A New Philosophy For a New Age

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Below are three sections, for which I am going to lay out and discuss. For lack of a better naming technique, I have just decided to go with Primaries, Secondaries, and Tertiaries. Perhaps I will change these sections, perhaps not, it’s really more about content than nomenclature to me anyway. Each section has a subsection dedicated to three topics; Logic, Civics, and finally Morals. I feel society would do best to accept these rules of conduct and thought.

SUBJECTIVE NEUTRALITY - THE PHILOSOPHY

Primaries
Logic - Excluding the present statement, anything can be changed and discussed.
Civics - Our business is your business. Your business is your business.
Morals - We don’t know about, so we don’t care of, supreme transcendant forces.

Secondaries
Logic - Action causes thought causes word.
Civics - Do what you want. Don’t impede the same.
Morals - Do unto others as they would do unto themselves, with consent only.

Tertiaries
Logic - Nothing we know of exists outside of nature.
Civics - You may own what you create, except nature, itself.
Morals - Intelligence is part of nature.

Any thoughts? :wink:

2

Awesome post, if the world was indeed rules by this, many problems would be avoided…

just one question… what do you mean by ‘nothing we know of, exists outside nature’? :astonished: :stuck_out_tongue:

3

What exists outside of nature but a silly notion of God? If God exists, surely he is Immanent, no Transcendent.

4

Just because I like making niggling little comments, I’ll offer one on the first primary:

I would state it as:

Logic - Including the present statement, everything should be changed and discussed.

This does two things; one, it changes the original statement which was supposed to be one of the restrictions, and; two, it changes “can be changed” to “should be changed” in order to mandate that nothing is perfect and is always worth taking another look at. It invites progress.

Valid? Invalid? :smiley:

5

SUBJECTIVE NEUTRALITY - THE PHILOSOPHY

Primaries
Logic - Including the present statement, everything should be changed and/or discussed.
Civics - Our business is your business. Your business is your business.
Morals - We don’t know about, so we don’t care of, supreme transcendant forces.

Secondaries
Logic - Action causes thought causes word.
Civics - Do what you want. Don’t impede the same.
Morals - Do unto others as they would do unto themselves, with consent only.

Tertiaries
Logic - Nothing we know of exists outside of nature.
Civics - You may own what you create, except nature, itself.
Morals - Intelligence is part of nature.

6

Very good thread starter.

On the whole I think it’s too vague to be enforceable. But gives a good guideline to making something a little more tangible.

I’ll number it as (1,2,3) for Primary, Secondary, Tertiary. (a,b,c) for logic, civics, morals respectively.

1a . . .

Epistemic. The original statement is agnostic. The revised statement seems agnostically agnostic. Unsure of what your’e unsure of. Because you’re unsure of being unsure, the nature of inquiry (finding answers) may simply gravitate to change it so that you’re sure that you’re unsure, thus everything else you wrote is unenforceable. It seems as if the rest was pointless to say after all.

SUBJECTIVE: I prefer to think that I live by some sort of code, and that the only way I will no longer believe this code is if I’m killed. All my gratitude to my killer if I turn out to be wrong. But maybe that’s why people die naturally anyway. The same with society. It has some identity, something it does consistently rather than remain a generic, chaotic element of the universe. But because it has an identity, it is subject to war because its identity may not be preferred.

OBJECTIVE: Whomever you are, you should be sure of something. Even if you’re sure that you’re not completely sure about everything else. Why exist, unless you stand for something.

SUMMARY: Prefer the original.

1b, 1c, 2b,3b,3c : Good.

2a: " . . . (repeat)" so that word causes action. A cyclic trinity. Philosophy seems to have many. Or maybe better: Action causes thought causes word causes law causes action. “Law” to show that thought (your business) can be shared into disctussion (our business), and eventually to law (your business), and action is simply the catalyst.

2c . . . I agree mostly, but it’s vague because some would say that committing crime or cruelty is their consent to receive unwanted enforcement. Still, they’re not begging for their punishment. Does that mean they shouldn’t have it?

3a: Mayber rather: “All is relative to nature”? This clarifies that nature not only encompasses everything, but has density (I guess you could call it). This renders 3b to make ownership relative also.