What philosophy do you follow?

[gnostic]

I'd suppose the subject line says it all.

But I would like you to explain why you follow it.

Is your philosophy closely linked to your religion or to your political view or to science?

I do have not any philosophy to the exclusion of all others; no one philosophy rules my life, because I don't think it is practical.

I would have to say that I do pick up philosophy here and philosophy there...anything that suit me, the way I think or that might suit my personality, but I have never study any philosophy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The philosophy of Dave.
Basically, I've tried to incorporate whatever wisdom I've stumbled across in my years on Earth into a hopefully coherent personal philosophy/world view.

I do read philosophy, but personal experience, mentors, education and Keeping up with the Kardashians have been more impactful.

Well, 3 out of those 4, anyway.

 

[icehorse]

Secular humanist here. It seems optimistic and empowering.

 

[osgart]

philosophy of the gaps is my philosophy, it's never ending adaptation for me.

it's not easy replacing eternal hope with nihilism.

there's just too much knowledge out there to believe in God again.

it's hard to change languages from spiritual to scientific.

I still believe in the soul, and that evolution is an intelligent creation.

even looking for a new religion, that isn't God based, and where I don't have to give up my personal identity.

got to fill voids, for me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

philosophy of the gaps is my philosophy, it's never ending adaptation for me.

it's not easy replacing eternal hope with nihilism.

there's just too much knowledge out there to believe in God again.

it's hard to change languages from spiritual to scientific.

I still believe in the soul, and that evolution is an intelligent creation.

even looking for a new religion, that isn't God based, and where I don't have to give up my personal identity.

got to fill voids, for me.

Why a 'religion'?

 

[YmirGF]

Philosophically, I am a hybrid mut, to be sure. I have taken ideas I found worthy from several traditions, stripped them of dogma and plowed headlong into uncertainty. I definitely have an affinity for more "eastern" philosophies as western ideas don't really talk to me; not very deeply at least.

For example, I use the tern bodhisattva fairly loosely, but I mean it in the sense that I can delay my own appointment with the unknown until everyone is there before me. I know it's there and that is good enough for me. Without you... I am... alone.

Unofficial Translation ©2004 Jeremy Williams.

I'm going to go into the fir trees
There where I last saw her
But the evening is throwing a cloth upon the land
and upon the ways behind the edge of the forest
And the forest it is so black and empty
Woe is me, oh woe
And the birds sing no more

Without you I cannot be
Without you
With you I am alone too
Without you
Without you I count the hours without you
With you the seconds stand still
They aren't worth it

On the branches in the ditches
it's now silent and without life
And breathing becomes oh so hard for me
Woe is me, oh woe
And the birds sing no more

Without you I cannot be
Without you
With you I am alone too
Without you
Without you I count the hours without you
With you the seconds stand still
They aren't worth it without you

 

[gnostic]

Basically, I've tried to incorporate whatever wisdom I've stumbled across in my years on Earth into a hopefully coherent personal philosophy/world view.

My own is a bit of mish-mash of multiple philosophies.

I have read a few of ancient Greek literature, like Plato's dialogues in Timaeus and Critas, but they were just reading materials, not something that I have study or did research. Actually, I was more interested in the myth of Atlantis than in Plato's odd philosophy.

 

[blü 2]

I'm a materialist. I've never come across an alternative for anyone concerned with the question, What's true in reality?

Morally, I suppose I'm closest to being a humanist. That term is rather vague, which is probably appropriate for me. I have a not-pinned-down notion of decency in my head, courtesy, inclusion, tolerance, honesty, that kind of thing.

(Of course, only the honesty part applies when debating fundamentalists here.)

 

[Rival]

I take a lot from Stoicism. I suppose I never had much choice considering my crappy upbringing. I aim to reign my emotions instead of having them reign me (it mostly works but people have often described me as cold and distant). I accept things as they come and follow Natural Law.

Stoicism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

 

[Erebus]

I don't exclusively or rigidly follow any philosophy, though I do tend to lean towards pragmatism in day to day life.

In terms of morality I just call myself a non-objectivist. I don't see the minor distinctions between moral relativism, subjectivism and nihilism as all that important.

As far as my view on humanity is concerned, I'm definitely misanthropic. That said, I tend to stress that I can care for individuals, it's the species as a whole that I don't like. To quote Agent K, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

Following on from that, I'm also an anti-natalist. While I don't insult, attack or belittle people for having children, I feel it would be better if we as a species simply stopped breeding. Not a realistic hope perhaps but I don't envision the future as a bright, shiny Utopia and believe that gentle, voluntary extinction is ultimately the best we can hope for.


Why yes, I am fun at parties.

 

[Twilight Hue]

For me, philosophy is what I get out of life.

Mainly "**** happens", and, " c'est la vie. "

That and, "Maybe, maybe not".

 

[Rival]

For me, philosophy is what I get out of life.

Mainly "**** happens", and, " c'est la vie. "

That and, "Maybe, maybe not".

Really? I thought it was SCREAMING MONKEY ZEN.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Really? I thought it was SCREAMING MONKEY ZEN.

That happens when you calm down.

 

[shunyadragon]

Socratic skepticism -

From: socratic method skepticism - Google Search

"As long as knowledge has not been attained, the skeptics aim not to affirm anything."

This philosophy does not reject belief in a religion, but it seriously questions ancient world views of religion that are not subject to change in one way or another. It rejects the concept of determining beliefs as absolutely true, and illusion of the search for truth from the fallible human perspective. It acknowledges that my belief and knowledge is always subject to skepticism and change when new information becomes available.

This philosophy lies at the root of our legal system in the legal process concludes that the result is beyond a reasonable doubt. In this view Laws and Legal decisions are subject to change when new information becomes available.

The philosophy of Methodological Naturalism also evolved from this philosophy where theories and hypothesis are only falsified and not proven true, and always subject to change as new information becomes available.

The search for the universal relationships of the nature of our existence, through a skeptical approach puts one closer to a viable belief system.

I do not believe one's religious belief equates to one's philosophy. I view my philosophy as how one develops ones belief system, and the world view of our physical and spiritual existence.

The reason why. at present, reject the ancient religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam is their fundamental claims are that they are in some way 'true,' relatively fixed in past cultural paradigms, and not subject to change over time,

At present, I consider only two possibilities of belief: the Baha'i Faith, the Theist alternative, and some form of Philosophical Naturalism, because both these beliefs acknowledge the transitory nature of the fallible human belief and knowledge over time, and the illusive nature of 'truth' is beyond human comprehension.

At present, I am a Baha'i, but yes some form of Philosophical Naturalism is possible. IF God exists, I believe the apophatic approach where the nature and essence of the 'Source' some call God is unknowable from the fallible human perspective is the most viable conclusion. The doctrines and dogmas of the diverse religions and belief systems considered 'true' by the believers involves too many contradictions based on ancient world views and cultures is too irrational and illogical from any unbiased perspective outside the belief system itself

I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

 

[RedDragon94]

Is your philosophy closely linked to your religion or to your political view or to science?

Sometimes I think that my philosophy is opposite of my religion. Other times religion makes more sense than what I think.

 

[Windwalker]

philosophy of the gaps is my philosophy, it's never ending adaptation for me.

it's not easy replacing eternal hope with nihilism.

Why are these the only two choices?

there's just too much knowledge out there to believe in God again.

In the way you used to, certainly. Once that cake has been baked you can't unbake it. But I say there is certainly a plausible possibility you can reimagine aspects of how you used to believe or feel into newer larger contexts that don't require you lobotomizing your mind to go back to thinking like a child on these things.

I don't think flip sides of the same coin are the only options. You can discover an entirely different currency with which to make your purchases.

it's hard to change languages from spiritual to scientific.

Why not have both? Why do interior dimensions of life have to be reduced to externalized scientific languages? Is it necessary or reasonable in any way for us that, "Poetry is turned into prose, truth into statistics, understanding into facts, education into note-taking, art into criticism, symbols into signs, faith into belief," as a favorite quote of mine goes? If we lose the symbolic nature of life, we lose our humanity, we lose our souls, IMHO.

I still believe in the soul, and that evolution is an intelligent creation.

I do as well, but rather than saying evolution is an intelligent creation, I'd say evolution is the creator creating. It is Spirit in motion, creating form in its own image in every moment. Take it for what it is and what it does, and avoid the temptation to make God in your own image that it has a plan or foresight into end results the way a human might plan out their vacation trip. Successful results are repeated, and the success part is the goal, not walking upright and having the appearance of a human being.

You have to strip away anthropomorphic ideals and just take it for what it is and from there shape how you can think about it. I find it quite intelligent in this way, and loving as well as it is quite life affirming, life giving, in spite of the fact that we all die. That's all part of the Design, if you will. And it is truly Beautiful, as well as terrifying to us blossoming and withering lilies of the Field.

even looking for a new religion, that isn't God based, and where I don't have to give up my personal identity.

got to fill voids, for me.

The question of God sort of becomes a non-question at a certain point. It really becomes more a matter of how we choose to talk about whatever this "Ultimate Environment" is to us. I can just as easily speak of it as God, as I can No-God. Atheism and Theism become really more figures of speech, than definitions of what this Ultimate Reality is.

We get too hung up on trying to figure out what "it" is, as if it were something external to us. In reality, we are "it", subjectively, as well as objectively. We cannot be separated from it, and the ways we talk about Reality will always include us in it. Your personal identity in reality is not forfeited, but actually fully and completely Realized.

This might be something that might be meaningful to you as really high-level introduction to Integral Theory (which is where I land on the question of the OP). From that basic sort of view, I come to what I've shared above in how I think about it for myself. https://www.amazon.com/Sociable-God-Toward-Understanding-Religion/dp/1590302249

 

[Sanzbir]

Sorry... I can't resist my Devil's Advocate instincts here.

I do have not any philosophy to the exclusion of all others; no one philosophy rules my life, because I don't think it is practical.

So the line "because I don't think it is practical" implies you have some underlying philosophy in the subject of decision theory rooted in your outlook on things.

The assumption that a human being can judge what is practical implies some acceptance of the philosophy of rationality.

I would have to say that I do pick up philosophy here and philosophy there...anything that suit me, the way I think or that might suit my personality, but I have never study any philosophy.

So you do have underlying philosophies.

 

[DavidFirth]

I don't follow a philosophy. I try to follow Jesus Christ.

 

[sayak83]

I'd suppose the subject line says it all.

But I would like you to explain why you follow it.

Is your philosophy closely linked to your religion or to your political view or to science?

I do have not any philosophy to the exclusion of all others; no one philosophy rules my life, because I don't think it is practical.

I would have to say that I do pick up philosophy here and philosophy there...anything that suit me, the way I think or that might suit my personality, but I have never study any philosophy.

Metaphysics: A version of upanisadic Vedanta philosophy
Epistemology: Scientific method for external world, yoga and meditation for introspective knowledge.
Ethics: A mix of dharmic Virtue ethics and Rawlsian social contract ethics.
Purpose: Proximate goal eudaimonia. Ultimate goal, gnostic knowledge of Brahman.

 

[Nakosis]

I'd suppose the subject line says it all.

But I would like you to explain why you follow it.

Is your philosophy closely linked to your religion or to your political view or to science?

I do have not any philosophy to the exclusion of all others; no one philosophy rules my life, because I don't think it is practical.

I would have to say that I do pick up philosophy here and philosophy there...anything that suit me, the way I think or that might suit my personality, but I have never study any philosophy.

Apparently Epicureanism.

Why, because it seems to me to bring about the greatest potential for being happy.

It's not that I went out found Epicureanism and said "Hey! This is a cool philosophy". It's more I read it and thought it pretty much sounds like me already.

I suppose it was linked with who I already saw myself as.