Why does anyone need philosophy?

[lifegazer]

Re: My philosophy

My philosophy, regardless of any silly internet quizzes, is basically existential. It is that we exist, like it or not, and it is up to us to find meaning in our lives. Personally I believe that there is no meaning, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

My naturalistic spin on atheism allows me to observe the world and the universe and be awed by it without being forced to attribute it to any non-natural forces.

Okay, I think your philosophy is a crock but I will apologise for
suggesting that you don't take it seriously and for anything else I said that might have angered you.

 

[uruk]

I was pegged as an existentialistic utilitarianist. Wow, I need to get out and have a bit more fun.

So in essence, no, I believe that no-one can exist without coming up with some kind of philosophy at some stage in their life.

I agree, everybody has some sort of hodge podge philosophy (because of the general definition of philosophy) but most just don't think about it or realize they have one.

Take philosophy seriously or die a shambolic existence.

Tell us, Oh LG, how does taking a philosophy seriously prevent you from having a "shambolic" existance? l how does realizing that "I am god" change the fact that I have to eat, sleep, get up in the morning and go to work? or that I will have to suffer from disease and pain and eventualy die?

Has taking your "philosophy" seriously made any beneficial changes in your life? Are you happier? Is there no more suffering in your life? Are able to perform those miracles you said that you could do?

Pondering our philosophy is not important to our day to day existance. Most people go through life not even realizing they have a philosophy and are quite happy doing so.

 

[Z]

Re: My philosophy

My name's not Darren, but I'd like to answer this question as well, for lifegazer's benefit.

My philosophy, regardless of any silly internet quizzes, is basically existential. It is that we exist, like it or not, and it is up to us to find meaning in our lives. Personally I believe that there is no meaning, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

My naturalistic spin on atheism allows me to observe the world and the universe and be awed by it without being forced to attribute it to any non-natural forces.

I look at my son on the soccer field, and I feel proud. Both because he is the product of my DNA, and also because he is the product of a wonderful and beautiful series of events which let to the production of children capable of playing soccer.

The insects in the trees, the birds, the worms in the earth - all are testament to the wonder and beauty in the universe, and I am humbled to be a part of it.

The stars, the galaxies, the quasars show me that the universe is a vast and beautiful place, and we are only a microscopic speck upon a microscopic speck. There is more out there in the universe than is imagined in lifegazer's philosophy.

Science is trying its hardest to codify and understand the universe around us. I read books such as The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene and I gape in wonder at what science is capable of. Relativity is almost within my grasp. Quantum mechanics is the elusive sprite that always wiggles from between my fingers when I think I have it. But still I chase understanding.

My purpose in the universe is to understand it, or as much of it as I can. That includes understanding people, who after all are a part of the universe. Therefore I read the Bible (even though I am an atheist) and I debate against creationists. Because every time I do I understand just a little more about the universe.

How has this enriched my life? Do you really have to ask? I am awed and humbled at the same time. I realise who and what I am, I bounce my ideas off the world and see what happens. I improve myself every day. How can I not be enriched by my philosophy?

Good answer. Too bad Darren doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to respond.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Re: My philosophy

My name's not Darren, but I'd like to answer this question as well, for lifegazer's benefit.

Huh, unless Im mistaken, he is asking lifegazer!

 

[ReFLeX]

Re: Re: Why does anyone need philosophy?

I know its corny but I like Bruce Lee's take that one must find his or her own way in life and not rely on any one philosophy. He held that this was applicable to life as well as martial arts. I don't know why the example is important. I guess he was capable of kicking most people's butts so he must be correct.

I am awed by the eternal truth of this last sentence...

 

[username]

I am unclear how anyone can dismiss the need for philosophy. Philosophy=thinking.

I think some might be confused with philosophy as a formal discipline. I agree it is not important for everyone to be philosophy majors, but everyone needs to think and everyone has a philosophy.

There are 2 kinds of people in the world, those who examine and test their philosophies and those who hold to philosophies without ever having examined them. There is no person alive who doesn't have philosophies on all aspects of life. Those who don't think about their philosophies, who don't identify what they are, who don't test them usually hold to contradictory philosophies that end up causing them unnecessary suffering and confusion in life.

To be anti philosophy is to be anti intellectual.

 

[jay gw]

Don't forget the full definition:

Philosophy:
A system of values by which one lives.
Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

It's both an activity and a system of ideas/beliefs.

Is it possible to investigate or have a critical viewpoint and to inquire into values, without ever adhering to any system?

Why isn't it better to keep a skeptical but open minded approach to everything? As soon as you say "I'm an existentialist, I'm a Buddhist" aren't you saying, "I don't think anything but this has value, and anything that may come around later is junk."

?

 

[Piscivore]

Is it possible to investigate or have a critical viewpoint and to inquire into values, without ever adhering to any system?

Yes.

Why isn't it better to keep a skeptical but open minded approach to everything? As soon as you say "I'm an existentialist, I'm a Buddhist" aren't you saying, "I don't think anything but this has value, and anything that may come around later is junk"?

Only if you are of the belief that these categories must be any sort of absolutes at all. Relatively few philosophical categories are of necessity exclusive. For instance, I consider myself a Buddhist, a Discordian, an atheist, a humanist, a materialist, a rationalist, a liberal, a capitalist, and a few other things that just don't come to mind right now. None of these I find to be particularly contradictory of the others- well, except the Discordianism, and that's sort of the point, isn't it?

 

[username]

Don't forget the full definition:

Philosophy:
A system of values by which one lives.
Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

Well, the problem is I don't accept some of that definition. I don't see what moral self discipline has to do with doing philosophy.

It's both an activity and a system of ideas/beliefs.

OK, let's just look at the word itself to get a definition, not rely upon other people's personal definitions. Philosophy seems to mean 'lover of wisdom' or at least the word philosopher does. philo=loving sophic=wisdom

That is it.

A philosopher then is one who loves wisdom. Put in a less outdated vernacular, a philosopher is one who seeks to think and understand properly. The ultimate goal is to answer the question "How then shall I live?"

Is it possible to investigate or have a critical viewpoint and to inquire into values, without ever adhering to any system?

I think wisdom would demand that one never believe they have arrived at final truth and remain open to new information. One would operate on what they believed to be the best way currently known, but would remain open to the existence of an even better way.

Why isn't it better to keep a skeptical but open minded approach to everything? As soon as you say "I'm an existentialist, I'm a Buddhist" aren't you saying, "I don't think anything but this has value, and anything that may come around later is junk."

Those who subscribe to a particular school of philosophical thought are rare. There are many who have formally studied systems of thought and found that they buy into one more than the rest, but true believers aren't that common(as far as I know).

 

[Robin]

Is it possible to investigate or have a critical viewpoint and to inquire into values, without ever adhering to any system?

This whole topic has been a major straw man. The point of philosophy has never been to create a system to follow. Philosophers don't say - "these are the rules, follow them" (well maybe Marx). They say in effect "here's what I think". They don't say "You must also think this".

But that does not mean that you should not read other philosophers and just start from scratch.

Why isn't it better to keep a skeptical but open minded approach to everything?

And on the whole this is what philosophers do and what they recommend. One of the greatest philosophers, Socrates, said that the most important thing is to know that you don't know.

As soon as you say "I'm an existentialist, I'm a Buddhist" aren't you saying, "I don't think anything but this has value, and anything that may come around later is junk."

Well I doubt anybody has said "I'm an existentialist" in the past 30 years, but these labels are often the way others have put on philosophers rather than names people give themselves.

 

[arthwollipot]

Re: Re: My philosophy

Okay, I think your philosophy is a crock but I will apologise for
suggesting that you don't take it seriously and for anything else I said that might have angered you.

You're entitled to your opinion, in fact that's a part of my argument. Apology accepted. *Shake*.

 

[jay gw]

The point of philosophy has never been to create a system to follow.

How do you know what philosopher's points are? Buddha didn't say his system was for everyone to follow either. Neither did Muhammed. So what?

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Well, the problem is I don't accept some of that definition. I don't see what moral self discipline has to do with doing philosophy.
Put in a less outdated vernacular, a philosopher is one who seeks to think and understand properly. The ultimate goal is to answer the question "How then shall I live?"

I suspect you may have just shown exactly what moral self discipline has to do with philosophy right there.

 

[Yahweh]

Which Philosophy Do You Follow?

Just a little bit of fun. I, apparently, am a hybrid Existentialist/Strong Egoist.

Silly quizzes like this show just how much one's personal take on life does not fit into predefined categories.

My results:
100% Existentialist
90% Utilitarian
90% Humanist

Apparently, I'm least compatible with Egoism, Nihilism, and Divine Command.

 

[Robin]

How do you know what philosopher's points are?

I read what they write.

Buddha didn't say his system was for everyone to follow either. Neither did Muhammed. So what?

Well Jesus suggested that if you didn't follow his way then you would be eternally punished.

But what is your point? Your original post suggests that there are people that have a dependence on Aristotle or Nietzsche or that people follow these philosophies in the same way that others follow religion, but I have never heard of such a thing.

 

[arthwollipot]

I read what they write.

Well Jesus suggested that if you didn't follow his way then you would be eternally punished.

But what is your point? Your original post suggests that there are people that have a dependence on Aristotle or Nietzsche or that people follow these philosophies in the same way that others follow religion, but I have never heard of such a thing.

People's philosophies may well be influenced by Aristotle or Neitzchke, but in general I agree with Robin here. The only "true" Neitzchkean was Neitzchke.

That wasn't always true though. Up until the time of Galileo, Aristotle was almost a religion because it had been taken up by Christianity and almost became dogma.

 

[Jono]

We need, shelter, we need food, we need water and we need slep... to survive.

Though the more progressive abstract aspect of us thrives with fruits of thought, food for thought, water for thought, shelter and rest for thought... contemplation.

To survive we need only first four forementioned things.

Though perhaps our mind will be dry, hungry, cold and tired from the lack of abstract stimuli?

 

[username]

<table border='0' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='300'><tr><td><table border='0' width='300' cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0'><tr><td>

<font face='Arial' size='1'>Existentialism</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='75' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>75%</font></td></tr><tr><td>

<font face='Arial' size='1'>Justice (Fairness)</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='65' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>65%</font></td></tr><tr><td>

<font face='Arial' size='1'>Strong Egoism</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='50' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>50%</font></td></tr><tr><td>

<font face='Arial' size='1'>Hedonism</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='50' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>50%</font></td></tr><tr><td>

<font face='Arial' size='1'>Kantianism</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='40' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>40%</font></td></tr><tr><td>

<font face='Arial' size='1'>Apathy</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='40' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>40%</font></td></tr><tr><td>

<font face='Arial' size='1'>Utilitarianism</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='40' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>40%</font></td></tr><tr><td>

<font face='Arial' size='1'>Nihilism</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='30' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>30%</font></td></tr><tr><td>

<font face='Arial' size='1'>Divine Command</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='0' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>0%</font></td></tr></td></tr></table>
</table>

 

[1inChrist]

Even though you quoted it, you missed entirely the meaning of my last sentence. Let me repeat it for you:

Silly quizzes like this show just how much one's personal take on life does not fit into predefined categories.

Is that a little clearer?

Interesting quiz.

My results:

You scored as Divine Command.

Your life is directed by Divine Command: Your god and religion give you meaning and direction.

Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.”
--King James Version of the Bible

Divine Command 100%

Justice (Fairness) 100%

Kantianism 65%

Existentialism 50%

Utilitarianism 50%

Strong Egoism 25%

Hedonism 0%

Apathy 0%

Nihilism 0%

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Interesting quiz.

Indeed. It shows how amazingly different we all think. I have seen not really similar results. We should start a thread with the graphs of everyone of the interested.