what are your philosophies? Watch

Monkey.Man
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
freewill/determinism?
the nature/meaning of ethics/goodness?
the nature of society/humanity?
what it means to be human/to succeed?
liberty/authority and democracy?
subjectivism/objectivism?
religion and spirituality or non-mysticism/atheism?
the nature/existence of justice?
the nature of the universe/transcendentalism?
purposivism/nihilism?
optimism/pessimism and the fate of humanity/life?
political beliefs?
animal/environmental (non-human) beliefs?
the most important philosophical concepts/theorists?
etc

I thought this might be a good, interesting and universal thread for a lot of people around, so, enjoy
0
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
(Original post by Monkey.Man)
freewill/determinism?
the nature/meaning of ethics/goodness?
the nature of society/humanity?
what it means to be human/to succeed?
liberty/authority and democracy?
subjectivism/objectivism?
religion and spirituality or non-mysticism/atheism?
the nature/existence of justice?
the nature of the universe/transcendentalism?
purposivism/nihilism?
optimism/pessimism and the fate of humanity/life?
political beliefs?
animal/environmental (non-human) beliefs?
the most important philosophical concepts/theorists?
etc

I thought this might be a good, interesting and universal thread for a lot of people around, so, enjoy
Critical realist, atheist and Marxist.

The Marxist assertion that human happiness is predicated on the satisfaction of our real needs is very influential on my thinking as is Mr Spock's assertion that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
0
reply
Freier._.lance
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by Axiomasher)
Critical realist, atheist and Marxist.

The Marxist assertion that human happiness is predicated on the satisfaction of our real needs is very influential on my thinking as is Mr Spock's assertion that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Isn't that just a statement of fact? The fact that two people each requiring a piece of bread which equals two pieces of bread is in turn heavier than one piece of bread which would suffice one person?

Or if that means what I think it means, and is in fact badly phrased, the idea that the survival of the many outweighs the survival of the few. Then it truly is a shockingly bad philosophy.
0
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by Freier._.lance)
Isn't that just a statement of fact?...
Not necessarily. Some, for example, might regard the needs of the rich to carry greater 'weight' than those of the poor. There's probably a near-unlimited set of variations that could be offered up like that. It all depends on how you characterise 'needs' I guess, and whether or not you assume such needs are distributed, more or less at least, equally among individuals. Ultimately I take it as a statement in defence of utilitarian principle, something that in modified form, and to varying degree, is widely integrated into actual political practice if not necessarily philosophy in an overt way. Talking about 'shockingly bad philosophy' doesn't strike me as very helpful opinion, meh.
0
reply
Kallisto
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
In philosophical discussions I like it to talk about the freewill or the determinism of humans or the nature of human. These are topics which interest me most of all.
0
reply
nimrodstower
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
My Philosophy is, Philosophy is bollox. Interpretation of natural phenomena is normally wrong, that is why Physics is such a difficult subject. The only way to assess truth is by empirical means, Philosophers may pose questions, but cannot reveal truths. A picture of a starving child, a wounded person after a terrorist attack, a jobless man, is more real than any Philosophical thought. I will wait for the day when the Philosophers give way to the realities of "WANT and IGNORANCE".
0
reply
Freier._.lance
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by Axiomasher)
Not necessarily. Some, for example, might regard the needs of the rich to carry greater 'weight' than those of the poor. There's probably a near-unlimited set of variations that could be offered up like that. It all depends on how you characterise 'needs' I guess, and whether or not you assume such needs are distributed, more or less at least, equally among individuals. Ultimately I take it as a statement in defence of utilitarian principle, something that in modified form, and to varying degree, is widely integrated into actual political practice if not necessarily philosophy in an overt way. Talking about 'shockingly bad philosophy' doesn't strike me as very helpful opinion, meh.
As you probably already guessed I not really a fan of the utilitarian principle, it has so much potential to be corrupted, especially by politicians. You are right, "needs" have to be defined properly. The potential for numerous immoral acts to be done under the banner of "utilitarianism" is immense, as has been in the past, and continues in this day and age.


(Original post by nimrodstower)
My Philosophy is, Philosophy is bollox. Interpretation of natural phenomena is normally wrong, that is why Physics is such a difficult subject. The only way to assess truth is by empirical means, Philosophers may pose questions, but cannot reveal truths. A picture of a starving child, a wounded person after a terrorist attack, a jobless man, is more real than any Philosophical thought. I will wait for the day when the Philosophers give way to the realities of "WANT and IGNORANCE".
Without philosophy we would have no science.
0
reply
nimrodstower
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by Freier._.lance)
As you probably already guessed I not really a fan of the utilitarian principle, it has so much potential to be corrupted, especially by politicians. You are right, "needs" have to be defined properly. The potential for numerous immoral acts to be done under the banner of "utilitarianism" is immense, as has been in the past, and continues in this day and age.




Without philosophy we would have no science.
Without Philosophy we would have more advanced Science, it was religious Philosophers who wanted to burn Gallileo. I don't hold much truck with Philosophy, Alchemists have better ideas, at least it was feasible.
0
reply
Jjj90
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
Cats are supremely intelligent. That is all.
0
reply
Freier._.lance
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by nimrodstower)
Without Philosophy we would have more advanced Science, it was religious Philosophers who wanted to burn Gallileo. I don't hold much truck with Philosophy, Alchemists have better ideas, at least it was feasible.
The religious "philosophy" that was responsible for the oppression of Galileo and Copernicius was not philosophy. That almost the equivalent of going up to a particle physicist and throwing an apple against a wall and saying that it is the equivalent of the particle collider at Cern.
1
reply
nimrodstower
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Freier._.lance)
The religious "philosophy" that was responsible for the oppression of Galileo and Copernicius was not philosophy. That almost the equivalent of going up to a particle physicist and throwing an apple against a wall and saying that it is the equivalent of the particle collider at Cern.
Philosophy Apologists? Of course it was Philosophy, just with a religious consequence, agree with Aristolean Philosophy, or prepare to meet thy "Match" Maker.
0
reply
Kallisto
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by nimrodstower)
My Philosophy is, Philosophy is bollox. (...)
I don't think so. On the contrary: I'm convinced that philosophy may very helpful to get answers in unresolved and unknown phenomenas in science.

Moreover philosophy was useful for our understanding in a certain degree yet. Just think about Leucippus and Democritus, two Greek philosophers who were the founders of atomism. The atomism is still our imagination today how objects are structured, even if the idea of atomism was improved in the following thousands of years. But the principle is the same: all kinds of objects consist of small and indivisible particles.
0
reply
Monkey.Man
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by nimrodstower)
Without Philosophy we would have more advanced Science, it was religious Philosophers who wanted to burn Gallileo. I don't hold much truck with Philosophy, Alchemists have better ideas, at least it was feasible.
philsophy =/= religion. religion is pseudo-philosophy in my opinion; making a claim about the existence of beings which has no evidence and suggesting, without proof, that this being believes and commands certain things, would be repelled by any informed philosophic mind. questions of why or how the universe exists being sweeped away by a religious mystical claim is completely anti everything philosophy stands for; if philosophy makes unproven claims, it doesn't do it with pride, it does it with scepticism with the idea itself. things that can't be proven e.g. free will or determinism, aren't based on reality perhaps but more perspective, whereas things like magic or god are simply based on synthesising reality
0
reply
nimrodstower
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Kallisto)
I don't think so. On the contrary: I'm convinced that philosophy may very helpful to get answers in unresolved and unknown phenomenas in science.

Moreover philosophy was useful for our understanding in a certain degree yet. Just think about Leucippus and Democritus, two Greek philosophers who were the founders of atomism. The atomism is still our imagination today how objects are structured, even if the idea of atomism was improved in the following thousands of years. But the principle is the same: all kinds of objects consist of small and indivisible particles.
This demonstrates the stupidity of Philosophy, what was basically asked was, If I repeatedly keep cutting some object in half, is there a point, where the object cannot be cut? In fact the word Atom, just means uncuttable. It never went further than "Can I", no body tried to test it, no experiment was done, it was all musing.
0
reply
nimrodstower
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by Monkey.Man)
philsophy =/= religion. religion is pseudo-philosophy in my opinion; making a claim about the existence of beings which has no evidence and suggesting, without proof, that this being believes and commands certain things, would be repelled by any informed philosophic mind. questions of why or how the universe exists being sweeped away by a religious mystical claim is completely anti everything philosophy stands for; if philosophy makes unproven claims, it doesn't do it with pride, it does it with scepticism with the idea itself. things that can't be proven e.g. free will or determinism, aren't based on reality perhaps but more perspective, whereas things like magic or god are simply based on synthesising reality
I would partly agree with this, only because Philosophy should have no bias, in reality that is not what we know, there are plenty of Philosophers who use their tools totally as apologist theists. I think Philosophy is a pseudo-Science, in fact I think it is a charlatan science, hanging on to the coat tails of empirical science.
0
reply
paddey7
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
Freewill, individualist ( the rights of one person should not be ignored in the name of the common good, that is the path to serfdom), and possibly a absurdist

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
ChangeOurWorld
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
Feminist Existentialist here
0
reply
paddey7
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by ChangeOurWorld)
Feminist Existentialist here
Why existentialist ?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Monkey.Man
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by nimrodstower)
I would partly agree with this, only because Philosophy should have no bias, in reality that is not what we know, there are plenty of Philosophers who use their tools totally as apologist theists. I think Philosophy is a pseudo-Science, in fact I think it is a charlatan science, hanging on to the coat tails of empirical science.
philosophy doesn't advocate ideas like "believe x or you'll burn in hell after death", philosophy relies on merit and persuasion, not brainwash or fear/undue pressure. philosophy revolves around questioning and not "it's illegal to ask that" like it might be in some non-secular countries. religion makes claims that are not based on rationality, it's essentially the establishing of scams or threats. philosophy in my view isn't anti-science; your view regarding things like subjectivism/objectivism, nihilism, existentialism, morality, etc are not based on science, but rather human calculation of intangible ideas and using logic as a calculation tool, opposed to empiricism; you go out there with a magnifying glass to know whether utilitarianism or kantian ethics are "morally right"
0
reply
alexandraMz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by Kallisto)
In philosophical discussions I like it to talk about the freewill or the determinism of humans or the nature of human. These are topics which interest me most of all.
Technically no one's completely free since we always need to think about the outcome of our action in order to see if we're gonna do it or not. Not only that, but genetic predispositions and the effect your environment has on you pretty much shape your character, hence the way you act. Although this view really depresses me you can't deny it's there to some extent, but I'd like to think we can have free will, just don't always choose to use it. As for the religious/theological view of determinism, it doesn't really work for me.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (162)
18.62%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (86)
9.89%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (145)
16.67%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (125)
14.37%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (84)
9.66%
How can I be the best version of myself? (268)
30.8%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise