What's your philosophical view point?

The nearest thing I have to a philosophy in practice is to try and be nice, in the full knowledge that half the people I deal with won't be nice back and that I won't succeed half the time either. It's not very profound, but you can think about these things for years and end up with nothing better. Most philosophers are better on arguments about the nature of knowledge and the meaning of language than how you should live your life.

"Well, it's a lifestyle"

You sound like a stoic. I remember Marcus Aurelius saying something similar.

edited 10th Apr '11 1:35:11 PM by izumoshep

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

Well, he was certainly a nice guy. So there's that, I suppose.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

I maintain a similar view. I tend to prefer to be nice and amiable to everyone I meet, unless they give me reason to be an ass.

Especially to service industry/retail people. I always say "have a nice day/night" after a transaction.

I'll just copy this over from the "first principals" thread, after making some changes:

1. Try to find the best solution, being as careful as possible. Completely relying on ethical theories like utilitarianism to make decisions for you is stupid and weak, as there are many valuable things to be protected, maximized, minimized, and even things other than what we would maximize/minimize. The ends do not justify the means, nor do the means justify the ends.
2. Whenever possible, follow laws and rules. The law helps people on the large scale, and moral rules are often motivating in a positive way. - {"Laws" referring to Deontology, "moral rules" referring to virtue ethics.}
3. Always take care and reexamine all possibilities and perspectives. Extremism is always, always dangerous. Nine times out of ten moderation is preferable. - {somewhat related to (but not entirely the same as) Pragmatism.}
4. You cannot always change the world, but you can always change yourself. Imagine two people, equally happy. However, one of them is a hero who has saved many people, at great personal cost, while the other has done nothing. Both are equally happy, but the former has done more. Be the former person, and you will be both happy and moral. - {Stoicism?}

Guiding rules and principals which aid the above:

• Ideal observer theory. *
  ^{(To help remove biases.)}
• Analytic philosophy. *
  ^{(Useful for getting a grasp on what is known.)}
  • Logical positivism. *
    ^{(Knowledge is best obtained through experience, and rationality should be applied to this.)}
    • Constructivist epistemology. *
      ^{(While some may state that this is contradictory with positivism, I believe that one should consider that their knowledge is in fact put together, and thus carefully kept in check.)}
• Coherentism. *
  ^{(Contradictions are cause for great concern, and should never be ignored.)}
  • Correspondence theory of truth. *
    ^{(Ideas should not contradict reality, thus coherent ideas should be compared to the simple truth in real life.)}
• Contextualism. *
  ^{(Context should never be forgotten, as it often can invalidate held ideas.)}
• Naive realism. *
  ^{(I mention this not in the sense that it should be held as the entire truth, but because one should never lose sight of things by over-complicating problems.)}

Finally, all of the above ideas are subject to Holism, which I would analogize to the blind men and the elephant - that is to say, ideas are almost certainly incomplete, though many hold some wisdom.

A little complicated, but oh well.

edited 10th Apr '11 2:26:40 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

Philosophical anarcho-individualism. Throw some Nietzsche to the mix, and add some anarcho-syndicalism for good measure.

edited 10th Apr '11 4:03:19 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

There is no objective meaning to existence and no objective morality as far as I know. Good and evil are subjective concepts human beings have devised. I do not deny the possible existence of these things, but if there somehow is an objective point and objective morality humans will likely never discover it. Certainly not in my lifetime anyway. You'd have to prove it to me as well and how on Earth would you manage that?

Even though things lack any point this does not necessarily mean that one should go off themselves. You can of course, but you can also make your own purpose, your own morals, and so on. Sure in the grand scheme of things you mean as much as an ant, but if you want to be something more to yourself and those around you then so be it. Just do what feels right I guess.

My own morality and way of going about life is based on Buddhism. I am Buddhist after all. I hold by the Four Noble Truths obviously (There is suffering. There is a cause. The causes are desire, attachment, and ignorance. There is a way to reduce or even completely nullify suffering. The way is the Noble Eightfold Path). The Pancasila (don't hurt and kill, don't lie, don't steal, don't commit sexual misconduct...whatever that means, and don't drink booze and take other drugs that fuck with your brain like booze) I adhere to in my own limited sort of way. I'm not terribly strict about some of these...Certainly not the alcohol one...I'm not aiming for Enlightenment and I am not sure if Samsara and Rebirth are real things. So I'm just a layman looking to be the best damn happiest loving kindness giving motherfucker in the world. Because it feels right to me.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Those who impose on others freedom, should be prepared to watch their own backs.

Don't blindly respect and value authority figures (including parents) just because of who they are. Judge them with your own eyes, objectively, and decide for yourself if they're worth your respect.

"I grew up that way" is not a valid reason for having a viewpoint. You must decide for yourself if the viewpoint you've been growing up to believe fit's you or not.

Never use your past to gain other's respect, or to force respect from others. (i.e bringing up something sad about your past.)

edited 10th Apr '11 8:05:41 PM by Rynnec

"I'll show you fear, there is no hell, only darkness." My twitter

My philosophy? "People have plenty of their own shit to put up with. Try giving them a nice thing to remember (compliment, gift, service) instead of just piling on more of the same." In the end, I try my best to stick to it. But it can get rather difficult.

tout est sacré pour un sacreur (Avatar by Rappu!)

I try to avoid hard and fast rules, since it's way too easy to come up with reasons why each rule would, in some improbable situation, create an outcome that would generally be viewed as unacceptable. The closest I get to consistency is when I say that people should be allowed to freely speak their views. (Even then, I tend to flip-flop, because I'm surrounded by people who only give lip service to free speech. Some guy gets fired for racist remarks, everyone else starts talking about how he had it coming, and I spend half an hour agreeing with them before remembering that I really ought to be on his side.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

There is an objective, "real" universe, but it is impossible to experience it objectively because our senses (and possibly logic) are flawed. The best we can do is rely on what we have, adjusting our perception and understanding when possible, trying to get as close to "reality" as possible. Other people are extremely useful for this (because they provide additional perspectives).

The laws of physics exist objectively. That is not to say that there is some level of reality in which they exist; they don't exist as "things", but instead, the universe is the result of these laws (or a function of them). We can discover these laws through logic, assisted by empirical research. Causality is fundamental, both to the universe and to our understanding of it. I don't believe the laws of physics change very often if at all (though our understanding of them does - but it doesn't mean that the universe has changed, merely that we were wrong), but we have no knowledge of conditions in Singularities such as anything beyond an Event Horizon and the start of the universe, if it was a Singularity. That said, there are elements of randomness in the universe. The laws of physics are set, but they're not specific. Instead, on sub-atomic levels, instead of defining the location, vector and other attributes of individual particles, they (the laws pf physics) merely set limits to them, inside of which the particles can exist or not exist in all of the forms available under these limits. I guess you could say I support the String Theory.

Each individual is basically a function of their own brain, monitoring the emotions, senses and thoughts therein. In other words, an individual is basically equal to a particular point of view (that of a sentience caused by the functions of the brain of a sufficiently advanced creature). I do not believe in the existence of a soul; some would argue that the "point of view" or "individual" in this scheme is the soul, but it seems to me more likely that the individual is merely the sum of the different types (or levels) of self-awareness of the brain. So the brain produces the individual by monitoring itself, and while it's practical to think that the individual (or the "point of view") is what controls the brain, in reality, the individual has no control because it is merely one of the brain's functions. The individual "soul" does not exist - it is not a "thing" - but instead, it is just a subjective point of view that perceives itself as an entity.

I'm a utilitarian (used to be an altruist but I got better). I think it's imperative that humans create societies and allow them to evolve. There should be conscious effort to find mechanisms (such as democracy) with which to improve these societies. I believe we've got a very good set of such mechanisms and rules created by them, and while there will always be room for improvement, as it is, we're doing pretty well. My personal views have brought me to the Left on pretty much all political issues. I'm a libertarian at heart, but I also support "big government" because I think liberty is only good if there are enough restrictions to provide an environment (referring to a democratic, Nordic Model-style society) in which it can exist happily and productively without infringing too much on the liberties of others. I think we're more free with laws and police, provided that the laws and police are just, than we'd be without them. I'm a Socialist but I believe that Socialism needs to evolve, so it can't assume it's always correct, but instead, it has to allow itself adjust to the times and admit its mistakes. Thus, I'm a modern European Socialist. (I put the word "European" in because the expression "modern European Left" is often used to distinguish this movement from old-style Socialism and the kind of Left that's strong in the US - the kind that is very conservative and financially right-wing compared to us)

As for religion, I don't consider it important for me personally. I think our science is mostly right, and the mistakes it makes are not big enough to replace it with a worse (worse for me, that is) alternative. I do not mean to say that religion and science are incompatible, but for me, there is no need to add religion into science. I don't need all the answers to be happy, but the more (logical, good ones) I have, the happier I am. I agree with Dawkins in that since there's no evidence of the existence of God, it's practical to assume that it doesn't exist. Thus, I'm a secular humanist. I also don't believe in ghosts or other supernatural entities.

I guess that's something, though I suppose it would've been slightly more useful to describe my views on a more fundamental level, explaining the logic by which I've arrived at these positions. But I think most people here are able to see my point of view even if they don't agree with it.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I'm a mereological nihilist. I don't believe in objects.

Existentialism, go! It's like nihilism except not depressing.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

This makes it sound like your ultimate standard is the general reason (of nations and of ages?).

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

^ Hard to say. After all, there've been a lot of times and places where what feels right to me would be considered unethical. (This, incidentally, is why I have such a hard time arguing against your logical and self-consistent worldview, even though I dislike certain implications of that worldview—I can't come up with anything better that fits together into a single system.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Hard determinism. Law above all else. To each there own. In that order.

Please.

Bitches be crazy, everyone has an angle, and don't define yourself by a finite list.

I've never heard of a single system that isn't possible to corrupt, on the extreme edges. Minimizing killing, or suffering, or harm, or maximizing happiness-these are all prone to misuse by someone who is not omni-informed (i.e. everyone).

Minimizing harm and maximizing happiness are great places to start, but the next view I throw on top of that is to always be suspicious of your own morality. Not to the point where it debilitates you, but trying to take a step back every so often and see if you're indeed living up to your own philosophy.

Did genocidal dictators or their followers ever step back and ask "Is this really the right thing?"

edited 11th Apr '11 4:32:03 PM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

Not out loud, they didn't.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Morality is for the weak. Obey.

Please.

Those aren't systems, they're maxims. What you need is a system that's more complicated than "follow this rule".

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

"Ernest Hemingway once wrote, 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for.' I agree with the second part."

More to do with Humans Are Morons and Humans Are Flawed, myself included on both parts, than Humans Are Bastards, though... well, see my latest thread on bad leaders.

edited 12th Apr '11 7:13:56 AM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

"If I think I'm right, I'm usually right." Unfortunately, I don't listen to myself as often as I should.

Existentialist with Objectivist and Post-modern aspects.

Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com