Philisophical Demiprism [beta]


Seek independance from organizations. Don’t be judgmental. Don’t play any roll or have a self image. Don’t feel pity. Have no regret, shame, fear (or “decency”). etc, etc.

Read a little bet then tell me if you like it. :smiley:

:astonished: #-o hmm seems very interesting Dan, but are you trying to bring in a new philosophical system? or does your philosophy relate and based on a particular field? Such as ethics? Because a lot of your philosophy deals with how one should live, and last time i checked that was under the juristiction of ethics. So is this a new type of ethical philosophy you are proposing? Like utilitarianism and Categorical Imparative? Well if so, then =D> , seems like you put in a lot of effort, although i’m still not leaving my Platonic thinking, this seems to be unique (not that i read a lot anyway), oh and finally i was wondering what firstly sparked you to develop this idea, and were there any catalyst philosophers that helped to develop/inspire your thinking?

Umm… It’s a work in progress I’m just writing myself.

Yes, thank you for pointing out that it is actually ethics.

My prediction for my own philisophical future is it will be shaped by Buddhism. I’ve changed allot even in one day here.

Example, now#3=
3. - Why ever hate or hurt anything? During battle with your enemy, do not even think about your enemy; simply think about your own health, and then act.
most battles come from hate or anger, but imagine the rarity of battles that were only for the sake of one’s health? This is true self defence, and most often would be avoidance of danger.


I can’t argure with that. However a few things caught my eye which I don’t understand:

How can one accurately predict the future? Do you mean my learning history? Even then its not accurate.

I agree with giving pain only if all peaceful routes have failed. For example Gandi used this aganist the British. However would Gandi’s theory have worked aganist the Nazis, probably not so in this case war was the right thing. My point is that “don’t be affraid to give pain” is a virtue only sometimes and should be used with prudence and goodness.

Hope this feedback is of some help

Free thinker wrote:

I think Dan was thinking along the lines of jurisprudence, but not only towards law, but towards life. Know what behaviour will result in which consequences, cause/effect relationships, and also know what your dealing with ahead of time, so that you can tackle those problems with the right means. well i think that’s what he meant… is it Dan?

Hello, I am new to the forum and have taken up an interest in philosophy. Does anyone have any recomendations as to what books are good to start off with. I would appreciate any suggestion.

Thank you

welcome to the forum…

I would suggest “Six Great Ideas” by Adler to start


I think the best thing to start off in philosophical reading is Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. It is the most beautiful and perfect peace of philosophical literature in history. It’s age should prove it’s worth, being more than 2000years old that is. here read this page, it has some info on Plato, then a cite passage from Plato’s “The Republic” where the famous Allegory of the Cave lies, oh and I hope you understand Socratic dialogue, it might be confusing at first, but you get the hang of it. Once your done, share your thoughts with us :smiley:

Herer’s the link: enjoy :wink: