Melissa Nadia Viviana

@thebeatphilosopher.com

26668 Followers 26934 Following

Author. Activist. Existentialist. Humanist. Beat Philosopher. Philosophy Of Mind. Dog Mom. Writing About Philosophy Here: https://melissanadiaviviana.com/

Amazon book that has wildly different prices for Kindle version vs paperback.
Remember, mobs are created by self-appointed “gatekeepers of truth.” They’re looking for a false consensus that will never exist in a subjective human structure. In my view, these mobs-of-consensus are in a war with subjectivity - and with freedom itself. Since consensus isn’t a natural phenomenon––mobs that require conformity in order to feel secure––actually require performance. They require people to be too afraid to share their unique views because they desperately want to fit in with the narrow culture created by “the gatekeepers.” (And this is why Threads bothers me just a little bit). But even in a public forum that encourages consensus, that doesn’t mean that people still won’t hold private views. It only means they won’t feel comfortable saying those views aloud.
In a world with 8.2 billion humans, you’ll lose your mind trying to belong to a consensus. Nobody understands things as you do. We’re all operating off of our own experiences and our own mental state. In philosophy, we call this our subjectivity. Our subjectivity is our personal filter of the world around us. And we exist within it all the time. So every experience that happens objectively will be filtered through our subjective worldview before we can understand or acknowledge it. Over the past century, many people have used subjectivity as an accusation. Even a synonym akin to bias. This is a hill I’ll die on: your subjectivity is an inevitability, not a bias. There is no choice to be subjective. And anybody who has an aversion to subjectivity, will simply create a series of denials. They won’t inherently “beat it.”
Confidence & security in one’s own worldview is the only place where multiplicity is free to exist. If we require other people to change in order to make us feel secure; Or if we require their validation or approval in order to possess self-esteem… then we will constantly create conflict. A huge chunk of conflict in this world is motivated by the need for validation and consensus. What I knew to be true was that two people with different opinions does not equate conflict. But two insecure people who need to change each other - will always and invariably create tension and long-lasting war. And someone out there with nefarious goals is well aware that this is true. Fanning the flames of our differences, leading us to believe that we have to cancel each other out in order to, ourselves, exist.
No public forum prepared us for knowing what everybody around us thinks and feels. It’s unsettling, terrifying, and uncomfortable. Is the fact that some people view the internet as an invasion of their personal minds seducing us into believing we have an emotional incentive to walk up to perfect strangers and demand that they change?
Bright green oak trees on a snowcovered street.
Tall live oak branches crawling above a sidewalk covered in snow.
Dalmatian, sleeping with her head on a pillow, and a slight smile on her face.
German Shorthaired Puppy peeking her head out from underneath an adult Dalmatian.
Photo of 20 books.
A Toast To The Old You: If you feel inspired to use the new year to help you reset or change habits: great. And yet, the old you has survived every terrible day, every hard thing, every awful circumstance, and every heartbreak you've ever felt. The old you is a fighter. And that's worth celebrating.
A black and white photo of a Dalmatian at a park during sunrise.
A photo of a pug dressed up in a Santa hat and beard, looking unhappy & sarcastic. There’s a Christmas Tree, Reindeer, and a mailbox that says Santa Mail in the background.
Photo of a Dalmatian and a German Shorthaired Pointer puppy on a park bench.
With the way my mind works, words aren't just words. They're representations for conceptual phenomenons. Or better yet - doorways - to wider concepts. An individual word doesn't stand alone, it triggers a wider phenomenon of meaning. In that sense, I could just as easily abandon the word, and replace it with the phenomenon on the other side of the doorway. But for the sake of labeling or bookmarking a concept in my head, I have to associate it with a mental trigger... namely, a word. But any word would do. The phenomenon I experience or conceptualize exists, regardless. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
A German Shorthaired Pointer puppy sleeps on a comfy desk chair while her dog bed sits empty next to her.
So let’s redefine what a philosophy discussion is meant to look like: I’M A PHILOSOPHER, SO I’M NOT GOING TO TERRIFY PEOPLE AWAY FROM METACOGNITION. I’M GOING TO ASK THEM TO THROW OUT THEIR ASSUMPTIONS AND START OVER FROM A BLANK SLATE. Philosophers used to debate, is the human mind born tabula rasa (a blank slate)? But I believe that philosophers choose to WILLINGLY become a tabula rasa in adulthood, for the sake of creating a meaningful relationship to conceptual reality. In other words, to understand reality better, we BREAK it. We break down our assumptions, clear out the rubble, and start anew with intentionality.
Photo of a GSP puppy walking on a bench.
Photo of dalmatian sitting in a pile of leaves, looking alert and about to run after a squirrel.
Photo of dalmatian sitting in a pile of leaves, looking serious.