What Is Your Philosophy?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

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.

[Jay]

I haven't thought that much about my personal philosophy as in phrasing out certain sentences and ideals I truly believe in. (That behaviour is probably also a part of my philosphy...) But I believe that I dwell on this planet to find personal freedom. I don't know why exactly, but that term has always been floating in subcounsciousness. This personal freedom is not based on material ideals or anything community/society related. I mostly hope to find it in educating myself, in art, in gaining more knowledge, in physically exhausting myself till I collapse... you could say I'm an egoistic self-elitist who does believe that every single of his actions is right and benefits to this personal freedom.

Oh and on a sidenote, I attempted to get into historical philosophy (started off with the very beginnings: Platon, Sokrates, Aristoteles...) as I found myself pondering about the mysteries of life but it bored me to death and since I then I have a complete aversion against people who make a science out of philosophy or out of creativity or anything else that has to do with the human ability to create and explain. I hate mindmaps, I hate those people who write books about how to learn correctly, I hate those books that tell you how to live, I hate people who obviously keep referring to someone they choose to be their god (e.g. scientists or philosophers) I hate when we dissect 1984 or poetry to its debris at school...

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Jay
You may want to read, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. It is a good read written from the egoist point of view. She has a bad habit of repeating herself, and should have added an addition female character to make the elements clearer, but other than these two problems it is one of the best philosophical books I have ever read. Assuming you are up to judging it yourself, rather than accepting the mass of non-egoists that whine about it ever being printed. (lol)

[Fallen Angel]

My basic keystones I live by is to treat other people the same way they treat you.
Don't let anyone walk over you, and don't walk over anyone else.
Respect people that deserve respect, not just because they are people.
Always laugh whenever you can, but not at someone elses expense.
Don't feel sorry for yourself, even if you are lying paralysed, blind deaf and no arms or legs.
Always look after people that are feeble.
Look after the enviroment, and don't eat any junkfood.

[G. Adams]

*shudders* Ayn Rand. That would be a cold place to live. Mutual indifference. Gah I can't believe anyone could really believe that. Even the Nazis cared about each other.

I'd say I'm a humanitarian. I'm also somewhere between utilitarian and situation ethics (ist). Except on animal rights, in which case I'm as deontological as it gets.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Adams
Did you read it yourself, or are you taking someones word for it? What exactly is cold about it? How do you explain how passionate of life the charactors are if it is cold? The character in the book risked their lives several times for both people and ideals they cared about. Are you letting someone else do your thinking for you again? You have a good mind, allow it to make it's own decisions!!!

You opinion strongly suggests that you have no idea what the work is about, except by secondhand. Yes, it is controversial, but hardly cold.

[UpInMahGrill]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 1 2003, 12:21 AM Adams Did you read it yourself, or are you taking someones word for it? What exactly is cold about it? How do you explain how passionate of life the charactors are if it is cold? The character in the book risked their lives several times for both people and ideals they cared about. Are you letting someone else do your thinking for you again? You have a good mind, allow it to make it's own decisions!!! You opinion strongly suggests that you have no idea what the work is about, except by secondhand. Yes, it is controversial, but hardly cold.

I haven't read the whole book only about 150 pages because I'm not an avid reader but I can assure that who ever says its cold that it isn't. Theres so much to this book its amazing. Its not selfless at all either. Its just a great book with alot to teach in it.

[G. Adams]

Although 1st hand experience is always preferable, I thought I'd make sweeping generalisations of capitalisms finest book as the bourgouis do so with mine. I don't know if you could tell, but I thought the tone of my reply, and its shortness, already suggested I wasn't being entirely serious. Get back to me in a few months and I will have though, I'm starting a degree in Politics and International Relations.

[dalin]

Objectivism is a bit cold in my opinion. I havent read Rand's books, but I've read a lot of the essays coming out of the Ayn Rand Institute. Read this article about "volunteerism". One thing I never got over is the idea of selfishness being a key part of the philosophy.

As for my personal philosophy, open mindedness to consider everything. That pretty much somes it up. I consider all ideas, think them through for myself, and decide to accept or reject them, simple as that. I take a similar approach socially as well (at least I try to, though I admit I'm not always successful at it). To me intellect is one of the most important things in life.

[G. Adams]

Ahh, but intellect is nothing if not combined with romanticism. Give me innocence over experience any day.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

dalin
No, selfishness is not a key part of the philosophy. The main point is that the ability to support yourself is more important than charity. It does reject the notion of altruism, but you either understand that or do not. But th key point is, if you cannot support yourself you have no business squandering your resources on charity and then whining because you have nothing left over.

[Geoff332]

meaning that if I am incapable of measuring it, I do not attempt to manipulate it

I'm curious -- how do you measure that particular belief?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Geoff
What makes you think that is a limitation, I am a rational philosophist, I do not attempt to apply the meta-physical to physical constructs... My beliefs are my beliefs, they need not interact with the physical world.

[Geoff332]

, I do not attempt to apply the meta-physical to physical constructs...

That is a metaphysical statement, the notion that measurement defines the physical world (and the decision to exclusion of unmeasurable factors from the physical wqrld) is a metaphysical position. But if it's not considered relevant, then on what basis can you expect anyone else to accept it?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Geoff
Why should I give a damn if anyone accepts my beliefs? I do, and that is the only person that needs to. If you mean something else, be a bit more clear.

BTW: I would like to know why out of your 5 posts so far, 4 of them are attacking me, and the other one is your intro, where you imply that people attack you. Do you have points that stand on their own, or are you more suited to being a sniper and critic? I really am curious...

[Geoff332]

I tend to avoid labels. If you must use them I would be placed somewhere between a critical theorist and an analytical philosopher. The most basic position is this:

Empirically, we have to deal with subjective experience (that is tautological: all experience is subjective). Rationally, we hold ideas that are tested empircally. But because these empirical tests are inherently and unavoidably subjective, we have to no clearly objective test of them (it is, in fact, a logical impossibility -- something established as far back as Socrates, and clarified quite beautifully by Kant and Kierkegaard; most modern philosophy accepts the idea (worth a read is Searle's "Mind, Language and Society"; people like Hegel and Husserl have run with them more recently; another stream of thought gave us existentialism).

The consequence is that all knowledge is founded in metaphysics. This is something that Popper realised with his reformulation of logical positivism -- a far more robust objectivist/rationalist philosophical system than Rand (by robust I mean complete and conherent). He was largely forced into this reformulation by the critiques of Ayer and the rest of the Vienna Circle. One cannot avoid metaphysical questions because the avoidance is in itself a metaphysical statement -- the denial of metaphysics is logically inconsistent (Ayer's basic position was that "all meaningful statements can be verified", unfortunately, he wasn't able to verify that statement, which makes it meaningless by his own definition). The more contemporary view on logical positivism is founded on falsifiability -- which means that a (logical) statement is provisionally true and remains provisionally true, unless evidence falsifying it is found. A statement cannot move beyond provisionally true (although there are degrees of provision: some statements are treated as more likely than others). Moreover, Popper applied this approach exclusively to science, not to ethics and metaphysics.

As a consequence, any system of beliefs combined to form a philosophy must be consistent with its own metaphysical basis, it must be internally consistent, and it must be complete.

Before you accuse me of all sorts of things, I need to make it clear: I have made no statements about the nature of 'external reality' beyond the statement that our empirical experience of it is necessarily subjective. Specificaly, I have not denied objectivity: merely our ability to access it. I give precedence to neither rationalism nor empiricism, which is a dinstinctly Kantian outlook, although I am not really Kantian. Curiously, I have a lot in common with Ayer and Popper -- who were two of the best analytical philosophers of the 20th Century, yet I reject their basic theses.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

So basiclly you simply say that nothing is provable, so whomever has the most chrisma is right? A fancy way to say you reject the evidence delivered by your own senses.

[Geoff332]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 2 2003, 09:06 PM So basiclly you simply say that nothing is provable, so whomever has the most chrisma is right? A fancy way to say you reject the evidence delivered by your own senses.

Actually, that's not what I said -- but the reference to charisma (at least, I assume you meant charisma) is interesting, given the nature of the rationalist 'movement'.

Now, what I have said very clearly is that objectivism (of which Ayn Rand's writing is a subset) is founded on a self-refuting premise -- and that makes it demonstrably false. Now, I'm sure that you already knew that, from reading virtually any basic introduction to modern philosophy. I have not seen you actually refute that point in any way -- other than to question where I am coming from. Given that it was a logically derived point, even in a rationalist world-view, the idea can be analysed and critiqued. If you want to do that, I would like to see the analysis and critique.

So lets change direction. You have referred to metaphysics a bunhc of times. Can you please tell me what metaphysics is.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

My dropping a letter was just a figment of your imagination, since it is not a letter discussed by some dead philosopher, it has no real meaning. Should have known you were a spelling nazi as well. A man should be suited for his task in life.

But as far as refuting points, you have yet to outscore me even if my score is zero.

But to answer your question: Metaphysics is your annoying habit of name-dropping, rather than stand on your own assertions you are making a study of the study of man. Rather than actually debate the evidence brought before your very senses you would rather cite what some dead seer said about the subject... That way if you fail you can blame someone else, I have to assume.

[Geoff332]

So, Ayn Rand (being dead) is no longer relevant to this debate. I'm glad we've got that sorted out. Excellent.

Let's re-track this debate. You said you were a rational philosophist, defined to mean that, "if I am incapable of measuring it, I do not attempt to manipulate it". I asked you to measure that statement. You replied that this was a metaphysical statement and did not apply to physical constructs. I asserted that this position was, in itself, a metaphysical statement. Rather than attempting to address this point, you said this was irrelevant and asked for my own position, which I duly gave. You then interpreted my position to mean that "nothing is provable," which I accepted in a bounded sense -- although it is a fairly gross and inaccurate simplification. In an attempt to get back on the topic, I went back to where we lost it: my assertion that you had made a metaphysical claim that denied metaphysics (which I highlighted as an example of an historical fallacy from philosophy). I asked for a definition of metaphysics, for which I got:

Metaphysics is your annoying habit of name-dropping, rather than stand on your own assertions you are making a study of the study of man.

So, you offer no substantive definition of metaphysics -- other than being an aspect of my behaviour. Since other people have written about metaphysics well before I was even conceived, this doesn't strike me as a very good definition. Since you were the one who raised the concept of metaphysics, I am assuming you can define it more clearly than that. Otherwise, I am at a loss to know how you know that my statement was metaphysical.

The question is, then, are you going to offer a real definition of metaphysics? If so, what is it? If not, how do you know that the statement I made was metaphysical?