Duxwing
I've Overcome Existential Despair
- Local time
- Today 6:24 PM
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2012
- Messages
- 3,783
Dear Forum,
Liberalism, existentialism, humanism, utilitarianism, relativism, monism, rationalism, empiricism, physicalism, subjectivism, all of these theories inexplicably appear very closely related to me, and it seems as if we could gain much by integrating them into a Standard Model of Philosophy.
Standard Model Layout:
Metaphysics and Ontology: Monism, Physicalism
Epistemology: Rationalism, Empiricism
Ethics: Utilitarianism, Existentialism, Humanism, Relativism, Liberalism
Aesthetics: Subjectivism
Political: Liberalism
We ought to begin by integrating all the theories of each branch by proverbially "factoring out" their shared traits and attempting to re-derive the original theories from these shared foundations. Next, we'd work out the Godelian kinks of completeness and consistency by optimizing for the former and using paraconsistent logic on the latter. Importantly, while ensuring that it is complete we will inevitably run into gaps in the theory, which I propose to resolve by putting those with one hypothesis on a train from Paris to Vienna and those with the opposing hypothesis on a train from Vienna to Paris and analyzing the ensuing explosion. In reality, we'd define what's missing and attempt proof by necessity.
A concrete example: the fusion of existentialism with liberalism.
Proof by syllogism:
P1: Existentialism is true
P2: Existentialism requires freedom
P3: Liberalism provides freedom
Conclusion: Therefore Liberalism too, holds, and we ought to provide maximum freedom in order to allow the most people to achieve their freely-chosen goals.
Another concrete example: the fusion of rule-based utilitarianism with point-based utiltiarianism
Proof by paragraph:
Rule based utilitarianism is thought to be good because it provides absolute results (-1, 0, 1) to otherwise ineffable questions; however, a "rule" of utilitarianism is nothing more than a value statement with a value of negative infinity, positive infinity, or zero. Therefore, we should adopt my new model of point-based utilitarianism as the more "complete" model and relegate rule-based utilitarianism to the place of Newtonian physics.
End of Examples
So, I leave it up to you, the forum, for I'm still wounded by nihilism's deathly touch. If I should be able to define my own axioms before this thread runs cold, then I'll jump in, too.
-Duxwing
Liberalism, existentialism, humanism, utilitarianism, relativism, monism, rationalism, empiricism, physicalism, subjectivism, all of these theories inexplicably appear very closely related to me, and it seems as if we could gain much by integrating them into a Standard Model of Philosophy.
Standard Model Layout:
Metaphysics and Ontology: Monism, Physicalism
Epistemology: Rationalism, Empiricism
Ethics: Utilitarianism, Existentialism, Humanism, Relativism, Liberalism
Aesthetics: Subjectivism
Political: Liberalism
We ought to begin by integrating all the theories of each branch by proverbially "factoring out" their shared traits and attempting to re-derive the original theories from these shared foundations. Next, we'd work out the Godelian kinks of completeness and consistency by optimizing for the former and using paraconsistent logic on the latter. Importantly, while ensuring that it is complete we will inevitably run into gaps in the theory, which I propose to resolve by putting those with one hypothesis on a train from Paris to Vienna and those with the opposing hypothesis on a train from Vienna to Paris and analyzing the ensuing explosion. In reality, we'd define what's missing and attempt proof by necessity.
A concrete example: the fusion of existentialism with liberalism.
Proof by syllogism:
P1: Existentialism is true
P2: Existentialism requires freedom
P3: Liberalism provides freedom
Conclusion: Therefore Liberalism too, holds, and we ought to provide maximum freedom in order to allow the most people to achieve their freely-chosen goals.
Another concrete example: the fusion of rule-based utilitarianism with point-based utiltiarianism
Proof by paragraph:
Rule based utilitarianism is thought to be good because it provides absolute results (-1, 0, 1) to otherwise ineffable questions; however, a "rule" of utilitarianism is nothing more than a value statement with a value of negative infinity, positive infinity, or zero. Therefore, we should adopt my new model of point-based utilitarianism as the more "complete" model and relegate rule-based utilitarianism to the place of Newtonian physics.
End of Examples
So, I leave it up to you, the forum, for I'm still wounded by nihilism's deathly touch. If I should be able to define my own axioms before this thread runs cold, then I'll jump in, too.
-Duxwing
