Personality Cafe banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,134 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What's your personal philosophy and/or what philosophies do you favor?

I think it’s impossible to deny or get out of the way of conformism, but I do my best to make up my own philosophy.

I identify with several (a summary):

Predeterminism

“Predeterminism is the idea that every event is caused, not simply by the immediately prior events, but by a causal chain of events that goes back well before recent events. For example, one's personal characteristics are predetermined by heredity, by a chain of events going back before one's birth.” WIKI

In Buddhism, things do not exist independent of causation, all things are subject to the law of causality, all things are dependent for their origination. They are devoid of an entirely independent existence and lack their own intrinsic value. They exist dependently and are, therefore, empty.

I don't necessarily think that things that exist dependently are therefore empty. I think value actually adds up with every cause and effect; it’s called evolution, the universe expands.

Functionalism

“Functionalism is a theory of the mind, developed largely as an alternative to both the identity theory of mind and behaviourism. Its core idea is that mental states (beliefs, desires, being in pain, etc.) are constituted solely by their functional role — that is, they are causal relations to other mental states, sensory inputs, and behavioral outputs”

I'd see this as ‘predeterminism’ applied to the mind.

Transcendental Idealism

“Kant's doctrine maintains that human experience of things is similar to the way they appear to us — implying a fundamentally subject-based component, rather than being an activity that directly (and therefore without any obvious causal link) comprehends the things as they are in and of themselves.”
“Idealism is the philosophical theory which maintains that the ultimate nature of reality is based on the mind or ideas. “ WIKI

At first I identified with Berkeley’s Subjective idealism to the point that reality is ultimately made up of only the mind.

Only thing is I do believe matter, space and time exist without the mind. It's just there, only it's not being perceived and therefore it does not exist to the mind. Our concepts of matter, space and time cannot exist without the mind so that’s why our reality is only made up of the mind.

Collective subjectivity is what we consider to be objective reality.Either objective reality does not exist or we can't ever grab it because it lies outside our human perspective. Religion, media or ideologies (Utopia) claim to be objective, but in fact they claim human subjectivity to be objective.

I also agree with de Saussure that "The connection between the signifier (sign) and the signified (applied meaning) is arbitrary."

This leads me to identifying with:

Structuralism

where I approve of Jacques Lacan’s Three Orders:

The Symbolic order is the realm of language, primary, external (to the human subject), determinant. It is the set of signifiers, interpreted by Saussure as a system where “language is but a sum of negative differences, and signification and meaning are produced by the comparison of those differences without content” (13). This is extended by Lacan to all objects as he asserts that “any object in the human sphere is marked by the pregnancy of language and thus must be conceived as a signifier” (13). The Symbolic order is the Other, marked by a radical otherness “external to [the] subject” (13). Hence it is the set that can be defined by the statement “There is difference” (13). It is, however, “interiorized [. . .] determin[ing] the subject by its signifying chains, undermining the ego’s autonomy” (13).

The Imaginary order is the realm of images, where the ego has autonomy. Given that language is determinant, the ego (who likes to think that, like language, it has autonomy) imitates that determination, tries to define itself (by itself). However, it can only do so in the Imaginary, i.e. by the use of images (in contrast to the authentic determination of language); hence the autonomy and identity it creates is also only an image. The ego determines itself, constructs its identity through projections and identifications, “build[ing] a world of representations and objects by actualizing the possibility of representing [set into motion by] the Symbolic order” (14). The Imaginary order, relying as it does on similar (and dissimilar) images, is thus the set defined by “There is similarity” (14).

The Real is there, “There is . . .” but is unknown. More precisely, “the Real is not an agency or an order; it is a set whose contents are unknown” (16). “There are meaning and truth in the [Real . . .], but they are out of the reach of our consciousness” (16-7). There is logic in the Real, but it is pulverized, surrounded by something that is not sense. “What there is, we don’t know, because it remains hidden from us in the unconscious” (16). The Real is thus the realm of the unconscious. It is not a being (17). As Lacan says, “it is because we could not say what it is that we have given it the name of [it]” (18). “The unconscious is a pure locus without the derived properties attributable to a being” (18). It also therefore “cannot be reduced [merely] to what is not consciousness” (18). For the most part, the unconscious consists in what has been repressed—but is not merely that: in it is also found the unknowable, the incomprehensible, the inexpressible.
Postmodernism

“Postmodernism is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the rejection of objective truth and global cultural narrative.”

“Michael Foucault introduced concepts such as 'discursive regime', or re-invoked those of older philosophers like 'episteme' and 'genealogy' in order to explain the relationship between meaning, power and social behavior within social orders.” WIKI

Discursive regime (Discourse) is seen as a formalized way of thinking that can be revealed through language. It is a social boundary that determines what can be said about a specific topic. It is accepted that discourse affects our views on all things, it is not possible to escape discourse.

Foucault proved to me that ethics evolve as well (see Discipline and Punish or Birth of the Hospital), thus it is impossible to say that ethics are universal, so this would lead me to relativism.

Moral Relativism

“Relativism is the idea that some elements or aspects of experience or culture are relative to, i.e., dependent on, other elements or aspects.”

Moral relativism is opposed to Moral Universalism.

I, however do believe there is an underlying universal theme going on (ie. incest is unethical) but it’s clear to me that relativism is where it’s at.

Descriptive relativism is the observation that different cultures have different moral standards and this is how I see it.

I do hold on to the universe being one thing though.

Monism

“Monism is any philosophical view which holds that there is unity in a given field of inquiry, where this is not to be expected. Thus, some philosophers may hold that the universe is really just one thing, despite its many appearances and diversities.” WIKI

This leads me to Pantheism and eventually Naturalistic Pantheism.

Naturalistic pantheism

“(also known as Scientific Pantheism) is a naturalistic form of pantheism that encompasses feelings of reverence and belonging towards Nature and the wider Universe, concern for the rights of humans and all living beings, care for Nature, and celebration of life. It is realist and respects reason and the scientific method. It is based on philosophical naturalism and as such it is without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces.” WIKI

However, I do not agree with the last part. I value agnosticism not atheism. I lean towards idealism, not realism, I do respect reason and science though.

And how to survive all of the philosophies above? Through:

Existentialism

“Do not interrupt the flight of your soul; do not distress what is best in you; do not enfeeble your spirit with half wishes and half thoughts. Ask yourself and keep on asking until you find the answer, for one may have known something many times, acknowledged it; one may have willed something many times, attempted it — and yet, only the deep inner motion, only the heart's indescribable emotion, only that will convince you that what you have acknowledged belongs to you, that no power can take it from you — for only the truth that builds up is truth for you.”

Søren Kierkegaard in Either/Or
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,393 Posts
I live by my own philosophies. I need to figure things out for myself. It's the only way I'll truly understand something.
I think it’s impossible to deny or get out of the way of conformism
You can't conform to what you don't know. I've never studied philosophy before, so I don't know others' take on things. Some of my own philosophies may be similar to others', but that's only coincidence.
 
Joined
·
4,757 Posts
The fundamental assumptions of post-modern philosophy fit me perfectly. It's like I was predisposed towards that way of thinking and then when I took classes on the subject, everything became articulated and neatly laid out for me.

I would elaborate, but I have to get going.
 
  • Like
Reactions: babblingbrook

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,987 Posts
Zen Buddhism, Camus' existentialism, and Einstein's relativism I am big fans of.

You briefly alluded also to Indra's Net, which is quite insightful as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,835 Posts
i belief in subjective reality, theres almost nothing that is universally true.
i half belief in fallibism-i don't think we know anything for certain
i'm a strong non-believer in karma
i also am against fate and all that stuff-things just happen and nothing more
 
  • Like
Reactions: babblingbrook

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
Its always interested me but I don't know much about it
I'm thinking about studying philosophy when I go to college so your explanations have helped me a lot
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,134 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I live by my own philosophies. I need to figure things out for myself. It's the only way I'll truly understand something.

You can't conform to what you don't know. I've never studied philosophy before, so I don't know others' take on things. Some of my own philosophies may be similar to others', but that's only coincidence.
Exactly what I did, but since philosophy exists longer than I do, I did some research and came to identify with several. It's just like discovering you're INFP. You've had the idea, then you read into it, notice the similarities and agree upon it.

The fundamental assumptions of post-modern philosophy fit me perfectly. It's like I was predisposed towards that way of thinking and then when I took classes on the subject, everything became articulated and neatly laid out for me.

I would elaborate, but I have to get going.
That's interesting to hear, it would be nice if you could elaborate still.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top