For the philosophers.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

What is your philosophy?

[Hegemonicretribution]

I guess I would not be alone in saying that I have my own philpsophy. That is there are so many works that shape my beliefs (which are often contradiciting each other some topics I hold opposing oppinions on) that it would not be simple to name a philosophy other than daleism.

I guess the most formative philosophies for me are socrates/plato. I employ a Socratic method of questioning to a number of situtations. But I am trying to read most major works from all eras. Although I am hardly past the rennaisance.

I suppose people will adopt differnt takes on different issues. I agree with some Nietzsche on some issues but not Christianity for example.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Anybody else?

[Wenty]

the question 'what is your philosophy?' is such a broad term it seems hard to know where to begin.

I would have to say though that the philosophies (sp.?) that have influenced me the most are aspects of existentalism, marxism and christianity. I have beliefs which corrospond to these schools of thought.

btw, pink floyd rule geist!

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I know its broad but I figure its a good way of understanding where we are all coming from

And yes the Floyd rule.

[iloveatomickitten]

the philosophies (sp.?) that have influenced me the most............christianity

How? I simply can't understand christianity or more to the point religion as a whole (though eastern religion is somewhat more accessible to me).

And as for my philosophy I'd say its mainly existential.

[New Tolerance]

I like to look at issues in a psychological sense.

[mia wallace]

I like to look at issues in a psychological sense.
so do i.
anyway, the phylosophy which made the most influence on me are definitelly communism and marxsim. from when'd first i started to consider myself a commie i've really changed and i'm quite satesfied with that change; it's making me feel so much better :D
i say down whit copitalism... ;)

:hammer:

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I would consider Marxism as a philosophy with communism as a more political offshot off it, an intentional fully important offshoot at that.

Christianity Wenty surprises me as a part of your philosophical outlook. I figure you must be a chritian existensialist maybe. Which aspect do you find inluences you, morals?

My philosophy is quite a mixture.

Politically I am a Marxist but I am agnostic and uphold that position as attainable.

Personally I am influenced by existensialism especially Nietzschen thought, Camus and some Sartre. I believe Sartre is correct that existensialism is a subset of Marxism.

On more fundamental questions such as epsitomology I uphold Kant's view on aesthetics, his ideas on space and time I believe to be extremely insightful and interesting.

I am inclined if at all spiritually to Hegel especially as my name suggests the concept of Geist.

[Trissy]

If I had to piece together my philosophical views then I think I'd take the existential and moral views of Nietzsche, more existential thoughts from Sartre and Kierkegaard, the agnosticism and general empiricism of Hume, a Kuhnian view of Science and maybe a blend of Mill and Marx for my political views. I'm also share many of the thoughts of Bertrand Russell about religion.

Not meaning to be libelous or anything but I think that Wenty likes the peity and the happy ending. Free press on the other hand is a big no no for him. We need the Luddites to sort that problem out!

*Later thought - added 9th Feb 2004*

Oh and I forgot to mention that I fluctuate between Schopenhauer's and Nietzsche's view of the Will depending on my mood (Schopenhauer in my darker hours and Nietzche when I'm happy/energetic).

[Wenty]

free press is a no no? where do u get that impression tristan! Christianity is more than just a 'happy ending'. How we act in this world now is most important.

There are christian existentalists out there, jaspers to name but one.

[Pete]

Why? Why? O Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?

What possible answer is there to this that is not longwinded, yet elegant? I, surprisingly, can think of two.

1) Because.

2) Why not?



Of course we could argue on hours on more superficisal questions, such as 'what is existance.' I was quite recently involved in a few hours of shouting and book throwing (for no better reason than throwing books) over 'modes of existance.'

Basically everything boils down to a board of chess.

The Board is your mode of existance. If you want to play the game of chess without the board, regardless hwat you do you will still have a reference to the board, and thus will revert back, in mind, to that system. The 'neti neti' approach is just as unfullfilling.

So what is a mode of existance? The conclusion me and my friends came to is that it is like a chord. C major for example. That is one mode. C major on a guitar is a different mode than C major on a piano. D sharp minor on a oboe is yet another one. 6/8 Jig Time on a bagpipe is yet another one.

There are countless numbers of modes of existance, and you cannot change modes without leaving your old frame of reference behind. In essense: your original frame of reference defines all future adjustments and change in light of it, and because of this ones frame of reference is never able to change.

So why?

Why the hell not.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Somebody just found Spinoza...

:D

[Trissy]

free press is a no no? where do u get that impression tristan!

I've heard you talk on the issue of the 'gutter press' before. If you get rid of the gutter press then you get rid of the free press don't you? It's a similar argument to the Freewill Defence...


How we act in this world now is most important

Indeed I agree with that. I just fail to see how some routine groveling and reading from guidebook to life will be of any help when faced with issues such as consequences to our actions and our necessary death. They provide answers yes. But ones that seem to be what we want to hear and hence all to easy to come by.

[Wenty]

we're not getting into religion again tristan!


The Board is your mode of existance...

how has this got to do with your philosophy, which was the thread.

[Pete]

Your mode of existance is how you percieve your existance, so you exist within the realms of the board, or more clearly you exist in relation to the board.

Existance is part of my philosophy, and how we percieve our existance is an ingergral part thereof. If you don't think that has to do with philosophy, I suggest you think a bit deeper in to my post my friend.


And who the hell is Spinoza?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Spinzoa is the most prominent philosopher who talks about modes of existence.

It would suit your mode of thinking very well to read Spinoza's Ethics.

[Wenty]

Existance is part of my philosophy

Maybe you should have said this in your first post, i wasn't doubting that what u were saying wasn't part of philosophy at all just that what u said seemingly had nothing to do with what the post was about. I thought that was obvious.

[Lardlad95]

1. The essential Philosophies of Buddhism
2. Moral Relativism
3. Skepticism
4. Utilitarianism

[Pete]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:35 AM

Existance is part of my philosophy

Maybe you should have said this in your first post, i wasn't doubting that what u were saying wasn't part of philosophy at all just that what u said seemingly had nothing to do with what the post was about. I thought that was obvious.
Basically everything boils down to a board of chess.

The Board is your mode of existance

From my post...


But lets not argue about a gap in the communication game, that is just petty.

I would like to see how somepeople could answer with one liners to this question.

[Wenty]

Lardlad - are u just interested in utlitarianism or do u try and live by it? My understanding is that it has been largely proved to be wrong.

[Trissy]

we're not getting into religion again tristan!

Spoilsport.


are u just interested in utlitarianism or do u try and live by it? My understanding is that it has been largely proved to be wrong.

How has it been proved wrong? I agree that it has many flaws in it just like every other attempt to establish a moral system. There are many different branches and takes on Utilitatianism. The main two are the Act Utilitarianism of Bentham and the Rule Utilitarianism of Mill but there are others (Situation Ethics as proscribed by Joseph Fletcher is an interesting Christian take on Utilitarianism, replacing the word 'happiness' for 'love' in the old saying 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number'). I have seen many examples of flaws inherent in Utilitarianism but not yet any conclusive proof that it is wrong.

[Wenty]

I am aware of the two distinctions, rule util. seems a cop out to me.

I remember reading that bernard williams' work on util. made it somewhat obsolete. Heres summat i read in his obituary:-
'He imagined a man, Jim, who finds himself in the central square of a small South American town, confronted by 20 trussed Indians. The captain who has quashed their rebellion declares that if Jim, as an honoured foreigner, kills one of them, the others will be allowed to go free; if he does not, they will all, as scheduled, die.'

'According to Utilitarianism...there is no problem for Jim - he should simply kill one of them...The "distinction between my killing someone, and its coming about because of what I do that someone else kills them" is crucial, but for Utilitarianism, each of us is merely an impersonal pipeline for effects in the world. It thus strips human life of all that makes it worthwhile, failing sufficiently to take account of each person's integrity, the projects central to their lives, the especial obligations and loyalty owed to family and friends'

[Hegemonicretribution]

I have also been influenced by Mill ( and to a much lesser extent Bentham..most of what I read was through a lengthy bography of JSM) and although it was mainly his works onliberalism I was interested in utillitarianism was interesting.

I don't see why the fact that you can easily come up with many problem areas of the implementation of a theory should stop you from using it to shape your perspective.

I have to some extent regarded it as important in shaping my views...however only as a general guide where I see fit. I would say that a degree of utillitarianism is almost a certain factor in most people's beliefs. However the implementation of it is generally not really an issue therefore, whilst not following to the letter, it is easy to use as a guide.

I suppose scepticism has been a huge influence as well..especially in my more formative years...again I hold this only as a guide I turn on and off, and do not fully believe or implement the main principles.
"You can get out of my light"- best line ever :)

Cheers Lardlad, I guess I forgot some of the idfeas that have influenced me the most because I hardly think about them anymore, it has just been accepted as me.

[Trissy]

'According to Utilitarianism...there is no problem for Jim - he should simply kill one of them...The "distinction between my killing someone, and its coming about because of what I do that someone else kills them" is crucial, but for Utilitarianism, each of us is merely an impersonal pipeline for effects in the world. It thus strips human life of all that makes it worthwhile, failing sufficiently to take account of each person's integrity, the projects central to their lives, the especial obligations and loyalty owed to family and friends'

I see that there is a dilemma but I think that his conclusion is a tad unfair. It would be valid to some extent if you were talking about the quantitative Utilitarianism proposed by Bentham whereby pleasure can be calculated and given a set value but Mill fully acknowledged this and attempted to iron out the problem. Instead of all pleasures being ranked the same (which could lead to a dictatorship of the majority over the minority) he proposed that pleasure be ranked qualitatively as well so that there are higher and lower pleasures (so charitable work may be a higher pleasure then eating for example). The only problem now is how to decide what classifies a higher or lower pleasure. Mill's brand of Utilitarianism clearly leaves room for the value of human life even if it does pose new problems for us to deal with...

[Wenty]

i am also aware of these higher and lower pleasures in Mill's theory, how does this help in solving the hypothetical situation williams thought up though?

[Trissy]

Well we look quantatively at what will produce the greatest pleasure and least pain and establish whether the death of one or the death of all is better. We then look at the lives of the human beings there and attempt to establish which individuals have the highest quality of life and can contribute most to the world (that's assuming you have decided to sacrifice the life of one person). It's hard to work out what you'd do without having specific circumstances but I think if it came down to it then I'd take someone's life if I believed that the greater good would come from it in a qualitative and quantitative sense. There may well be an elderly monsterous criminal who shows no remorse for his crimes among the group for all we know.


It thus strips human life of all that makes it worthwhile, failing sufficiently to take account of each person's integrity, the projects central to their lives, the especial obligations and loyalty owed to family and friends

The qualitative method clearly takes into account the values of each person. It doesn't make the decision any easier but it takes it into account none the less.

[Wenty]

i remember learning about this retort ur giving now, seems logical but i still don't think util. is anything to live by. No moral code is, we have to invent our own, to echo sartre.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I realise that it is almost impossible to measure, quantitively pleasure and good. And that you can't really measure anything qualitively. But at what point in time are we supposed to weigh up the pro's and cons? If it is instantly, then people would have to work purely on instinct, and without thought. The resulting lack of empathy would render this impossible as a method of achieving any greater good. If it is any other period in time, then it becomes impossible. That is we would have to be more than psyscic, we would have to be able to assess the benifits of an action throughout periods of time past, future and present, and produce an average.

Even if it was possible to produce an aggregate benifit throughout any point in time of any given action, weigh up the benifits of it and decide on which result should take place, and compare it to any other set of events that could alter the effects of any action, that could also occur in any point in time, and decide upon it. Anyone's idea of utility would have to be compared to everyone else's. That is, throw in the idea of every other person deciding what would best affect them, and how they see it affecting others and it becomes stupidly complicated. There is no point in describing how much more complicated this idea becomes, because the original point about even measuring or ranking these things still poses enough of an initial problem.

Even if results of situations could be ranked, it would not matter, because when actions have to be carried out who would have the time to cosult a refernce sheet?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 05:46 PM
Lardlad - are u just interested in utlitarianism or do u try and live by it? My understanding is that it has been largely proved to be wrong.
I believe in the basic theory.

Those actions which make the greatest number of people happy are just

[honest intellectual]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 07:18 PM
I am aware of the two distinctions, rule util. seems a cop out to me.

I remember reading that bernard williams' work on util. made it somewhat obsolete. Heres summat i read in his obituary:-
'He imagined a man, Jim, who finds himself in the central square of a small South American town, confronted by 20 trussed Indians. The captain who has quashed their rebellion declares that if Jim, as an honoured foreigner, kills one of them, the others will be allowed to go free; if he does not, they will all, as scheduled, die.'

'According to Utilitarianism...there is no problem for Jim - he should simply kill one of them...The "distinction between my killing someone, and its coming about because of what I do that someone else kills them" is crucial, but for Utilitarianism, each of us is merely an impersonal pipeline for effects in the world.
Yeah, I've heard that before. It doesn't make utilitarianism 'obsolete' at all. It simply puts forward a strange, unlikely and weak argument against it. Bernard Williams failed to take into account that causality it a basic part of life. Every choice one makes will have infinite consequences; most of them we can't foresee, some of them we can. To make a choice (not shooting an Indian) which one knows will have an undesirable effect is wrong. Williams considers only the action itself and not its foreseeable consequences - that's his error.


It thus strips human life of all that makes it worthwhile, failing sufficiently to take account of each person's integrity, the projects central to their livesRidiculous, melodramatic hyperbole. Utilitarianism takes into account personal happiness, which I'd think is what makes life worthwhile, n'est pas? Someone pursuing "the projects central to their lives" isn't necessarily the right thing to do morally. I mean, surely that all depends on what the "projects" are - whether or not they're ethical.

[pandora]

I agree, everything is a state of mind. We create our reality by our own mental patterns, the level to which we understand this equals the level of our empowerment. For what is life if not a dream, and as dreamers it is our job to wake up, thereby becoming empowered to help ourselves and others to escape the mental states of mind of hell. Heaven is a state of mind. But then I expose my Buddhist roots.
With it's concentration on object and perceiver and their interrelation, one not existing without the other, but how do they truly exist, dissolving in emptiness and bliss. But what is emptiness, what is bliss, what is love. .

To quote the lovely Mr. Paulo Freire from Pedagogy of the Heart(:
" In the progressive perspective, the process of teaching--where the teaching challenges learners to apprehend the object, to then learn it in realtions with the world--implies the execise of critical perception, perception of the object's reason for being.
It implies the sharpening of the learner's epistemological curiosity, which cannot be satisfied with mere description of the object's concept."

As all my worlds private, spirtual and public collide to this simple wisdom I am thankful, and hope for humility so that I might serve others more powerful than a supernova and always with female aspect to Enlightenment.
By the way thank you to everyone on this website,I've read a great deal of compassion, people here seem truly moved by compassion to change the system to create a better world, a more sustainable world, without such injustice, even if it means self-sacrifice.
You are all very brave, many people only care for themselves and do not question.

[Wenty]

Ridiculous, melodramatic hyperbole. Utilitarianism takes into account personal happiness...

I'm going to choose to believe the experts on this one, not to say that you aren't just to say i know they are for sure!

[Trissy]

I'm going to choose to believe the experts on this one, not to say that you aren't just to say i know they are for sure!

You honestly believe there are experts in this life? *chuckles* How unexistential of you Adam!

[honest intellectual]

The humble reasoning of one man is woth the authority of ten thousand experts - Galileo

Never take questions of philosophy on authority.

[equalizer]

Che was figthing for equal rigts for everybody, he was a real sosialist.
Staling was a big egoist

[hazard]

im gonna answer the original question

the idea, as you have phrased philosophy, is the modern mass marketed version of the term. a philosophy, in the snese you have phrased it, means what is your opinion, or, what is you position. such as, "My philosophy is to never buy more batteries than I have flashlights" or, "My philosophy is that things work out for the best"

this bullshit version of the word is a bastardized and idiotic way totake what the word really means into account. for example, one COULD say that Russell's philosophy is Atomism, or Kierkegaard's philosophy is Existentialism. but one wouldn't say that. one would say that these philosopher's are atomist's and existentialist's respectively.

some lame brain, dipshit ad agency came up with this idea a while ago, as far as I remember, as a way to use the word philosophy as a catch phrase to sell a product. it is, linguistically, supposed to add more value or weight to a position or opinion if you call it your philosophy as opposed to your opinion. but when you're talking about storing batteries, the meaning and value is lost.

[Wenty]

but people have answered it how they feel is right. i.e. what philosophies have influenced them; i'm not sure your rant was worth the time

[hazard]

the phrase itself is invalid. you should ask a more qualififed question so as not to enrage those, such as myself, who value this field.

what philosophy do you follow? or which philosophers do you like? or what school of philosophy are your from?

these are all better ways to ask the question, if you intended it that way.

the rant was worth it to me

[Comrade BNS]

Some interesting points raised so far...although I would like to touch more on religion if I may, seeing as how many postmodernists, wittingly or unwittingly here have disregarded it.

I can agree with Wenty's take on the influence of religion, there are in fact entire esoteric schools of thought which exist in Islam and Christianity (although not very wide spread or popular) which percieve god, not as an entity of existance, but as rather a moral guide. They see god as purely moral and ethical, much like Zoroastrians see Ahrue-Mazda. These schools of thought thus see their sacred texts as moral guides, and frameworks within which their worst extremes as humans are limited, so they may attain a higher moral state. Someone raised the point earlier that how would submitting to a "God" be benificial to a phillosophical point of view. Again I refer to the aforementioned schools of thought, which believe that the submission to "God" (the heightened state of moral being) is in fact honoring and championing a moral and ethical cause, whilst curbing ones own ego, and therefore breeding modesty in the assertainment of moral goals.

I also find it interesting that here their completely immersive postmodernists who also seem to have a historical identity and grasp of reality (perhaps their own reality?)

ok i'm done

Comrade BNS

[Wenty]

the phrase itself is invalid. you should ask a more qualififed question so as not to enrage those, such as myself, who value this field.

i value this field as well, very much so in fact. I find your attitude arrogant at best sometimes.

[hazard]

you find this? you FIND my attitude?

don't be looking for it. its clearly arrogrant when it comes to this stuff. when its laid out in the open like so, you have no need to claim, or exclaim as you have, that you found it. I openly present it in that way.

[Wenty]

you seem to be proud of it!

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 12:18 AM


what philosophy do you follow? or which philosophers do you like? or what school of philosophy are your from?


I am going to answer this as I feel you have never like psychology studied anything in either field. I cannot answer for psychology but I have studied Philosophy in college for two years now and have been reading for well over five all forms of philosophy my young mind could find.

I want YOU to answer the questions you put forward and I guarantee it equates either to googled bullshit, a rant saying they are wrong or else you mock me and hope everyone forgets.

Show me your knowledge of philosophy my friend.

[Wenty]

You say that you have studied philosophy 'for two years in college now', your profile says you are born in sept 84 though. Did you mean you did study at college for two years but now go to uni.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I am 19. Second year of an Arts degree in English and Philosophy.


So this is my second year studying philosophy at university level.

Maybe its phrased badly so I mean I am currently in my second year of studying philosophy at university level.

[equalizer]

The world would be better if we loved each other
Im glad china soon can compete with USA in the world economic race.

Bush is not a example for the ultimate capitalism, he is not free trade. Bush is running a protective politic protecting the rich from the poore :angry:

[iloveatomickitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 02:37 PM
The world would be better if we loved each other



Depending on what so see 'better' as. If you seek the 'truth' then it's unlikely to lead to a world where we all love each other. And as we define better from the perspective of an individual a better world for one could be hell for others.

And why is it that you demonize the ego? Action without motive is impossible and I can think of no other motivation than the ego no matter how perverted a mode of egoism it is. To deny egoism is to deny your humanity.

[Wenty]

Geist - if ur bday is 21st sept 1984 how can you be in the second year? You're in a different academic year for your birthdate surely.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Nope ask Canikickit or Born Of Zapatas Guns (he knows me in real life) that in Ireland we have a transition year ( 4th year or secondary school) which some schools allow you to skip. This I did, I entered college aged 17 in my first year was 18 in the first month and then in second year I turned 19 in the first month.

[BOZG]

Wenty,

Geist is correct. The Irish education system allows 4th year (10th grade) to be skipped, though some schools have made it compulsory. Had I continued on in school, I would have finished post-primary at 16. I would have just been 17 going into my first year in college. I wouldn't have even been 20 finishing college.

[Wenty]

thanks for clearing that up! I guess i assumed you were english for some reasonm although i know u said u went to uni in dublin. Berkeley was irish wasn't he? Just thought i'd bring it back to philosophy!

[hazard]

geist is an idiot

[Wenty]

profound

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Berekely was Irish yes, went to Trinity College.

Sure its on their website.

And Hazard being called an idiot by you only makes me feel I am not.

You my friend make me smile everytime I see you and your chilidish 'poetry'

You poor soul.

[BOZG]

:D They have a Berkeley Library and other assorted Berkeley namesakes there from what I can remember. Fucking upper class college :D

[SittingBull47]

Philosophies of Zen Buddhism
Philosophies of the resistance leader of the American Plains (Sitting Bull, Red Cloud)
Philosophies of Che (obviously)

Really, it's more influences than anything that shapes my own personal philosophy.
umm, the list goes on but it's safe to say everything shapes and molds my beliefs. I have a strong distrust in many a government, but I've picked up bits and pieces to form that opinion from many different people, places, events, etc.

[honest intellectual]

Geist is not an idiot, he's just very arrogant.

To answer the question:

Epistemology
I believe in Platonic Idealism. Reason can be used to find the truth, but so can refined and practised intuition. So I follow certain 'mystic' philosophies.

Ethics
There is no single philosopher I follow. I like Epicurean hedonism, but I don't agree with the emphasis on prudence. I like the way Epicurus said that we must conquer fear to obtain happiness. I disagree with Kant's conclusion that truth is paramount. Aesthetics can take precedence over morals. I sort of agree with Oscar Wilde's view on morality. My morality is based on the axiom 'fun is good'. If something causes no harm, it is not ethically wrong - that goes for sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. Those who say sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll are 'bad' and whipping oneself is 'good', are in fact evil.

Metaphysics
The soul definitely exists; Descartes proved that. The soul is immortal because it is not physical and the non-physical is not dependent on the physical i.e. the soul is not dependant on the body. God doesn't exist because life has no meaning. With regard to the 'meaning of life', the philosopher I follow most is Mick Jagger: "It's only rock 'n' roll, but I like it." :P

Aesthetics
Morals and aesthetics are entirely seperate and must not be confused. "Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault. Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only Beauty." - Oscar Wilde

Also, just for fun, here are my five most hated philosophies:
Puritanism
Rational monism
Stoicism
Skepticism
Pessimism

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Nice to see Oscar being quoted, a favourite of mine...


Morality, like art, means a drawing a line someplace.

You might enjoy this, taken from an essay I recently finished about the neccessity of subversion in comedy in relation to Shaw and Wilde in Victorian society. I focused on Wilde's use of epigram to turn Victorian morals on their head, the Shaw part was a little more complex getting into Nietzsche and morality, aesthetics etc.



By creating caricatures of the Englishman and woman he presents their unifying morality before them. A stereotype is often how the outsider will view an alien society and both Shaw and Wilde use stereotype and caricature to emphasise the faults of the alien society they have found themselves a part of. In The Importance of Being Earnest Wilde’s destructive subversive side comes out in the many witticisms that littler the text. Epigram after epigram is a shocking yet humorous take on Victorian morals. Algernon’s ironic quip at the beginning of the play in regards to Lane comes too early for the audience to realise its absurdity:

Algernon: Lane’s views on marriage seem somewhat lax. Really, if the lower orders don’t set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them? They seem, as a class, to have absolutely no sense of moral responsibility.

Of course it is not long before Algernon puts forward his own view that ‘Divorces are made in Heaven’. The underlying sense of cynicism permeates ever layer of the play. Wilde uses the witty epigram to highlight the decadence of Victorian morals again and again throughout the play. The defining moment of cynicism is comes at the close of Act I:

Algernon: I hope tomorrow will be a fine day, Lane.
Lane: It never is, sir.
Algernon: Lane, you’re a perfect pessimist.
Lane: I do my best to give satisfaction, sir.

By the way are you interested in Spinoza, I assume you may as somebody who has an honest interest in philosophy read or at least looked into the Ethics. What do you think of his concept of substantial monism?

Finally, excellent description of me:


Geist is not an idiot, he's just very arrogant.

[Dsunsetlover]

this is a tiny piece of my philosophy: you must never forget to laugh! because thats the best medicine to aliviate everything........ :P :rolleyes: :D :)

[Meursault]

The universe is absurd.

[Wenty]

ah i see french existentialism has had its influence on you my friend, which is all good.

[ComradeRed]

Two ones that I support:
I am right and everyone else is wrong.
Reason is never in a reasonable form.

[Don't Change Your Name]

I have to admit something: I havent read enough of philosophy as to have an accurate "belief". But for what I know i really think most of this opium of the masses (like Objetinazism) keep contradicting themselves and do not explain correctly the real world and our thoughts and how they relate.

I think that some theories like those who explain the world as full of contradictions and opposing forces are much more accurate, and I believe this world is in constant change but at the same time it's always the same. That's how contradictory most things are to me.

I also think that what most people thinks is influded by everything that surrounds them (time and place where they live, situations, beliefs, the society in that they live at, their personal characteristics, etc.), and that might explain their differences. I also believe that the only "universal" rule that exists is this one: that there's no universal rule. I don't really think most things exist or that they have sense but some might (those human or animal related things and maybe some "forces" that aren't necesarilly gods, which btw I don't think they exist, so popular religions suck). Authority is 99.999999% of the times unjustifiable. "Civilization" is a lie, it's imposed, people should respect each other without imposing things that way. Self-interest isn't such a nice thing as the objetinazis claim, it's just instinct. I also think those objectinazis are not as rational as they think. I don't believe in mythological crap or on "chosen" people, I don't believe in the capitalist self-help crap.
I think individualism and collectivism should be "united". I disagree with those who try to justify their ultra-individualism by fighting "altruism" or by claiming to defend collectivism (such as many leninists). I believe we should be in the search for perfection and improvement every time it's necessary.
Finally, I think arguing for some things as "what's good?" is pointless and I would replace that for something that can improve our lives.

I guess I'm a bit of everything.

I might invent my own "philosophy" some day but nowadays I'm just trying to learn and understand and criticize those that already "exist". Anyway, does anybody know any kind of "test" to know this kind of things?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Im sure if you google it you should find one, there is some site with a whole load of tests and it does have ones that show which philosopher you are closest to in your beliefs, got me perfectly: Nietzsche, Kant and Spinoza.

If I find it Ill post it.