What Is Your Philosophy?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Looks like I am the one that has to eat crow on this one. I have been on too many discusion boards with pagens and mistook your broader usage of the word meta-physical. So here I have been thinking that you missed something very obvious when it was actually my fault. I apologize for the error.

Therefore I mistook the entire point of that post as asking me to justify having a metaphysical structure for handling things that cannot be measured. Quite a different arguement, no wonder neither of us could make sense of the other.

Let me try to answer the original question and start over.

Basicly, if a concept is not amendable to reason I do not think anyone has the right to force the concept on another. Force is regretably a physical action and under certain situations like force must be applied. But the existence/non-existence of a deity is not, and therefore you are welcome to alter your actions if you wish to, but I recognize no right of your to impose your belief or non-belief of a deity on my actions. If you want to bury your dead because it causes sickness to leave them in the open that is just fine I may help you, but if you want to throw them in the well because bubba the deforester says so in the book of jive, I am going to object and maybe shoot you if it is my well.

Does this analogy give you any insight on my guidelines, or have we missed a common communication again?

[Geoff332]

I'm still not sure exactly what you mean by metaphysics (yes, I can define it, but I wasn't the one who raised it). My first guess was that you mean anything that does not lie within the physical realm. But this would include logic (or, more tellingly, logical systems). I suspect that is not what you intended, but I see no other interpretation for what you wrote.

The problem with you example is, however, pretty easy. If, as you say, one person choses to act on the basis of a metaphysical belief and impose those actions on others, then this can be a cause for problems. But, as I stated, the notion that only measureable factors are considered knowledge is a metaphysical statement. Then acting on this belief, and imposing it on others, is logically identical to any action/imposition on the basis of any other system of belief (because one cannot compare metaphysical systems). Either it's essentially wrong, or it's essentially OK (dependant on the content of the specific actions, which is a whole different debate).

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Yes, it would be a whole other debate, and with my current load probably one I would not want to debate right now. If we could decide on a way to break off a chunk...

PS: Argh, the pun was unitentional, I do feel like a resistor some days, but "current load" was not intentional. (lol)

[Johnson]

Conflicting existentialist / christian.

[Down]

I would consider myself to be a relativist.

I do believe that there are absolutes, but i do not believe that they can ever be completely proven. There will always be something that defies humanities best explination. Science tells us that no matter how close we get to something being absolutely for sure, there is always going to be a slight (no matter how slight) chance that it could be wrong in some situation. Simply put, I don't think anything can be proved 100%, so I can never put 100% of my confidence into anything, I always try to question.

Also, I do not think that any belief or philosphical approach is more (or less) legitimate than another. If one person chooses to hold one belief, I am not going to say that my belief system is better or worse than theirs. I have no way to prove the legitimacy of either one, so it is useless to try and argue.

More specifically, I believe that everything is relative to the individual. What is true for one person is not necessarily going to be true for another (this is also a reason why I don't believe anything can be completely proven) What is suitable for one person may or may not be for another, but neither of the two are going to be better.

For my view on things, there isn't necessarily a definate better or worse between individuals, better and worse only apply to a single person and their own preferences. Now, most people may share the same preferences, but there will always be the chance that somebody may be the exception to the rule.

Basically, the old saying "One man's trash is another man's treasure" holds a deeper meaning for me.

[ColWTH]

David Hume, Adam Smith and the great thinkers of the Scottish enlightenment finished philosophy. There was nothing more to say after they were done.

[Anarchist Patriot]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@08-29-2003 11:58 PM I consider myself a rational philosophist, meaning that if I am incapable of measuring it, I do not attempt to manipulate it. For instance, I place a high value on human life. This is not because I think some deity demands it, but because if I do not place a high value on your life you are unlikely to place one on mine. If I place a low value on the lives of people I interact with someone may learn my value too well and sell my life to the highest bidder, and that would not be good for me. In other words, I respect your right to life totally out of self interest, and do not pretend it is for any other reason. Stealing is easily resolved with the same equation. I prefer not to initiate violence, note, I am not a pacifist. If I have to choose between my life and yours I hope you have made arrangements. I may sacrifice myself for a loved one, but not unless it will actually succeed. Throwing my life away with theirs is both a waste and eliminates the possibility of revenge. I suppose that brings me to revenge. Revenge is to be sought only when the target is either capable of learning from the action, or if it would make the world a better place to have them removed from the playing field. I do not recognize owing anybody for being alive. I respect my parents for raising me with compassion and respect, but not for giving me life. They neither asked me if I wanted to be born, nor had any control over it being me personally that was born. I do not have any duty to them for raising me, it is what was expected of them, but that does not mean I do not recognize their intent or degree of success. I am not Mr Spock, I make as many decisions each day with emotion as anybody else. But I do not allow my emotions to make me do things that go against my self interest, or use wishful thinking to guide my plans. Or at least I do not allow it to happen intentionally, I do make errors. (lol) No matter how much I trust someone I will have a backup plan, I just might not tell them about it. (lol) I guess you are familular with my debate style. I do not consider testimonials as valid arguements, because absolutes do not exist. The best laid plans can fail, and the worst ones suceed. Pointing at the exceptions proves nothing. I prefer to debate in logos, I am well versed in the other forms but not as skilled. I also lack the interest in them.

I describe myself as being an Anarchist with a strong belief in preserving individual liberties. I am a moralist and a christian but I believe that ones morality is a matter of individual choice and cannot be mandated by government. If you place a two ton rock with the 10 commandments in front of a courthouse it will not make people obey the commandments. If you force kids to pray in school it will not make them better behaved.

I do believe that society should provide for the needs of the most needy in society. Employment should be given to all who are able and willing to work. There should be free education to all. All people should have the right and freedom to choose the work of their choice.

Prisons should serve the dual purpose of reforming offenders and protecting society from potentially dangerous individuals until they are no longer a threat. Prisons should be safe places where all inmates can be incarcerated for the length of their sentences. Inmates should be observed and monitored. Inmates need to learn the rules of good citizenship. Inmate violence must not be tolerated. Video cameras can do a lot of good in this respect. Rape, beatings and other inmate crime must be eliminated.

Torture, the death penalty and other abuses have no place in a free society.

Health care must be made available to all citizens. Housing should be available to all. The most basic needs must be provided.

Completely wasteful public expenditures such as money for the war machine, prosecution of victimless crimes such as drug offenses, gambling or prostitution should be eliminated.

In my ideal state, there will be freedom of speech, of the press, of religion and a basic respect for human rights.

This is what I believe!

[Section 8]

I'm going to have to go with a Marxist philosophy. Man is a blank state at birth with only gut reactions, mainly survival. His sorroundings shape him.

[castille]

Don't know if this is a real philisophy, but I am a pragmatist.

I believe in Deng Xiao Ping's philosophy, "Whether black cat or white cat, if it catches the mice, it is a good cat". Although I disagree with his moderate views on risk; all risk will eventually lead to reward.

Freedom is my favourite gift, yet I understand that freedom must be compromised at times.

I enjoy living luxuriously, but I do not, because I put my extra money back into investment and my business.

I believe all action is selfish.

Charity is done for ego boost, guilt, or obligation. Mother Theresa prayed to get into heaven before she died; I believe she would have been granted her wish (oddly, she never asked on her deathbed for other people to enter heaven).


Prisons need to reform prisoners while ensuring punishment is severe enough to prevent crime.


I am completely against state charity. If ONE person, living in poor conditions, can pull themselves out of the gutter, than ANYONE can do it. It is simply about willpower.

However I recognise the world is primarily comprised of weak willed people, and thus cannot be changed (because we measure our strengths in comparison).


I am not a complete Darwinist, however I believe that poor circumstances (ie. growing up in a poor country, abusive family, etc) should strengthen a person.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I am completely against state charity. If ONE person, living in poor conditions, can pull themselves out of the gutter, than ANYONE can do it. It is simply about willpower.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Not true. If everyone in the world was not in poverty then all the rich people would have to be a hell of a lot less rich.

There is a total sum value to everything in the world, and that does not change (while we still use a monetary system to represent goods that is). So if one person gets rich, or just beyond an equal measure of wealth, everyone else is losing out. So while there is a rich, and a wealthy middle class, then there WILL be a poor. This is inherent to capitalism.

Not only this, but the rich in capitalism need there to be a large, poverty stricken class. If there wasn't, they would have to increase the wages they offer to appeal to people. But while there are so many poor people, they can charge absolute minimum, because if someone dies of malnutrition because they cannot afford good food, the employer just gets another poverty stricken worker to replace them.

[Impenitent]

I have been called a Humean existentialist... and I think it fits me fine...

[uitmokum]

I'm a cannabis sacrament minister. I don't have a specific doctrine or believe system personally either then the use of cannabis for spiritual reasons. It enhances my spiritual awareness.

[indierockboy]

i tend to keep out of the philosophy/religion forum simply because i have done very little to explore the topics. i have found myself satisfied to just believe in life, and not gauge it's value. if there is a higher power or a divine path upon which life was crafted to follow, i feel it's far beyond my mortal comprehension, and therefore simply try to remain out of the way. the only thing i hold is that i am not qualified to guage the complexities of life, and as such i feel it is my responsibility as one of ignorance to do as little damage as possible. as such, i am pacifist, vegan, and i use only mass transportation. i don't feel this elevates me above anyone else, however.

[cheesemage]

My only philosphies are to learn, and through learning gain beliefs, and fight for those beliefs, and be tolerant of others and their beliefs. I recognize that my beliefs might change, so to put them down would be irrelavant.

[Sodfather]

I myself am a fan of Epicurus. I have yet to find an acceptable meaning for my life and human life in general, so until then I will do things that please me within reasonable moral boundaries.

Although, unlike myself, strongly anti-religion, a man named James A. Haught wrote an interesting article for Free Inquiry Magazine called Meaning and Nothingness. It seems as if after his lifetime of searching for the meaning of life, he still has not come up with an acceptable philosophy - not even within the great works of ancient Greek philosophers. He does subtly suggest Epicurian philosophy as acceptable at the end...

[nature of reality]

G. Adams.


THE ECONOMY IS NOT BASE SUM!!!!


Look at all the material wealth we have today.


Why do we have more then we did 400 years ago? or 4,000 years ago? If wealth is static, we should be just as wretched.


But what you refuse to acknowledge is the effect of technology. You still see the economy as a bunch of men clobbering each other with clubs, as that is the only existance you could suceed at.

Mutual trade-to Mutual Advantage increases the wealth for everyone. Not that it matters, even if it made us all poorer it would be the only non-violent and moral way to live.

When the government can legally act as a pickpocket, repression is soon on the heels. In the world of crime, a murderer beats the pickpocket, and then the qualifiy strata for goods is not how much you can offer to trade, but how brutal you can be.

Stalin, the nearest thing to communism some people can manage to still live under.

[G. Adams]

Okay, your not getting it either. This is to do with with currency representing goods and resources. If you own 60% of the money in the world, as 5% of humanity does, then the remaining 40% is among the other 95% of the world. If everyone in the world became rich, say rich meant 1 million, then everyone would be average in fact, not rich. If a minority becomes rich, then everyone else must pick of the slack for them.

[nature of reality]

So you mean, even though they enjoy an incredible standard of living due to the capitalist system, because other people have more, they will still be miserable?


And the solution to this is to take away the wealth of the 5%, so the rest of us feel richer?


Thats true, also, if you shoot all the geniuses, we will all be smarter too. In comparision, that is. Which is what your concerned with.

[Scribbler1]

This is a good question. After thinking about it a while, I don't think I HAVE a philosophy, or at least not one deeply ingrained in me. If I have any deeply held beliefs at all, it would be that most deeply held beliefs don't easily coexist with reality.

Not that I'm any fan of reality either.

[PeterAngelo]

I believe that every atom of our bodies have existed since the big bang. Matter is neither created nor destroyed - just transferred from one form to another. The food we eat is transformed into energy we use to generate electricity and run our chemical machine.

I believe in the string theory of matter.

I think our essential being is a translucent - shimmering - vibrating - string.

Just like music.

When our parents mate, the energy of the two strings combine to create us and on and on.

We are always connected by those strings to everything, forever. There are always “strings attached”.

Our fall through the abyss of space is really like a dream we share with "others” who are in our sphere.

That is why our surroundings are the only world that really counts. "Strings” on the other side of the globe interact - but we need to look over our shoulders.

We are a physical manifestation of an energy that we control until the body is killed or the energy runs down - but not out.

The human race has only existed for a brief time in the big picture.

We only have centuries of recorded history - and even less time of serious technological advancement.

We are so far from understanding anything it is essentially a waste of time.

I was deeply affected at the age of ten watching, "Bonanza". I was intrigued with the idea of children from multiple mothers.

They are all different because of the gene mix - but all share traits that are unmistakable. It is the modern version of King Solomon.

I see a man as a seed planter and women as the forest.

Each "tree" will produce fruit that will ripen into soldiers and carpenters, artists, etc.

I have six adult children (four grand-children) from three mothers.

Like the Kennedy's, Bush',. Rockefellers, Saudi Royal family, and the British Royal family, I believe each family is indeed a kingdom

Each family can - by design - build a power base that will make their existence thrive.

That is all I believe, and that is all I have done.

We have five lawyers in the family as well as other vital professions. In today's society it is essential to be part of the government if the government is a police state.

Pragmatism, discipline, and no illusions about human behavior will insure an existence with as much pleasure as possible.

We have one directive.

Procreate.

I take my work seriously and have enjoyed it in the most biblical ways.

I have also understood the need for financing a family properly and educating them.

I have also done well there.

Education is the key, and a legal education is essential for survival. Even if one does not practice, the education is necessary to function in a system that is not legitimate - as ours is not.

No government ever has been, or ever will be, a friend to the subjects they control. Control is done with force, terror, fear, deliberate confusion and duplicity. Without it the subjects storm the Bastille.

We live in a high-tech jungle and we need to be combat ready until we are dead.

I watched a film on the Yanomama Indians of Venezuela in a Cultural Anthropology class at USF. There was a seventy-five year old Indian who effortlessly climbed up a two hundred foot palm tree, spear a two hundred pound monkey, and drag it back to the village for his wives and children.

That is how humans were meant to live. Healthy and vital until we fall from the tree.

I am sixty and I can still climb. I dance two hours a day on the beach to stay in shape. I call it primal conditioning.

We live until we die and then our "afterlife" is in the genes we pass on, and the nutrients we provide the worms and bacteria.

I do not believe we carry memory.

I did not tell my children before I was born that I would bring them down as soon as I got their mothers drunk enough to get lucky.

I do not expect to see grandma after.

So far - so good.