Mi Mundo en Palabras en Letras Creativas

That’s how it is and that’s how it will be; if the audio is in Spanish, I think it’s good to include, as I’ve done before, the text in English. Greetings, followers.

Let’s break it down, the people of Asgard gathered their loved ones in that place, all united in an idea and a harmony like in the cults and creeds of the planet; in Asgardia, we are from all over the world and have experienced different things, we have distinct cultures and reactions to the events we encounter. If we analyze what is pointed out above, we can notice the following in the concepts of determinism:

Determinism is the philosophical theory that posits that all events, including human actions, are determined by prior causes. This implies that, given a set of initial conditions, only one possible outcome can occur.

This idea has been debated throughout history in the realms of philosophy, science, and ethics, generating various interpretations and opinions.

Determinists argue that every human decision and action is the result of a chain of preceding events, suggesting that free will is an illusion.

Therefore, none of us acts in a specific way in the present if we had not lived what we lived in the past. You do not expect an Asian to analyze life like an American, no matter how attached we are to the laws of nature, and everything we propose for the future may turn out to be a truth or be utterly false for the present, and in this matter, many prefer to refer to an all-powerful being to whom they leave the future in their hands.

The tragic thing about this is that it is not always God who provides, if humans have decided that you are in disputed land. On the other hand, free will is questioned, since you are free to the extent that you are not harming a third party, that is, another human being of whom you are responsible simply because they exist and their space must be theirs and not yours.

On the other hand, critics of determinism argue that there are aspects of human existence that can be influenced by conscious choices, emotions, and subjective experiences, which adds complexity to the notion of cause and effect in everyday life.

This is where the academy comes in to shape spirits based on a goal; the spirit is not transformed but rather molded through its attitude as an inhabitant of a body that it must recognize as its full responsibility, and to the extent that it sees the other in the same way, things can work.

This contest of ideas or dilemmas of existence is reflected in many disciplines, including psychology, sociology, and physics, where the subject studying this questions to what extent we are truly responsible for our actions, and to what extent we can think of a philosophy of unity.

Now, let’s turn to the other concept considered in this argument:

Objectivity, in philosophy, refers to the ability to perceive and describe reality impartially and without personal biases. It is the idea that it is possible to know the world as it is, regardless of our subjective perceptions and beliefs. Key aspects of objectivity include: the separation of facts and opinions, which allows for a more rigorous critical analysis; the search for concrete evidence to support claims, helping to avoid the influence of emotions or individual experiences; and the importance of logic and reasoning in the research process.

Moreover, objectivity is not only limited to philosophy, but also plays a crucial role indisciplines such as science, journalism, and ethics, where the commitment to truth and transparency is essential for the advancement of knowledge.

It is essential to recognize that while we aspire to objectivity, our understanding of the world will always be influenced by the historical and cultural context in which we find ourselves, adding a dimension of complexity to this ideal. We see many examples, the idea of the world from the perspective of Western countries, with their territories established between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer, already illustrates this great difficulty. Therefore, returning to the concept of Asgardia, many colleagues have considered that the only way to unify is through science, but even science has a perspective where the ethics of some and the drive to discover something new come with their perceptions and differences.

In matters as simple as whether or not to eat meat, joining as a partner with someone of your own sex or not doing so because your cultural or moral responsibility does not conceive it, praying five times a day or never going to a place of worship; this already marks a difference and separates you from unity, that complex framework where, from a philosophical perspective, something is referred to as indivisible. For Plato, it is one of the ideal forms to represent perfection; in his case, Aristotle conceived it as the principle of indivisibility and therefore the best example of coherence, not the collection of its parts. Hegel, by introducing dialectics, asserts that unity is the result of the synthesis of opposites and the state of being where contradictions are resolved into a superior totality.

In matters of mathematics, one is the representation of the basic unit; for the Nordics, Odin means ONE, where any number multiplied by one remains the same. Subsequently, many other cultures speak of the one true god, and problems began…

In physics concepts, there is the international system of measurements, where meter, kilogram, and time serve to simplify the studied models. Now let’s see how this unit serves social systems; the concept implies cooperation and harmony. In politics, it refers to integration and cohesion, where work is done towards common goals.

Now let us ask ourselves in what governmental system, in what social or religious system can we perceive this without looking at others as separate from our own interests, ideals, or conceptions of the world that we do not inhabit, that surrounds us and encompasses the human race?