Your philosophy on life.

[alliop]

LoreWren

AbrAbraxas

LoreWren

Almost everything is subjective to a persons experiences. So if you believe in free will, you have it. If you don't believe in it, it doesn't exist for you, because you will make all your choices based on what someone else tell you to do, or what you think they want you to do. I exist, because I believe I exist. I can make just as big a point for the opposite POV, but I don't believe that way. It doesn't matter if there's free will or if we exist, because whatever we believe is right for us.

i am not disputing your perspective in fact i like to agree with it to a degree, but i wonder, what would happen if you believe that you do not exist?
which reminds me of a joke:
Descartes walks into a bar, the bartender asks him if he would like a drink, he responds "I think not." and poof he disappears.
rofl

lol. I guess if you didn't believe you were real, you'd either be really depressed or really happy.

You wouldn't be happy or sad because you don't exist and things that don't exist don't have emotions.  

[AbrAbraxas]

alliop

LoreWren

AbrAbraxas

LoreWren

Almost everything is subjective to a persons experiences. So if you believe in free will, you have it. If you don't believe in it, it doesn't exist for you, because you will make all your choices based on what someone else tell you to do, or what you think they want you to do. I exist, because I believe I exist. I can make just as big a point for the opposite POV, but I don't believe that way. It doesn't matter if there's free will or if we exist, because whatever we believe is right for us.

i am not disputing your perspective in fact i like to agree with it to a degree, but i wonder, what would happen if you believe that you do not exist?
which reminds me of a joke:
Descartes walks into a bar, the bartender asks him if he would like a drink, he responds "I think not." and poof he disappears.
rofl

lol. I guess if you didn't believe you were real, you'd either be really depressed or really happy.

You wouldn't be happy or sad because you don't exist and things that don't exist don't have emotions.

that is true, but we arent talking about existing or not here, it is about what you believe, which also implies existance because as non-existence means no emotions it also means no beliefs, which are emotion based complexes.  

[Eva_Fan-Patt]

love live learn but with a twist

you live again. and dos o with some intent what that is though i got no idea, after all that is what i'm hear to find out ain't it. btw why the -curse word cencored, please be civil- am i here XD  

[LoreWren]

AbrAbraxas

alliop

LoreWren

AbrAbraxas

LoreWren

Almost everything is subjective to a persons experiences. So if you believe in free will, you have it. If you don't believe in it, it doesn't exist for you, because you will make all your choices based on what someone else tell you to do, or what you think they want you to do. I exist, because I believe I exist. I can make just as big a point for the opposite POV, but I don't believe that way. It doesn't matter if there's free will or if we exist, because whatever we believe is right for us.

i am not disputing your perspective in fact i like to agree with it to a degree, but i wonder, what would happen if you believe that you do not exist?
which reminds me of a joke:
Descartes walks into a bar, the bartender asks him if he would like a drink, he responds "I think not." and poof he disappears.
rofl

lol. I guess if you didn't believe you were real, you'd either be really depressed or really happy.

You wouldn't be happy or sad because you don't exist and things that don't exist don't have emotions.

that is true, but we arent talking about existing or not here, it is about what you believe, which also implies existance because as non-existence means no emotions it also means no beliefs, which are emotion based complexes.

However, if you don't believe you exist, or that only conciousness exists, than it doesn't matter if you do exist, you won't think you do. You'd still have emotions, you just wouldn't believe your physical being existed. What's scary is when someone believes they're the only ones that exist.  

[ominous_13]

Well, I am currently reading Ann Rand's Atlas Shrugged this moment and it really opened my eyes. (I strongly suggest this book! I don't believe that it was shown on the recommened book list.. wink ) But anyway, in the book, the belief of objectivism is chronicallyl told and as of now, I can truely say that I believe in it. According to wikipedia, "Objectivism holds that there is mind-independent reality; that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings gain objective knowledge from perception by measurement and form valid concepts by measurement omission; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest"; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and respond to with the whole of one's consciousness"  

[Lawliet Yushira]

I believe living is an important thing, but clinging to life isn't a good thing. Many people don't truly exist, until they realize somethings. Love is more important than life, but the way society is, it focuses our thoughts on work and other ideas that distract us from love. When you realize that, you exist. You shouldn't wish you were a different age. When you are younger, you're less wise. When you're older you're wiser, but you want to experiance each year of your life because you may learn valuable lessons in each. Life gives us choices and it's our decision on which choice to make. Thank you Mitch Albom's Tuesdays with Morrie.  

[Smab]

I view life like a card game, you can't change what you were dealt and sure cards change hands but it all depends on what you were dealt.

As for the meaning/purpose of life, I believe that every life has it's own purpose and meaning. So really the meaning of life would be to find your life's meaning and purpose. Because we all live very different lives and so the meaning that is found in each of our lives is different from the other, unless the meaning of life is some bland all encompassing thing but that wouldn't be a very good meaning. Because it would belittle our individualistic nature morphing us into a herd of sheep acting as a mass with no reason to stray off and think for ourselves, which we can clearly do.  

[x3 SuGarr CoOkiie]

I believe that the individual has free will as long as he/she aknowledges it. I believe that we do indeed exist. I believe that everyone makes some sort of impact in one way or another, wheater it may be positive or negative. Those little (or big) impacts made are what bring meaning and purpose to life.  

[Deaths Krow]

There's no purpose to life unless you give yourself purpose, as long as you live only for yourself not doing anything that matters then you have no purpose. But if you're doing anything that matters is up to you.  

[Light-of-Essence]

It's not always necisary to know the meaning or purpose of everything and I admit I've tried it many times (I'm not a hypocrite). Rejoice, make connections, love, eat, drink, laugh, sing, dance; all the little things that bring you joy are the things that make life worth so much. The meaning and purpose is not so important once one learns to appreiciate what is.


When I heard the learn'd astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and
measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much
applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.

-- Walt Whitman  

[mrs_chester_bennington]

I believe we should assume we have free will. I find it hard to believe that this is all predetermined. I have a lot of respect for logic (although I don't know it as well as I'd like), but I find it too idealistic to reject the idea of probability. A lot of people who know logic, strongly reject that probability has any credibility. This leads them to reject theories such as the butterfly effect. I can see how it's hard to believe in those things but then in reality I believe more in karma, even if it's not 100%, it's definitely something worth living by.

On deeper levels, I find it impossible to conclude what exists. My beliefs are that it is impossible to know anything (Skepticism) and I also don't necessarily agree with the notion of "I think, therefore I am." This stems from my lack of faith in empirical knowledge - how often do our senses deceive us? I find it hard to believe that senses and experience tell us anything worth trusting to be true. From the premise of "I think," the only thing I believe we can truly conclude from that, is that something exists. Just because the perception of thought occurs, that doesn't have to mean that the thought came from a person. It could have come from anything. Who even says it has to come from anywhere? It could have just occured out of nothing. Whatever the 'something' that exists is, it can't be defined or found because knowledge is unattainable.

As for what we should do with life, I think society these days focuses too much on corporate life and materialistic values. Which is only innevitable when most western countries are capitalist. We are born into a world where businesses and thus individuals must be motivated by self-interest or fail. Maybe it's because I've always been fairly well-off and yet always depressed, but it seems to me that all the poor people I've met are the strongest. Maybe it's like what other people in this thread have said: "Wisdom through suffering." I think more people should reject materialism. Stuff having a huge career - that's 40 years of your life spent in an office. Everyone strives to do the same thing, and then retire and die. I wish I had the courage to throw my whole education in and settle down with some people who make me happy. Just live in a broken down shack with a 'family' of my closest friends and do a lot of drinking and reading and cooking.
I like what my dad always says, "Live fast; you might die young."

I'm not religious (largely because I find it hard to believe anything truly when and except that knowledge is unattainable). But again on more realistic levels, I believe, as a general rule of thumb, that something is wrong if it hurts someone.
I believe that our souls are left behind after death in the things we created and the memories loved ones have of us.
And you can't have the good without the bad, and within this idea, you can find that there is beauty in darkness too.  

[Niniva]

mrs_chester_bennington

I believe we should assume we have free will. I find it hard to believe that this is all predetermined. I have a lot of respect for logic (although I don't know it as well as I'd like), but I find it too idealistic to reject the idea of probability. A lot of people who know logic, strongly reject that probability has any credibility. This leads them to reject theories such as the butterfly effect. I can see how it's hard to believe in those things but then in reality I believe more in karma, even if it's not 100%, it's definitely something worth living by.

This is untrue. All philosophers who are logicians agree that probability is the closest you can get to knowledge in an absolute sense. I've never heard the two compared since probability is a mathmatical term and logicians are not mathmaticians though they are similar and often the same people share both professions.

Quote:

On deeper levels, I find it impossible to conclude what exists. My beliefs are that it is impossible to know anything (Skepticism) and I also don't necessarily agree with the notion of "I think, therefore I am." This stems from my lack of faith in empirical knowledge - how often do our senses deceive us? I find it hard to believe that senses and experience tell us anything worth trusting to be true. From the premise of "I think," the only thing I believe we can truly conclude from that, is that something exists. Just because the perception of thought occurs, that doesn't have to mean that the thought came from a person. It could have come from anything. Who even says it has to come from anywhere? It could have just occured out of nothing. Whatever the 'something' that exists is, it can't be defined or found because knowledge is unattainable.

If this is true, then why call it "I". Things do not reffer to other things as themselves, thats illogical. It's an extremely weak arguement that the statement "I think therefore I am" is off base. The arguement (and I've heard it before) is that the two I's are not reffering to the same subject. in other words "I think" is not reffering to the same distinguishable thing as "I am". But if that is the case then lets back up a bit. Does it honestly make any logical or probable sense that when you attempt to doubt that YOU are the one driving your OWN thoughts....you still reffer to yourself as "I"? I hardly think so.

Quote:

As for what we should do with life, I think society these days focuses too much on corporate life and materialistic values. Which is only innevitable when most western countries are capitalist. We are born into a world where businesses and thus individuals must be motivated by self-interest or fail. Maybe it's because I've always been fairly well-off and yet always depressed, but it seems to me that all the poor people I've met are the strongest. Maybe it's like what other people in this thread have said: "Wisdom through suffering." I think more people should reject materialism. Stuff having a huge career - that's 40 years of your life spent in an office. Everyone strives to do the same thing, and then retire and die. I wish I had the courage to throw my whole education in and settle down with some people who make me happy. Just live in a broken down shack with a 'family' of my closest friends and do a lot of drinking and reading and cooking.
I like what my dad always says, "Live fast; you might die young."

I always liked the philosophy of "You do the things you have to do when you have to do them so you can do the things you want to do when you want to do them." Seems to apply to what you are saying here.

Quote:

I'm not religious (largely because I find it hard to believe anything truly when and except that knowledge is unattainable). But again on more realistic levels, I believe, as a general rule of thumb, that something is wrong if it hurts someone.
I believe that our souls are left behind after death in the things we created and the memories loved ones have of us.
And you can't have the good without the bad, and within this idea, you can find that there is beauty in darkness too.

The problem I find here is that you assuming that "religion" requires belief when in fact it doesn't. I'm no preecher and I certainly do not advocate any one religion over another unless asked to do so but to deny them all because you can't "believe" in anything truely is a mistake. Because religions all ask for something else....they ask for faith, not belief. I wrote a paper on that last semester.

Belief: Accepting something as true that has not yet been proven

Faith: Accepting something as true that could not possibly ever be proven.

The difference being if you believe in something you think someday you can prove yourself right. If you have faith in something, you accept that you'll never prove it right and decide that you're ok with that.

Now....on to your trouble here. The circular arguement. It is illogical to assume that you could never know anything......because how do you know you can't know? -shrugs- so the statement is either false...or it's true, and thus is false. Conclusion? Kowledge is possible, discovering what we can know is something else entirely.

(PS: I know I'm picking on you a little bit and I'm sorry about that. It's nothing personal I just enjoy discussions and pointing out flaws in people's world views is a good way to start one.)  

[Arson Hiroha]

Before I give my philosophy on life, I have to say one of the voting options made me chuckle. "We have free will, but we don't exist." How can we have anything if we don't exist? rofl

Anyway, my philosophies tend to fall into two categories: Reality and Morality. To me, Reality is what is, and Morality is how we think things should be.

On the Reality side, I tend to focus heavily on Descartes, and some of my own personal philosophy constructed by combatting George Berkely's theories.

With justice, I am formerly a Libertarian- Socialist, but have completely changed my political views after pursueing philosophy. Now I have realised that my arguements were not sound, even though I never ran across anyone able to defeat me in defending it. The only one able to do that was a philosophy professor, who I owe a lot of my ideals.

Currently I'm exploring a lot of Plato and Aristotle, particularly their views on government and an afterlife. I maintain Plato's regime ladder, as well as Aristotle's belief that the better regimes have the worst counterpart (Aristocracy - Tyranny, Oligarchy - Money hungry dictatorship, Democracy - Tyranny by Majority). Although I take these principles into accout, I advocate having several different regime types in one government for different jobs. E.G., the "Philosopher King" For foreign policy, Democracy/Oligarchy for domestic concerns, etc.

I've read Plato's Republic in its entirety, but I'm just starting out with Aristotle. Afterwards, I will likely move up through the ages in governmental philosophy. While I'm in this guild I will likely create a thread about government philosophy to see what the other arguements are.


Also, I am a firm believer in Plato/Socrates' idea of justice:

Truth --- Falsehood
Wisdom --- Foolishness
Moderation --- Gluttony
Beauty ---- Distaste

Keep in mind, beauty simply refers to what is beautiful to you. What this beauty is, and who thinks it is beautiful is irrelevant. to pursue the left is to pursue a better life, to pursue the right is to pursue your demise.  

[whynaut]

As I may have mentioned before, I consider myself a postmodernist. This is to say that by continually pushing back the boundaries of life through philosophy, I feel secure in saying that there are no boundaries. No morals, no rules, no truth, and no control. Philosophy in this area can only lead to deconstructing the mechanisms for why this is. In this sense I envy those philosophers who believe they can use philosophy in a practical way to change things.

Anyway...

My two biggest influences are Baudrillard (whom I know I don't shut up about lol ) and Foucault. Though the two philosophers themselves vehemently opposed one another, I can see a "truth" in what they both say. From Foucault I gained my ideas about institutions and the panopticon. From Baudrillard I understand the relationships of the subject, object, and sign (which is only deceptively simple).

The basic idea of the two philosophers, maybe even for postmodernism itself, is if The Rules can change, if Right/Wrong can change, if the general concept of Reality can change over time, then none of these things can intrinsically exist.  

[Niniva]

whynaut

As I may have mentioned before, I consider myself a postmodernist. This is to say that by continually pushing back the boundaries of life through philosophy, I feel secure in saying that there are no boundaries. No morals, no rules, no truth, and no control. Philosophy in this area can only lead to deconstructing the mechanisms for why this is. In this sense I envy those philosophers who believe they can use philosophy in a practical way to change things.

Anyway...

My two biggest influences are Baudrillard (whom I know I don't shut up about lol ) and Foucault. Though the two philosophers themselves vehemently opposed one another, I can see a "truth" in what they both say. From Foucault I gained my ideas about institutions and the panopticon. From Baudrillard I understand the relationships of the subject, object, and sign (which is only deceptively simple).

The basic idea of the two philosophers, maybe even for postmodernism itself, is if The Rules can change, if Right/Wrong can change, if the general concept of Reality can change over time, then none of these things can intrinsically exist.

I see that you do follow the postmoderist trend of begining your thoughts with a conclusion.

"if The Rules can change, if Right/Wrong can change, if the general concept of Reality can change over time, then none of these things can intrinsically exist"

This may be true but it can ONLY be true if ALL of those things are true. That is to say, if there is a common "right/wrong" or "rule" or "concept of reality" that is temporally consistent (that is to say is unaffected by a 'change' in the general order of man) then the whole theory comes crashing down.

The problem is...you don't know this and you could never possibly know it. The "rules" for metaphysical reality cannot be wholely known as you cannot know if what has happened in the past could have possibly turned out differently or if the way it happened was truely the way it would always happen.

That is not to say that the opposers of your point of view can prove their side either, I am not taking their side but I am presenting you with the unsolvable problem.

You are starting your theory with a huge and everlasting IF....and then staunchly defending it. The problem is in order for you to be able to deffend it wholely you'd have to be able to claim that you 'know' there are no rules, 'know' right/wrong can change, 'know' the general concept of reality IN A METAPHYSICAL SENSE (because subjectivity has quite literally nothing to do with the actuallity of reality) can actually change.

From an outside point of a view and as a person who doesn't take sides in a debate such as this then I have to say that more often then not the people who take the postmodern side begin by saying that everything is relative.....but provide very little explanation as to how they 'know' this to be true.

In other words, it is quite obvious that a persons 'perception' of reality is certainly subjective and therefore relative, but does that make reality itself subjective? No, not at all. Metaphysically reality is as it always has been, expected to follow certain laws that have always and will always (most probably) exist how they are now. If this is indeed true, and it appears that it is, then metaphysically you are wrong...rules can't change, right/wrong can't change and people's 'concept' of reality is totally and completely irrelevant to the arguement as what you concieve reality to be has quite literally no bearing at all on how it actually 'IS'.

It is an interesting standpoint but again you are begining by stating a giant IF...that I honestly don't see much foundation underneath. Every arguement supplied by one side can just as easily be applied to the other side and if you are indeed right then justice is a myth and morality is a bust and doesn't truely exist and therefore your actions are never your own fault so no matter what heinous crime you commit you will never be accountable for it.

Must be nice....but unfortunately that point of view is weak at best when it comes to the metaphysical way of things. I'm not saying it's impossibly wrong, but I am saying it doesn't appear to be able to answer a lot of difficult questions. That doesn't mean that the opposing viewpoint is right either though.