| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"darwinist" |
| Date: |
09 Oct 2006 08:38:53 PM |
| Object: |
What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
Can you think of a few principles taken from your philosophical
investigations, that you find yourself using in daily life? Here are
some I use, as an example:
- People don't have the capacity for evil, or selflessness, so if you
want them to change to suit your will, you need to persuade them that
it's in their interest at the time, instead of getting angry at their
evil intentions, or trying to make them feel guilty for not being
selfless enough.
- Plans are never right or wrong, there is no right way to live or to
do anything. So when things seem "wrong", the best approach is to
improve step-by-step and not look for the correct way ahead, but simply
a better one. Then, when you've found it, an even better one.
- Emotions are evolved reactions to promote our genetic well-being.
Anger reflects a threat that you're not dealing with properly, guilt
reflects a social lesson you haven't learned properly, confusion
reflects a need for specific education, and depression reflects a need
for better plans or planning skills. For the most part, anyway.
I'm curious what practical relevance others have found from the
abstract and theoretical game that is philosophy.
.
|
|
| User: "BuddhaThu" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
10 Oct 2006 03:14:11 PM |
|
|
"Simplicity is better than complexity if presented right."
This is my approach to logic, math, and language. -- B.T.
darwinist wrote:
Can you think of a few principles taken from your philosophical
investigations, that you find yourself using in daily life? Here are
some I use, as an example:
- People don't have the capacity for evil, or selflessness, so if you
want them to change to suit your will, you need to persuade them that
it's in their interest at the time, instead of getting angry at their
evil intentions, or trying to make them feel guilty for not being
selfless enough.
- Plans are never right or wrong, there is no right way to live or to
do anything. So when things seem "wrong", the best approach is to
improve step-by-step and not look for the correct way ahead, but simply
a better one. Then, when you've found it, an even better one.
- Emotions are evolved reactions to promote our genetic well-being.
Anger reflects a threat that you're not dealing with properly, guilt
reflects a social lesson you haven't learned properly, confusion
reflects a need for specific education, and depression reflects a need
for better plans or planning skills. For the most part, anyway.
I'm curious what practical relevance others have found from the
abstract and theoretical game that is philosophy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "darwinist" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
10 Oct 2006 09:32:40 PM |
|
|
BuddhaThu wrote:
"Simplicity is better than complexity if presented right."
This is my approach to logic, math, and language. -- B.T.
Interesting. I think simplicity (presented right, as you say), reflects
a kind of mastery of past complexity. That is from a complex series of
experiments you want a simple (but accurate) theory. For a complex
situation you want simple (but effective) plan or, maybe, software
program. For a complex message you want a clear, simple way of stating
it to others.
It may be (sometimes anyway) that simple things only appear simpler,
because the conceptual boxes are arranged more neatly and the lines are
drawn more sharply, rather than there being less in the boxes or fewer
boxes in total.
There's a great quote, I think it's from Charle's Mingus:
"Making the simple complex is easy. Making the complex simple,
awesomely simple, now THAT is genius".
darwinist wrote:
Can you think of a few principles taken from your philosophical
investigations, that you find yourself using in daily life? Here are
some I use, as an example:
- People don't have the capacity for evil, or selflessness, so if you
want them to change to suit your will, you need to persuade them that
it's in their interest at the time, instead of getting angry at their
evil intentions, or trying to make them feel guilty for not being
selfless enough.
- Plans are never right or wrong, there is no right way to live or to
do anything. So when things seem "wrong", the best approach is to
improve step-by-step and not look for the correct way ahead, but simply
a better one. Then, when you've found it, an even better one.
- Emotions are evolved reactions to promote our genetic well-being.
Anger reflects a threat that you're not dealing with properly, guilt
reflects a social lesson you haven't learned properly, confusion
reflects a need for specific education, and depression reflects a need
for better plans or planning skills. For the most part, anyway.
I'm curious what practical relevance others have found from the
abstract and theoretical game that is philosophy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
10 Oct 2006 11:50:38 PM |
|
|
darwinist wrote:
There's a great quote, I think it's from Charle's Mingus:
"Making the simple complex is easy. Making the complex simple,
awesomely simple, now THAT is genius".
Science is not only about doing experiments.
The first step in science is observation, seeing a pattern.
Newton saw an apple fall. He saw another apple fall.
He made an experiment, he let a stone he held in his hand loose, and it
fell too.
He interpreted the pattern he saw, "things fall", was his
interpretation of the pattern he saw.
He could write it down in mathematical terms after a few more
experiments.
Things accelerate with 9.81 m/s^2 towards the center of the earth.
The observations form a pattern in the mind of the observer.
The people who lived long ago observed the tide and ebb phenomena, the
saw a pattern, they could form a theory, they could predict when the
next ebb would happen.
We can observe the phenomena bullying, it is a pattern we can see in
schools, in workplaces. A recent study in Sweden showed that two thirds
of all doctors feel bullied and burned out in their work, and have
thought about killing themselves.
It looks like the pattern bullying is present in most social
environments.
Is this a social behavior that is neccessary and unavoidable, like the
pattern that people eat.
Or is it a behavior like cannibalism, which we can decide is not good,
it is a behavior we can stop and eradicate?
To answer that question we have to study this behavior, find its
causes, find out how people learn this behavior. Is this behavior
connected to a certain cultural pattern, a tradition, an ideology, a
social organisation?
That is how science works.
Observations form a pattern.
We can express the pattern in words, do experiments or more
observations which confirm the pattern.
We can decide that the pattern is good or not good, if your car breaks
down and stop working after you have travelled 1 kilometer each time
you try to use it you have observed a pattern, you decide that it is
not a good pattern, so you take the car to a repairman to fix the
problem.
You test the car after it has been repaired and observe that the
annoying pattern has disappeared, you like the change and you see the
action you have taken as a positive action.
Observation.
Pattern
Observation to confirm the pattern, experiments to refine the pattern
and define it better.
Deciding if it is a good pattern we like, or an unavoidable pattern
which is caused by factors we cannot influence. If it is a pattern we
do not like and it is a pattern we can influence can influence we try
to find out how to do to stop the pattern to happen.
Sometimes we may be forced to change our own way of seeing things,
because the pattern we see and we do not like is actually a good
pattern, we realized that we did hang on to old preconceptions when we
did not like the pattern. We change our minds and the problem is fixed.
Applied science:
Observation.
Pattern
Observation to confirm and refine pattern.
Deciding if the pattern is good or bad.
Action to change the pattern, or to change our own way to see the
pattern.
New observations to confirm that things work as we want them to work.
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BuddhaThu" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
10 Oct 2006 03:15:43 PM |
|
|
I am not anti-complexity theorist.
But simplicity is just more interesting than complexity if presented
right.
BuddhaThu wrote:
"Simplicity is better than complexity if presented right."
This is my approach to logic, math, and language. -- B.T.
darwinist wrote:
Can you think of a few principles taken from your philosophical
investigations, that you find yourself using in daily life? Here are
some I use, as an example:
- People don't have the capacity for evil, or selflessness, so if you
want them to change to suit your will, you need to persuade them that
it's in their interest at the time, instead of getting angry at their
evil intentions, or trying to make them feel guilty for not being
selfless enough.
- Plans are never right or wrong, there is no right way to live or to
do anything. So when things seem "wrong", the best approach is to
improve step-by-step and not look for the correct way ahead, but simply
a better one. Then, when you've found it, an even better one.
- Emotions are evolved reactions to promote our genetic well-being.
Anger reflects a threat that you're not dealing with properly, guilt
reflects a social lesson you haven't learned properly, confusion
reflects a need for specific education, and depression reflects a need
for better plans or planning skills. For the most part, anyway.
I'm curious what practical relevance others have found from the
abstract and theoretical game that is philosophy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
10 Oct 2006 10:25:38 AM |
|
|
"darwinist" <darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:
Can you think of a few principles taken from your philosophical
investigations, that you find yourself using in daily life?
I find I apply Epicurus' ethical philosophy quite a bit.
--
There are two things that simply cannot be doubted, logic and perception.
Doubt those, and you no longer have anyone to discuss your doubts with,
nor any ability to discuss them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "darwinist" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
10 Oct 2006 08:44:15 PM |
|
|
Daniel T. wrote:
"darwinist" <darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:
Can you think of a few principles taken from your philosophical
investigations, that you find yourself using in daily life?
I find I apply Epicurus' ethical philosophy quite a bit.
I like epicurus' simple and direct approach to figuring out what we
needed to be happy. It was very humanist, dismissing wealth and
political power (perhaps too readily) and focussing instead on friends,
freedom and philosophical reflection, and the like, if memory serves.
--
There are two things that simply cannot be doubted, logic and perception.
Doubt those, and you no longer have anyone to discuss your doubts with,
nor any ability to discuss them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
10 Oct 2006 10:22:51 PM |
|
|
"darwinist" <darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel T. wrote:
"darwinist" <darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:
Can you think of a few principles taken from your philosophical
investigations, that you find yourself using in daily life?
I find I apply Epicurus' ethical philosophy quite a bit.
I like epicurus' simple and direct approach to figuring out what we
needed to be happy. It was very humanist, dismissing wealth and
political power (perhaps too readily) and focussing instead on
friends, freedom and philosophical reflection, and the like, if
memory serves.
His catorization of desire is especially useful to me on a daily bassis.
We must also reflect that of desires some are natural, others are
groundless; and that of the natural some are necessary as well as
natural, and some natural only. And of the necessary desires some
are necessary if we are to be happy, some if the body is to be rid
of uneasiness, some if we are even to live.
-- Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus
26. All desires that do not lead to pain when they remain
unsatisfied are unnecessary, but the desire is easily got rid of,
when the thing desired is difficult to obtain or the desires seem
likely to produce harm.
29. Of our desires some are natural and necessary, others are
natural but not necessary; and others are neither natural nor
necessary, but are due to groundless opinion.
30. Those natural desires which entail no pain when unsatisfied,
though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to groundless
opinion; and it is not because of their own nature they are not
got rid of but because of man's groundless opinions.
-- Epicurus, Principal Doctrines
--
There are two things that simply cannot be doubted, logic and perception.
Doubt those, and you no longer have anyone to discuss your doubts with,
nor any ability to discuss them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "darwinist" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
12 Oct 2006 12:44:17 AM |
|
|
Daniel T. wrote:
"darwinist" <darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel T. wrote:
"darwinist" <darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:
Can you think of a few principles taken from your philosophical
investigations, that you find yourself using in daily life?
I find I apply Epicurus' ethical philosophy quite a bit.
I like epicurus' simple and direct approach to figuring out what we
needed to be happy. It was very humanist, dismissing wealth and
political power (perhaps too readily) and focussing instead on
friends, freedom and philosophical reflection, and the like, if
memory serves.
His catorization of desire is especially useful to me on a daily bassis.
We must also reflect that of desires some are natural, others are
groundless; and that of the natural some are necessary as well as
natural, and some natural only. And of the necessary desires some
are necessary if we are to be happy, some if the body is to be rid
of uneasiness, some if we are even to live.
-- Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus
26. All desires that do not lead to pain when they remain
unsatisfied are unnecessary, but the desire is easily got rid of,
when the thing desired is difficult to obtain or the desires seem
likely to produce harm.
29. Of our desires some are natural and necessary, others are
natural but not necessary; and others are neither natural nor
necessary, but are due to groundless opinion.
30. Those natural desires which entail no pain when unsatisfied,
though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to groundless
opinion; and it is not because of their own nature they are not
got rid of but because of man's groundless opinions.
-- Epicurus, Principal Doctrines
How interesting. Being able to decide from abstract properties, which
desires are worth following. I wonder how well this works in practice.
Can you give some examples of where you've found each categorisation
useful?
--
There are two things that simply cannot be doubted, logic and perception.
Doubt those, and you no longer have anyone to discuss your doubts with,
nor any ability to discuss them.
What if your doubts are not crippling, but still present. I can have
some doubts about whether I'm voting for the best candidate, for
example, and still cast that vote. I can have doubts about whether a
movie is worth going to see, and still go to see it.
Likewise we can reason while doubting (at least some) aspects of
reason, or act as if there's a world (and other people) around them,
while refusing to be certain about it. We don't need to have absolute
faith in these things to make use of them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
12 Oct 2006 06:19:07 AM |
|
|
"darwinist" <darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel T. wrote:
"darwinist" <darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel T. wrote:
"darwinist" <darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:
Can you think of a few principles taken from your philosophical
investigations, that you find yourself using in daily life?
I find I apply Epicurus' ethical philosophy quite a bit.
I like epicurus' simple and direct approach to figuring out what
we needed to be happy. It was very humanist, dismissing wealth and
political power (perhaps too readily) and focussing instead on
friends, freedom and philosophical reflection, and the like, if
memory serves.
His catorization of desire is especially useful to me on a daily
bassis.
We must also reflect that of desires some are natural, others
are groundless; and that of the natural some are necessary as
well as natural, and some natural only. And of the necessary
desires some are necessary if we are to be happy, some if the
body is to be rid of uneasiness, some if we are even to live. --
Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus
26. All desires that do not lead to pain when they remain
unsatisfied are unnecessary, but the desire is easily got rid
of, when the thing desired is difficult to obtain or the desires
seem likely to produce harm.
29. Of our desires some are natural and necessary, others are
natural but not necessary; and others are neither natural nor
necessary, but are due to groundless opinion.
30. Those natural desires which entail no pain when unsatisfied,
though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to
groundless opinion; and it is not because of their own nature
they are not got rid of but because of man's groundless
opinions. -- Epicurus, Principal Doctrines
How interesting. Being able to decide from abstract properties,
which desires are worth following. I wonder how well this works in
practice.
Can you give some examples of where you've found each categorisation
useful?
I'm hungry. I know from experience that if I don't satisfy that desire,
the pain of hunger will increase. This is a "necessary" desire and I
will do whatever I need to in order to satisfy it.
I feel like having a snack. This is an unnecessary desire, because not
having a snack won't actually hurt me. So I weigh the effort (in both
time and money) of getting a snack against the effort of ignoring the
desire.
There is some debate as to what Epicurus meant by "natural" desire.
(Due, I suspect, to the fact that so much of his material was lost.)
Most seem to think Epicurus meant "desires not imposed by society." In
other words, if you were the only person on earth, would you still feel
the desire? Then it is natural, otherwise it is not.
When my child wants a toy, or just has to have a particular brand of
jeans, she gets a lesson in Epicurianism.
There are two things that simply cannot be doubted, logic and
perception. Doubt those, and you no longer have anyone to discuss
your doubts with, nor any ability to discuss them.
What if your doubts are not crippling, but still present. I can have
some doubts about whether I'm voting for the best candidate, for
example, and still cast that vote. I can have doubts about whether a
movie is worth going to see, and still go to see it.
In the above, you are doubting your ability to predict the future. You
aren't doubting the actual action, you are doubting if the action is the
best one (of several) you could perform.
Likewise we can reason while doubting (at least some) aspects of
reason, or act as if there's a world (and other people) around them,
while refusing to be certain about it. We don't need to have
absolute faith in these things to make use of them.
If you act as if you are certain about it (ie if you use reason, and
actually interact with the world around you,) but claim to be uncertain
about it, then you are being incosistant... irrational.
Since you both used reason (to come up with the argument above) and
attempted to communicate your reason to me, you are acting as if you
believe that reason works and others exist. If you don't believe these
things, then your post becomes pointless.
--
There are two things that simply cannot be doubted, logic and perception.
Doubt those, and you no longer have anyone to discuss your doubts with,
nor any ability to discuss them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_friend" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
12 Oct 2006 07:17:16 PM |
|
|
Daniel T. wrote:
"darwinist" <darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel T. wrote:
"darwinist" <darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel T. wrote:
"darwinist" <darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:
Can you think of a few principles taken from your philosophical
investigations, that you find yourself using in daily life?
I find I apply Epicurus' ethical philosophy quite a bit.
I like epicurus' simple and direct approach to figuring out what
we needed to be happy. It was very humanist, dismissing wealth and
political power (perhaps too readily) and focussing instead on
friends, freedom and philosophical reflection, and the like, if
memory serves.
His catorization of desire is especially useful to me on a daily
bassis.
We must also reflect that of desires some are natural, others
are groundless; and that of the natural some are necessary as
well as natural, and some natural only. And of the necessary
desires some are necessary if we are to be happy, some if the
body is to be rid of uneasiness, some if we are even to live. --
Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus
26. All desires that do not lead to pain when they remain
unsatisfied are unnecessary, but the desire is easily got rid
of, when the thing desired is difficult to obtain or the desires
seem likely to produce harm.
29. Of our desires some are natural and necessary, others are
natural but not necessary; and others are neither natural nor
necessary, but are due to groundless opinion.
30. Those natural desires which entail no pain when unsatisfied,
though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to
groundless opinion; and it is not because of their own nature
they are not got rid of but because of man's groundless
opinions. -- Epicurus, Principal Doctrines
How interesting. Being able to decide from abstract properties,
which desires are worth following. I wonder how well this works in
practice.
Can you give some examples of where you've found each categorisation
useful?
I'm hungry. I know from experience that if I don't satisfy that desire,
the pain of hunger will increase. This is a "necessary" desire and I
will do whatever I need to in order to satisfy it.
I feel like having a snack. This is an unnecessary desire, because not
having a snack won't actually hurt me. So I weigh the effort (in both
time and money) of getting a snack against the effort of ignoring the
desire.
There is some debate as to what Epicurus meant by "natural" desire.
(Due, I suspect, to the fact that so much of his material was lost.)
Most seem to think Epicurus meant "desires not imposed by society." In
other words, if you were the only person on earth, would you still feel
the desire? Then it is natural, otherwise it is not.
When my child wants a toy, or just has to have a particular brand of
jeans, she gets a lesson in Epicurianism.
I think the role of the individual is being ignored. Before the
decision is made regarding the snack, the individual causes the self to
think of food or snack.
The test of a natural desire is circumspect. If the desire is to blow
up the planet and there is no one else around, then the desire must to
be a natural one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
12 Oct 2006 09:52:31 PM |
|
|
"a_friend" <a_f_r_i_e_n_d@hotmail.com> wrote:
The test of a natural desire is circumspect. If the desire is to
blow up the planet and there is no one else around, then the desire
must to be a natural one.
Natural yes, but necessary? Such a desire is due to groundless opinion.
However, I agree that the test of a natural desire is circumspect. I
often think of it as having a natural satiation point. I'm not sure and
unfortunately, no surviving writing tells us.
--
There are two things that simply cannot be doubted, logic and perception.
Doubt those, and you no longer have anyone to discuss your doubts with,
nor any ability to discuss them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "a_friend" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
12 Oct 2006 07:14:47 PM |
|
|
darwinist wrote:
Daniel T. wrote:
"darwinist" <darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel T. wrote:
"darwinist" <darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:
Can you think of a few principles taken from your philosophical
investigations, that you find yourself using in daily life?
I find I apply Epicurus' ethical philosophy quite a bit.
I like epicurus' simple and direct approach to figuring out what we
needed to be happy. It was very humanist, dismissing wealth and
political power (perhaps too readily) and focussing instead on
friends, freedom and philosophical reflection, and the like, if
memory serves.
His catorization of desire is especially useful to me on a daily bassis.
We must also reflect that of desires some are natural, others are
groundless; and that of the natural some are necessary as well as
natural, and some natural only. And of the necessary desires some
are necessary if we are to be happy, some if the body is to be rid
of uneasiness, some if we are even to live.
-- Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus
26. All desires that do not lead to pain when they remain
unsatisfied are unnecessary, but the desire is easily got rid of,
when the thing desired is difficult to obtain or the desires seem
likely to produce harm.
29. Of our desires some are natural and necessary, others are
natural but not necessary; and others are neither natural nor
necessary, but are due to groundless opinion.
30. Those natural desires which entail no pain when unsatisfied,
though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to groundless
opinion; and it is not because of their own nature they are not
got rid of but because of man's groundless opinions.
-- Epicurus, Principal Doctrines
How interesting. Being able to decide from abstract properties, which
desires are worth following. I wonder how well this works in practice.
Can you give some examples of where you've found each categorisation
useful?
--
There are two things that simply cannot be doubted, logic and perception.
Doubt those, and you no longer have anyone to discuss your doubts with,
nor any ability to discuss them.
What if your doubts are not crippling, but still present. I can have
some doubts about whether I'm voting for the best candidate, for
example, and still cast that vote. I can have doubts about whether a
movie is worth going to see, and still go to see it.
Likewise we can reason while doubting (at least some) aspects of
reason, or act as if there's a world (and other people) around them,
while refusing to be certain about it. We don't need to have absolute
faith in these things to make use of them.
Second guessing is fairly common. I find that most people who are
perfectionistic in their approach to life will often create doubt for
themselves. The possibility of making an error is part of being human.
To learn from one's mistakes is more of an objective. Although it seems
that most people tend to take responsibility for the actions of others.
If a politicians provides a solid campaign, their poor leadership after
the fact is their own responsibility.
We are always trying to head of a perceived bad outcome, consequence,
negative emotion, harmful experience, etc. Some are just more skilled
at it than others.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
10 Oct 2006 07:38:02 AM |
|
|
Can you think of a few principles taken from your philosophical
investigations, that you find yourself using in daily life?
You mean cornball Readers Digestist practical stuff like being
virtuous?
1. Few things are guaranteed but one thing is always certain: If you
get into a fight with a poor person [coworker, neighbor, etc.] you will
_not_ make any money off of your effort. Blow off the local trivial
stuff; and focus on the big time frauds. "Don't get even, get ahead."
See: penny wise/pound foolish; activism
2. When you meet someone you initially dislike, always consider the
possibility that you may be a little like him yourself. Later on when
you are sure any comparisons are completely ridiculous, you can go back
to disliking him. Confucious mentioned this.
See: hypocrisy
3. If you aren't doing anything, don't envy/ complain about those who
are.
See: activism
4. Don't taunt judges.
See: common sense
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "darwinist" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
10 Oct 2006 07:34:48 PM |
|
|
Bret Cahill wrote:
Can you think of a few principles taken from your philosophical
investigations, that you find yourself using in daily life?
You mean cornball Readers Digestist practical stuff like being
virtuous?
If that's what you personally use, then bring on the corn.
1. Few things are guaranteed but one thing is always certain: If you
get into a fight with a poor person [coworker, neighbor, etc.] you will
_not_ make any money off of your effort. Blow off the local trivial
stuff; and focus on the big time frauds. "Don't get even, get ahead."
Interesting. I find it hard to imagine this applying in my own daily
life, but of course everyone's situation is different.
See: penny wise/pound foolish; activism
2. When you meet someone you initially dislike, always consider the
possibility that you may be a little like him yourself. Later on when
you are sure any comparisons are completely ridiculous, you can go back
to disliking him. Confucious mentioned this.
That's a good twist on an old classic. Something about we despise in
others what we don't see in ourselves. I guess your version would have
(and sometimes 'cause they're bastards, but make sure you check first)
See: hypocrisy
3. If you aren't doing anything, don't envy/ complain about those who
are.
I don't know. Sometimes it's better to do nothing than what some people
are doing.
See: activism
4. Don't taunt judges.
See: common sense
Heh. From experience, this one?
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
10 Oct 2006 10:06:36 PM |
|
|
2. When you meet someone you initially dislike, always consider the
possibility that you may be a little like him =A0yourself. =A0Later on =
when
you are sure any comparisons are completely ridiculous, you can go back
to disliking him. =A0Confucious mentioned this.
That's a good twist on an old classic. Something about we despise in
others what we don't see in ourselves. I guess your version would have
(and sometimes 'cause they're bastards, but make sure you check first)
Exactly, but you need to make a good faith effort, really use your
imagination.
Say someone smells really bad. You might wonder how good you'ld smell
if you went two weeks without a bath.
See: hypocrisy
3. =A0If you aren't doing anything, don't envy/ complain about those who
are.I don't know. Sometimes it's better to do nothing than what some pe=
ople
are doing.
See: =A0activism
4. =A0Don't taunt judges.
See: =A0common sense
Heh. From experience, this one?
Only one was I ever threatened with contempt.
Pretty amazing when you think about it.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
10 Oct 2006 01:21:34 PM |
|
|
As far as ethics is concerned I'm following the ideas of Epicurus and
maybe Aristippus.
As far as knowledge/belief is concerned, the scientific approach is my
way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "darwinist" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
10 Oct 2006 09:14:59 PM |
|
|
AE wrote:
As far as ethics is concerned I'm following the ideas of Epicurus and
maybe Aristippus.
I had never heard of him until now. Thanks for the information.
Can you be more specific about the ethics you follow from these people?
As far as knowledge/belief is concerned, the scientific approach is my
way.
Do you have any thoughts on the scientific approach or the broader
scientific method in daily life, when controlled experiments are all
but impossible, and yet important decisions must constantly be made?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
11 Oct 2006 12:04:18 PM |
|
|
darwinist wrote:
AE wrote:
As far as ethics is concerned I'm following the ideas of Epicurus
and maybe Aristippus.
I had never heard of him until now. Thanks for the information.
Aristippos Cyrenaios, the founder of the cyrenaic school.
Can you be more specific about the ethics you follow from these
people?
Both were egoistic hedonists.
The main difference is, that Epicurus believed mental pleasures would
be more important, since they are longer lasting. As a result he valued
future and planning for future highly.
Aristippus believed bodily pleasures would be more important, since
they are more intense. He (or the members of his school) denied that
value of future concern.
I don't think one of the two schools has found the ultimate answer.
Instead I think we need some future concern not to cause future pains
or make future pleasures impossible, but present is as important if not
even more important, given future is dominated by uncertainties we are
not able to control.
So I think the Cyrenaics were at least as close to the right answer, if
not closer, than Epicurus.
As far as knowledge/belief is concerned, the scientific approach is
my way.
Do you have any thoughts on the scientific approach or the broader
scientific method in daily life, when controlled experiments are all
but impossible, and yet important decisions must constantly be made?
It's is critical thinking.
Doubt what you don't actually know instead of accepting unproven
claims.
Test your believes against reality; avoid bias.
Use Occam's Razor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "darwinist" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
12 Oct 2006 12:52:27 AM |
|
|
AE wrote:
darwinist wrote:
AE wrote:
As far as ethics is concerned I'm following the ideas of Epicurus
and maybe Aristippus.
I had never heard of him until now. Thanks for the information.
Aristippos Cyrenaios, the founder of the cyrenaic school.
Can you be more specific about the ethics you follow from these
people?
Both were egoistic hedonists.
The main difference is, that Epicurus believed mental pleasures would
be more important, since they are longer lasting. As a result he valued
future and planning for future highly.
Aristippus believed bodily pleasures would be more important, since
they are more intense. He (or the members of his school) denied that
value of future concern.
I don't think one of the two schools has found the ultimate answer.
Instead I think we need some future concern not to cause future pains
or make future pleasures impossible, but present is as important if not
even more important, given future is dominated by uncertainties we are
not able to control.
So I think the Cyrenaics were at least as close to the right answer, if
not closer, than Epicurus.
Hmmm. These sound like guys worth reading more of.
I think if we can get "in the zone" of planning, then we are happy in
the present, as the game of planning necessitates dealing with the
facts of the situation, but we are also buying intellectual and
strategic insurance against the future. The ideal is to have the
immediate pleasure coming from a long-term activity (planning) that
pays us in installments, but also accrues interest.
Or something.
As far as knowledge/belief is concerned, the scientific approach is
my way.
Do you have any thoughts on the scientific approach or the broader
scientific method in daily life, when controlled experiments are all
but impossible, and yet important decisions must constantly be made?
It's is critical thinking.
Doubt what you don't actually know instead of accepting unproven
claims.
Test your believes against reality; avoid bias.
Use Occam's Razor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
12 Oct 2006 12:24:19 PM |
|
|
darwinist wrote:
AE wrote:
darwinist wrote:
AE wrote:
As far as ethics is concerned I'm following the ideas of
Epicurus and maybe Aristippus.
I had never heard of him until now. Thanks for the information.
Aristippos Cyrenaios, the founder of the cyrenaic school.
Can you be more specific about the ethics you follow from these
people?
Both were egoistic hedonists.
The main difference is, that Epicurus believed mental pleasures
would be more important, since they are longer lasting. As a result
he valued future and planning for future highly.
Aristippus believed bodily pleasures would be more important, since
they are more intense. He (or the members of his school) denied that
value of future concern.
I don't think one of the two schools has found the ultimate answer.
Instead I think we need some future concern not to cause future
pains or make future pleasures impossible, but present is as
important if not even more important, given future is dominated by
uncertainties we are not able to control.
So I think the Cyrenaics were at least as close to the right
answer, if not closer, than Epicurus.
Hmmm. These sound like guys worth reading more of.
Indeed. Sadly not too much of their own writings survived, but there is
lost of second-hand information. For me enough information was
available to find where my way would be.
I think if we can get "in the zone" of planning, then we are happy in
the present, as the game of planning necessitates dealing with the
facts of the situation, but we are also buying intellectual and
strategic insurance against the future. The ideal is to have the
immediate pleasure coming from a long-term activity (planning) that
pays us in installments, but also accrues interest.
You might have the perfect plan for future pleasure, but then a bus
hits and kills you. Then your pleasure reduced to planning without
actual activity.
The question is how to act now to maximize overall pleasure in life.
One extreme would be to avoid all future pains as good as it gets but
for this puspose sacrifice most pleasures. Your way (and to quite some
degree the one of Epicurus) goes in that direction: The long-living but
not very intense mental pleasures (in your case: the pleasure of
planning), but no bodily pleasures (since your plans might never become
reality).
The other extreme way would be to enjoy the here and now and go the
risk to destroy future.
Or something.
...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
12 Oct 2006 09:36:06 AM |
|
|
AE wrote:
darwinist wrote:
AE wrote:
As far as ethics is concerned I'm following the ideas of Epicurus
and maybe Aristippus.
I had never heard of him until now. Thanks for the information.
Aristippos Cyrenaios, the founder of the cyrenaic school.
Can you be more specific about the ethics you follow from these
people?
Both were egoistic hedonists.
If you have to live with a head filled with words, those words must
backup the way you live. You have to be strong enough to control those
words and your inner monologue.
If you live alone you can afford to have no inner monologue, then it is
okay that the words are in conflict with the way you live, because you
are not talking to yourself all the time.
I notice that every time I have met people I talk to myself constantly
for 2-3 days until the inner monologue stops again. That is painful.
To be in the social community in this culture you have to be strong,
and that means you have to talk to yourself and talk to others all the
time. Your life philosophy must fit together with your life.
If you live alone you can afford to be sober, if you are together with
people you must be drunk, lovedrunk or alcoholdrunk, or a fanatic.
That's why my philosophy has so few followers. Nobody can deny its
correctness, but nobody can live according to it in the practical life
in a speeded culture.
My philosophy make people sober, and is the truth, but they cannot
afford the truth, because the world is built on lies and conviction. I
cannot afford the truth myself, if I were to live together with other
people and have an inner monologue running constantly in my head. I
would need to have a beautiful girl to think about constantly.
I would have to be very strong and control my inner monologue.
Or very rich, so I can control my life and make sure everything is like
I want it to be.
It's a stupid culture, which creates so many conflicts in people's
heads.
It is stupid to force people to be so strong that they have to have a
constant monologue running in their heads. Most people will not be rich
enough to control their worlds, so they will have to use a lot of will
power to control their minds instead.
This is painful, so they will have a need to drink alcohol now and then
to relax and forget everything. They will have a need to go crazy and
let out some steam now and then.
Or seclude themselves from the outer world once a week, like some
people I know.
They are incommunicado during the weekends, they live in their own
little worlds then.
People cannot live in harmony with their minds and others in this kind
of culture.
They need to feel that they are in control of their world, but there
can only be one dictator in every home, and the others in that location
must submit to him.
This is not good for the dictator and even less good for the other
people.
The solution to this problem is to abolish the excited culture and that
is the reason for secularization and socialism. We have to make the
society less excited, less violent, softer and nicer, give even poor
people personal freedom, better possibilities to live in peace with
their lives and their minds.
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_friend" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
12 Oct 2006 07:19:26 PM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
AE wrote:
darwinist wrote:
AE wrote:
As far as ethics is concerned I'm following the ideas of Epicurus
and maybe Aristippus.
I had never heard of him until now. Thanks for the information.
Aristippos Cyrenaios, the founder of the cyrenaic school.
Can you be more specific about the ethics you follow from these
people?
Both were egoistic hedonists.
If you have to live with a head filled with words, those words must
backup the way you live. You have to be strong enough to control those
words and your inner monologue.
If you live alone you can afford to have no inner monologue, then it is
okay that the words are in conflict with the way you live, because you
are not talking to yourself all the time.
I notice that every time I have met people I talk to myself constantly
for 2-3 days until the inner monologue stops again. That is painful.
To be in the social community in this culture you have to be strong,
and that means you have to talk to yourself and talk to others all the
time. Your life philosophy must fit together with your life.
If you live alone you can afford to be sober, if you are together with
people you must be drunk, lovedrunk or alcoholdrunk, or a fanatic.
That's why my philosophy has so few followers. Nobody can deny its
correctness, but nobody can live according to it in the practical life
in a speeded culture.
My philosophy make people sober, and is the truth, but they cannot
afford the truth, because the world is built on lies and conviction. I
cannot afford the truth myself, if I were to live together with other
people and have an inner monologue running constantly in my head. I
would need to have a beautiful girl to think about constantly.
I would have to be very strong and control my inner monologue.
Or very rich, so I can control my life and make sure everything is like
I want it to be.
It's a stupid culture, which creates so many conflicts in people's
heads.
It is stupid to force people to be so strong that they have to have a
constant monologue running in their heads. Most people will not be rich
enough to control their worlds, so they will have to use a lot of will
power to control their minds instead.
This is painful, so they will have a need to drink alcohol now and then
to relax and forget everything. They will have a need to go crazy and
let out some steam now and then.
Or seclude themselves from the outer world once a week, like some
people I know.
They are incommunicado during the weekends, they live in their own
little worlds then.
People cannot live in harmony with their minds and others in this kind
of culture.
They need to feel that they are in control of their world, but there
can only be one dictator in every home, and the others in that location
must submit to him.
This is not good for the dictator and even less good for the other
people.
The solution to this problem is to abolish the excited culture and that
is the reason for secularization and socialism. We have to make the
society less excited, less violent, softer and nicer, give even poor
people personal freedom, better possibilities to live in peace with
their lives and their minds.
A much simpler solution is to learn to like being alone as well as
liking the company of others. Changing societies and cultures for what
are the indivdiual's own beliefs is rather overblown.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
12 Oct 2006 12:49:14 PM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
AE wrote:
darwinist wrote:
AE wrote:
As far as ethics is concerned I'm following the ideas of
Epicurus and maybe Aristippus.
I had never heard of him until now. Thanks for the information.
Aristippos Cyrenaios, the founder of the cyrenaic school.
Can you be more specific about the ethics you follow from these
people?
Both were egoistic hedonists.
If you have to live with a head filled with words, those words must
backup the way you live. You have to be strong enough to control those
words and your inner monologue.
Words are just labels for ideas - I'm using them to communicate ideas.
My way of thinking is obviously quite different to yours.
Yes, there is inner monologue, but it's possible to silience the inner
voice.
Every serious effort requires to stop the monologue.
If you live alone you can afford to have no inner monologue, then it
is okay that the words are in conflict with the way you live, because
you are not talking to yourself all the time.
I notice that every time I have met people I talk to myself constantly
for 2-3 days until the inner monologue stops again. That is painful.
And, maybe even worse: It's not productive.
To be in the social community in this culture you have to be strong,
and that means you have to talk to yourself and talk to others all the
time. Your life philosophy must fit together with your life.
If you live alone you can afford to be sober, if you are together with
people you must be drunk, lovedrunk or alcoholdrunk, or a fanatic.
That's why my philosophy has so few followers. Nobody can deny its
correctness, but nobody can live according to it in the practical life
in a speeded culture.
Maybe your philosophy has so few followers, because your problem is
unique or close to unique.
While I like as well the silent moments when I'm alone, I do enjoy the
presence of people. Communicating. Observing. Interacting in various
ways. No introspection but concentrating on other people, their ideas,
their words. Playing games with words and ideas. OR solving serious
proiblems.
My philosophy make people sober, and is the truth, but they cannot
afford the truth, because the world is built on lies and conviction. I
cannot afford the truth myself, if I were to live together with other
people and have an inner monologue running constantly in my head. I
would need to have a beautiful girl to think about constantly.
I would have to be very strong and control my inner monologue.
Or very rich, so I can control my life and make sure everything is
like I want it to be.
It's a stupid culture, which creates so many conflicts in people's
heads.
I don't see the conflicts. My philosophy is plain and simple and it's
the most natural one to follow.
It is stupid to force people to be so strong that they have to have a
constant monologue running in their heads. Most people will not be
rich enough to control their worlds, so they will have to use a lot
of will power to control their minds instead.
I'm not rich, but I'm controlling my world enough to reach a good
approximation of what I want. The rest is adapting to reality.
This is painful, so they will have a need to drink alcohol now and
then to relax and forget everything. They will have a need to go
crazy and let out some steam now and then.
I don't ever get drunken. Why temporarily destroy contact to the world
and that way lose that time to enjoy pleasures. Why go the risk to lose
control over one's life, even when it's only for a short time?
Or seclude themselves from the outer world once a week, like some
people I know.
They are incommunicado during the weekends, they live in their own
little worlds then.
Some aspects of my life are almost separate, but I'm barely ever
incommunicado.
People cannot live in harmony with their minds and others in this kind
of culture.
I do. I don't feel an inner conflict, and I'm living in harmony with
other people that are similar to me.
They need to feel that they are in control of their world, but there
can only be one dictator in every home, and the others in that
location must submit to him.
Not neccessarily - one can chose the environment to quite some degree
and find people that are alike. No conflict, so no dictator necessary.
This is not good for the dictator and even less good for the other
people.
The solution to this problem is to abolish the excited culture and
that is the reason for secularization and socialism. We have to make
the society less excited, less violent, softer and nicer, give even
poor people personal freedom, better possibilities to live in peace
with their lives and their minds.
less excited? What a loss!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
13 Oct 2006 01:19:44 PM |
|
|
AE wrote:
The solution to this problem is to abolish the excited culture and
that is the reason for secularization and socialism. We have to make
the society less excited, less violent, softer and nicer, give even
poor people personal freedom, better possibilities to live in peace
with their lives and their minds.
less excited? What a loss!
I am not against excitement as such, I am against excitement which
relies on violence and opression of others.
The happiness of the leading bullies in a school yard is the type of
excitement I am against.
Unfortunately, that type of happiness is very common in this world.
In USA, for example, a lot of people defend the right to carry
firearms, and they do that because the kind of happiness they enjoy
depends on their ability to defend their state of mind with the help of
violence.
That kind of happiness is based on power over other people.
Religions which demand submission under their rules are the same kind
of systems for creating happiness based on violence.
Violence in the name of God is very common in the world.
In fact, most of the violence in the world emanates from religious
cultural patterns.
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
13 Oct 2006 01:29:10 PM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
In USA, for example, a lot of people defend the right to carry
firearms, and they do that because the kind of happiness they enjoy
depends on their ability to defend their state of mind with the help of
violence.
That kind of happiness is based on power over other people.
Utter crap, unless you are a crook or a socialist thug, same thing.
Religions which demand submission under their rules are the same kind
of systems for creating happiness based on violence.
Violence in the name of God is very common in the world.
In fact, most of the violence in the world emanates from religious
cultural patterns.
Crap Roger, violence stems from ONE ONLY THING, *irrational ideas which
lead to irrational behaviour*, and that irrationalism IS found in the
politics of socialism equally as much and as well as leading to any
fucking mystical nonsenses.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
14 Oct 2006 02:36:24 AM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
AE wrote:
Roger Johansson wrote:
The solution to this problem is to abolish the excited culture and
that is the reason for secularization and socialism. We have to
make the society less excited, less violent, softer and nicer,
give even poor people personal freedom, better possibilities to
live in peace with their lives and their minds.
less excited? What a loss!
I am not against excitement as such, I am against excitement which
relies on violence and opression of others.
It's not the violence you are afraid of, but your inability to compete.
Read your own sentence above and then have a look at how this maps to
western societies.
Yes, violence does exist, but it's not as important as you are
continuously claiming.
We've got about the maximum of freedom we could get given the
ressources available.
Of course this means, we are able to interfere with the freedom of
others, and to some degree we can expand our own one at the expense of
the one of others, but this happens in a controlled way - controlled by
means of laws and social conventions.
The happiness of the leading bullies in a school yard is the type of
excitement I am against.
Unfortunately, that type of happiness is very common in this world.
Actually not.
In USA, for example, a lot of people defend the right to carry
firearms, and they do that because the kind of happiness they enjoy
depends on their ability to defend their state of mind with the help
of violence.
The right to own firearms is part of the history of the US.
Nevertheless the impact of these firearms is not too important except
in few cases that make their way into worldwide news. So let them own
their toys and see them as just right that: Useless toys they need for
their ego.
That kind of happiness is based on power over other people.
Religions which demand submission under their rules are the same kind
of systems for creating happiness based on violence.
Actually most religions are trying to avoid violence. Some of their
followers are abusing the power of religion for their goals, but you
shouldn't overestimate the impact of religion as such - social
structures are the problem, not religions.
Violence in the name of God is very common in the world.
In fact, most of the violence in the world emanates from religious
cultural patterns.
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sammybaby" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
09 Oct 2006 10:35:47 PM |
|
|
I would especially like to see how determinists think they use their
philosophy. Or notice the illusion of using it.
darwinist wrote:
Can you think of a few principles taken from your philosophical
investigations, that you find yourself using in daily life? Here are
some I use, as an example:
- People don't have the capacity for evil, or selflessness, so if you
want them to change to suit your will, you need to persuade them that
it's in their interest at the time, instead of getting angry at their
evil intentions, or trying to make them feel guilty for not being
selfless enough.
- Plans are never right or wrong, there is no right way to live or to
do anything. So when things seem "wrong", the best approach is to
improve step-by-step and not look for the correct way ahead, but simply
a better one. Then, when you've found it, an even better one.
- Emotions are evolved reactions to promote our genetic well-being.
Anger reflects a threat that you're not dealing with properly, guilt
reflects a social lesson you haven't learned properly, confusion
reflects a need for specific education, and depression reflects a need
for better plans or planning skills. For the most part, anyway.
I'm curious what practical relevance others have found from the
abstract and theoretical game that is philosophy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "darwinist" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
09 Oct 2006 11:46:09 PM |
|
|
Sammybaby wrote:
I would especially like to see how determinists think they use their
philosophy. Or notice the illusion of using it.
I'm a determinist, so the OP is one example.
The illusion of choice is no less and no more real than the illusion of
vision. We notice both in order to use that information in subsequent
decisions.
Like a computer is deterministic but still makes decisions, so too with
the human brain.
One of the main (functional) differences between a desktop computer and
a human brain, is that PCs don't analyse or remember their own
decisions quite as often, nor use that information about past reasoning
to improve future reasoning. They can do this to some extent, if
instructed, but not like humans. That is to say they're not
"self-aware" at anywhere near our level.
Maybe one day.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
13 Oct 2006 10:38:52 AM |
|
|
If there is "absurdism," then stick me in it.
darwinist wrote:
Can you think of a few principles taken from your philosophical
investigations, that you find yourself using in daily life? Here are
some I use, as an example:
- People don't have the capacity for evil, or selflessness, so if you
want them to change to suit your will, you need to persuade them that
it's in their interest at the time, instead of getting angry at their
evil intentions, or trying to make them feel guilty for not being
selfless enough.
- Plans are never right or wrong, there is no right way to live or to
do anything. So when things seem "wrong", the best approach is to
improve step-by-step and not look for the correct way ahead, but simply
a better one. Then, when you've found it, an even better one.
- Emotions are evolved reactions to promote our genetic well-being.
Anger reflects a threat that you're not dealing with properly, guilt
reflects a social lesson you haven't learned properly, confusion
reflects a need for specific education, and depression reflects a need
for better plans or planning skills. For the most part, anyway.
I'm curious what practical relevance others have found from the
abstract and theoretical game that is philosophy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AlanS" |
|
| Title: Re: What Philosophy Do You Actually Use? |
10 Oct 2006 12:48:19 AM |
|
|
If you are using it, it ain't philosophy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
