¿Qué es?

-Una disculpa por la indiscriminada combinación de idiomas, a veces me sentía más

cómodo razonando en inglés y en otras simplemente comunicándome en mi lengua, mas
quienes sean que lean esto seguramente tendrán nulo problema en comprenderlos, solo sé
que les ha de resultar molesto y por ello les pido aun más comprensión.

Prima Pars

Reliability of reality

I. What if reality is just a deception?

There is obviously no way to prove this because they'd hide all proof, right? Can one
disprove it?

Some concepts:
-Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I exist.
-To be isn't necessarily rational, to deceive absolutely is.
-As long as I exist reality isn't actually completely deceiving me, to say it is is to be
inconsistent.
-Were everyone a tool of the deceiver they'd still be the manifestation of the qualities of the
single will of the deceiver, so any difference would be meaningless, for the love among
humans is also basically an extension of God's love. So to deny will based on this kind of
agency is virtually meaningless.
This deception is basically meaningless and fantastic.
For if something is only a manifestation of that what is literally existence in itself (hidden
reality), it just is that, existence.

If there were multiple deceivers whose only purpose is to deceive then their will is also
meaningless and we basically go back to the point above.

If their will truly exists then they must at least make it distinctive, which would entail
contradiction, and this "planned reality" does seem to have such, but that only if we take as
genuine and true what we see. Thus, in order for these contradictory wills to exist they must
desire something unique beyond the common goal of deception, but since they contradict
then they, as a group, fall in irrationality, which leads to fallibility in their plot and thus we
could see at least something emotionally genuine, but this scenario presumes infallibility,
thus indirectly ends up denying the existence of true multiple wills.

-Confusion is irrational.
-Instinct makes confusion go away.
- This deception would yet be a manifestation of the true reality (irrational/reality), so it'd be
meaningless.

1- If I exist so does my reality, but my reality clearly points towards Christianity which is
antithetical to deception, thus if I exist and this is absolutely true, there can't be a
contradictory reality, for the Real God is pure actuality (absolute existence and thus truth),
which is openly oposed to ultimate falsity and deception.
2-I have instinct and reason, whose results (determination and truth) are ultimately
antithetical to what this alleged reality ultimately wants (confusion and deception), thus not
even dialectics can rescue the contradiction.
Were that not enough, my instinct is greater than my reason and thus the confusion is easy
to overcome, this all comes to self-awareness.
3- The above'd prove I am godlike for I am the ultimate end of reality, but I am not for I began
to exist, thus there is no such reality where I am deified.
4- The ultimate end would be to confuse me with the revelation, and within me confusion is a
species of depression and anxiety, but in fact the revelation was not worse than previous
issues, thus this was not truly the end of the almighty reality, for the unlimited cannot fail
against the limited, yet it did.

Conclusion: Reality has the means for, apparently, multiple ultimate ends, thus there can't be
a serious central goal.

Objections:
A-But what if such reality is foreign even to reason?
B- Reality can be contradicting. Just look at how God allows it all to be.
C-Maybe our false reality is insofar as it excludes a definitive reality (God), so it contradicts
not the fact that all reality exists insofar as it exists within the definitive reality.

D- What if reality is actually just what you experience yourself while everything else you think
to be real but don't experience it yourself isn't, and it's all fixed without spacetime limitations
(magically) so you won't notice when it isn't normal?

E) You are egoist by assuming only you are real and they aren't.
F)Your whole reason relies on your reality and experience and thus you shouldn't be
applying it to possible absolute realities. If your reality is flawed so is all you get from it,
including knowledge.

I answer that
A) AND THIS APPLIES TO "WHAT IF WE ARE DECEIVED FOR NO REASON?"
That makes it plainly irrational, by definition. To pursue anything here and try to portray it as
something "true" is to rationalize it, and thus absurd and can't be true. All that is true is
rational, that's why even this has to be rationalized in order to even be suspected as true
because human interactions and ideas literally are rational by default.
Any further questioning is irrational and thus not worth hearing in polemics by definition.

If you keep questioning basic logic and reason, seek psychological attention, you probably
have paranoia or some other mental issue

B) First, this is a false equivalence for God deceives not, this alone should be enough to
discard the objection.
And most importantly, a plan is necessarily rational, to be is not, that's why people whose
mind isn't sound still exist despite their situation, but they can't actually plan anything unless
they are still at least a little rational.
People with brain death exist, but don't think, so while they can irrationally exist they can't
irrationaly plan/premeditate anything, which is necessary for deception to be carried out. To
exist is thus simpler than to deceive.

Furthermore, God does have a single ultimate goal which He has assured will not fail:
Himself, ultimately there will be no more pain and tears, and those who chose to betray him
will be granted their desire to stay away from Him too, this is just and thus good.
Good alone is the ultimate effective goal of God's plan, unlike the plot where the ultimate
goal has failed or doesn't even exist and thus the plot can't, which invariably leads to discard
deception.

C) In order for that to happen you basically need to make a god out of this reality:
beginingless, which would make everything that exists directly divine, this would make the
very reality completely divine and yet as seen it has contradictory parts within, so it can't be
so.
If God wills to deceive by indicating the reality I must believe in, then I must submit and still
believe in this reality, but if I do it definitely fails to confuse me, thus leaving it purposeless
and destroying the idea of plot; so in any case it just ain't.

D) There can be two scenarios:

a-The involved are humans as well bound by non human elements
b-They aren't and even nature has a will

In scenario a it's simple use of experience, humans are trustworthy almost all the time, the
necessary deduction that they are honest about their desires too.
If they deceive they know the truths and yet give them, thus existence and experience
necessarily prove that humans are, at least in the overwhelming majority of situations, not
deceivers, and further experience within human knowledge (science/philosophy) only further
confirms that.

In scenario b... why? What the hell would even make them wanna do this? If they created
me they already know me, no need to experiment to know more or anything. It's literally a
why not scenario with absolutely no single reason.
And, let me just recall the multiple wills (deceivers) scenario:

"If their will truly exists then they must at least make it distinctive, which would entail
contradiction, and this "planned reality" does seem to have such, but that only if we take as
genuine and true what we see. Thus, in order for these contradictory wills to exist they must
desire something unique beyond the common goal of deception, but since they contradict
then they, as a group, fall in...fallibility in their plot and thus we could see at least something
emotionally genuine, but this scenario presumes infallibility, thus indirectly ends up denying
the existence of true multiple wills".
If I have ever witnessed anything genuine it's literally identical to falsity, so there's no real
distinction. One may ask, what if you aren't able to notice it?
If their wills are different none of them is perfect, and since they likely contradict it's
reasonable to infer this irrationality will also apply to the very deception displayed upon me,
for were that not the case the plan would not be fallible.
Now, I might say that were this the case, some elements are willing to keep me alive and
thus they'd tell me the truth, but since technically I don't know them besides their direct
unquestionable correlation to me, I can't really argue this.

In the case they aren't omniscient this becomes even more bizarre, for it'd be relatively easy
for me to catch them unprepared and find out.
Furthermore, there is still a lot of true in this: technically all I live in the moment. If they are
telling me truths, it's just contradictory to not do so. If they have no ultimate reason the
analysis ends up here as they're proven completely inconsistent.
Thus this theory is not only unfounded, but also irrational and surrealist. Besides, what on
earth would lead them to this? The refutation of deception based on realization shown above
applies once again: if the ultimate end of reality is to deceive, it has failed for now I have
questioned. To deceive needs a deceived victim to happen, but if I am no longer deceived
then the whole thing and any power to ever exist has failed in its ultimate goal. Can you
imagine some deities unable to fulfill their ultimate promises?
This leaves the plot not only as a failure but also as fully ungrounded and internally
inconsistent, literally irrational and thus, within the realm of rationality (to which premeditate
actions such as to deceive extends) such idea must be discarded as fallacious and absurd,
thus false.

E) This is a rather ad hominem emotional, irrational attack, thus a fallacy. And ,well, the
issue is that I exist and literally have 100% certainty as I think, for agere sequitur esse,
whereas all I have of them is just my suspitions. The worse must submit to the better.

F) And the idea of deception isn't? It literally is rational and thus necessarily within the scope
of reason. Even those speculations are within OUR minds, so they're ours also in a sense.
We can never scape reality, and that's a good thing. The very notion of deception is inherited
from real experience.

II. What if reality, including us, is just a dream or an illusion without actual
metaphysical/rational existence?
Seconda Pars
What is reality

La realidad es aquello que nos rodea y mediante la experiencia (propia así como
observación y estudio) nos desenvolvemos en ella. En efecto, todo lo real es aquello que
nos rodea y aquello que de esto se sigue.

"Lo que es efectivo o tiene valor práctico, en contraposición con lo fantástico e ilusorio".

https://dle.rae.es/realidad

Tertia Pars
How do we know reality

First, what is to know?

"Tener noticia o conocimiento de algo".
¿Conocer? "Averiguar por el ejercicio de las facultades
intelectuales la naturaleza, cualidades y relac-iones de las cosas".
Otros sinónimos incluyen "percibir", "ver", "experimentar", etc.

De aquí ya se dedude cómo conocemos.

Quarta Pars
The reality of men
La confianza

La realidad es descubierta mediante la experiencia, y cuando lo que otros nos dicen es

corroborado ya sea por nuestra propia experiencia o por métodos que por limitación innata
no pueden mentir (como artefactos tecnológicos) adquieren nuestra confianza, mientras
más ocurra esto mejor pues la realidad no miente, no puede negarse, ni siquiera razonar
sino que solo es (esto se sabe de la experiencia). Por eso nos dejamos llevar por las
masas, porque esa gente nos provee de muchas experiencias que muchas veces podemos
confirmar nosotros mismos...y por el sentido tribal humano. Una vez la realidad corrobora lo
que una persona o grupo ha dicho en una ocasión ahora tenemos fundamento para confiar
y no para desconfiar, ergo se sigue confiar. Si una persona se equivoca y admite su error,
con mayor razón pues eso es justamente la honestidad.

A raíz de sus frutos la ciencia hace sino confirmar todo esto, y justamente gracias a sus
frutos la ciencia es el conocimiento más fiable. Eso sí, a veces los científicos se contradicen
y toca deducir en base a lo que observaron quien está bien o mal...si se quiere, no es
mandatorio ser un sabelotodo.

En base a esto tambien se deduce la veracidad del sentido común, pues cuando algo es
falso la gente siempre reclama y jamás se tiene por sentido común.
De aquí se sigue la reputación (prestigio, credibilidad) de ciertas fuentes, mediante la
inmensa cadena de experiencia corroboratoria que es la sociedad, la cual según
observamos siempre ancía el bienestar.

Quinta Pars
Limitations of man
Bound by language and reason, we can't scape our human reality.
Bound by our space-time, we can't escape our actual reality.
Nonetheless, reason can trascend what simple experience cannot and this is how we learn
about things to come or too far or too small for us to sense.
-Dando fe de erratas, luego de tanto le doy razón a un amigo cuando decía que la filosofía
es inútil. Si se trata de descubrir cosas nuevas sin duda lo es, las bases ya están allí y lo
han estado por siglos.
Se trata más bien de un viaje personal, de una experiencia de conocimiento de la razón,
mas no de la realidad tangible. Al menos lo que es la metafísica es básicamente esto.
No obstante, en ese sentido la metafísica es incluso superior a la ciencia: es inmutable y
absoluta, lo que era válido ayer lo es y será; en contraste, la ciencia vive del paradigma y si
bien hay cosas que tenemos tan estudiadas que, al menos en cuanto a su realidad externa
y superficial, no parece vayan a sorprendernos, por otro lado hay cosas de las que no
sabemos bien y podríamos averiguar más en el futuro.