If not,
please list a few of your main personal philosophies that you feel are most important.
My main philosophy is like this:
“The way to measure right and wrong is by looking for what is most healthy for mind and body of self and others.”
^
it is difforent then the pleasure based right vs wrong philosophies that i see ALL AROUND ME EVERY DAY, because it is more long-term and existential.
Im practicaly a stoic, but i dont believe in imortality of the soul.
Please now tell me your own favotire philosophies and creeds,
i love to learn!
Taosim in my opinion is the coolest philosophy soo far in terms of life outlook. Read the Tao De Ching and u will realize how f’in sweet it is. (sory for using harsh letters) lol
pretty much i don’t have “philosophies,” so to speak, more just like a few truths that i have figured out.
1)There is a God.
2)If you are what you claim to be, you will not need to tell others. They will inherently know.
3)Ninjas are awesome.
4)Drugs are bad. Alcohol is bad. Smoking is bad. Promiscuous sex is bad.
5)World peace cannot exist.
and along the same lines…
6)War is a necessary evil.
there’s lots of others but i can’t remember them off the top of my head
People are generally afraid of changing thier perception and also afraid of social reporcussions. Promiscuious sex? define Promiscuous? the only thing i see bad here is the possibility of getting a disease… the we would make your 7th truth “no glove no love” and that would throw that out. And smoking? its not all that bad.
You mean like a priorarised sixth sense that rides over the data percieved by the other senses, when all is assembled for conceiption of the brains?
Ninjas are a bunch of ascetic wankers whose martial practise concentrates mainly on the moonshine art of quasi-airborne infiltration and semi-artificial concealation.
You, at the same time a phamarcist, chemist, physiologist and biologist, figured that out by way of philosophising? Well, at least your philosophy is scientific.
Not even when the world is communised?
Pacifists should learn from moralists in order to appear as less of a fanatical maniac. Moralists should shut the fuck up and read some history and social sciences.
1)Uniqor enjoys criticizing philosophies while not contributing his own
2)There is a God
3)If you are what you claim to be, you will not need to tell others. They will inherently know.
4)Ninjas are awesome.
5)Drugs are bad. Alcohol is bad. Smoking is bad. Promiscuous sex is bad.
6)World peace cannot exist.
7)War is a necessary evil.
Perfection, pleasantness, and details: keeping these three simple concepts as close to mind as possible would be the most concise description of my philosophy.
If you value your pleasure more then your health, then you can say all sorts of unhealthy things are ok.
Promiscuious (imo) is when your so horny that its dangerious and you get greedy for sex, then mastakes happen more often.
What you believe will effect how you live your life.
If i said there was no God then id start to center everything around myself and human instead of trying to become better then human.
Im glad he believes that there is a God, and i also believe it because it helps me not loose faith in trying to attain somthing greater then a mortal system of vanity.
lol, cmon man! learn me some smarts!
…wait… he has such wisdom…
Fish swim throught the water that we cannot breath,
yet they are still alive!
bicycles are more efficient then walking, and are faster,
it is a perfect example of invention increasing the efficiency of power used,
and ketchup is needed for things such as fries, yet can be applied to all things if the user of it has wisdom…
(ok, i joked to! lo!.. a perfect example of “reading between the lines” being addative, not insightful.)
Dan posts so much because he loves you, he wants to be able to toutch you and to know you. He wants to hear what you have to say because he cares about you. ^This is the legacy of the ‘Dan’^
I like some parts of Taoism alot! Like who “life is nurished by virtue”, but i cant help but feal that taoism gets to be a bit passive in ways. correct me if im wrong.
Also a little less deeply imbedded into my thought but still something I would like to bring up. People like creation imperfect confuse the hell out of me. I just don’t get people who have dogmatic beliefs like “War is a necessary evil.” Universalized value laden statement regarding war are especially insain. (yes I know this is a contradiction supporting a universal value, but bite it) “War is wrong,” or, “war is a necessary evil,” are equals in that type of thinking.
I’m okay with things like, “It was necessary for Atilla the Hun to devistate Naissus to continue onto Danube.” Anything which explains it is necessary for Nation X to invade Nation Y to acheive goal Z is fine. The reason for this is because it makes war values-neutral. War should probably be rationaly evaluated and special care taken to remove emotion from any decision making. Granted if this were to actually happen there wouldn’t be many wars, but I’m cool with that.
Wow, easy on the posts there dan, youre getting excited. At ILP it seems that people enjoy criticising others when there self-esteem is already low. Good posts though, I think it is indicitive of many of the writers here that they haven’t posted in this, as SilentSoliloquy says, they often enjoy criticising but don’t like to let own that their owns views are at times convoluted and disorganised.
As for me, I think I’m a mixture of things like most people. If it wasn’t that I am a Christian, I would say that I am a soft determinist, non-Kantian, Situation ethicist.
The above statment is self-contradictory - the reason, SilentSoliloquy, is that you haven’t properly grasped the definition and attribution of “critique”, or “criticizing”. The wheel of the human intellectual progressional history has been rolled by nothing but criticism, in fact, the wheel of the human history in general has been rolled by differences of opinions, ideas and ambitions. Also, there is no such thing as absolute originality: what Kant’s Critique Of Pure Reason owns to the ancient ape’s mad scrappling is in fundamentality - a totality. The concesquence of going blindly after “originality” hence, for instance, posting little beyong your own philosophical hunch as if you are having a real soliloquy, is that you are made sure to be having this soliloquy in the forums until you decide to start taking other philsoophies into consideration - by way of quoting and commenting specifically on other posts.
According to Satrean existentialism: the man wills his way out. If this is so, then it all depends on the degree of correlation between faith and will, i.e. how and to what extent can belief affect will. I wrote “will” instead of “the will”, because I’ve been refering to secondary will. The primary will that is the will to power has complete independence. To psychologically and sociologically exame the effect of religion on one’s secondary will which directs directly daily actions of life, is the task concerned for justifying your statment. Nietzsche didn’t merely leave us with the Will To Power, the man’s got Christianity covered. A point that Nietzsche made regarding life of faith was as follows: the Christian, regardless of how faithful, could still be essentially unchristian. By that, he didn’t assert that everyone unchristian hitherto failed to comprehend Jesus’s original gospel, because he himself believed that even St Peter failed to grasp Jesus in the right way. What he meant, is that a man takes whatever he find useful to fulfill his primary will to power. In other words, the choice of believing is merely a consequential action of secondary will. Thus the fundamental way of life - the existentiality - which always strives for power, remains unaffected. Only at the secondary level, parallel to secondary will, life can be said as changed in the sense that daily actions and reasonings redarding choices are changed due to say, a membership in the local church. When people say something like: “behold, Christ has completely changed his ambition, posture and mind - his soul” - they are people who stayed on the shallow end. What can made them see and reflect the deeper lying in human existence, is when this “transformed” ex-con convicts once again, in one way or another, against law or ethics.
