weird philosophical theories

What are some of the weird philosophical theories?

We humans unconsciously comprehend philosophies we do not even know exist, and beliefs we are not sure are real outside of ourselves. Here is a compilation of some of the weirdest philosophies that actually exist, that you probably never knew were real

Eternal Recurrence

It was Nietzsche who bewildered philosophers with this idea: Anything that appears has already happened. And not just once, but infinite times. At first, that seems ludicrous. But let us note ourselves, that as of now, we are into the 21st century and millions of years into the existence of continuous change and evolution and extinction. And, we are nowhere near to beginning to understand the beginning or end of time. The eternal recurrence is a philosophical theory that says that the universe has been recurring, and will proceed to repeat an infinite number of times across infinite time and space.

Nietzsche envisions the idea as potentially “horrifying and paralyzing”, and states that its burden is the “heaviest weight” imaginable. I’d say lifting the groceries when I go out shopping with my mom comes a close second.

Causal Determinism

Everything you do, you’re only doing because so many things and people and events have come before you, to lead you to where you are. Every action is dominated by things that are not in your control. When you “decide” to do something, you can only do it because the state of the world is such that it led you and where you are. Think about it– you may think you have a choice, but all that “choice” is just choosing things put inside a box already handed out to you. Free will is an illusion.

So, no, the flavor of ice cream you chose wasn’t chosen by you. And yes, the same goes for the toppings, in case you were wondering.


We normally give less attention to the possibility that there are no absolute truths in anything, or worse yet, we get threatened by the very notion of it and ignore the issue, we tend to retreat behind the things which affirm to be absolute truths. This is like sticking your head in the sand until the storm passes, and you’re just as likely to face the repercussions anyway. Nietzsche’s version, in my opinion, is redundant to some extent. My personal favorite is from Peter Zapffe’s essay ‘The Last Messiah’ which incorporates the concept of existentialism in a more buoyant way.


Epicureanism is an ancient Greek philosophical practice developed by Epicurus. It illustrated the goal of a happy and content life in the here and now, rejecting both superstitious fears of the gods and ideas of an afterlife. When you’re alive, you’re alive. There’s no point thinking about your death, right? Similarly, when you’re dead, there is nothing to think about, because well, you’re dead!

This guy had it right down to a science.

Epicurus developed a materialistic view of the universe: the whole of nature consists of matter and space. All matter is distinct down to the level of atoms. They are eternal; neither created nor destroyed. They cannot be perceived or felt with the senses but they do have size, shape, weight, and motion. The atoms work according to natural law. Like this, it depicts that there is no creation and no purpose in nature, though it’s not logical.

Epicurus also refused the belief in an afterlife. The soul is also formed of atoms, though of a subtler sort than the body. Body and soul must be joined to give life; when the body dies, the soul also dissolves. Hence, there is no need to fear either death or future punishment.

Epicurus did believe in the gods. The thoughts of gods in dreams and the universal conclusion of humanity proved their existence. But he considered them as made of atoms like everything else (immortal because their bodies do not dissolve) and living in a happy, detached society out of contact with humans. Thus there is no room for providence, prayer, or terror of the gods. Epicurus regarded religion as a source of fear; dismissing religion made peace of mind possible. He could be expressed to have had “a theology without a religion.”

Hume’s Guillotine

Hume’s Guillotine, also recognized as the is-ought problem or Hume’s law is a criticism of writings by ethicists who perform normative claims (about what ought to be) based on positive premises (about what is). The problem was explained by David Hume in his most important philosophical work, A Treatise of Human Nature (Book III, §I).

Hume argued that one can’t make a normative claim based on facts about the world, implying that normative claims can not be the conclusions of reason.

The term “Hume’s Guillotine” is intended to illustrate the severance of “is” statements from “ought” statements, which similarly, depicts the resulting removal of the head from various ethical arguments.

Read more about it: Hume’s Guillotine

This is my list of philosophical ideas that I find intriguing. These ideas have kept me up more nights than the times I’ve recalled ripping my pants in front of my crush and giving her a glimpse of my tidy-whities.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *