as we think, so think beautifully. Let everything you do and say be an expression of the beauty in your heart, always based on love.

Source(s):

Asker's rating

Report Abuse

Liberal is about liberty.

Philosophy is not bumperstickers and fortune cookies!

Philosophy is 'original critical thought';

Critical Thinking
http://www.skepdic.com/ticriticalthinkin...

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHa...

As opposed to the 'scholastic';

"..."philosophologists", a term coined by Robert Pirsig ("Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", "Lila") to denote people who study other people's philosophy but cannot do philosophy themselves. He also says that most people who consider themselves philosophers are actually philosophologists. The difference between a philosopher and a philosophologist is like the difference between an art and aesthetics; one does and the other studies what the other does and theorizes about it."