Please note that I have revised the "Negative hedonism" section of the document.
I have also added a new section entitled "Beyond peace of mind".
I look forward to any feedback you may have.
Critique My Philosophy of Life?
Re: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
I'll quote myself again, this is glaringly devoid of basic modern concepts.HexHammer wrote:You need to rewrite most of your stuff and read up on psychology, ingelligences, etc. It's obvious that you havn't really read up on modern science of how human precieve things.
-
Philosofer123
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:56 pm
Re: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
Please be specific. Please provide quotes from my document which you believe are mistaken, and please state how and why you believe they are mistaken.HexHammer wrote:I'll quote myself again, this is glaringly devoid of basic modern concepts.HexHammer wrote:You need to rewrite most of your stuff and read up on psychology, ingelligences, etc. It's obvious that you havn't really read up on modern science of how human precieve things.
If you refuse to be specific, then I can only assume that you are trolling.
Re: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
Your anitreligious section does not contain concept of suggestion, naivity, group think, etc, therefore it's sub par.
Free will section is pure nonsense, you make it into a weird equation, and totally devoid basic psychology, such as suggestion, delusion, ignorence, group think, etc.
Besides the question about free will was answerd like 80 years ago, and has nothing to do what you have written.
What you have spend so much time on, is unfortunaly useless writings.
If you have seen the movie "Rain Man", then you would see a dude who is brilliant at memorizing entire phone books, and a pure genious at math, but totally lacks basic rationallity in psychology and many other areas of his intelligence, therefore he does not conprehend human behaviour, their motivation and lacks prediction opposit of ie skilled marketing people who can manipulate people and predict their behaviour.
Free will section is pure nonsense, you make it into a weird equation, and totally devoid basic psychology, such as suggestion, delusion, ignorence, group think, etc.
Besides the question about free will was answerd like 80 years ago, and has nothing to do what you have written.
What you have spend so much time on, is unfortunaly useless writings.
If you have seen the movie "Rain Man", then you would see a dude who is brilliant at memorizing entire phone books, and a pure genious at math, but totally lacks basic rationallity in psychology and many other areas of his intelligence, therefore he does not conprehend human behaviour, their motivation and lacks prediction opposit of ie skilled marketing people who can manipulate people and predict their behaviour.
Last edited by HexHammer on Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Philosofer123
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:56 pm
Re: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
Your post contains no evidence that you have actually read the document.HexHammer wrote:Your anitreligious section does not contain concept of suggestion, naivity, group think, etc, therefore it's sub par.
Free will section is pure nonsense, you make it into a weird equation, and totally devoid basic psychology, such as suggestion, delusion, ignorence, group think, etc.
What you have spend so much time on, is unfortunaly useless writings.
The sections on atheism and free will impossibilism do not require the concepts you list above in order to establish their conclusions.
This concludes our discussion, unless you can provide a relevant critique that demonstrates that you have read the document.
Re: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
LMAO? Then how would I know you had these 2 sections? Are you trying to be funny?Philosofer123 wrote:Your post contains no evidence that you have actually read the document.HexHammer wrote:Your anitreligious section does not contain concept of suggestion, naivity, group think, etc, therefore it's sub par.
Free will section is pure nonsense, you make it into a weird equation, and totally devoid basic psychology, such as suggestion, delusion, ignorence, group think, etc.
What you have spend so much time on, is unfortunaly useless writings.
The sections on atheism and free will impossibilism do not require the concepts you list above in order to establish their conclusions.
This concludes our discussion, unless you can provide a relevant critique that demonstrates that you have read the document.
-
Philosofer123
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:56 pm
Re: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
The fact that you have read the section headings does not establish that you have read the document.HexHammer wrote:LMAO? Then how would I know you had these 2 sections? Are you trying to be funny?
It is now clear that you are trolling. This concludes our discussion.
Re: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
Your glaring ignorence is amuseing. If you actually had just a tiny bit of understanding of psychology, you would either confirm or deny my words by psychological terms, not just making an sweeping denial without arguments.Philosofer123 wrote:The fact that you have read the table of contents does not establish that you have read the document.HexHammer wrote:LMAO? Then how would I know you had these 2 sections? Are you trying to be funny?
It is now clear that you are trolling. This concludes our discussion.
Besides a critique is stateing an oppinion, an oppinion shouldn't be proved, that's not the nature of giving ones critique here.
-
WanderingLands
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
- Contact:
Re: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
What is this deal with you and Psychology, as if it's somehow the keys to the questions regarding life? Do you have some form of education in that field, or are you just pestering anyone for the attention?HexHammer wrote:Your glaring ignorence is amuseing. If you actually had just a tiny bit of understanding of psychology, you would either confirm or deny my words by psychological terms, not just making an sweeping denial without arguments.
Besides a critique is stateing an oppinion, an oppinion shouldn't be proved, that's not the nature of giving ones critique here.
Re: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
train-of-thought response
A link to a page with a link to a pdf pisses me off.
Igtheism precedes atheism but there is also the problem of how a finite being could ever develop a meaningful test for the existence of an infinite being. There are layers of reasons, just like the free will "debate".
There's no need to play with the definition of afterlife. If there's anything else, you're still alive.
There is no free will so there can be no such thing as responsibility in that sense, but just like free will, the concept of responsibility does real work so it must refer to something real in some other sense. Responsibility is to take charge of what you feel you can take charge of. If you don't actually have the power or you don't know that your do, you can't take responsibility, and just like respect it can never be Given.. that's duty.
Ethics is of the spiritual side where there are contingencies - salience, perspective, and priority. Nothing spiritual can be absolute but it can be absolute Enough, like anything else.
Fear of death is arational. It precedes rationality.
Negative hedonism is insufficient in the human context. To remove all danger would be to survive. But to survive is not the same level of meaning as to have a life, which requires a positive ethic of some kind. Peace of mind is a bespoke consideration which requires social compromise in at least some positive sense.
The way to have a good life is to have done good things by the end of each day. Success is having a bespoke life Tranquility in this sense represents freedom from interference, and is a tool, a pseudo-prerequisite for other goals.
It may be a universally true psychological statement that it one ever attains serenity, nothing is worth giving it up for.
promoting peace of mind - The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is to obtain actionable certainty. Towards what end is a different question. That's where the contingencies come into the equation.
Because most of your points are logically necessary, it is intellectually (but not pragmatically) redundant to show the benefits.
I can't hash out most of the bottom parts except in the context of agreeing on the contingencies first, but that could be a good conversation.
A link to a page with a link to a pdf pisses me off.
Igtheism precedes atheism but there is also the problem of how a finite being could ever develop a meaningful test for the existence of an infinite being. There are layers of reasons, just like the free will "debate".
There's no need to play with the definition of afterlife. If there's anything else, you're still alive.
There is no free will so there can be no such thing as responsibility in that sense, but just like free will, the concept of responsibility does real work so it must refer to something real in some other sense. Responsibility is to take charge of what you feel you can take charge of. If you don't actually have the power or you don't know that your do, you can't take responsibility, and just like respect it can never be Given.. that's duty.
Ethics is of the spiritual side where there are contingencies - salience, perspective, and priority. Nothing spiritual can be absolute but it can be absolute Enough, like anything else.
Fear of death is arational. It precedes rationality.
Negative hedonism is insufficient in the human context. To remove all danger would be to survive. But to survive is not the same level of meaning as to have a life, which requires a positive ethic of some kind. Peace of mind is a bespoke consideration which requires social compromise in at least some positive sense.
The way to have a good life is to have done good things by the end of each day. Success is having a bespoke life Tranquility in this sense represents freedom from interference, and is a tool, a pseudo-prerequisite for other goals.
It may be a universally true psychological statement that it one ever attains serenity, nothing is worth giving it up for.
promoting peace of mind - The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is to obtain actionable certainty. Towards what end is a different question. That's where the contingencies come into the equation.
Because most of your points are logically necessary, it is intellectually (but not pragmatically) redundant to show the benefits.
I can't hash out most of the bottom parts except in the context of agreeing on the contingencies first, but that could be a good conversation.
Re: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
[quote="The Voice of Time" post_id=151371 time=1384537930 user_id=7289]
Another:
[quote]However, death is not always harmful for the one who dies, as there are cases in which one would truly be “better off dead” after time X (if the remainder of one’s life after time X were fairly certain to be spent with a very disturbed mind)
In these cases, I feel that suicide is rational—assuming that one’s expected future
However, a disciplined mind should be disturbed only by severe physical pain or suffering outweighs both one’s subjective value of staying alive and one’s feelings of empathy (if one has them) for those who would suffer if one committed suicide discomfort
That said, I believe that it is irrational to fear either death or the state of being dead
As non-existence, the harm of death is the deprivation of future pleasant states of mind
One should not fear the deprivation of future pleasant states of mind, at least not in the same way one would fear future disturbed states of mind (such as distress or grief)
The state of being dead is not painful, as one’s consciousness ends upon death (according to afterlife skepticism)
If one does not feel horror upon contemplating one’s pre-vital non-existence, then why fear post-mortem non-existence?
As another analogy, consider dreamless sleep, which is generally not feared. As dreamless sleep is mentally analogous to the state of being dead, there is no reason to fear the state of being dead.
Regarding derivative harm from harming those for whom one has empathy, I would argue that while one may justifiably anticipate one’s death with a touch of sadness, such anticipation need not involve fear
Death is inevitable, and at best, one may have only partial control over its timing. Therefore, worrying about death serves no purpose.[/quote]
I wrote on the impossibility of death having value in and of itself in a thread about assisted suicide to the mentally ill, and I claimed further, that the desire and want for suicide is a mental illness in and of itself, as it cannot have value, and can therefore only be desired for itself by the conjuring of imaginative value. The argumenting starts with this post: http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopi ... 53#p149853 and continues in a fight with "Hobbe's Choice" over the course of a few pages. I too allowed for it to have value some places, but only as an instrument for a great cause external and unrelated to it, and never for itself.
[/quote]
Suicide is a social problem, not a psychological one. Most people survive existential crisis because they have a meaningful safety net and a way to progress out of it.
Another:
[quote]However, death is not always harmful for the one who dies, as there are cases in which one would truly be “better off dead” after time X (if the remainder of one’s life after time X were fairly certain to be spent with a very disturbed mind)
In these cases, I feel that suicide is rational—assuming that one’s expected future
However, a disciplined mind should be disturbed only by severe physical pain or suffering outweighs both one’s subjective value of staying alive and one’s feelings of empathy (if one has them) for those who would suffer if one committed suicide discomfort
That said, I believe that it is irrational to fear either death or the state of being dead
As non-existence, the harm of death is the deprivation of future pleasant states of mind
One should not fear the deprivation of future pleasant states of mind, at least not in the same way one would fear future disturbed states of mind (such as distress or grief)
The state of being dead is not painful, as one’s consciousness ends upon death (according to afterlife skepticism)
If one does not feel horror upon contemplating one’s pre-vital non-existence, then why fear post-mortem non-existence?
As another analogy, consider dreamless sleep, which is generally not feared. As dreamless sleep is mentally analogous to the state of being dead, there is no reason to fear the state of being dead.
Regarding derivative harm from harming those for whom one has empathy, I would argue that while one may justifiably anticipate one’s death with a touch of sadness, such anticipation need not involve fear
Death is inevitable, and at best, one may have only partial control over its timing. Therefore, worrying about death serves no purpose.[/quote]
I wrote on the impossibility of death having value in and of itself in a thread about assisted suicide to the mentally ill, and I claimed further, that the desire and want for suicide is a mental illness in and of itself, as it cannot have value, and can therefore only be desired for itself by the conjuring of imaginative value. The argumenting starts with this post: http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopi ... 53#p149853 and continues in a fight with "Hobbe's Choice" over the course of a few pages. I too allowed for it to have value some places, but only as an instrument for a great cause external and unrelated to it, and never for itself.
[/quote]
Suicide is a social problem, not a psychological one. Most people survive existential crisis because they have a meaningful safety net and a way to progress out of it.