Do you feel related to a particular philosophical line of thought?

[pianowolfi]

And if yes, which one and why? Are you interested in philosophy in general? Have your say

[thalbergmad]

hmmm, no

[counterpoint]

I think that Scriabin was right 

He created the universe and all of the human history, presence (incl the internet!) and the future.

So we all are only creations of Scriabin's fantasy.

But his music is real 

[pianowolfi]

But his music is real 

Really towards the flame, then? Flameism so to say?

[counterpoint]

Really towards the flame, then?

Did you know, that Molotov was the uncle of Scriabin...?

[pianowolfi]

Did you know, that Molotov was the uncle of Scriabin...?

Well relatives do in the rarest cases matter when it comes to a philosophical orientation. But no I didn't know, or I forgot it.

[counterpoint]

Oh, I was wrong. It was the other way round: Scriabin was the uncle of Molotov.

So Molotov was an invention of Scriabin too 

[pianowolfi]

Phenomenology anyone? Existentialism? Relativism? Subjectivism? Idealism? Or your own philosophical approach? I am curious.

[Derek]

I'm a christian objectivist. My entire philosophy is built off of C.S. Lewis and Ayn Rand combined.

why: I have an abiding faith in the human race and its ability to come up with technological innovations which make our lives better (Ayn Rand) but also enough humility to believe in something larger than ourselves (C.S. Lewis).  I think that it is morally wrong to confiscate wealth from those who produce it (Ayn Rand), and I think that my life is far more spiritually fulfilling by believing in god. (C.S. Lewis).

[pianogeek_cz]

Well, I'm definitely interested in philosophy - both as a social science and as the very personal groundwork for values and morals. I think having a philosophy of yours to follow, whether your own or adapted (and then again, can you live by someone else's guidelines? Live according to precedent? Will your philosophy not -always- be partly your own, in the sense that you sublty alter the model - maybe a thousand years old - to fit yourself personally? This is, I feel, a very essential - possibly existential - bunch of questions...) is a very necessary thing for a fulfilling life.
If I was to point out one philosophical line of thought whose everyday implications are quite close to me, it's stoicism - not in the way that we can't influence anything outside ourselves, simply that I refuse to be thrown off-balance. It might very well be impossible to achieve perfect Autarkeia, but I try anyway. It's practical, in most situations. Marcus Aurelius is my no. 1 favorite.
Nominalism I like, too. Definitely more than Plato and neo-platonism.
I kind of like some of L. Wittgenstein's ideas, too; mainly the part which deals with private languages. And some bits of Schopenhauer I find pretty sensible (those which discuss Aesthetics, and I'm pretty inclined to like his version of genius).
It's all pretty much a rather rough mosaic, though. Some major edge-cutting and polishing work to be done, there are also missing facets to fill in, some parts are starting to crack... It's a life-long work for everyone, I think.

(Interestingly enough, I quite like the concept which appears in Terry Pratchett's and Neil Gaiman's book Good Omens through A. J. Crowley, demon. )

[ramseytheii]

I'm a christian objectivist. My entire philosophy is built off of C.S. Lewis and Ayn Rand combined.

why: I have an abiding faith in the human race and its ability to come up with technological innovations which make our lives better (Ayn Rand) but also enough humility to believe in something larger than ourselves (C.S. Lewis).  I think that it is morally wrong to confiscate wealth from those who produce it (Ayn Rand), and I think that my life is far more spiritually fulfilling by believing in god. (C.S. Lewis).

Hmm... say more!  How do you score it?  The Bible says give everything away, and when they ask Jesus about taxes, he says, "Render unto Caesar..." etc.  There's unquestionably a contradiction between Rand and Christian teaching there.  Also, the teachings of Acts are opposed to Rand's philosophy and democracy in general, since according to Rand, and actually according to the Constitution, the "rulers" are ruled by the people, not the other way around.

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

'do unto others as you wish it would be done to you.'

'if mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.'

[pianogeek_cz]

'do unto others as you wish it would be done to you.'

Hehe. This is actually a statement that is not often pondered to the end. What it actually does, besides warning before unilateral actions and generally before doing wrong to other people, is that it justifies reciprocity (eye for eye, tooth for tooth). The obvious example would be terrorists, for example: they murder people, therefore, they expect to be murdered/assassinated/disposed of in whatever way necessary, or it also justifies capital punishment for murederers. It is of question whether this applies also to sets greater than one individual (e. g. corporations, ethnical groups, nations...).

[pianistimo]

if Jesus Christ sacrificed his own life for the entire world - then surely what he meant wasn't murder.  that was what the romans did.  murdered an innocent man.  doing to others as you would wish it be done to you - is usually treating others as one treats oneself.  pretty good.  and, yes...i think if everyone did it - then entire corporations could change.

[ramseytheii]

Hehe. This is actually a statement that is not often pondered to the end. What it actually does, besides warning before unilateral actions and generally before doing wrong to other people, is that it justifies reciprocity (eye for eye, tooth for tooth). The obvious example would be terrorists, for example: they murder people, therefore, they expect to be murdered/assassinated/disposed of in whatever way necessary, or it also justifies capital punishment for murederers. It is of question whether this applies also to sets greater than one individual (e. g. corporations, ethnical groups, nations...).

I think you've got it backwards, or at least mixed up.  Although in the Gospel the punishment of terrorists, death, is predicted, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword."

First of all, the statement never says, that what you do to others will be done to you.  It doesn't mean eye for an eye, because it carries no threat of punishment.

Second of all, it's the Golden Rule, not the only rule.  You might say, well, if you want to die, this means you should kill other people.  But another rule says, don't kill.  There are obviously limitations on what you can do under this Golden Umbrella.

Walter Ramsey

[Derek]

Hmm... say more!  How do you score it?  The Bible says give everything away, and when they ask Jesus about taxes, he says, "Render unto Caesar..." etc.  There's unquestionably a contradiction between Rand and Christian teaching there.  Also, the teachings of Acts are opposed to Rand's philosophy and democracy in general, since according to Rand, and actually according to the Constitution, the "rulers" are ruled by the people, not the other way around.

Walter Ramsey

I think most christians today would say I'm a heretic or satanic or something like that, because I maintain that it is possible to be a strong christian yet question everything and try to reason things out for myself. I don't think God cares whether I believe the earth is 6000 or 5,000,000,000 years old; I think God cares that I am using my mind and trying as hard as I can to ascertain what he wants me to be and do in this life. I have found Christianity, the bible, ayn rand's novels, novels by Aldous Huxley, and many other books and ideas to have a great deal of truth in them. (that's what I believe, not saying that that is fact..)

...Whenever I say such things, hard core adherants of each philosophy tell me there can be only one truth. But I have enough courage to believe in my own ability to ascertain truth. I think there IS one truth, but the idea that a handful of humans with jesus as its head 2000 years ago or a crazy russian woman from 50 years have a monopoly on the truth is completely ridiculous to me. It would be kind of like saying classical music is the only good music in the world.

Ayn Rand tells us to be selfish, to always act in our own rational self interest. This is the basis of a strong Capitalist society; someone comes up with an idea that benefits himself, and finds it is easy to produce more of that idea and sell it to others. He has thus created new wealth and benefitted millions of people without sacrificing himself to them.

However in order to come up with these sorts of innovations, many capitalists not only think about what would better their own lives, but what would better other peoples' lives. To me, this motivation is rooted in altruism, which Ayn Rand firmly opposes (ironically, from my angle).  Altruism, as everyone knows, is a strong component of Christianity. Turn the other cheek, and that sort of thing.   I don't think the entire human race is made of heroes like in Ayn Rand's novels, therefore compassion is an important moral to cultivate.  While I believe government should be limited,  I don't think for example that public education should be privatized. But, I DO think it should be de-centralized as it is in europe (I live in the USA), so that schools are forced to compete. Parents know when their kids are getting a good education or not.

I could go on and on about my beliefs but there's a little more as you requested. Note that I feel no need to logically reconcile one with the other; I merely take what I personally believe to be truth from various sources. To me, that's true objectivism.  Many Randian objectivists these days are really adherants of a religion, with Ayn Rand as its god.

[teresa_b]

Buddhism, but without the extra trappings. 

Teresa

[ramseytheii]

I think most christians today would say I'm a heretic or satanic or something like that, because I maintain that it is possible to be a strong christian yet question everything and try to reason things out for myself. I don't think God cares whether I believe the earth is 6000 or 5,000,000,000 years old; I think God cares that I am using my mind and trying as hard as I can to ascertain what he wants me to be and do in this life. I have found Christianity, the bible, ayn rand's novels, novels by Aldous Huxley, and many other books and ideas to have a great deal of truth in them. (that's what I believe, not saying that that is fact..)

Bravo!  And you are in a strong tradition.  St Augustine, pontificating on the Book of Genesis, reflected that scientific knowledge which was available to people of his time was not available to the people in the time of Genesis.  The way he understood it, God "revealed" certain pieces at certain times.  He didn't see any contradiction, but he saw Genesis as a historical document of man's relationship with God, not as a word-for-word depiction of absolute literal truth.  I think today's anti-intellectual, bigoted Evangelicals are in a more primitive state of mind than people were in St Augustine's time (1,600 years ago).

...Whenever I say such things, hard core adherants of each philosophy tell me there can be only one truth. But I have enough courage to believe in my own ability to ascertain truth. I think there IS one truth, but the idea that a handful of humans with jesus as its head 2000 years ago or a crazy russian woman from 50 years have a monopoly on the truth is completely ridiculous to me. It would be kind of like saying classical music is the only good music in the world.

Ayn Rand tells us to be selfish, to always act in our own rational self interest. This is the basis of a strong Capitalist society; someone comes up with an idea that benefits himself, and finds it is easy to produce more of that idea and sell it to others. He has thus created new wealth and benefitted millions of people without sacrificing himself to them.

However in order to come up with these sorts of innovations, many capitalists not only think about what would better their own lives, but what would better other peoples' lives. To me, this motivation is rooted in altruism, which Ayn Rand firmly opposes (ironically, from my angle).  Altruism, as everyone knows, is a strong component of Christianity.

I think she saw it from a different angle: capitalists came up with innovations due to their producing nature, and if those innovations "helped" other people, for her it meant they sold (ie there was demand) and in turn produced a profit.  So the betterment of mankind was always a side-effect of production.

This may sound flippant to some, but it's a noble idea, that we can produce and live up to a moral standard of production, and at the same time improve conditions for untold numbers of people.

I could go on and on about my beliefs but there's a little more as you requested. Note that I feel no need to logically reconcile one with the other; I merely take what I personally believe to be truth from various sources. To me, that's true objectivism.  Many Randian objectivists these days are really adherants of a religion, with Ayn Rand as its god.

I absolutely agree with you on that last point.  But I ask only to pry a bit deeper, how do you reconcile this attitude with Rand's vehement comments on "package dealing," that is, combining mutually exclusive philosophies to form a sort of mish-mash that wasn't based on a firm set of principles.  Once again I don't want to provoke, but dig a little deeper.

Walter Ramsey

[Derek]

Now, I think principles themselves can be debated. Principles always begin with something that is asserted to be self-evident, but as you know even those things which are supposedly self evident can be debated (hence why there are so many philosophies in the world).  But for me, my "mish mash" of philosophies seem to agree on many basic principles. Here are some of them (it might take me a while to determine what all of them are)...

Here are my most basic principles, which I feel are self evident, and not in contradiction with christianity or objectivism or other philosophies I have explored:

1) We absolutely cannot KNOW whether there is a God. (Christianity asks us to believe, not to know...Ayn Rand realises we cannot KNOW but then goes further and says it is irrational to believe)

2) Regardless of whether we have free will or not from an external perspective (as viewed by God, in a thought experiment), we perceive that we have free will. Therefore, it does not make sense to assume that we do not have free will and act accordingly. To deny that we perceive that we make choices is to deny being alive.

3) We cannot truly know the final and most basic "what" about the universe. What is an electron? We find that when we bounce other sub atomic particles off of sub atomic particles, we get more sub atomic particles. Or perhaps energy.  But...these are all just labels. We will not answer the question: "What."  We may describe behavior of all these things from an internal perspective, but we will never answer the external "what," "why," or "how."   This is where I find plenty of room for God.

now for the right brained side of my philosophy:

Believing in God, for me, is incredibly inspiring. I feel like I'm serving a great and just King. To speak to him in human language and pray to him inspires me. I know I am not a perfect person, but with the Christian characterization of God that doesn't matter, he loves me anyway.

I feel it is part of human nature to believe in something greater than oneself. Whether that is God, or a mystical sense of wonder about the universe or the ideas of Truth, Beauty and Love, or a political movement, or Beethoven, or whoever or whatever else, all of us believe in something greater than ourselves. Rand believed in Reason with a capital R. Or believed in this capitalist utopia in which producers lived out perfect selfish lives in Atlantis.  We all have a religion of some kind.

My belief in God is rooted in the realisation that we don't know anything about the universe. Internally, we can describe some of its behavior with symbols, and predict its behavior in many situations based on that system of symbols. But we will never get outside and really understand it.  Only the idea of God makes room for the idea that we might someday understand and view the universe "from the outside," perhaps after death, who knows? I don't know. But I believe in it because it inspires me.

Is that deeper enough for you? haha. Idon't really think of myself as deep. I haven't read all that voraciously in my life, I don't know all that much about history or great philosophers. I just always question everything, constantly...almost neurotically and I never stop. When I realize that I hold an idea that is not well rooted in something I try to go to more and more basic principles until I can't find any more. If there isn't enough there to form an idea, then I assume it probably can't be known and there's no point in going further (this is where belief comes in, if it suits you).

[m1469]

Do you feel related to a particular philosophical line of thought?

Yep, I do.

And if yes, which one and why?

My own, mainly because I don't feel that I/we really have any other choice 

Are you interested in philosophy in general?

According to my philosophy :  No 

[ted]

Buddhism, but without the extra trappings.

Teresa

You beat me to it. That's exactly what I was going to write.