weird philosophical theories

What are some of the weird philosophical theories?

Unconsciously, people understand philosophical systems and external realities that they are not even aware of. Here is a collection of some of the most bizarre philosophical ideas that are true but that you probably had no idea existed.

Eternal Recurrence

It was Nietzsche who bewildered philosophers with this idea: Everything that emerges already has. And not just once, but endlessly. That at first looks absurd. But let’s not forget that we are now in the 21st century and have been experiencing constant change, evolution, and extinction for millions of years. And we haven’t even scratched the surface of understanding the origin or end of time. According to a philosophical idea known as the everlasting recurrence, the cosmos has been and will continue to repeat itself endlessly throughout all of space and time.

The concept, according to Nietzsche, has the potential to be “horrifying and paralyzing,” and its weight is the “heaviest weight” that can be imagined. Lifting the groceries when I go shopping with my mother comes in second, in my opinion.

Causal Determinism

Everything you do is simply something you are doing because so many other things, people, and events have led you to where you are. Every action is influenced by factors outside of your control. When you “decide” to do anything, you can only really do it because of the circumstances that brought you to where you are and the status of the world. Consider the fact that, despite what you may believe, all of your “choice” consists of is selecting items from a box that has already been provided to you. Freedom of choice is a myth.

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 tend to withdraw behind the things that we proclaim to be absolute truths and pay less attention to the idea that there are no absolute truths in anything. Even worse, we may feel frightened by the mere thought that there are no absolute truths in anything and choose to disregard the matter. This is analogous to burying one’s head in the sand and waiting out the storm, despite the fact that one is just as likely to be held accountable for the consequences anyway. My take is that Nietzsche’s interpretation is, to a certain degree, superfluous. My own favorite is taken from Peter Zapffe’s article titled “The Last Messiah,” which presents the idea of existentialism in a more upbeat manner.


The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus was the originator of the philosophical discipline known as epicureanism. It represented the objective of living a happy and fulfilled life in the here and now, rejecting both superstitious dread of the gods and conceptions of hereafter as unnecessary distractions from that purpose. When you’re alive, you’re alive. There’s no use dwelling on the fact that you’re going to die, right? In a similar vein, after you’ve passed away, there is nothing left for you to contemplate since, well, you’ve passed away!

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 was a religious man who believed in the gods. Dreams in which people had conversations with gods and the general consensus of mankind both provided evidence that gods do really exist. On the other hand, he believed that they were composed of atoms like everything else, that they were eternal because their bodies did not break down, and that they lived in a contented society that had no interaction with people. Therefore, there is no space for providence, prayer, or fear of the gods in this world. Epicurus believed that religion was a cause of dread, and that rejecting religion was necessary in order to achieve mental tranquility. One may say that he had “a theology without a faith” throughout his lifetime.

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 word “Hume’s Guillotine” is meant to indicate the severance of “is” statements from “ought” statements, which similarly illustrates the outcome of removing the head from a variety of ethical arguments. Both of these concepts are supposed to be illustrated by the term “Hume’s Guillotine.”

Read more about it: Hume’s Guillotine

This is a collection of fascinating philosophical concepts that I have compiled for myself. These thoughts have kept me up more nights than the times I’ve thought about tearing my trousers in front of my crush and letting her get a peek at my tidy whities while I was trying to forget those embarrassing moments.

Leave a Comment

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