What's my philosophy?

[Pyropyro]

Can you help me identify what schools of thought my evolving life philosophy is closest to? I'm pretty sure someone else (probably an old Greek dude) have thought these stuff before.

So far I think its closest to the Green color in the Magic the Gathering color wheel but of course that isn't philosophy.

anyways here are some of my claims (I'm not going for debate, for now anyways)


* It is not fair to hurt/kill both young ones and young ideas/movements. Wait until they have grown before testing their mettle.

* It is best to struggle with things/issues/people greater than you. If you live then you have become stronger. If you die, then you have at least shown others what not to do.

* The younger generation carries both our genes and our memes. We strive to help them and a part of ourselves survive.

* Everyone is entitled to their beliefs as each of us has a limited view of the Truth. However, each belief must be tested by both reality and reason.

* If your beliefs, no matter how reasonable, does not provide growth to yourself AND those around you then I deem it as weak and not worthy of following. Why would I follow something that hampers my goals?

* Everyone is entitled to adapt bits and pieces from different beliefs to strengthen their own views about the Truth. Beliefs are not unyielding granite monoliths but rather living bodies that adapt to the times.

* If you have weakened due to disease and old age then it is alright to fade away from the world. Let the seeds that you have planted continue your life goals.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I haven't extensively studied philosophy, so my esoteric knowledge of the schools of philosophy etc is very limited in scope, however I've tried to draw out some principles from your ideas.

I was trying to do that^, but then I got high gave up.

slightly modernist?

per usual, i can't reduce fer shit

 

[Pyropyro]

I haven't extensively studied philosophy, so my esoteric knowledge of the schools of philosophy etc is very limited in scope, however I've tried to draw out some principles from your ideas.

I was trying to do that^, but then I got high gave up.

slightly modernist?

per usual, i can't reduce fer shit

Between post modernist and modernist then?

 

[TimeAsylums]

Between post modernist and modernist then?

I'm sure someone who is more familiar with Phil will be able to pinpoint you, but if you could, it'd be much more simpler if you would state your general principles from which your beliefs derive or ramble on about the big philosophical issues of life and tell us your thoughts on them and what you agree with

e.g.,

• Free will? // [Human Nature??]
  
• State/government
  
• Individual vs state
  
• equality? (artificial/natural)
  
• public/private in relation to the state/individual
  
• empirical reality v perception?
  
• mind/body, tabula rasa?
  
• meaning of life [meh boring]

e.g, e.g,

• I believe we are all un/equal under god, because we just are, xxx, etc
• I believe human beings are naturally [Positive empathetic caring], [neutral, indifferent], [Negative cold blood sucking] etc
• I believe we can/not never know what is [real] [define real], because perceptions, but empirical, etc
• I believe the meaning of life is...xxx
• Marx is right/wrong bc... (I just like this one)
• The individual has rights when...The state has right/power when...

 

[Base groove]

This is very narrow in its scope.

Do you have any more beliefs that touch the core, ones that aren't necessarily related to personal values and morals?

God damn Te always trying to make formulas and algorithms. Ignore me.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Do you have any ... beliefs ... that aren't necessarily related to personal values and morals?

LOL.

I understand what you mean, but you probably just confused a shit load of people.

This is why I was asking for the "general principles from which his beliefs derived."

 

[Base groove]

LOL.

I understand what you mean, but you probably just confused a shit load of people.

Confused them or convinced them that I am confused?

This is why I was asking for the "general principles from which his beliefs derived."

Yes this is better wording.

 

[Pyropyro]

Ah, I'm not a really black and white person. I see things and people as shades of grey (not of the fifty kind), it helps me accept others much easier. But I guess I do have some leanings.

* Human Beings: Humans work out of self-interest but its not necessarily bad. It is advantageous for people to help others and I find these collaborations as good.
* Government/State: I prefer Capitalism and Democracy not because they're good but because they're conducive to greed and opportunities.
* State/Individuals: States are merely constructs, they should be replaced if they are no longer suited for the survival of the individuals that make them up
* empirical/perception: I think life's more about an individual's perception and not just cold hard logic and facts.
* mind/body (tabularasa): We come to this world with a set of instincts but society molds us afterwards.
* Meaning of Life: 42 But seriously, I think its partly to preserve life and partly to search about this meaning (If we somehow managed to completely understand the Truth then life is no longer necessary).

 

[shakazulu]

adapted utilitarianism

most of your beliefs seem to work off of the predicate of "maximize yourself"

BUT as others have pointed out, many of these things are far too concrete to be considered a philosophy. This is half "life wisdom" and half philosophy.

 

[Pyropyro]

adapted utilitarianism

most of your beliefs seem to work off of the predicate of "maximize yourself"

BUT as others have pointed out, many of these things are far too concrete to be considered a philosophy. This is half "life wisdom" and half philosophy.

Thanks. I'll read more about that.

Yeah, I'm not that trained in philosophical studies.

 

[Absurdity]

Can you help me identify what schools of thought my evolving life philosophy is closest to? I'm pretty sure someone else (probably an old Greek dude) have thought these stuff before.

Pop liberalism. Contradictions and all.

* Everyone is entitled to their beliefs as each of us has a limited view of the Truth. However, each belief must be tested by both reality and reason.

* If your beliefs, no matter how reasonable, does not provide growth to yourself AND those around you then I deem it as weak and not worthy of following. Why would I follow something that hampers my goals?

The first one contradicts itself and is further contradicted by the maxim that follows as well as this one:

* empirical/perception: I think life's more about an individual's perception and not just cold hard logic and facts.

You're seemingly trying to be "tolerant" while not permitting irrationality, and yet these maxims manage to be both irrational and intolerant.

What grounds your ethics? All of these seem to presuppose some conception of right and wrong without specifying the underlying principles that govern them.

* It is not fair to hurt/kill both young ones and young ideas/movements. Wait until they have grown before testing their mettle.

I think this is the single most dangerous idea on your list. Example: my young idea is that everyone's house should be burnt down with all their belongings so that they are forced to live in teepees, which are more *~sustainable~*. You can't stop me unless you've given this plan a "fair" shot.

 

[TimeAsylums]

...I knew we'd get a TJ here eventually

What grounds your ethics? All of these seem to presuppose some conception of right and wrong without specifying the underlying principles that govern them.

^

 

[tRand]

There are some aspects of utilitarianism in your thinking, but this is only an ethical system and isn't capable of encapsulating all of your beliefs.

Your beliefs are very close to those of William James, perhaps the most influential American philosopher of the 20th century. James was a professor of psychology and philosophy at Harvard toward the beginning of the 20th century. He wrote many insightful works on religion, psychology, and philosophy. His writing style is very clear and engaging, so his work is not only insightful, but also enjoyable to read.

He expounded on the theory of pragmatism, which was adapted from an earlier writer named Charles Sanders Peirce. It boils down to the idea that people are motivated to acquire "beliefs" about the world that help them to lead productive and satisfying lives. The most important consideration in evaluating different beliefs, is to determine which one leads to a better psychological existence for people, not which one is "true" on some metaphysical level of analysis.

You might want to look into:
"The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy"
"Talks to Teachers on Psychology and to Students on Some of Life’s Ideals"
"The Varieties of Religious Experience "
"Pragmatism"

 

[Pyropyro]

Pop liberalism. Contradictions and all.

As I said, I'm not that into philosophy and I believe that other members have found it difficult to read. I do appreciate their help though, guess I'm just not good in expressing myself philosophically.

The first one contradicts itself and is further contradicted by the maxim that follows as well as this one:

Ah, I think I need to be clearer on this one. Being reasonable in this case is more about me than logic itself. I can be persuaded by someone with a sharper mind or a silver tongue. As such, I'll look into their lives first to see if their ideas are worth following or simply BS. This also partly why I can't go back to Atheism, the Internet ruined it for me.

solid example: A guy who tells me what is the best way to score in one thread and then whines about girls not falling for a "nice guy" like him in another.

You're seemingly trying to be "tolerant" while not permitting irrationality, and yet these maxims manage to be both irrational and intolerant.

Kind of weird to live a paradoxical life actually. If I can go back again, I would really prefer the more simple dualistic approach in all things.

What grounds your ethics? All of these seem to presuppose some conception of right and wrong without specifying the underlying principles that govern them.

If I knew, would I be asking?

Anyways, this little crisis of faith was due to one of my theology courses. The kind Pastor-professor walked our class in worshiping God (pre-Modern), killing Him (Modern) and then putting Him back again (post-Modern). I was tasked to report on how to kill God, not exactly the best topic to discuss in front of religious leaders.

I did gain some respect on my Feeler companions, they seem slightly offended by the whole course but their belief systems remain intact. I on the other hand is still picking up the pieces. There's the moral yet mythical Christianity on one hand and then there's the amoral yet logical Positivism on the other. Facing this conundrum, my prof. casually said that everyone has a different perspective of the Truth. Great, now I have to pick the pieces from other people too.

So basically, since you guys is as alien as possible compared to my beliefs and culture (don't get me wrong here; I don't think of you as bad, just different and mostly weird.) I think you guys are my best bet in picking some of His pieces.

Sigh. I only wanted to chase lady Fe in Feeler territory but she just left more questions than answers.

I think this is the single most dangerous idea on your list. Example: my young idea is that everyone's house should be burnt down with all their belongings so that they are forced to live in teepees, which are more *~sustainable~*. You can't stop me unless you've given this plan a "fair" shot.

Tell me, would your young idea even reach reality or would your mind kill it in the first place? You can discuss it with anyone who wants to listen though. However, once you set it in motion in the world, it's no longer just an idea. It's something we can react with. You now have to fight for it if you want it to succeed.

I remember discussing with someone here about the concept of headhunting and about the freedom of expressing one's culture. I believe that they have the right to express that part of their culture but we also have the right to defend ourselves.

 

[Pyropyro]

There are some aspects of utilitarianism in your thinking, but this is only an ethical system and isn't capable of encapsulating all of your beliefs.

Your beliefs are very close to those of William James, perhaps the most influential American philosopher of the 20th century. James was a professor of psychology and philosophy at Harvard toward the beginning of the 20th century. He wrote many insightful works on religion, psychology, and philosophy. His writing style is very clear and engaging, so his work is not only insightful, but also enjoyable to read.

He expounded on the theory of pragmatism, which was adapted from an earlier writer named Charles Sanders Peirce. It boils down to the idea that people are motivated to acquire "beliefs" about the world that help them to lead productive and satisfying lives. The most important consideration in evaluating different beliefs, is to determine which one leads to a better psychological existence for people, not which one is "true" on some metaphysical level of analysis.

You might want to look into:
"The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy"
"Talks to Teachers on Psychology and to Students on Some of Life’s Ideals"
"The Varieties of Religious Experience "
"Pragmatism"

Thanks. I've never been able to read a book of this genre since Plato's Republic. I'll take a look at his philosophy.

 

[Absurdity]

As I said, I'm not that into philosophy and I believe that other members have found it difficult to read. I do appreciate their help though, guess I'm just not good in expressing myself philosophically.

Okay. I'm not trying to be mean. It's just I see a lot of people who claim to have a unique philosophy that somehow perfectly resembles the omnipresent thought of modern liberalism, and it irks me. I'm not saying you do this intentionally, since you admit that you have just began studying this subject.

Ah, I think I need to be clearer on this one. Being reasonable in this case is more about me than logic itself. I can be persuaded by someone with a sharper mind or a silver tongue. As such, I'll look into their lives first to see if their ideas are worth following or simply BS. This also partly why I can't go back to Atheism, the Internet ruined it for me.

solid example: A guy who tells me what is the best way to score in one thread and then whines about girls not falling for a "nice guy" like him in another.

Someone's inability to follow their own advice has no actual bearing on the truth of their advice.

If I knew, would I be asking?

It's the question you should be asking.

Tell me, would your young idea even reach reality or would your mind kill it in the first place?

It's a hypothetical. It is meant to be taken on its own grounds.

You can discuss it with anyone who wants to listen though. However, once you set it in motion in the world, it's no longer just an idea. It's something we can react with. You now have to fight for it if you want it to succeed.

Your initial maxim said ideas should be given a chance to grow, which is more than a little vague, and stands in contrast to the idea that ideas must be fought for (i.e. they must compete with one another).

 

[Pyropyro]

Okay. I'm not trying to be mean. It's just I see a lot of people who claim to have a unique philosophy that somehow perfectly resembles the omnipresent thought of modern liberalism, and it irks me. I'm not saying you do this intentionally, since you admit that you have just began studying this subject.

Ah no worries. I believe each of us have unique life philosophies. However, claiming said unique philosophy is the best thing since slice bread... well will have a problem with that.

I did enjoy this thread though. There's some questions raised here that I cannot answer now which is slightly upsetting but at least they can guide me for a little while. I really have a lot of readings to do though, the William James guy might have something close to what I'm getting at.

 

[tRand]

I think some of the above criticisms of your philosophy have merit, but I wouldn't take much of it to heart. We all approach the study of philosophy at different points in our lives -- if we ever approach it all -- and are then forced to recognize how paradoxical many of our commonly held beliefs actually are. It is representative of the vast complexity of human existence, especially in contemporary societies. The point of philosophy is to reflect on these paradoxes and attempt to reconcile them, which appears to be what your doing.

Besides, you acknowledge that your philosophy is evolving, in the first post, and that your trying to reconcile it with past philosophies -- i.e. the purpose of studying philosophy. To criticize someone's world view, without offering guidance on how to improve it, is not the purpose of philosophical discourse. Don't be discouraged by the amount of reading you have to do; the journey is partially what makes the study of philosophy worthwhile.

For James, I would start with the "Will to Believe," which is a reasonably short essay he wrote, before developing his more comprehensive philosophy in "Pragmatism." These are his two most explicit and comprehensive philosophical works. The other two are more related more to his psychological and religious motivations. In particular, you might want to read "Varieties of Religious Experience," which is ranked number 2 on the Modern Library's 100 best works of nonfiction. It might help you reconcile some of your religious beliefs.

Make sure to let me know what you think about these works, and if you want to know any additional works you might find interesting.

 

[Pyropyro]

I think some of the above criticisms of your philosophy have merit, but I wouldn't take much of it to heart. We all approach the study of philosophy at different points in our lives -- if we ever approach it all -- and are then forced to recognize how paradoxical many of our commonly held beliefs actually are. It is representative of the vast complexity of human existence, especially in contemporary societies. The point of philosophy is to reflect on these paradoxes and attempt to reconcile them, which appears to be what your doing.

Besides, you acknowledge that your philosophy is evolving, in the first post, and that your trying to reconcile it with past philosophies -- i.e. the purpose of studying philosophy. To criticize someone's world view, without offering guidance on how to improve it, is not the purpose of philosophical discourse. Don't be discouraged by the amount of reading you have to do; the journey is partially what makes the study of philosophy worthwhile.

For James, I would start with the "Will to Believe," which is a reasonably short essay he wrote, before developing his more comprehensive philosophy in "Pragmatism." These are his two most explicit and comprehensive philosophical works. The other two are more related more to his psychological and religious motivations. In particular, you might want to read "Varieties of Religious Experience," which is ranked number 2 on the Modern Library's 100 best works of nonfiction. It might help you reconcile some of your religious beliefs.

Make sure to let me know what you think about these works, and if you want to know any additional works you might find interesting.

Before I read the next few documents, may I ask if I was able to get what Will to Believe's gist first.

Basically it's okay to believe something even if you don't have complete evidence. Also, one would only truly believe in something if they actually practice said belief.

Am I right?

 

[TimeAsylums]

What grounds your ethics?

If I knew, would I be asking?

It's the question you should be asking.

fuckin' lost it

>kid asks professor what kid's philosophy is
>>prof enslaves kid

 

[Spocksleftball]

Some of it sounds alot like...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

perspectivism

 

[tRand]

Before I read the next few documents, may I ask if I was able to get what Will to Believe's gist first.

Basically it's okay to believe something even if you don't have complete evidence. Also, one would only truly believe in something if they actually practice said belief.

Am I right?

Complete evidence is an illusory ideal that can rarely be achieved in any given circumstance, so it is not a practical basis for belief.

A hypothesis is anything presented to the mind as a possible belief. It can be either a live or a dead hypothesis, depending its ability to cause one to act. So, yes, a live belief is a hypothesis upon which a person would be willing to act.