My Philosophy

[Philosofer123]

Over the past few years, I have formulated my philosophy of life, a 13-page document that may be found at either of the following links:https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byh6JnTg3RMecHhxV0pYeklqV0U/edit?usp=sharinghttp://www.scribd.com/doc/183418623/My-Philosophy-of-LifeIn the first half of the document, I present and defend the following positions: atheism, afterlife skepticism, free will impossibilism, moral skepticism, existential skepticism and negative hedonism. The second half of the document is devoted to ways to achieve and maintain peace of mind.I have found the entire exercise to be very beneficial personally, and I hope that you will benefit from reading the document.I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have.Enjoy!

[Kevin Beal]

I can't really offer criticism since it's mostly a collection of conclusions and not much methodology.

 

Whenever I hear someone who advocates moral relativism, determinism or stoicism, some big red flags go up for me. Maybe entirely wrongly, and I'm not an expert.

 

Obviously if these conclusions are true, then to deny them would be at your disadvantage, but if they aren't true, then it seems to me to be especially important:

 

(This completely ignores the truth value of any arguments you may have)

 

 

A completely logical extension of moral relativism is holding yourself and others to lowered or non existent standards.

Not holding people to standards that are true regardless of who said it, that is, binding on people because it is logical, rather than an imposition of will, leaves just the imposition of will, and since that is not something anyone, including a moral relativist, would feel comfortable with, you are left with not holding people to any standards.

 

The reasoning looks something like:

 

1. objective ethics if true would apply to anyone because it's true, and not because anyone in particular said it (another way of saying objective)

2. ethics are not objective

3. moral arguments are all false, considering 2.

4. holding people to moral standards is to lie to them, either through manipulation or ignorance

5. what is really happening is an imposition of one's will over another person

6. an honest person would not impose their will on another person

7. an honest person would ask people to behave a certain way because they would prefer it

8. one person's preference is not any more valid or objective than another's

C. An honest moral relativist would never hold anyone to any standards of behavior (including themselves)

 

 

A completely logical extension of stoicism is psychological suppression and repression.

As Epictetus said "Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them." which is to say that you inflict suffering and misery on yourself. It would then be a cruelty you do yourself to allow these feelings and judgments to sustain themselves. Thus, the "healthy" thing to do would be to suppress discomfort.

 

The reasoning looks something like:

 

1. events don't cause experiences

2. people experience suffering

3. people inflict suffering on themselves in response to events

4. save for the masochist, anyone would choose to feel positive emotions over "negative" ones

5. to have mutually exclusive choices over how you feel in response to events makes those feeling choices arbitrary

6. our feelings and judgments in response to events cannot be said to be true or false, considering 5.

7. suppression / repression serve to keep the truth of your experience out of conscious awareness (defense mechanism)

C. There is no such thing as psychological suppression / repression

 

 

This doesn't mean that you do these things. I don't know you, right? And if the conclusions are true, then to say that something bad happens as a result of accepting that truth is pretty meaningless. I mean, you can't just decide to believe that something is untrue because it could have bad consequences.

 

But you can see that if you're wrong and you apply it the way I've shown, it's serious business. You don't want to be wrong about things like this.

[dsayers]

I have formulated my philosophy of life

 

Did you mean to say that you have formulated your conclusions of life? Philosophy is objective and isn't something that can be possessed or tailored.

[Philosofer123]

I can't really offer criticism since it's mostly a collection of conclusions and not much methodology.

Not true.  I support my positions with a number of arguments.

 

Nothing in your post addresses any of the arguments in the document.  

 

In fact, it is not clear that you have even bothered to read the document.

[TheRobin]

Interesting list and arguments. (Not that this means I think the reasoning is sound in all aspects though, but I don't like debating in text, as this usually get's very difficult in terms of text-size and ability to respond the specifics).Also just an fyi: Listening to Stef and reading the website will (hopefully imo) definitely disturb your piece of mind

[Philosofer123]

Interesting list and arguments. (Not that this means I think the reasoning is sound in all aspects though, but I don't like debating in text, as this usually get's very difficult in terms of text-size and ability to respond the specifics).Also just an fyi: Listening to Stef and reading the website will (hopefully imo) definitely disturb your piece of mind

Thanks for taking a look, TheRobin.  

 

I would be interested in hearing why you feel my reasoning is not sound.  If you do not wish to post here, feel free to e-mail me at the address located on the top of the first page of the document.

[TheRobin]

I'ts not that I don't want to post here, it's more that the addressing of the arguments and such are very time and work-intensive when done in text.I could post you some links though so arguemtns or perspecitves that you might find intersting.

In regards to you free will argument: This might be of interst to you http://philosophycommons.typepad.com/flickers_of_freedom/2013/12/peter-tses-the-neural-basis-of-free-will-an-overview.htmlIn regards to your negative hedonism argument: I want to mention that, if you accept that this is the only rational goal, then you have basically accepted an objective morality (As in, "IF you want your behaviour to be rational you SHOULD aim toward peace of mind", so that would negate your moral skepticism.BUT I'd also say, that peace of mind argument isn't sound or factually correct. 1) You can't downtune just the emotions you don't feel comfortable with. It's only one master-dial so to speak, not individual ones. 

Also feeling uncofortable is an indicator that there's real harm around you (or the possibility thereof), so it's short-term uncomfort for long-term benefit. (Like, feeling uncomfortable around certain people, may lead to sume ugly breakup, but afterwards you'll feel a lot better and reliefed due to the lack of stress in your life as a result of not having these people around).So if your goal is happyness (or lack of unhappyness) in one way or another, emotions that make you feel uncofortable are the best guide to get out of unhappy situations and are not something to ignroe or try to will away, as that causes just more problems in the long run (even though it might save you some discomfort in the short run).There are also some contradictions (when you talk about what one should do in one's life or what would be rational, or that one should focus on things he has control over) relative to your moral skepticism and determinism (if there's no free will, there's no control at all anyway. and if there's no moral stance, then there are no "shoulds".)In regards to feelings and relationships. I would recommend you Stef's "On Truth" and " Real-Time Realtionships " for some good methodologies and arguments in that regard.

 

 

Ha, I guess I ended up giving at least some arguments after all, oh well Hope it was of some use or interest,

[Philosofer123]

I'ts not that I don't want to post here, it's more that the addressing of the arguments and such are very time and work-intensive when done in text.I could post you some links though so arguemtns or perspecitves that you might find intersting.

In regards to you free will argument: This might be of interst to you http://philosophycommons.typepad.com/flickers_of_freedom/2013/12/peter-tses-the-neural-basis-of-free-will-an-overview.htmlIn regards to your negative hedonism argument: I want to mention that, if you accept that this is the only rational goal, then you have basically accepted an objective morality (As in, "IF you want your behaviour to be rational you SHOULD aim toward peace of mind", so that would negate your moral skepticism.BUT I'd also say, that peace of mind argument isn't sound or factually correct. 1) You can't downtune just the emotions you don't feel comfortable with. It's only one master-dial so to speak, not individual ones. 

Also feeling uncofortable is an indicator that there's real harm around you (or the possibility thereof), so it's short-term uncomfort for long-term benefit. (Like, feeling uncomfortable around certain people, may lead to sume ugly breakup, but afterwards you'll feel a lot better and reliefed due to the lack of stress in your life as a result of not having these people around).So if your goal is happyness (or lack of unhappyness) in one way or another, emotions that make you feel uncofortable are the best guide to get out of unhappy situations and are not something to ignroe or try to will away, as that causes just more problems in the long run (even though it might save you some discomfort in the short run).There are also some contradictions (when you talk about what one should do in one's life or what would be rational, or that one should focus on things he has control over) relative to your moral skepticism and determinism (if there's no free will, there's no control at all anyway. and if there's no moral stance, then there are no "shoulds".)In regards to feelings and relationships. I would recommend you Stef's "On Truth" and " Real-Time Realtionships " for some good methodologies and arguments in that regard.

 

 

Ha, I guess I ended up giving at least some arguments after all, oh well Hope it was of some use or interest,

Thank you for elaborating, TheRobin.

 

Regarding free will, nothing in the document you mention refutes the regress argument for free will impossibilism in my document.

 

Regarding negative hedonism and moral skepticism, you claim that ""IF you want your behaviour to be rational you SHOULD aim toward peace of mind" is an objective moral fact.  But your statement is a hypothetical imperative, not a categorical imperative.  And only categorical imperatives qualify as objective moral facts.

 

You claim that emotions are all linked to "one master-dial".  So I take it that you are saying that you cannot reduce (or eliminate) one emotion without reducing (or eliminating) them all.  What is your basis for this statement?  Can you provide backup for it in the psychology literature?

 

You claim that "emotions that make you feel uncomfortable are the best guide to get out of unhappy situations and are not something to ignore or try to will away, as that causes just more problems in the long run (even though it might save you some discomfort in the short run)."  But in fact, one does not need to feel uncomfortable in order to act prudently (in one's long-term interest).

 

You claim "if there's no free will, there's no control at all anyway. and if there's no moral stance, then there are no "shoulds"."  But free will impossibilism (lack of ultimate responsibility) is perfectly compatible with controlling one's behavior in a proximate sense.  And moral skepticism is perfectly compatible with rational "shoulds" or hypothetical imperatives (as opposed to moral "shoulds" or categorical imperatives), as discussed above.

 

Thank you for the reading suggestions.  I'll take a look.