Critique My Philosophy of Life?

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=sharing

http://www.scribd.com/doc/183418623/My-Philosophy-of-Life

In 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!

Torakx

Hi,
Thanks for sharing.
I pretty much agreed with nearly all of it and anything I didn't was more that I have a slightly different angle in those cases.

Atheism was interesting. I would see myself as an agnostic.
For me the difference is really dependant on the person subscribing themselves to it.
I came from a strict religious background, where we blindly believed in something unproveable.
For me to be athiest is to take the same stance on the opposite side.
Being agnostic helps me negate both sides by sitting on the fence and just observing.

I suppose people like Richard Dawkins, do for athiesm what the catholic church did for religion in Ireland, as an example.
I have yet to find an agnostic trying to persuade people so fervently to not believe in anything Maybe they are all too content, or too busy trying to decide between tea or coffee.

So while I see atheism as a better stance than having an external imaginary being, I think agnosticism is the balance.
Also see my signature Nietzsche quote below on flexibility, another reason I prefer to stay on the fence as much as possible these days.


On negative visualisation.
This is the first time I have heard it mentioned, but when I read your writing on it, straight away it struck a chord with me.

You see, I have been trying to explain this ideology of mine to friends and they always seem to have a negative view on it.
Until reading your article I had never heard anyone mention this idea(i'm new to philosophy in general).

What I would always tell people is that if I am worried about something I will daydream or "live" that worst case scenario in my mind. I will then try to imagine the consequences after and where I will be in life.
I will then compare it to my darkest hours and realise I fully accept that outcome and can get past it. I stop worrying.
I use this for small things and big things. Recently on the bus worried I would be late for where I was to be. I then decided to imagine the worst case scenario and also aknowledge the fact I am on the bus and I will get there when I get there. Letting go of everything maybe.
After that about 2 minutes later I had forgotten it all and was looking out the window happy as ever.

I think it may be that certain types of personalities are suited to different approaches.
Below is possibly a load of yet unproven or semi proven ideas I have.
But lets set that aside as I speculate!

I've been reading insane amounts on personality, left/right brain traits, introverts/extroverts, NLP, psychology etc
Over the years I have built up a general intuition based on this reading and by using that intuition I have usually been very accurate in reading and relating to people.
I say all this because a psychologist would scoff at any mention of left/right brain because that is a very mundane way to describe such a complex thing. I would abandon my ideas instantly if I could see they weren't working for me in reading people so well.

Anyway, from general experience with introverts and being one myself (in an extreme way) I see that many introverts contemplate things habituallyand that fears are included. They don't seem as well equiped mentally to ignore something they fear.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201307/in-depth-look-how-introverts-think
Heres a random link that will give you scientific clues as to why. There are many papers out there about this though.

Extroverts seem to find it much easier to ignore fears. And I think that paper explains why I think that too.
It also happens to be my experience with people.
Extroverts seem to be able to fool themselves easier and so a positive outlook to a future fear might be their best way to get around that fear.
For an introvert it may be accepting failure so as to not need to think about "the obvious" elephant in the room. Just aknowledge it and think on something else.

In case it isn't noticeable by my large amounts of text, I find all this very interesting

Another interesting thing is this right/left brain introvert/extrovert has rarely applied to people with aspergers syndrome.
Truly amazing people that constantly keep me guessing
One of my unsolved mysteries haha

Another one that caught my eye was emotional detachment.
This I read about recently in a philosophy book, which I gave away and can't rememeber the name or author...it was orange though

I fully agree now with emotional detachment.
When I have spoken about it to people, they usually associate it with not caring or feeling. Which to me is entirely the opposite.
But first you must understand what is caring really and what is love really.
To me attaching myself to someone and having a need for them where I feel I can't live without them is damaging to me ad damaging to them.
So I am perfectly happy so far being detached from all the people I love. The way i see it is it is unconditional love. There are no requiements with me for that love, only you don't wreck me head when I need my peace
If someone attaches themselves to their partner they are essentially using them as a crutch and when that crutch is gone, they will fall from lack of practice "walking" on their own two feet again.
I have seen people in cycles of this attachment/detachment.
Breaking up with girlfriends and for some reason unable to stop themselves rushing into the arms of the next person, before they are even ready.
During these phases between I always suggest time to get to know themselves and be alone for a year or so. But meh... addiction is not so easy to get over.

It seems to me that the more someone attaches themselves to others, the more they seem to need others to feel fullfilled.
So while I appear on the outside to be unemotional, uncaring, aloof.
It is usually that I care too much(but deal with emotions internally and peacefully) and I am aloof out of respect for others or lack of peace and quiet to think.
So on the whole detachment i view any future relationships to be more of a partnership and less of a dependancy or need.
If I ever find a life partner, I would like to think she would be content without me and is with me out of companionship, not as a crutch.

Again I could be misunderstood here in how I am explaiing this. I'm guessing it sounds heartless lol
Why shouldn't you support people you love emotionally.
To that I might say, because they will be lost without me otherwise.
A crutch is certainly a usefull thing, but not a permanent fixture you should aim to keep. Best to use it a short time to get going again.
For me I don't even want the crutch.. I want to learn to get up myself so as not to need help the next time I fall down or am alone and do so.

Ok enough rambling, I enjoy thinking and writing about this stuff and there are probably more topics you cover I could go on about.
But i'l leave it at that for the moment.

Thanks again for the read and keep writing

Philosofer123

Torakx, thank you for taking the time to read the document, and for your generous comments.

Should you have any further thoughts, please feel free to share.

Joe1919

There are a number of points I think you could consider.

1.There are midway positions between atheism and theism e.g. Pantheist philosophies (e.g Taoism), which is more an attitude and reverence to the universe than an actual metaphysical position.

2. You seem to be falling into the trap of linking the idea of ‘responsibility’ with ‘free-will’. However, there are other ways of viewing ‘responsibility’ e.g. it is something that is learned/dependent on determined/reactive attitude etc. I would recommend that you read PF Strawsons “Freedom and Resentment”. Also consider the pragmatic approach. i.e. What difference does it make? Also you use the word 'ultimately'. Do you believe in something ultimate?

3. Your putting of your own ‘peace of mind’ first is similar to the position taking by the Epicurean and Sceptics, as against the Stoic that puts virtue first. There are times in life when one has to make a choice between doing the right thing (have courage) or taking the easier way out. If you read Cicero 'On Ends',there is a very important argument concerning friendship here.. If my own happiness or peace of mind is the principle 'end' that I pursue, why would I continue a friendship or continue to love someone, when that love is no longer gives me peace of mind? The Epicurean is ultimately concerned about himself and his own happiness/pleasure, whereas the Stoic can go beyond his own self and love someone or some thing (e.g. virtue) ‘for its own sake’.
There are also arguments that even thinking or trying to be happy will make you unhappy e.g.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201305/does-trying-be-happy-make-us-unhappy

Finally, bear in mind that there is a difference between a personal philosophy that one has for oneself and a general universal philosophy that one would prescribe to others. (Sextus Empericus would only prescribe enough scepticism to cure the patient and no more).

Best of luck.

Philosofer123

Joe1919, thank you for your comments.

Joe1919 wrote: »

There are a number of points I think you could consider.

1.There are midway positions between atheism and theism e.g. Pantheist philosophies (e.g Taoism), which is more an attitude and reverence to the universe than an actual metaphysical position.

Yes, I am aware of other possibilities, but what is your point? Recall how I define atheism: "I believe that it is highly unlikely that the God of classical theism exists, and I find no good reason to believe that any other god exists". This is all I need for the purposes of my philosophy.

Joe1919 wrote: »

2. You seem to be falling into the trap of linking the idea of ‘responsibility’ with ‘free-will’. However, there are other ways of viewing ‘responsibility’ e.g. it is something that is learned/dependent on determined/reactive attitude etc. I would recommend that you read PF Strawsons “Freedom and Resentment”. Also consider the pragmatic approach. i.e. What difference does it make? Also you use the word 'ultimately'. Do you believe in something ultimate?

I define free will in terms of ultimate responsibility because it is the impossibility of ultimate responsibility that renders irrational the "reactive attitudes" described by PF Strawson. Strawson would contend that the reactive attitudes are so ingrained that denying the existence of free will would have no effect, but I disagree. I can certainly say that in my case, my reactive attitudes have been significantly reduced by recognizing that ultimate responsibility is impossible.

Joe1919 wrote: »

3. Your putting of your own ‘peace of mind’ first is similar to the position taking by the Epicurean and Sceptics, as against the Stoic that puts virtue first.

Yes, I would say that I have an Epicurean disposition. By invoking virtue, it appears that you are disagreeing with moral skepticism, which I support with arguments in my document. If you find these arguments unconvincing, please explain why.

Joe1919 wrote: »

There are times in life when one has to make a choice between doing the right thing (have courage) or taking the easier way out.

By talking about "the right thing", it again appears that you are disagreeing with moral skepticism.

Joe1919 wrote: »

If you read Cicero 'On Ends',there is a very important argument concerning friendship here.. If my own happiness or peace of mind is the principle 'end' that I pursue, why would I continue a friendship or continue to love someone, when that love is no longer gives me peace of mind?

I have read On Ends. I discuss the benefits of friendship in the document. See page 6. And I discuss selective emotional detachment on page 9. Yes, sometimes it does make sense to detach.

Joe1919 wrote: »

The Epicurean is ultimately concerned about himself and his own happiness/pleasure, whereas the Stoic can go beyond his own self and love someone or some thing (e.g. virtue) ‘for its own sake’.

Regardless of the Epicurean or Stoic positions, I regard empathy as a basic concern (at least for most people), along with self-interest. Please see the middle of page 5.

Joe1919 wrote: »

There are also arguments that even thinking or trying to be happy will make you unhappy e.g.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201305/does-trying-be-happy-make-us-unhappy

This is highly debatable. I know that I have been largely successful in maintaining peace of mind by focusing on it.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Finally, bear in mind that there is a difference between a personal philosophy that one has for oneself and a general universal philosophy that one would prescribe to others. (Sextus Empericus would only prescribe enough scepticism to cure the patient and no more).

Agreed. My philosophy is designed for the individual. While the primary purpose of the document is to advise myself on how to live well (see page 1), I aspire to objectivity and believe that others would benefit from following my philosophy.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Best of luck.

Thank you.

Joe1919

Philosofer123 wrote: »

....... By invoking virtue, it appears that you are disagreeing with moral skepticism.......

I don't think their is a contradiction here. Virtue is an excellence of the person whereas morality refers to the customs and actions. Certainly there are examples e.g. Aristotle states we can have no mathematical certainty......Plato's academy (& Cicero) skepticism........Aristo of Chios (Stoic) rejects prescriptions...........Nietzsche’s virtuous overman.

In talking about the tension between doing the right thing/ peace of mind, I am referring to the duty/pleasure dichotomy. (The choice of Hercules).

I suppose I have been influenced by the German idealists (Kant, Hegel) and some of their successors (e.g. Kierkegaard) who find these ‘Antinomies’ and even absurdities important.
For that reason, I too enjoy sitting on the fence. I have no problem with going with both sides of an argument. For me, the challenge of philosophy is to accept and possibly reconcile these contradictory positions and tensions. I like the idea that knowledge creates differences whereas wisdom creates unity. Therefore, although I see that your document is well thought out and researched, I would prefer not to be so objective or to tie down my position so tightly. I suppose, one problem with objective philosophers is that, in nailing their colours to the mast so to speak, they can spend all of their time and energy trying to keep their ‘system’ intact. This can lead to dogmatism. One great exercise is to try to argue the opposite side to oneself. Perhaps I am a sceptic at heart. (I have a copy of Pyrrhonian Outlines at home.)

However, take the above as not so much a critique of your philosophy but more of a criticism of every objective philosophy in general. But of course, there are arguments in favour of objective philosophy, so keep up the good work.

Joe1919

Just two further points. The first concerns your view of boredom as ‘unmet desire for mental and/or physical stimulation’. Many philosophers link boredom to lack of (subjective) meaning. You could consider defining boredom as an unmet desire for activity that is meaningful to the person.
http://www.amazon.com/A-Philosophy-Boredom-Lars-Svendsen/dp/1861892179

My second point that you could think about is the problem of ‘quietism’ . Therapeutic philosophies are often accused as taking too defensive and passive a role. Epicurus withdrew to his garden and there is a strong hint of this in your discussion to politics. William James saw this as a spiritual opium, Nietzsche as a saying ‘no’ to life.You could consider Maslow's idea of peak experience. Remember that many of the philosophers that wrote therapeutic philosophy led very active and meaningful lives.
Anyhow these are just some suggestions.( I know its easier to be critical than to be constructive)

Torakx

I think introversion plays a very large part of this retreating to solitude.
And don't agree it can lead to not living your life. If the life you love is mostly through your thinking, then who can say what is living?
Or I may be ignorant of the above posts true meanings there.

Nietzches "flies in the market place" really struck a chord with me. He was obviously very much introverted.
He also I am sure would agree we need challenges in our lives to push forward and evolve. So we also need those flies in the market as introverts.
How else would we appreciate our time alone.

for me the "flies in the market place" are the learning lesson and beign away from everyone to think and live in my own ponderings is the living I enjoy most.

For an extrovert I think it is the other way around and an ambivert the balance of the two.
What saddens me is society being conditioned to think the majority have the right way of living and introverts should conform or they have a dysfunctional personality.

Philosofer123

Joe1919 and Torakx, thank you for your comments.

Roquentin

Even though i am dyslexic and struggle to read, i still picked some good points.

I think you should involve more psychology elements in it as well. For example negative visualization is a trait of those with obsessive personalities