Important Philosophies to Live By

[The Arch-Fiend]

If you had to choose two philosophies to base all your actions on (of course, they would encompass many other philosophies), what would they be and why are they important?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Stoicism, for one. I think it's important to do the best you can in the areas in which you are able to, and to let things as they are in things that are uncontrollable for you. I usually submit to whatever chance that befalls me because thinking or anguishing any other way is just a waste of energy and time for me. Copypasting wiki: "For the Stoics, reason meant not only using logic, but also understanding the processes of nature—the logos, or universal reason, inherent in all things. Living according to reason and virtue, they held, is to live in harmony with the divine order of the universe, in recognition of the common reason and essential value of all people."

 

[JR_IsP]

Nihilism: Don't take anything too seriously. In the end it wouldn't matter, you're always one heart attack away from death.

Search for the truth, seek knowledge, learn and never stop doing so.

At least until the wifi goes down and google is no longer available. Then you can go to the real world.

 

[Turnevies]

My two: philosophical skepticism (nothing is absolute) and taoism (go with the flow).

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Absurdism – revolt against the meaninglessness of life.

 

[QuickTwist]

Treat everyone with respect. If someone abuses you, if you can, hurt them very very badly.

 

[redbaron]

Multitudinism: not living life based on a limited selection of philosophies

 

[Nymus Anon]

Screw everything, nothing really matters in the end anyways.

 

[TheManBeyond]

Cobainism: life is what happens between the head and the wall. All the brains.

Chinese proverb: stop ur hand before u accidentally swallow ur own cum.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

Buddhism: Because I find it interesting. Important? Who knows. Perhaps, there are better possible philiosophies that does what Buddhism aims to do. I am interested to live mindfully, and follow some of its percepts (develop mindfulness and concentration), and check what I find. I desire further clarity, and I am not satisfied with the cloudiness in my perception, and the lack of direction and integrity in my conscious mind.

Pyrrhonism: To not take any view too seriously. To understand the uncertainty in each view (including Buddhism and Pyrrhonism). To keep me from getting to absorbed in any one view, becoming blind in faith.

 

[Cognisant]

Existential Realism and Objectivism.

If you're feeling fatalistic watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMbI6sk-62E

Feel better?

 

[ZenRaiden]

hmmm probably a philosphy that gets best results based on my potential. Id call it optimalism. Its a philosphy I juust invented.

 

[AndyC]

Something that probably isn't original, but is the product of my own reflections and research regarding perception, my philosophy of meaning through intentionality:

It is through language that we can intelligently understand the world, through generalizations (chunking of information), we can develop concepts (semantics), and through language organize them (syntax). Conscious experience is a result of instantiating qualia (panqualityism, but stay with me), not in some immaterial form, but what happens when you recognize an object is you first recognize it through the senses as a primitive form, and then language for an intelligent impression, this is a process of apprehension. Evidence of this is a study which showed people when speaking different languages experienced time in different ways, our experience is shaped by language because of the way it influences semantics/generalizations/concepts. What's even more interesting is that the verbal pronunciation of the word itself has significance, adding evidence to the idea of sensory chunking and concepts. Qualia (why your blue may not be my blue) is an illusion that occurs because of needed differentiation between information and because of something else that is the philosophy I am about to explain.

Meaning is a consequence of organised semantics/concepts/you get what I mean now, it only acts to satisfy such a system. If you saw a poem I wrote on another thread, I speak of how identity is the cause of suffering, existential suffering because there is no personal 'identity' that is existentially drifting. I then add that you should direct energy towards action and towards perception, drawing off the ideas of intention, intentionality and other things from different philosophies. Intentionality is what is relevant for the moment. We instantiate, not qualia, but meaning to the things around us, meaning I believe is what allows us to differentiate between impressions. Therefore meaning, because of a limit of application due to definition and its processes (I only say this in the case of someone else's rebuttal to the upcoming point), exists in everything we direct our perception towards, which is intentionality. Therefore, I would argue that all meaning exists in what we put our intentionality towards, so long as it is has grounding in 'truth' (ignoring subjectivity, applying Sean Carroll's ideas of poetic naturalism), one should therefore understand truth and what it entails, if you think it's necessary I'll make another post.

This is simply a scientific/objectively philosophical extension of many 'obvious "ways of life"'. The strongest argument against is on the definition of meaning, yet mine does not fail to sufficiently define its commonalities, but also too, its implicit origins, and from there can it be applied to the world.

This may not be enough for an individual to live by, something coherent with it, although my knowledge of it is limited, is Stoicism, so feel free to apply it's principles with the above. Ghandi said that happiness is when what you think how you act are in harmony, this follows both quite elegantly.

 

[AndyC]

If you're feeling fatalistic watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMbI6sk-62E

Dude sounds like Forrest Gump.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

Something that probably isn't original, but is the product of my own reflections and research regarding perception, my philosophy of meaning through intentionality:

It is through language that we can intelligently understand the world, through generalizations (chunking of information), we can develop concepts (semantics), and through language organize them (syntax). Conscious experience is a result of instantiating qualia (panqualityism, but stay with me), not in some immaterial form, but what happens when you recognize an object is you first recognize it through the senses as a primitive form, and then language for an intelligent impression, this is a process of apprehension. Evidence of this is a study which showed people when speaking different languages experienced time in different ways, our experience is shaped by language because of the way it influences semantics/generalizations/concepts. What's even more interesting is that the verbal pronunciation of the word itself has significance, adding evidence to the idea of sensory chunking and concepts. Qualia (why your blue may not be my blue) is an illusion that occurs because of needed differentiation between information and because of something else that is the philosophy I am about to explain.

Meaning is a consequence of organised semantics/concepts/you get what I mean now, it only acts to satisfy such a system. If you saw a poem I wrote on another thread, I speak of how identity is the cause of suffering, existential suffering because there is no personal 'identity' that is existentially drifting. I then add that you should direct energy towards action and towards perception, drawing off the ideas of intention, intentionality and other things from different philosophies. Intentionality is what is relevant for the moment. We instantiate, not qualia, but meaning to the things around us, meaning I believe is what allows us to differentiate between impressions. Therefore meaning, because of a limit of application due to definition and its processes (I only say this in the case of someone else's rebuttal to the upcoming point), exists in everything we direct our perception towards, which is intentionality. Therefore, I would argue that all meaning exists in what we put our intentionality towards, so long as it is has grounding in 'truth' (ignoring subjectivity, applying Sean Carroll's ideas of poetic naturalism), one should therefore understand truth and what it entails, if you think it's necessary I'll make another post.

This is simply a scientific/objectively philosophical extension of many 'obvious "ways of life"'. The strongest argument against is on the definition of meaning, yet mine does not fail to sufficiently define its commonalities, but also too, its implicit origins, and from there can it be applied to the world.

This may not be enough for an individual to live by, something coherent with it, although my knowledge of it is limited, is Stoicism, so feel free to apply it's principles with the above. Ghandi said that happiness is when what you think how you act are in harmony, this follows both quite elegantly.

You might be interested in these research papers:
http://lera.ucsd.edu/papers/
She conducts studies on relationships of language and mind (thought-structure).

 

[AndyC]

You might be interested in these research papers:
http://lera.ucsd.edu/papers/
She conducts studies on relationships of language and mind (thought-structure).

Thanks, this will be very helpful in my research. I forgot to add to my post that my arguments were based off my understanding of linguistic relativity

 

[J-man]

Don't live your life based on a philosophy. As if you would anyway.

 

[Reluctantly]

Something about living the best life you can and/or striving to do so. And you get to define what that is and constantly change it to suit what you find as "best". So multitudinism I guess. \( ﾟ◡ﾟ)/