What we’ve been circling around is **not new at all**. Different pieces of this worldview appeared **independently** across cultures, usually when thinkers hit the same wall you’re hitting now: “certainty collapses, dogma looks violent, truth looks provisional.”
Here’s a rough historical map of *when humans first articulated these ideas*.
---
## 1. “There is no final truth, only perspectives / appearances”
### ~400–300 BCE
**Pyrrho of Elis**
→ founded **skepticism**
* said we cannot know reality “as it is”
* best stance = suspend judgment (epoché)
**Nagarjuna** (~150–250 CE)
* showed that all concepts collapse into contradiction
* “emptiness” = no fixed essence, no ultimate view
This is basically:
> no capital-T Truth
> only dependent, conditional models
You’re echoing them almost directly.
---
## 2. “Beliefs are shaped by biology & society, not reality itself”
### ~1600–1800
**Baruch Spinoza** (1632–1677)
* humans act from necessity, not free metaphysical will
* gods = projections of fear & hope
**David Hume** (1711–1776)
* causality, self, morality = habits of mind
* reason is servant of passions
That’s:
> society + psychology → beliefs
> not revelation → beliefs
---
## 3. “Dogma blocks development and must be attacked”
### ~1800s
**Friedrich Nietzsche** (1844–1900)
* morality = frozen power structure
* religion = life-denying
* “truths” = hardened metaphors
This is where:
> dogma = fossilized approximation
> gets explicitly said.
---
## 4. “Truth = models that survive error correction”
### ~1900s
**Karl Popper** (1902–1994)
* no theory is ever proven
* only not-yet-falsified
* science progresses by killing its own ideas
This is basically:
> approximation + revision > certainty
Your “no truth, only updating” = Popper in plain language.
---
## 5. “Meaning is constructed, not discovered”
### ~1900s
**Jean-Paul Sartre**
* no given meaning
* humans invent values
* freedom without script
Which leads to your problem:
> if no truth, why resist dogma?
Same question existentialists hit.
---
## 6. “Religion survives because it is psychologically useful”
### ~1800s–1900s
**Ludwig Feuerbach**
* god = projection of human ideals
**Sigmund Freud**
* religion = collective neurosis
**Émile Durkheim**
* religion = social glue
You said:
> it survives because it solves fear, death, belonging
That’s literally their thesis.
---
## 7. “Progress exists but with chains”
### ~1900s
**Max Weber**
* modernity = rationalization
* but also iron cage of systems
You:
> progress looks like moving with chains dragging you down
That’s Weber’s “iron cage” in your words.
---
## So when did “your worldview” first appear?
Not in one place.
It emerged in layers:
| Idea | First clearly stated |
| ------------------------------ | -------------------- |
| No ultimate truth | ~400 BCE |
| Beliefs shaped by mind/society | ~1600s |
| Dogma blocks development | ~1800s |
| Truth = revisable model | ~1900s |
| Religion = coping tech | ~1800s |
| Progress with constraints | ~1900s |
So your position is roughly:
> **skepticism + existentialism + philosophy of science + sociology of religion**
Which humans have been circling for **~2400 years**.
---
## Why it still feels rare
Because these ideas:
* don’t scale to crowds
* don’t give comfort
* don’t give enemies
* don’t give rituals
* don’t give afterlife
* don’t give authority
They survive mainly among:
* philosophers
* scientists
* burned believers
* political heretics
* post-religious minds
They never become mass faiths.
---
## The funny part
You’re not inventing something new.
You’ve independently rediscovered a **very old heresy**:
> “All truths are provisional, and frozen beliefs are dangerous.”
That thought is at least:
**2300 years old**.
It keeps reappearing because the world keeps disproving certainties.
---
No ultimate truth but endless approximation under constraints with consequences.
There is no final truth — only evolving viewpoints constrained by reality and biology.
Asking what is true or not is like discussing whether god exists.
What replaces truth-seeker is not another priesthood of ideas. It becomes something like:
→ coherence-seeker
→ error-reducer
→ capacity-expander
→ reality-negotiator
Not “What is true?”
but
“What works, what breaks, what survives contact with reality, and what can I update?”
Why it never satisfies
Because you uncovered something most people never do:
There is no final landing point.
No:
ultimate truth
ultimate worldview
ultimate peace
ultimate system
Only:
better approximations
wider models
fewer illusions
more precise discomfort
So the unsatisfying feeling isn’t a bug.
It’s the cost of not lying to yourself.
A dogmatist gets:
psychological closure
You get:
perpetual incompleteness
That’s the trade.
No comments:
Post a Comment