Merged My Philosophy of Life

[Philosofer123]

Over the past few years, I have formulated my philosophy of life, a 13-page Google Doc that may be found by Googling "Philo Sofer" and clicking on the first link ("My Philosophy by Philo Sofer").

In the first half of the document, I present and defend the following positions: atheism, afterlife skepticism, free will impossibilism, moral skepticism, existential skepticism and negative hedonism. The second half of the document is devoted to ways to achieve and maintain peace of mind.

I have found the entire exercise to be very beneficial personally, and I hope that you will benefit from reading the document.

The purpose of this thread is to solicit feedback so that my philosophy may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have.

Enjoy!

 

[tsig]

Over the past few years, I have formulated my philosophy of life, a 13-page Google Doc that may be found by Googling "Philo Sofer" and clicking on the first link ("My Philosophy by Philo Sofer").

In the first half of the document, I present and defend the following positions: atheism, afterlife skepticism, free will impossibilism, moral skepticism, existential skepticism and negative hedonism. The second half of the document is devoted to ways to achieve and maintain peace of mind.

I have found the entire exercise to be very beneficial personally, and I hope that you will benefit from reading the document.

The purpose of this thread is to solicit feedback so that my philosophy may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have.

Enjoy!

Wake up, eat, do what you have to, eat, sleep.

 

[angrysoba]

Wake up, eat, do what you have to, eat, sleep.

That could just as well apply to a dung beetle. The bit about "do what you have to do" is a bit vague and yet leaves out a lot.

 

[Akri]

I didn't read it all, but here are some bits that jumped out at me:

With respect to self-interest in this life, all other goals ultimately reduce to happiness (by repeatedly asking and answering “Why does one want X? For Y. Why does one want Y? (etc.)”)

ETA: Looks like I misread "reduce to happiness" as "reduce happiness". Feel free to skip this section.

I disagree that having other goals reduces happiness. I've found that my happiness increases when I have a goal that I am able to meet. Meanwhile if my only goal is "be happy" then I can't fulfill it, because I don't know how to simply make myself happy. Happiness is an emotion I feel in response to certain stimuli (such as accomplishing a difficult task). I can't tell myself "be happy", but I can set up goals which, when met, will result in my being happy.

The most effective way of which I am aware to achieve and maintain happiness is to aim for the achievement and maintenance of peace of mind
o I define “peace of mind” as the absence of significant negative emotions, while still retaining one’s mental faculties

Why is it important to maintain one's mental faculties if the goal is simply to be happy?

o Peace of mind is sufficient for happiness
Peace of mind entails that one is content
If one were not content, one would have significant negative emotions, which precludes peace of mind

How are peace of mind and contentment different? Because it looks like you've defined them the same way, thus making this entire bit of reasoning a waste of time.

o Peace of mind is the best enduring state of mind to which one can reasonably aspire
 This is because emotions that feel better than contentment are temporary in nature

Why do you assume that contentment can be permanent, while other emotions can't be?

I define “positive emotion” as any emotion that feels pleasurable.

Emotions can be pleasurable and not pleasurable at the same time, so this definition is going to give you trouble.

o Atheism eliminates negative emotions (such as fear and anger) directed toward God
o Afterlife skepticism eliminates fear of an unpleasant afterlife, and fear of ghosts
o Free will impossibilism eliminates a whole range of negative emotions, including guilt, regret, shame, remorse, indignation, anger, disgust, outrage, resentment, contempt and hatred

None of those things eliminate negative emotions. They simply make the emotions irrational. But rational emotions still happen all the time, and it can take quite a bit of work to get deal with them. Simply knowing that the emotion is irrational might be enough to prevent you from acting on the emotion, but it will not be sufficient to prevent you from experiencing the emotion.

However, with respect to one’s own past actions that may have hurt others, one may still apologize, attempt to rectify the situation, and vow to act differently in the future.

But if you don't believe in free will isn't this a completely empty vow? Then again if you reject morality then there's no reason to be opposed to lying to people. But then AGAIN if you don't care about deceiving people, then why would you care about apologizing for having hurt them in the past?

Cultivating self-sufficiency and emotional detachment promotes peace of mind

Detaching yourself emotionally in order to achieve peace of mind seems a bit like cutting off a limb in order to keep the limb from feeling pain.

 Cultivating friendships promotes peace of mind

So we should be emotionally detached, but cultivate friendships. Right. And we do this how, exactly?

 

[bruto]

I didn't read it all, but here are some bits that jumped out at me: (snip)

I didn't read very much either, being a bit busy. But I think you misread something at the beginning. It's "reduce to happiness" not "reduce happiness." In other words, I think he's saying that if you do the right things for the right reasons you'll end up happy without having sought it. Well, I hope that's what he means anyway.

If I have time I'll try to read the thing, though I tend not to be too crazy about such dissertations and suspect that a more thorough reading of others might make it unnecessary, as well as suspecting that such writings are best used for one's own clarity of mind and filed away rather than posted....but I'm willing to give it a shot.

In the matter mentioned above, it's pretty likely that one of us is right and the other wrong, and given the few who have responded, I would suggest that Filo might need to work on unambiguous wording.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm not able to read through it all right now, but I notice that you are a moral skeptic and have put Mackie and Garner in your recommended reading list.

Perhaps you will be able to help out Wowbagger on another thread as he is going to argue against that position in a debate coming soon, but he doesn't understand the argument yet.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268964

 

[bruto]

I glanced through the text a bit and have a couple of things to add.

One is that it's probably too dense and long for most people.

Another is that although peace of mind is a grand thing to cultivate and would agree it's a major goal, it is not always compatible with the kind of thoreauvian simplicity that seems to be advocated here. Living can be complicated, and doing what you think needs to be done may not be so simple or so easily calculated as to cost benefit.

finally, as to recommended reading, I notice Epicureans but no Stoics. I would add Epictetus' Enchiridion to the list. It's short, and it has two handles.

 

[Akri]

I didn't read very much either, being a bit busy. But I think you misread something at the beginning. It's "reduce to happiness" not "reduce happiness." In other words, I think he's saying that if you do the right things for the right reasons you'll end up happy without having sought it. Well, I hope that's what he means anyway.

You're right, I did misread that. Thanks for the correction.

 

[MikeG]

That could just as well apply to a dung beetle. ......

<--------



It strikes me as rather odd that a person's very first post on a forum is a link to something he has written elsewhere, but I hope this doesn't follow the normal pattern. I'll assume this is a genuine request for feedback. If so......





.......you'll adjust YOUR philosophy to account for OUR comments? Really? Is that not an implicit admission that it isn't yours (ie applying to your life)?

 

[tsig]

That could just as well apply to a dung beetle. The bit about "do what you have to do" is a bit vague and yet leaves out a lot.

So?

 

[Pyrts]

It's YOUR life -- it's not ours. It is not up to us to critique it because our cultures and our lives and our needs are much different than yours.

Things that are significant to me are not significant to you, and vice-versa.

 

[calebprime]

Over the past few years, I have formulated my philosophy of life, a 13-page Google Doc that may be found by Googling "Philo Sofer" and clicking on the first link ("My Philosophy by Philo Sofer").

In the first half of the document, I present and defend the following positions: atheism, afterlife skepticism, free will impossibilism, moral skepticism, existential skepticism and negative hedonism. The second half of the document is devoted to ways to achieve and maintain peace of mind.

I have found the entire exercise to be very beneficial personally, and I hope that you will benefit from reading the document.

The purpose of this thread is to solicit feedback so that my philosophy may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have.

Enjoy!

This seems similar to a stoic attitude, which is fine, except it won't do for artists, and others -- including those who want to live with heightened emotions -- such as those who want to embrace tragedy -- or those like Proust or Nietzsche who want to use their suffering as raw material, or those who simply have no choice. Here I mean choice in the ordinary sense, not the philosophical sense.

I've only had time to read the first five pages or so, and skim the rest.

Sure, no gods, no afterlife.

When it comes to Free Will, I'm a Compatibilist, following Dennett.

Sure, no objective moral facts from On High, but morality as a mix of common sense, anthropology, and consequentialism. The last part for the exceptional or interesting dilemmas, and maybe even garden-variety personal choices, too.

Sure, existential skepticism.

I don't like your section on Death very much. Here Epicurus has the last word:

Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.

It's important to distinguish between first-person (or subjective or internal) perspective and third-person (or objective or external) perspective.

From first person perspective, there is no deprivation, no endless blackness, no Nothingness, even. It's hard to put the absence of anything into language.

From a subjective (first person) point of view, we might as well be immortal, except that that way of saying it ignores the aging process and the suffering before death, so it doesn't help all that much. Hit middle age, and you're aware that you're dying, slowly.

From the external pov, we see the people we love suffer and die, and we see everything we've loved -- except for math -- destroyed. So life has a built-in pathos.

Calling something "rational" or "irrational" isn't the last word -- how much we value rationality is an open question, too.

Peace of mind, equanimity, sure, but the problem here is distinguishing between different levels of experience and self-observation. I, for one, am happier if I don't attempt to be happy directly. That is, I'm happier if I allow for unhappiness and discontent as part of my life.

And, as one's faculties wear down, one will have to give up one's control, one's equanimity. One will become querulous, childlike, foolish.

There isn't some project of "achieving peace of mind" that will settle everything once and for all. Realizing this makes me happier.

Very Important Point: There isn't really something called a "positive" or a "negative" state of mind. There isn't some process of addition or subtraction, and there's no need for some way of looking at things that assigns those values to different feelings. "Positive" and "negative" are language cliches.

For example, there's "laughing and crying" -- at the same time. Is that a positive or a negative state of mind?

There are times of creativity and times of bovine oblivion. Which times are better?

The problem with all attempts at rational psychology is that -- when the rubber meets the road -- values are somewhat arbitrary and we can't decide particular cases. Take the philosophy of Kant -- look at his particular prescriptions for policies. Some are absurd.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Fool-Case-Amorality/dp/0231145098

For some criticism of Kant that I found stimulating, see:

_The Moral Fool_ by Hans-Georg Moeller.


So, everything you've said is reasonable enough in a limited sort of way, but don't trot this stuff out in an argument with your lover, and certainly don't believe that we can choose as if choosing for the whole world -- without a lot of casuistry.

When I say that I have problems with top-down reasoning such as this -- when the rubber meets the road -- I'm thinking of, in particular, sections like this:

 Certain daily habits promote peace of mind

o Relaxing while listening to music

o Enjoying the outdoors

o Conversing with a friend

o Meditating

o Practicing gratitude (reminding oneself of those things for which one feels fortunate)

o Reading and pondering philosophy

o Sleeping in a cool room (helps reduce the incidence of stressful dreams)

----------------------------------

Not bad, not good, not interesting, somewhat comical.

You might as well say: -- avoid hot and cold beverages -- avoid tight clothing.

etc.

Sure, observe "negative" emotions with a view to ameliorating them, but: What if you can't? Embrace them fully? Breathe, in and out?

This way of looking at things would make me far less happy than I am.

--------------------------------------

Your "realizations and psychological methods" might simply be the result of your psychological needs -- and strengths and weaknesses -- and not a method that will work for everyone, all the time.

Me, I wanna be a little cray-cray.

 

[angrysoba]

So?

So your prescription is worthless.

 

[angrysoba]

<--------

Ha ha! Yes, I think your avatar did pop into my mind as I typed that response.

 

[MikeG]

It strikes me as rather odd that a person's very first post on a forum is a link to something he has written elsewhere, but I hope this doesn't follow the normal pattern. I'll assume this is a genuine request for feedback.

The non-return of the OP suggests that I was being overly optimistic. At least not many put in the effort that Calebprime did.

 

[Philosofer123]

Akri, thank you for a very thoughtful critique of parts of my philosophy. You make some interesting and valid points. Let me try to do my best to respond to your comments:

Why is it important to maintain one's mental faculties if the goal is simply to be happy?

If I did not include retaining one's mental faculties in the definition of peace of mind, then one could achieve peace of mind (now simply defined as the absence of significant negative emotions) by, for example, knocking oneself unconscious. Also, many of the psychological methods in the document for maintaining peace of mind require a certain level of cognitive functioning to be effective. Finally, generating positive emotions by reflecting on the fact that one is not currently experiencing negative emotions (see near top of page 6) requires a certain level of self-awareness and self-reflection.

How are peace of mind and contentment different? Because it looks like you've defined them the same way, thus making this entire bit of reasoning a waste of time.

In my view, peace of mind is both necessary and sufficient for contentment. I felt that some argument was required to establish this non-obvious conclusion, which is why I spent time on formulating those arguments.

Why do you assume that contentment can be permanent, while other emotions can't be?

I know that contentment can be lasting because I myself have maintained a state of contentment for long stretches of time. I am not aware of anyone who is in a continual state of joy or bliss, and I believe that it is generally accepted in the psychology community that such strong positive emotions are temporary in nature.

Emotions can be pleasurable and not pleasurable at the same time, so this definition is going to give you trouble.

I think that it is generally accepted that a number of emotions are purely pleasurable, such as those listed on the middle of page 6. But I see your point. Perhaps the definition should read "purely pleasurable" rather than simply "pleasurable".

None of those things eliminate negative emotions. They simply make the emotions irrational. But rational emotions still happen all the time, and it can take quite a bit of work to get deal with them. Simply knowing that the emotion is irrational might be enough to prevent you from acting on the emotion, but it will not be sufficient to prevent you from experiencing the emotion.

Good point, Akri. I really should say that these things render such emotions irrational, which as you point out, does not necessarily eliminate them.

But if you don't believe in free will isn't this a completely empty vow? Then again if you reject morality then there's no reason to be opposed to lying to people. But then AGAIN if you don't care about deceiving people, then why would you care about apologizing for having hurt them in the past?

One may still vow to act a certain way--and carry out one's vows--in the absence of ultimate responsibility. Please note that I do not deny that we have compatibilist free will.

I would apologize to make the individual feel better, which may benefit me through my feelings of empathy for that individual.

Detaching yourself emotionally in order to achieve peace of mind seems a bit like cutting off a limb in order to keep the limb from feeling pain.

Interesting point, but it does not counter my claim that emotional detachment promotes peace of mind. Many of my recommendations for reducing or eliminating negative emotions may also reduce or eliminate positive emotions. But as I argue, peace of mind is sufficient for happiness, and it is the most effective way of which I am aware to achieve and maintain happiness.

So we should be emotionally detached, but cultivate friendships. Right. And we do this how, exactly?

I agree that there is a tension between emotional detachment and cultivating true friendships. But that does not counter my claims that each of these methods individually promote peace of mind.

Again, Akri, thank you for your thoughtful critique. I look forward to any additional comments or questions that you may have.

 

[Philosofer123]

finally, as to recommended reading, I notice Epicureans but no Stoics. I would add Epictetus' Enchiridion to the list. It's short, and it has two handles.

In fact, I have recommended several Stoic books, including the Enchiridion, on page 12.

 

[Philosofer123]

<--------



It strikes me as rather odd that a person's very first post on a forum is a link to something he has written elsewhere, but I hope this doesn't follow the normal pattern. I'll assume this is a genuine request for feedback. If so......





.......you'll adjust YOUR philosophy to account for OUR comments? Really? Is that not an implicit admission that it isn't yours (ie applying to your life)?

Yes, I am looking to improve the document, so others' feedback may well result in changes to the document. In fact, I may make a couple of modifications based on Akri's feedback. That said, the philosophy is still my own, and applies to my life.

 

[dafydd]

Another is that although peace of mind is a grand thing to cultivate and would agree it's a major goal, it is not always compatible with the kind of thoreauvian simplicity that seems to be advocated here.

While living two miles away from the family home.

 

[Philosofer123]

Calebprime, thank you for your extended comments.

This seems similar to a stoic attitude, which is fine, except it won't do for artists, and others -- including those who want to live with heightened emotions -- such as those who want to embrace tragedy -- or those like Proust or Nietzsche who want to use their suffering as raw material, or those who simply have no choice. Here I mean choice in the ordinary sense, not the philosophical sense.

I argue in the document that peace of mind (the absence of significant negative emotions) is sufficient for contentment. And if one is content, then one has no desire or need to experience positive emotions, but rather just a preference.

As a personal aside, I would characterize my disposition as Epicurean, rather than Stoic. That said, the document contains a number of Stoic techniques for maintaining peace of mind.

When it comes to Free Will, I'm a Compatibilist, following Dennett.

The regress argument in the free will impossibilism section of the document demonstrates that ultimate responsibility is impossible, which renders irrational a number of negative emotions, including anger and regret. This is why I define free will in terms of ultimate responsibility.

Sure, no objective moral facts from On High, but morality as a mix of common sense, anthropology, and consequentialism. The last part for the exceptional or interesting dilemmas, and maybe even garden-variety personal choices, too.

The lack of objective moral facts (the way I characterize them) supports negative hedonism, as it eliminates a competitor to happiness as an ultimate goal; namely, "act in accordance with objective morality".

I don't like your section on Death very much. Here Epicurus has the last word:

It's important to distinguish between first-person (or subjective or internal) perspective and third-person (or objective or external) perspective.

From first person perspective, there is no deprivation, no endless blackness, no Nothingness, even. It's hard to put the absence of anything into language.

From a subjective (first person) point of view, we might as well be immortal, except that that way of saying it ignores the aging process and the suffering before death, so it doesn't help all that much. Hit middle age, and you're aware that you're dying, slowly.

From the external pov, we see the people we love suffer and die, and we see everything we've loved -- except for math -- destroyed. So life has a built-in pathos.

I actually use Epicurean arguments in the "Death" section of the document in order to establish that it is irrational to fear death. That said, I believe that death (defined as the ending of the dying process) is harmful, and nothing you have said counters what is in the document to support this contention.

Peace of mind, equanimity, sure, but the problem here is distinguishing between different levels of experience and self-observation. I, for one, am happier if I don't attempt to be happy directly. That is, I'm happier if I allow for unhappiness and discontent as part of my life.

I don't buy into that type of paradoxical thinking. It is clear to me that there are a number of direct methods that will make one happier than one would otherwise be, and the document contains a number of these methods.

And, as one's faculties wear down, one will have to give up one's control, one's equanimity. One will become querulous, childlike, foolish.

This does not invalidate the pursuit of happiness while one still has one's faculties.

There isn't some project of "achieving peace of mind" that will settle everything once and for all. Realizing this makes me happier.

Why does that realization make you happier?

Very Important Point: There isn't really something called a "positive" or a "negative" state of mind. There isn't some process of addition or subtraction, and there's no need for some way of looking at things that assigns those values to different feelings. "Positive" and "negative" are language cliches.

For example, there's "laughing and crying" -- at the same time. Is that a positive or a negative state of mind?

There are times of creativity and times of bovine oblivion. Which times are better?

I never claimed that there are "positive" or "negative" states of mind, only positive and negative emotions. And I define "positive" and "negative" in terms of what feels pleasurable or uncomfortable, not in terms of mathematical quantities.

When I say that I have problems with top-down reasoning such as this -- when the rubber meets the road -- I'm thinking of, in particular, sections like this:


----------------------------------

Not bad, not good, not interesting, somewhat comical.

You might as well say: -- avoid hot and cold beverages -- avoid tight clothing.

etc.

The quote you cite is rather unimportant in the context of my overall philosophy. It is also the most idiosyncratic section.

Sure, observe "negative" emotions with a view to ameliorating them, but: What if you can't? Embrace them fully? Breathe, in and out?

The document provides a number of methods of dealing with negative emotions that, for whatever reason, you are unable to ameliorate, including: elimination of judgments, realization that change is the only constant, recognition of triviality, and dichotomy of control. These methods will prevent one from suffering in virtue of the fact that one is currently experiencing a negative emotion.

This way of looking at things would make me far less happy than I am.

Why?

--------------------------------------

Your "realizations and psychological methods" might simply be the result of your psychological needs -- and strengths and weaknesses -- and not a method that will work for everyone, all the time.

Most of the methods are based on taking a broader perspective on one's situation, and so should be generally applicable. That said, while I aspire to objectivity, I realize that not everyone will benefit from attempting to follow my advice. This does not bother me, as the primary purpose of the document is to advise myself on how to live well.