You sound like a well-read person! Upvoted cos it was interesting and Followed cos we seem to share similar interests.

I only joined steemit a week ago, so I'm a noob, but from the looks of it you might want to check out my posts relating to my book The Meaning of Life.

They all reject René Descartes's notion “I think, therefore I am.” Existence comes prior to the thinking mind. The existence of an object precedes its essence.

I kinda disagree, in that I think both views can be accommodated. It's not like Descartes thought he came into existence immediately upon realizing he was thinking. He merely considered his thinking to be incontrovertible proof of his existing.

I love the “I think, therefore I tell stories.” amendment, the idea that as soon as we start thinking we become storytellers.

Creativity is in the hidden connections between seemingly unconnected ideas.

Another nice one!

Once upon a time, a king invited a group of blind men to the palace to touch his elephant. One man touched its leg and said that the elephant is like a pillar. Another touched its trunk and said that the elephant is like a hose. Yet another man disagreed with both of them; he touched its body and said that the elephant is like a wall. They fought each other, believing that there exists only one valid interpretation.

I used this example trope in my book mentioned above (that's based on diary entries) to argue against subjectivism. Here's the entry:

--- Imagine a circular room, like a very small Colosseum, with a centre that can be accessed through many doors all around its periphery. In the centre of this room there stands a statue, say that of the Capitoline Wolf. The statue is stationary: it does not revolve or move. Depending on which door you open, you will see a different part of the Capitoline Wolf: some will see its head, some its side, the less fortunate ones will be confronted with its rear. What you see depends on which door you open. Yet all see the same thing, the same object, the same statue: just different aspects of it. So it is with the world and values. We all perceive the same objects, actions, events—but we assign a different value to them. Sometimes our valuations more or less coincide, due to our shared nature as human beings. Other times, there is a significant discrepancy between our valuations. (The death of a parent is acknowledged by all as an objective fact, but for the parent’s children this event will obviously have a much more profound and sad significance than for the generally indifferent public.)

[...]

How does having access to different parts of a statue support subjectivism? “Each of us can only see part of the statue, therefore the statue does not exist.” How absurd. ---

So I think those kinds of metaphors can be used to explain how we can live in an objective shared world, and at the same time have different experiences of it and sometimes even disagree heatedly about it. Another example I give elsewhere is of a chair, that we might view as a seat, at most as firewood or as an improvised weapon, but we'll scarcely see it as food, as a termite for instance might.

Anywayz, enjoyed it, keep philosophizing!