When reading philosophy I feel like I am too easily convinced. Sometimes I can be browsing wikipedia, come across multiple philosophical stances and find each of them plausible. Then it becomes apparent they contradict each other. When I analyse why I would tend to take one side over the other it seems to be based on instinct or a “gut” feeling.
I don’t know what to think about anything. I don’t know where I stand.
Who else lacks convictions?
realize that no matter what u think, u can’t be wrong, u can only be right.
trust me on this.
remember even falsehoods r truths.
be flexible of ur thinking, and don’t be afraid of new ideas, don’t be annoyed by the seeming contradictions.
be convinced that every notion is true. every idea is worthwhile. every action is romantic and beautiful.
the way i see it, to lack convictions is to show oneself as a broad-minded philosopher (although many brilliant philosophers do, of course, have strong convictions). open minds are those which soak in the most. in terms of analytic philosophy, my advice would be to see where your intuitions take you and whether you could defend your ‘gut feelings’ with reasoning; if not, then either be an intuitionist or just keep navigating your way through the various arguments and enjoy the ride.
I think that Socrates said that the greatest wisdom was knowing that you know nothing.
There are a lot of viewpoints out there, and a lot of satisfying arguments, it’s okay not to be sure, it’s also ok not to have a position on everything.
cheers,
gemty
I think that this was what the Oracle said about Socrates. 
So far so good. I’m trying really hard to keep it that way!
haha the matrix was silly…
Don’t ever be convinced of anything turtles. Its a bad idea. Just keep asking questions its the easiest way to get by. Also the universe in itself is a contradiction…[size=75]but we should be skeptical of its contraictory nature[/size]… [size=59]but then realize that that is a contradiction in itself…[/size]
-Szpak
Socrates: “I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.”
Yes, it can be a problem, I get stuck too. I do much testing and stay away from extreme theoretical (my brain wont handle it anyway.) Try taking blends of positions and use the best from each instead of just one dogmatic position. That is if you can apply ideas from both positions. Such as those that only side with one school of Greek thoguht. I use tools from all schools.
V
Yes, good points you have brought up.
V
Also can you give some examples to discuss?
V
I had in mind existentialism vs rationalism: “Existentialism emphasizes action, freedom, and decision as fundamental to human existence; and is fundamentally opposed to the rationalist tradition” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
But this just exposes my ignorance of philosophy as I had in mind rationalism as opposed to emotion and feeling rather than in constrast with the senses. This debate is something I haven’t studied at all.
I can also think of free will vs. determinism where I guess I am a compatibalist, but my post wasn’t really about any particular topic. I was thinking about what is being appealed to when one considers multiple points of view. Rather like in politics or ethics when one thinks about liberalism vs conservatism.
But I think I was wrong. I just have a lot to learn.
I used to feel extremely frustrated with the world until I read about a thought experiment that goes something like this:
In this experiment there are two rooms. In the first room sits just one person, let us call him Chris. Two things to mention about Chris: (1) He has no idea what is going on in the other room and (2) he has no idea what an elephant is or what it looks like.
In the middle of the second room is an elephant. The room is shaped like a square with a window in the middle of each wall. There are no doors. Also, the room is only big enough to allow the elephant to stand in the middle of it; he cannot turn around.
We take four individuals and place one in front of each window so that they are looking into the room. Each of these individuals is completely unaware of the other three. From their respective vantage points they can see only part of the elephant (i.e. either the front, back or one of his two sides) and they cannot see any of the other windows. Each of the four is asked to write up a one page description of what they see. The four reports are then collected and given to Chris. He is instructed to figure out which of the reports is true.
Now, each description is going to sound quite different from one another, therefore one would assume that they can’t all be true. At the same time, however, each person reported exactly what they saw, so doesn’t this mean that each description is true? What is poor Chris to do?
The moral to this story is the same as the moral to life itself: there are no universally true answers. Reality can be thought of as being like an elephant with an infinite number of sides. Each of us follows a unique path through life, so we only get to see one perspective of reality (we only get to see one side of the elephant). No matter how hard we may try, we will never get to see the whole thing, so we will never know the absolute truth about the universe.
In the thought experiment, it is clear that there is some truth to each report, but none of the reports captured “The Truth†in total about the elephant. Similarly, each school of thought (such as existentialism, rationalism, liberalism, etc.) can be thought of as representing one window looking onto reality. Each school of thought contains ideas that have some truth to them (thus they make some sense to you), but none of them is able to capture “The Truth†in total about our existence (thus on some level they contradict each other).
Does this help at all???
I suppose it is worth mentioning that many people simply pick a window that makes sense to them and then spend the rest of their lives defending that particular point of view. I would argue that you are following a more sophisticated path through life (by recognizing the contradictions and limitations of various schools of thought), but you need to be aware that the path you are on will certainly be frustrating at times! 
i think this is a very helpful example - although, i suppose, there still doesn’t have to be an actual elephant/truth at all as long as the people drew what the elephant seemed to be to them…