What philosophy do you follow?

[LukeS]

I tend to be quite the stoic.

Do you need to be quite stoic? I am stoic at times, but permanent stoicism to me means I'm failing too often. AFAIK Stoicism is basically about tranquillity (ataraxia) in the face of adversity, a little like being defeated but not feeling defeated. That's just my personal angle, no ill manners intended. Then again I am inspired by Buddhism and a partial retreat from "samsara" or the Sikhi "net of Kal" (ie Kali yuga, age of quarrel and ignorance). But I like some of it, positively...

 

[Flame]

Is that an affirmative absurdism like Dada/Surreality, or negative and depressing?

I'd say affirmative/positive aburdism.

 

[Sanzbir]

"Underlying" may be the case.

I would guess that there is philosophy called "Pragmatism", not that I ever study or read up on Pragmatism.

I have never studied any philosophy in my tertiary studies. The only times any subject mention particular philosophies, was my "Academic Research" for Conputer Science course, where our lecturer gave us definitions to Epistemology, Ontology and Metaphysics in relation to knowledge and research, but we never need to study these in details.

I don't think I have the patience to study philosophies for their own sakes.

Sure, but you don't have to study anything to have an underlying worldview that informs your decisions.

 

[gnostic]

Sure, but you don't have to study anything to have an underlying worldview that informs your decisions.

True...and that would mean I have a few dozens of worldview or philosophies.

Holy cow! I am a bloody freaking philosopher!

 

[tayla]

I'd suppose the subject line says it all.

What philosophy do I follow? I've studied many, somewhat. My favorite ideas are: (1) that we should not treat others as ends in themselves, and (2) that if we were to construct a society from scratch, we should do it such that, it wouldn't matter who we were within this society. I accept the notion that the physical material universe exists but that we can only experience it via our perception and brain processing and soul. I accept the scientific method as providing knowledge of the material world. I don't think much can be known of the spiritual realm except: (1) it exists, (2) everything non-material resides there (such as souls, consciousness, memory, symbols, reason, mind, ideas and concepts, spirits, the will, emotion, etc), and (3) there is a God, a personal being a divine creator, who is all-good.

 

[tayla]

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

I believe in a spiritual realm but don't think much can be known about it.

 

[tayla]

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

Yes, me too.

 

[tayla]

I tend to stress that I can care for individuals, it's the species as a whole that I don't like.

I'm the opposite: I don't like most individuals, but I like the abstract idea of humanity.

 

[tayla]

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.

I like this idea of God working and doing, an ongoing interaction with its/her/his creation.

 

[tayla]

I don't think I have the patience to study philosophies for their own sakes.

It's better to skim them for the key points.

 

[Jesster]

I'm a fan of Secular Humanism. It's what I usually tell people that I believe if they ask me. Atheism isn't a religion or a world view, so it doesn't really tell you much about me. Secular Humanism describes a lot about me, though.

 

[gnostic]

It's better to skim them for the key points.

Yes.

I do accept some of the merits of this or that philosophy, and they all have their pros and cons, but I don't follow any one philosophy, exclusively.

It really depends on what sorts of messages they are trying to convey.

The thing is philosophies that of religious nature I will take less seriously, especially if they cross over the supernatural.

I preferred philosophy that deal with real-world questions and real knowledge.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

I'm a narrow minded Biblist because I believe one must firmly believe in something, even with it's flaws. I temper this with a strong dose of Taoism. I think that transcending the duality, or the yin and yang, of our sensual perception is the key to spiritual enlightenment. Knowing the Tao and knowing God are srynonymous in my understanding of my existence.

 

[bubbleguppy]

To be honest my philosophy is most closely linked to linguistics, and like the best representation of my linguistic philosophical views come from John McWhorter.

 

[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.

My philosophy is neutral monism, as it provides an elegant solution to the mind body problem and works well both with science and the insights from meditations and with the Hindu Upanisads.
Neutral Monism: A Saner Solution to the Mind/Body Problem | Issue 121 | Philosophy Now

What then if the mental and the physical, quite irreconcilable when taken as independent natures, are really the common offspring of another sort of nature, something in-between the two? This something would be an essence neither mental nor physical in itself, but which possesses properties capable of generating both the mental and physical. Theories that propose this are called ‘neutral monist’: ‘monist’ because, unlike dualism, they envisage only one fundamental kind of stuff in the world; ‘neutral’ because this unifying nature is hypothesised to lie betwixt mentality and physicality, equidistant from each, distinct from either, and ultimately responsible for both.

Our brains consist of matter, of course. So panpsychism builds the conscious cortex out of tiny conscious minds, giving nary a thought to how this crowd of trillions combines into you: do you feel a vast population teeming in your head? The neutral monist, by contrast, makes brains from neutral qualities. Such qualities are physical when they play physical/chemical/biological roles in the brain, and mental when they provide the content that appears in consciousness. But in themselves the qualities are neither mental nor physical. So when you are conscious of a colour that is also playing a physical role (as, say, a constituent of a physical object), the colour counts as simultaneously physical and mental. In this way, the whole difficulty of the mind/body problem – a blockage in the metaphysical pipeworks caused by the congealing of the centuries-old opposition of mental and physical – is simply flushed away.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Secular humanism must be the nearest for me, although it's only recently that I would have called myself that - never having any specific philosophy in life other than trying to be the best one can and to treat others as one would like to be treated - often not achieved of course. And respect for all the non-human life that exists (where possible) with the same for the planet itself would also be included - we only have the one planet - so far. I certainly don't place humans above all other life.

And for me, religions just tend to get in the way of progress rather than enhancing life or our future prospects. Most, to me, are the wrong answers to the inevitable questions that arise concerning our lives and our environment.

 

[tayla]

The thing is philosophies that of religious nature I will take less seriously, especially if they cross over the supernatural.

The problem, I think, with any philosophy, or with anything spiritual or religious, is that it cannot be proven. There are interesting and useful nuggets of information and wisdom buried within. And yes, the religious emphasis appeals less to me as well.