Critique My Philosophy of Life?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Over the past several years, I have formulated my philosophy of life. It is a 14-page document that may be found at the link at the bottom of this post. I welcome any constructive feedback you may have.

In my philosophy, I present and defend the following positions:

  1. Metaphysical realism
  2. Atheism
  3. Afterlife nihilism (the view that there is no afterlife)
  4. Free will impossibilism
  5. Moral anti-realism
  6. Existential nihilism
  7. Belief that death is usually harmful for the one who dies, but is not to be feared
  8. Negative hedonism (the view that peace of mind should be one’s primary goal)
  9. Belief that peace of mind may best be achieved and maintained through Stoic, Epicurean and Eastern methods, among others
  10. Political hedonism

The section on methods to achieve and maintain peace of mind comprises roughly half of the document.

So that this post (hopefully) won’t be moved or deleted, let me share one of my favorite techniques for promoting peace of mind. I call it “Elimination of Judgments”:

One should always keep in mind that events are interconnected through the operation of physical cause and effect. Thus, apparently negative events can precipitate positive events, and apparently positive events can precipitate negative events. Moreover, the connections between events can be very indirect and impossible to predict. Consequently, if one were able to go back in time and modify or eliminate a particular event, one’s entire life might change as a result, and whether it would change for the better or the worse would not be knowable. Therefore, one will generally never know whether an apparently negative event is truly negative in the overall context of one’s life, or whether an apparently positive event is truly positive in the overall context of one’s life. As a result, one should eliminate judgments with respect to whether any event is truly positive or negative. Such elimination of judgments strongly promotes equanimity and peace of mind—before, during and after one’s experiences.

This is one of roughly 20 techniques discussed in my philosophy. Again, I welcome any constructive feedback you may have. Please feel free to post here, or to e-mail me at philosofer123@yahoo.com.

My philosophy may be found as an attachment to the post at the following link. Enjoy!

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/critique-my-philosophy-of-life-61111.html

2

I think that tired and fragile souls seek peace. Anything else would either break them or tire them out. A more healthy soul enjoys combat. That does not mean the healthy souls are right, but in the human world, conflict is required for many things. We need a war on corruption, a war on stupidity, a war on ignorance, a war on bad genes, a war on bad culture and bad religion, etc. But we have none of that, because the democratic will is about peace. Peace, equality and neutrality.

The modern peace-ideal is a state imagined where we can do infinite work and make infinite progress without being destroyed or disrupted. Peace = work. The slave moralists live for work. It is their life purpose. They also fear and dislike combat. They would prefer the most peaceful non-violent ways to deal with any conflicts that arise. The democrats fear pain and love comfort, even comfort in the form of complacency.

I think modernism has you by your nuts. There’s no escape now.

3

Dan, your post contains no indication that you have read my philosophy. I would like to hear from those who have read the document. Thank you!

4

You should expand heavily on physics and psychology, much of what you have spend time on, seems heavily outdated and totally irrelevant.

5

Actually, I view my positions as highly relevant toward (1) establishing that peace of mind should be one’s primary goal, and (2) actually achieving and maintaining peace of mind. And since all of the areas in which I take positions are still debated today, I feel that these areas are not outdated.

What specific parts of my philosophy do you view as outdated or irrelevant, and why?

6

123,

I had a glance at your document, though did not read it completely. But, still i can have a rough picture of your ontology. The sense i got from that basically you are suggesting that one should follow ethics without falling for blind faith. Am i right? if so, then, i also agree witht that.

I must appriciate your effort and sicerity in the first place, irrespective of your conclusions. Because, very few of us stop and try to care for introspection- what we are doing, why are we doing so and what should we do. And, you at least tried that.

To me, philosophy starts from here and ends too. Everything else just falls between.

Let me take as much as i can.
Read yourself in red and me in blue.

Metaphysical realism

• I believe in the existence of the self, the physical universe, and other minds

Agreed.

• I define the self as the nexus of one’s thoughts, memories, intentions, emotions and sensations. While the self may not be located at any particular point in space, introspection reveals that it exists.

            You are defining self as the sum of memories and derived mindset. In a sense, that is not wrong but not completely right either. Actually, it depends on the one's definition. So, by your definitional logic, you are right. But, this does not mean that there is no possibility of the existing of the self in any other form. 

            But, i still feel that you have to establish its nature of existence, because, without this, your ontology would not be complete. You have to clear about the fact whether biological brain and mind are the same or different.

            Because you accepted that the self exists, so You have to define what type of matter constitutes it. This is to say that you have to decide whether thoughts are some form of matter (formal or abstract) or self is just an illusion.

• Given that the sense-data that I have experienced throughout my life are, as a whole, so data-rich, complex and internally consistent, I feel that it is highly unlikely that I am being deceived, or that it is “all in my mind.” Therefore, I feel that it is highly likely that the physical universe exists, independent of my perception of it.

             Agreed.

• It would be extremely difficult to explain other people’s behavior without appealing to the existence of other minds (subjective perspectives). Therefore, I feel that it is highly likely that other minds exist.

             Agreed. But, you have to define the existence of the mind in the first place.

With love,
sanjay

7

Dan made some very interesting and insightful criticisms of 'philosopher123’s philosophy.

For my part, I think ‘Dan~’ is right. Excessive avoidance of conflict is a weakness. Your justification for your pursuit of peace is that it will make you ‘happy’. Dan is claiming that this is only because you are weak, a ‘tired and fragile soul’. I agree with him, I think he is making a very excellent point. Your philosophy is a mantra for tired and fragile souls. It may suit you, but it lacks normative value. People should relish conflict and combat.

‘Combat’, as Dan calls it (and I am sure that he does not solely mean physical combat, although this would almost certainly be part of what he is talking about) is needed. I don’t suppose I would agree very much with Dan~ about where and how it is needed, but we definitely agree that avoidance of combat and selfish ‘peace seeking’ are weaknesses to be avoided.

Edit: Can I add, just to appease the stubborness of ‘philosofer 123’, that I have actually read his 14 page document. It’s basically just a list of philosophy 101 arguments in bullet point form followed by several pages of buddhist-esque stuff about how you can attain ‘peace of mind’.

8

I agree with all the above replies to Your philosophy, 1 2 3. I have a general comment on a description of a philosophy for life.

 For me, the whole history of philosophy ca. Be best described as deriving from one problem, as with for dan, the problem of war and peace.  

 The heraclitus-parmenides issue of whether there is constant movement , or rest, is at the crux of describing all problems as derivative.  Zeno's paradox is the outcome of this problem.

  In the modern world, we have lost our soul, our thoughts have become essentially reduced to mechanism, and we have become a product of our environment.  We may think we are ourselves, but it is much more by utilizing others' thoughts as to who we are.  We can't sit still, we are in constant need for entertainment.


 The ontology of proving ourself is dead in the water.  Heraclitus was right!  Or so they say.  It is a world of constant movement.

 But parmenedes says that motion is an illusion.  We are in fact thinking we are always moving around, everything is really in a quiet stand still.


  Since Einstein, things are seen differently.  Our preception of our world and consequent thoughts about it, are based on our observation of what that world is.  We always thought of time/space in absolute terms, and thought that we are moving at say 2 miles per hour when walking, and yet we could not consider the fact, that the earth is rotating around the sun at a very fast rate, the sun is moving around the galaxy at even a faster rate, and the very galaxy we are inhabiting is moving away from the center at a very fast rate.  So we seem to be always moving at great velocity.

 In fact objectively the absolute objective rate of speed is so great, that it's inconceivable how we could get any rest, or, how we could ever even come to be born.


 However, this life is not. Based on an objective process. It is an intrinsic laboratory of the stillness, the movements' of an insubstantial mind, that has created this manageable, controlled environment within we may live.  It is as a laboratory, where we can sit in silence for years, and without needing to get out to prevent what this world is trying to teach us:  you have to go, get out, you can't live without movement, and incessant consumption.  

 We ca, because Parmenedes saw this basic ontology. This fact: that the two processes of nature, of being and nothingness, are really two descriptions of the same thing, and essentially boil down to the notion of the sameness and difference of this trinity--being, essence and existence, as a manifestation of a phenomenological process of differentiation with a concurrent re integration.  The brain is empty and soulless, thoughtless, when the mind is left bereft of the idea of the soul.  The soul is the summa existencia of the idea in itself, to assure the correctness of parmenedes early approximation.
9

It is unfortunate that some individuals, such as Dan~ and Brevel Monkey, resort to ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the arguments in the document. I can assure you that I am neither “tired,” nor “fragile,” nor “selfish.” I ask that those who post here, if they disagree with my positions, please address the arguments.

I agree that there is little truly original material in my philosophy. In my view, just about everything worth saying has already been said–most of it by the ancient Greeks. However, I have searched exhaustively and can find no other example of a complete life philosophy that approaches the conciseness, understandability and practicality of my own. If any of you are aware of such a document, please let me know where I can find it.

10

Sanjay, thank you for your kind words, as well as your analysis of the first section of my philosophy. Please note that I have attempted to include only those philosophical positions that contribute toward establishing how I should live (what goal(s) to have and how to reach them). I have determined that a “compete ontology” is not necessary for this purpose.

As a side note, an earlier version of my document defended non-reductive physicalism. However, I became increasingly uncomfortable with the arguments required to establish this position, and I discovered that it was not relevant to determine how I should live. As a result, I abandoned physicalism.

Thanks again.

11

Ignoring the diagnosis of your state of mind, it makes a clear argument: that your proposal for a happy life has no normative force, besides for those who are tired/averse to conflict. Nietzsche writes extensively on the value of conflict.

12

It isn’t an argumentum ad hominem. We are not arguing that your philosophy is wrong because of any fact about you. We are arguing it is wrong because we see conflict as beneficial.

Everything about your proposed morality is selfish, and openly so. You openly admit that it is founded on self-interest. You are interested in your own happiness, and in your system of ‘ethics’, other people’s happiness is incidental, only your own is important. ‘Selfish’ is the correct description of this system.

I have never seen such a selfish morality. Ever. You only want to help people when there will be a direct benefit to yourself. You go as far as to say that it’s better to do things which benefit people more powerful than yourself because they will be able to do more for you in the long run (the third bullet point above). You don’t say anything about helping peopl who need to be helped or fixing injustice. How is this not utterly selfish?

People live in poverty. In slavery. People are massacred. Genocide occurs in the real world, today. Children are starving to death right now. The people with no power are the ones who need helping.

All you want to achieve is your own peace of mind. You want to eschew the feelings of anger which might cause you to act on such injustice. Your ethics wants us to ‘relax and listen to music’ (your words). My ethics wants us to stand up, angrily, and fight. To change and influence the world. To care.

This isn’t ethics. This is winding down the shutters, closing the blinds to everything that is wrong with the world, and serving only yourself. You are telling others to do what you do: to focus on their own ‘peace of mind’ and slip, lazily, into a world of relaxing and ‘meditating’. You want us all to avoid the feelings of anger, of hatred, of disgust and outrage. But I relish those feelings, and I act upon them, and that’s what I think other people should do too.

Enjoy your golf games. Dan was right. Modernism has you by the balls.

13

The mere accusation that my proposal for a happy life has no normative force is not a philosophical argument, at least not in my book.

But let’s explore the accusation anyway. Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by “normative force.” If you are referring to the force of moral facts, then I agree–after all, I am a moral anti-realist (and if you disagree with moral anti-realism, then please provide your counter-arguments). If you are referring to motivation to act in a certain manner, then I believe my philosophy does have normative force. It strongly encourages one to cultivate a benevolent disposition, behave and act honestly, and resist the urge to retaliate, among other things. These guidelines for behavior are based on enlightened self-interest and empathy.

I am not a fan of conflict, because conflict almost always results in negative emotions. Also, I believe that the more disciplined one’s mind, the less the desire for conflict, because the negative emotions that create this desire (such as anger and frustration) will not arise in the first place.

14

Thank you for engaging more closely with my philosophy.

Please see my last post regarding conflict.

My “proposed morality” is not a moral system at all–remember that I am a moral anti-realist. If you disagree with moral anti-realism, then please provide your counter-arguments.

My prescriptions for behavior are based not only on enlightened self-interest, but also on empathy. This is why I would be motivated to help people in need or fix injustice–because I do, in fact, have empathy. In my view, this would be a selfish system only if one has no empathy. And if one does not have empathy, then I see nothing that would prevent selfish behavior. In a world without objective moral facts (moral anti-realism), I see no other basis for motivation. What, in your view, should motivate someone, beyond enlightened self-interest and empathy? Please defend your answer.

You say that your ethics wants to stand up, angrily, and fight. I agree that standing up and fighting makes sense if you believe that you can personally make a difference. But the sad fact is that most people are not in a position to personally make a difference. You might respond that if everyone (or at least most people) stood up and fought, then it would make a big difference. I would agree. However, I can face the fact that my own behavior will not influence many others. In the face of individual political powerlessness, peaceful acceptance makes more sense than anger and futile struggle.

My technique of Goal Internalization (which contains the golf quote above) is not about giving up, as you imply. It is about focusing on doing your best, and not getting attached to outcomes that are not under your control.

You say that you relish feelings of anger, of hatred, of disgust and outrage. That is truly unfortunate.

15

Philosopher 1 2 3 :

 Goal oriented self interest, and concurrent empathy are probably useful as an individually defined recipe for personal self improvement.  But how could it be translated as a social program in an open society?  I can think of 3 ongoing efforts that resemble your proposal:  1 education, meaning moral institutionally based education.  2 repressive police techniques, dealing with terror and criminal based problems, 3 social/political/economic change worldwide to prevent incidences of violence, crime and poverty.

How can your proposal be implemented on a wide stage, which for the first time in human history, has developed the capacity to be informed, to economically compete world wide?

16

Some wills inside of our own body and self need to be destroyed by the other better or stronger wills.
The closest thing we have to “free will” is conflicting-will.
You’re not here to make claims about free will but, I just wanted to mention that.

If we are at peace inside, it may feel pleasant, but that is what we call rest. Eternal rest is death, whereas temporary rest can fuel the battles of life.
Also we have to resist death. It is an opponent. If you go and say it’s nothing to worry about, that is like throwing your life away.

So that is part of why I posted like I did before.
I’m not saying you are a wrong or bad person, but you sound like you are tired of life. Not 100% tired, but still, tired of things. Maybe you have an overflow of things in life and this will now is battling against the overflow. Peace vs overflow.

A video game is a form of conflict.

17

Obe, thank you for your question. Please understand that my philosophy is designed for the individual. In sharing my philosophy, I seek only to improve upon it, not to persuade others to adopt it. So it does not matter to me whether my philosophy is implemented on a wide stage. In fact, it would not bother me if I were the only one to adopt my philosophy.

18

However, your argument against ‘moral realism’ is actually an argument for moral skepticism, because you have conflated the two (moral anti-realism and moral skepticism):

This is an argument against subjective forms of ethics, not an argument against moral realism. To be honest, your fourteen page document reads like the syllabus for a badly taught philosophy 101 class. You’ve misconstrued a load of basic arguments, then strung them together. Given the level of depth in the arguments, you basically could have come to whatever conclusion you like. It’s opinion in philosophical terms, not philosophy.

I would say that you should aim to put yourself in a position where you have the power to achieve your goals. Your aim is to give in and close your eyes.This is what was meant by ‘tiredness’: you just want to sit around peacefully until you die. You have accepted your own powerlessness and uselessness to the world. Now you want to encourage others to do the same. What I mean by ‘no normative force’ is that your theory is a valid description of your own state of mind, but it isn’t a good guide for how other people should act.

Not for me. Avoidance of personal pain is not my primary objective. Not at all.

19

I am afraid you are mistaken regarding my arguments for moral anti-realism. The argument from relativity (from which you quote above) is, in fact, an argument against moral realism–please see section 1 in the entry on Moral Realism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism

Again, if you disagree with moral anti-realism, I would like to see your counter-arguments.

Given your failure to properly evaluate my arguments for moral anti-realism, I simply cannot take your overall evaluation of my document seriously.

I agree that one may come to almost any philosophical conclusion one likes–no matter how deep the arguments. Witness the diverse positions taken by respected professional philosophers. That said, I feel that I have spent enough time and effort to be comfortable with the limited set of conclusions that I draw. I have evaluated the various arguments and counter-arguments for each position, as well as the evidence, and settled on those positions that have the clear preponderance of strong arguments and evidence on their side.

I agree that one should put oneself in the position to achieve one’s goals. As you know, my overarching goal is long-range happiness, and I feel that have put myself in an excellent position to achieve that goal. I do not require political power to be happy. And to the charge that I “want to sit around peacefully until [I] die”–well, that’s not far from the truth. I have come to the conclusion that my life is complete, that I require nothing more to be happy.

You say that I want to encourage others to “accept [their] own powerlessness and uselessness to the world.” In fact, I am not trying to encourage anyone to do anything. My goal in sharing my philosophy is not to encourage others to adopt it, but rather to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. It would not bother me if no one else adopted my philosophy.

You are entitled to your feelings of anger and hatred. Clearly, we are two very different people.

20

Emotions take root in the intellect. Emotions don’t just happen. They’re mostly brought on by something that thought extracts from past experiences. Thought wants to extend certain pleasurable emotions and certain painful emotions linger as thought tries to get rid of them. The body tries to keep itself in a peaceful, sensitive functioning especially in the nervous system. Emotions, when carried on for a time longer than their natural duration (how long is that?) burden the bodily systems and the body attempts to absorb the disturbance. Thought will always be there so the emotion game will continue with the body. The body is where you feel the emotion, not in the mind. So there will always be this struggle between the mind (with its sensual pursuits) and the body that always prefers to be in a state functioning smoothly and peacefully.