My Philosophy

[Philosofer123]

Over the past few years, I have created my philosophy of life, a 14-page document that may be found at the following link:

http://philosofer123.wordpress.com

I do my best to live my philosophy, and I have found the entire exercise to be personally very beneficial.

My philosophy is a living document, and I welcome any feedback (criticisms, counterarguments, enhancements, or otherwise) that you may have. In fact, the primary purpose of this post is to solicit feedback so that the document may be improved.

Enjoy!

[WanderingLands]

Why are you re-posting?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Extremely nice document Philo.


It is soooo refreshing to observe your openness and authentic philosophic personality.


Your bravery and willingness to own your philosophy is like hens teeth here. Which is actually so bizarre.



After having written down your observations of yourself did you find that that mere fact changed your living philosophy?


Did you move forward in a way that at once took the thumos from your practicing philosophical definitions and at the same time allowed you evolve with a progressing life philosophy?




This forum is lucky to have you as a member. I encourage you to post more often.


.

[Philosofer123]

.



Extremely nice document Philo.


It is soooo refreshing to observe your openness and authentic philosophic personality.


Your bravery and willingness to own your philosophy is like hens teeth here. Which is actually so bizarre.



After having written down your observations of yourself did you find that that mere fact changed your living philosophy?


Did you move forward in a way that at once took the thumos from your practicing philosophical definitions and at the same time allowed you evolve with a progressing life philosophy?




This forum is lucky to have you as a member. I encourage you to post more often.


.

Thank you for your kind words, Bill.

Putting my philosophy in writing enabled me to eliminate inconsistencies and revise and enhance my philosophy over time. Virtually memorizing most of the document also made it easier to live my philosophy. It has been a very rewarding exercise, and I recommend it to everyone.

[NielsBohr]

Over the past few years, I have created my philosophy of life, a 14-page document that may be found at the following link:

http://philosofer123.wordpress.com

Hi Philosopher123,

I almost can't believe that you wrote 7 pages a year for this.

I do my best to live my philosophy, and I have found the entire exercise to be personally very beneficial.

-So if you let me an advice: reflect before, and act after. Could we know what kind of "benefices" ?

My philosophy is a living document, and I welcome any feedback (criticisms, counterarguments, enhancements, or otherwise) that you may have. In fact, the primary purpose of this post is to solicit feedback so that the document may be improved.

Enjoy!

Phil,

I you were a little curious, you could see that I wrote more since the beginning of august 2014 than you on several years: I explain to Uwot why an evidence of God would be without any meaning.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=13579#p175941

By contrast, giving a hope, and moreover a belief has more meaning.

The meaning of the meaning is exactly that it cannot be a statical fact. In contrary to have a inherent meaning (which should be as any other inherent one: very poor), it has an extrinsical meaning.

-More basically, you don't even give general definitions of the ideologies you invoke, as skepticism which I know very well, for having been skeptic for two decades, in the contrary of some others...

You should pose the right definitions impartially, and then reflect on what you write - going from general to particular.

By the way, you can re-write your "life-" (death-) philosophy from A to Z. Thank you.

[The Voice of Time]

I almost can't believe that you wrote 7 pages a year for this.

One should be careful of using pages as a measure for the efficiency of the work. Great works can have few pages but a lot of work behind them. Of course, I've already answered this work here: viewtopic.php?t=11905

And I too there don't really find much interesting about it. But that's philosophies of life, they are basically not that interesting, 's why there's so many of them xD too easy to make.

[NielsBohr]

I almost can't believe that you wrote 7 pages a year for this.

One should be careful of using pages as a measure for the efficiency of the work. Great works can have few pages but a lot of work behind them. Of course, I've already answered this work here: viewtopic.php?t=11905

And I too there don't really find much interesting about it. But that's philosophies of life, they are basically not that interesting, 's why there's so many of them xD too easy to make.

VOT,

I understand you. Yes pages are a poor measurement, and I am conscientious of that.

But... come on... The man comes after years to compete as a young boy about some void "proof of God"...

He think to bring back some superior truth, invoking a "inherent meaning", although a meaning properly cannot be inherent.

And before that, he should provide the right definition.

-A philosophy of life should be a biography under philosophical considerations, as
I began skeptic because...
then I discovered something else because...

Not a list beginning with some specialized notions, as some kinds of skepticism...

The title "List of my philosophical positions" is not even philosophical; it pose moreover some "positions", understanding destinated not to change, so there won't be any philosophical discussion, and - I'm afraid - not an inch of philosophy.

[The Voice of Time]

The title "List of my philosophical positions" is not even philosophical

That's ridiculous, titles aren't supposed to be philosophical or not philosophical, there is no such thing as a philosophical title, except for titles that make out quotations or textually written sentences as if they were quotes, and virtually no work of philosophy has ever had a title like that.

[NielsBohr]

Ok, a title, generally, is not philosophic in itself.

I wanted not to make a generality about the counterparts (examples of philosophic titles).

The point was the list.
You should see that the content was really a list, and only pose some ideas.

[The Voice of Time]

He think to bring back some superior truth, invoking a "inherent meaning", although a meaning properly cannot be inherent.

I'm not so sure about that. An inherent meaning would be some feature of something which by necessity would be important, something we regardless have to find the most important knowledge to have. To each individual there will be things which they by the necessity of their circumstances have to intelligently (with whatever intellect they happen to possess) seek to preserve. The meanings which they would by that logic have to find important should they understand its value os the knowledge of means to conduct the preserving.

The imperative to preserve is a problem I'm wprking on in my philosophy and science of needs, so I've touched on similar questions before.

[NielsBohr]

The imperative to preserve is a problem I'm wprking on in my philosophy and science of needs, so I've touched on similar questions before.

Ah, okay.

For me, most inherent meanings are:

• duty,
• pleasure.

And all that derivate, as work, eat,...

But most of them are "biological needs", what doesn't constitute - I think - a real meaning.

We can oppose stoics to epicureans about this kind of dialectic.

[The Voice of Time]

All human needs are biological (though not in the science of needs, but that's another story), and the needs influence your psyche and they become part of your intellect. However, in duty and pleasure, inherent meanings are purely a matter of faith... nothing makes the instances of duty and pleasure a necessity of meaning except by also being part of an imperative to make something happen in time and/or continue to happen in time (that's the longer more specific wording for the imperative to preserve) and being so as an imperative of your intellect.

[NielsBohr]

Humhum...

I think it is in trying to conciliate philosophy and life, because they are in this case separated...

-I opt for the opposite point of view. Yes there are needs, but I don't give them much meaning - exactly for the reason they are what they are (needs - so imperatives).*

I introduce you to the analogy with an hypothetical proof (as a visual one) of God - this would make the belief lost all its meaning.

Finally, my purpose is very clear:

We eat to live, and don't live to eat.

[The Voice of Time]

Humhum...

I think it is in trying to conciliate philosophy and life, because they are in this case separated

How? And which case, mine, yours or the 123-guy?

[NielsBohr]

In fact, I am corresponding with you.

You know... I think we have needs to live, and not the reverse.