Who believes in the Flat Earth theory?
I am wondering if there are any “Alternative” philosophers on this forum. But seriously believers who actually believe this is real scientific teaching.
Flat Earthers
Alien Conspiracy Theorists
Lost Atlantis
Paranormal investigators
And my favorite Big Foot hunters
Please be civil, is purely out of Curiosity. I want to find out what motivates people to believe in this type of “Alternative” philosophy.
There is a growing movement in this type of thinking and trying to understand... why? In the most respectful way.
I’m not judging, I respect your way of thinking just curious that all.
Flat Earthers
Alien Conspiracy Theorists
Lost Atlantis
Paranormal investigators
And my favorite Big Foot hunters
Please be civil, is purely out of Curiosity. I want to find out what motivates people to believe in this type of “Alternative” philosophy.
There is a growing movement in this type of thinking and trying to understand... why? In the most respectful way.
I’m not judging, I respect your way of thinking just curious that all.
Comments (60)
It's probably the same motivation as "religious philosophy": fear of reality (onto/vera-phobia). Thus, magical, wishful or group thinking abetted by evidence-free beliefs (i.e. illusions of knowing) to rationalize these "alternative facts" or "post-truths". Tabloid sensationalism and social media videos satisfy many persons' visceral need for denial ( Ernest Becker). Path of least cognitive effort and easiest dopamine kick / social "belonging".
Btw, I really fancy Bostrom's (or Deutsch's quantum computational implied) Simulation Hypothesis. :sweat:
The microscopic or macroscopic.
Far enough a way the earth looks like a shapeless blip
Closer, like a sphere
Closer, flat
Closer, neither flat nor curved exactly
How can you escape subjectivity? If there is no observer, which of the above perspectives would be true?
Isn't this comes from Plato Dialogues? It is always been believed that this legend city existed in reality but it disappeared through the years.
Atlantis as It Was Told in Plato's Socratic Dialogues
Some researchers think this lost city existed in my homeland (Spain) :death: :eyes: HISTORIANS HAVE FINALLY ‘DISCOVERED’ ENCHANTED LOST CITY OF ATLANTIS IN SOUTHERN SPAIN
:100: :up:
But I also suspect that, holographically, or in another dimension, what appears to us as round could literally have four corners and be flat.
Though I do give credence to our reality, where the Earth is a sphere, being just as valid.
So I say the Earth is round. And it is flat.
Bored with reality is more like it. For some people reality just isn't interesting enough, they want more! The only way they can get that extra kick out of life is by believing in weird stuff.
Yep!
Interesting. Flat-earthers claim is earth is flat. Is it? What do we mean by earth?
:rofl:
You think a monk in his cell is 'escaping reality', then you have a serious problem of understanding.
I don't include 'paranormal investigations' in the same category as flat-earthers or anti-vaxxers. The fact that it is so included is actually kind of sad.
All definitions break down when we exercise rigorous precision. There is no meaning that is not vague.
How so? The earth is the planet we're on. Is it flat or is it round?
I will admit to having a foot in the "alternative' philosophies, mainly with an open mind towards esoteric systems of thought. I used to read David Icke at one stage, but did think that he was 'over the top' in his conspiracy theories, especially his idea that the Royal Family were shapeshifting reptiles. I think that conspiracy theories can be dangerous if they are taken literally, but are quite useful as unusual ways of looking and thinking.
Apart from David Icke, I have read Blavatsky, Rudolf Steiner and Benjamin Creme and many other alternative thinkers.
I read them less nowadays, especially since reading philosophy, in conjunction with reading and writing on this site. However, what is interesting is your choice of the words 'flat earth', because 'flatland' was the way Ken Wilber, a transpersonal philosopher, described many mainstream traditions of thought.
Personally, I like to read as widely as possible, and try to juggle various ways of thinking, ranging from the extremes of materialistic perspectives of determinism to the 'spiritual' alternatives of the esoteric thinkers. I believe that the 'truth' may be somewhere in between, but it is not clear and rigid because there is the whole symbolic dimension of reality. I believe that this may be why people are often drawn to the alternative philosophers.
If we are super exact, it is neither flat nor round. Just look at it closely. It only appears flat or round from a distance. Distance blurs the fine details, giving the illusion of a simple shape.
Even though I can see your point, I think ‘subjectivity’ is the wrong term. ‘Subjectivity’ implies taking one’s own predilections and inclinations too seriously, or not being detached or impartial. It is certainly true that ‘an observer’ is implied in any statement of what is real, and that this is something which is often overlooked or set aside. But that’s not the same as ‘subjectivity’.
Quoting Yohan
You’ve probably never built a precision instrument, then.
Distance does nothing to the Earth. Distance only changes what part of the Earth you see and the detail that you can make out. So, like us, if you're close enough, you get to see only a small portion of the Earth's curvature producing the illusion of flatness. Plus, small enough, like we are, and you can see the bumps and dips (surface irregularities). Distance is about the observer, not the Earth which is round.
:up:
Round or roundish?
The word "alternative" is important! We have a set of observations and we need a good hypothesis that fits these observations. If you're creative enough you can concoct multiple hypotheses to explain observations. Some choose the mundane - simple hypotheses that go with observational data. Others tend to opt for more colorful, more elaborate hypotheses - these are what bigfoot, ancient aliens, flat-earth, etc. are all about.
While Occam's razor would have us adopt simpler hypotheses,
[quote=H. L. Mencken]every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.[/quote]
Well, round enough in my humble opinion. Just to set the record straight, you're right in that scale is important.The earth is flat at the human scale but the earth is defined at planetary scales not at atomic or cosmic scales and at that level of detail, earth is round (enough).
Except that religious philosophy, which presumably is what said monk adheres to, is NOT motivated by ‘escape from reality’. (corrected)
The earth is both what we see and walk on, which is somewhat flat and bumpy etc, as well as the round object we view from outer space.
Science investigates the earth from the human, atomic, and planetary scales. Neither geology nor cosmology have a more objective definition of the earth.
You would be right if the question is simply what shape is the earth from a planetary scale.
I didn't really answer the OPs question in the spirit it was asked.
People who believe weird things are all over the place. The efficient market hypothesis is a good example.
My belief is that the shape of the earth approximates that of a sphere, but that in everyday life we perceive it as flat and it is so for most practical purposes.
I don't know if this counts as "alternative philosophy", but there you are.
The majority is always wrong
Reality is stranger than fiction
Life is an amazing mystery, but we insist on reducing it down to our size.
Google definition of earth: the planet on which we live; the world.
Farther away in space and it doesn't even exist.
Farther away in time, back or forward, and it also doesn't even exist.
Ok you win. Independent of any observer, the earth is round enough in my opinion. G'day
No relative point of view can give a complete view of what reality is.
This is like the parable of the blind men trying to describe what an elephant is, each one grasping a different part of the elephant. Except, even with sight they wouldn't know what the essence of an elephant would be by that alone.
I theorize that intuition alone can grant essence realization.
Empirical science is a false God.
It's hopefully not about scoring points.
Quoting Yohan
Did you know scientists who are trying to determine the shape of the universe are worried about the same things you mention above. I recently got to know that the universe appears to be flat but those who claim this warn that it might be a local feature (too close).
I disagree on that assessment since religious philosophy although it does center on the belief of God or Gods depending on the faith your talking about.
I do believe it offers other useful lessons on humanity and how we as a species over came struggle.
To me is just an over simplified answer to something that has a lot of rich historical account which has been proven. Proven by historians and anthropologist (I am speaking of the historical events not the theological perspective)
And the accounts with political conflicts between different territories, tribes and/or states. The development of human civilization on how a people in that time lived.
How religion in that time also substitute as a Government institution in attempt to provide some kind of civil order during a chaotic time.
“Alternative Philosophy” trying to come up with a politically correct term here without sounding like a critical jerk.
I’m fascinated by this topic due to the culture behind this belief, is like going to Woodstock.
Everyone knows Area 51, but no one cares about Hawkins Radiation and the recent discovery of a black hole.
Everyone will remember the Grey Alien dressed as Elvis but ask someone about Transhumanism. No one will care or dismiss it as insane talk. Oxymoron there I know.
I believe is a cultural perspective because this and I know is a stretch me saying this but... This type of science is simply more fun and exciting. Even if it is fake.
Therefore, the Earth is flat! :wink:
No doubt a 'first world problem'. How sublimating and bourgeois ... (vide Zapffe)
Not impossible. The 3rd world folks are have little time to ponder upon such matters as where to get the next adrenaline rush from, they remain fully occupied with matters more pressing - staying alive!
It's amazing how far ahead the West is, in terms of living standards, health, wealth even accounting for centuries of slavery and colonization - it takes brains and heart to use use resources, ill-gotten as they maybe, in ways that have such wide-ranging positive effects.
The gap between the 1st world and the 3rd world will take another coupla centuries to close. I hope it can be done smoothly and peacefully. Fingers crossed!
I read somewhere that chimps develop a sense of self-awareness (forebrain) in their adolescent period (passing the mirror test) but then later on in adulthood lose it. Why? Self-awareness comes with accompanying baggage - thanatophobia (fear of death) - and so, some researchers say, it's better for some, not all, animals to switch off metacognition. I'm not sure how far this is true though. Do you suppose there's anything interesting going on with extreme sports vis-a-vis what I said about chimps, self-awareness and thanatophobia?
Quoting 180 Proof
Yep! Fully agree!
I don't understand the question.
Is it that an adult chimp losing faer self-awareness because of the extra burden it involves in re thanatophobia (amplified fear of death that comes with self-awareness) has a similarity to those who engage in extreme sports (risk of death)? After all, in both cases, death is key. One, the chimp, switches off metacognition (its easier to face death) and the other, extreme sports enthusiasts essentially downplaying the value of life (death's ok). In one case you turn off metacognition (lose self-awareness) to make death less painful and in the other case you devalue metacognition by taking wild risks.
It makes me a bit uneasy when I read this sort of thing about extreme sports. It's similar to the Simone Biles' thread where everyone except a gymnast has something to say about her actions within the sport. But I suppose this forum is designed for somewhat naive discussions of almost any topic. As a participant in both gymnastics (ten years, long ago) and an extreme sport (fifty years) I see things differently. It's more complicated than you might think. If you are a participant you are on a different wavelength.
Wingsuit BASE jumping leaves me speechless, however. :fear: A sport I would never have tried!
That was my point exactly. Extreme sports is defined by the level of risk to life and limb. If you ask me, they're at the leading edge of technology because many of the equipment used in extreme sports have to hold up in very unforgiving environments and that's not a 100% deal, hence the high mortality rates in this area.
Why would someone risk his life just to experience a, usually, brief period of excitement - how long does a skydiver take to land back on earth?
Many possible reasons of course but one that interests me is it amounts to negating one's life and survival instinct which is, in a way, rejecting your sense of self-awareness.
Zombies literally throwing themselves off what looks like 600 feet wall!
There may be a whole spectrum of attitudes and reasons for extreme sports. Certainly, there is the exhilaration of substantial risk in some of them. I was a rock climber who did a huge amount of freesoloing (without equipment, etc. - you can look it up) so the risk was there but what was most enticing was the feeling of control and freedom, and continuous physical flow. Learning one's limitations and operating accordingly. A kind of dance on the rock.
This is obviously not what you are describing. Perhaps there are others here who have engaged in activities where "negating one's life . . ." They might add an interesting dimension to this discussion.
I would be surprised if anyone speaks up, though.
:rofl:
[quote=Gloucester (King Lear)]
As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods;
They kill us for their sport.[/quote]
Quoting jgill
Yes, death is interesting but dying, I don't know.
Well, you just roll around on the floor, missy! :razz: I was at university with this fellow:Mihaly C., and he went on to elaborate on the experience, expanding it far beyond climbing.
What does any of this have to do with flat Earth?
Yes.
Yeah.
This too.
Obviously.
Yes.
I lied.
i. Assuming "Earth is flat", explain why GPS, real-time satellite images or red-shifting sunsets are either individually or combined not sufficient evidence that Earth is round.
ii. Assuming "Earth is flat", explain why long distance callers can – often do – talk to each other during day (west) and at night (east), on either end, simultaneously.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/577241 :mask: