What do you believe in? [Archive]

liberationjunky

22nd August 2006, 00:11

I'm intrested in philosophy and am wondering what theories you believe in. A pretty general topic...

Here are some of my own beliefs with very basic deffintions and counter ideologies for those who opposethese ideas:

My Belief / [Counter-Ideology]

Empiricism- that what we consider truth comes merely from our own subjective experiences
[Rationalism]

Idealism- there is no objective physical reality, everything is of mental nature an made up of mind.
[Materialism]

Anarchism- a social/economic concept for equality of people without leadership
[Capitalism]

Determinism- all events are predetermined and are just reactions to previous events
[Indeterminism]

Neo-creationism- intelligent design(from a non-religious standpoint)
[Atheism]

correct me if you notice that my deffintions are wrong

Avtomatov

22nd August 2006, 06:48

Rationalism
[Empiricism]

Materialism
[Idealism]

Marxist-Leninism
[Anarchism and capitalism]

Indeterminism
[Determinism]

Atheism
[Theism]

Eugenics
[dysgenics]

Transhumanism or Techno-Progressivism
[Techno-realism]

Jamal

22nd August 2006, 15:14

Rationalism

Materialism

Idealism

communism

Internationalism

rouchambeau

22nd August 2006, 17:18

Materialism

Idealism

What?

hoopla

22nd August 2006, 20:44

:rolleyes: I thought the same about the "eugenics" comment. No qualifier used, either.

What a wally.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

23rd August 2006, 07:04

Theism is the opposite of atheism. Whatever you are talking about is probably not.

Empiricism
Materialism
Anarchism
Determinism
Atheism

Aurora

23rd August 2006, 07:52

Materialism
Atheism
Marxism

Those are the most important to me :)

Days of Rage

23rd August 2006, 09:17

Rationalism

Materialism

Anarchism

Indeterminism

Atheism

Taiga

23rd August 2006, 10:27

Anarcho-Communism, Atheism and Materialism

... and by the way, how it's possible?

Originally posted by liberationjunky
Neo-creationism- intelligent design(from a non-religious standpoint)

Non-religious creationism? It's an oxymoron. Who is this mysterious designer if not god?

Jamal

23rd August 2006, 13:12

Materialism

Idealism

What?

I believe that you cannot split them appart. Being Idealistic has many good things about it, but in some cases, being Idealistic is not the right thing to do. The same thing goes to Materialism. Thats why I believe that one should not be Idealistic or Materialistic, one shuld go with them depending on the situation.

RedAnarchist

23rd August 2006, 13:15

Anarchism
Internationalism
Atheism
Egalitarianism
Materialism

Taiga

23rd August 2006, 18:09

I believe that you cannot split them appart. Being Idealistic has many good things about it, but in some cases, being Idealistic is not the right thing to do. The same thing goes to Materialism. Thats why I believe that one should not be Idealistic or Materialistic, one shuld go with them depending on the situation.
Any examples?

RevMARKSman

23rd August 2006, 18:18

Rationalism
Materialism
Anarchism
Slight indeterminism
Atheism

Sir Aunty Christ

23rd August 2006, 18:24

Empiricism
Materialism
Communism (internationalism is, to me, a necessary part of communism)
Determinism
Atheism

More Fire for the People

23rd August 2006, 19:52

I have a multitude of influences that cannot be reduced to 'isms' — Freud, Lacan, Zizek, Nietzsche. Within the 'ism' spectrum it would be hard to define myself as anything other than a materialist and Marxist. Other than those two I hold 'conflicted' views, for instance I have sympathies towards existentialism, post-structuralism, and structuralism.

liberationjunky

23rd August 2006, 22:43

Originally posted by Taiga+Aug 23 2006, 07:28 AM--> (Taiga @ Aug 23 2006, 07:28 AM)

... and by the way, how it's possible?

liberationjunky
Neo-creationism- intelligent design(from a non-religious standpoint)

Non-religious creationism? It's an oxymoron. Who is this mysterious designer if not god? [/b]
[QUOTE]

What i mean by this is that is no specific religious standpoint. I believe that all of religions are just meaningless hope in unproven unrealistic theories. I dont believe "God" is any kind of being that you can "talk" to and ask him for things or that he cares if you even go out and kill somebody (not that that is a good thing to do)

No matter can be created or destroyed. Obviously at sometime if you went infintely far back in time their had to be nothing at one time... I just believe that "God" is just the force that broke this and stared the chain of events for all of life being created. And as a determinist i believe that one first event started the first effect. this then that lead to the infinite amount of causes and reactions of all of the rest of the events that have occured and that will ever occur in the future.

mauvaise foi

23rd August 2006, 22:50

in politics:
Marxism

In philosophy:
Materialism
Existentialism
Humanism
Pragmatism

In Science:
Neo-Darwinism

Dyst

23rd August 2006, 23:36

What i mean by this is that is no specific religious standpoint. I believe that all of religions are just meaningless hope in unproven unrealistic theories. I dont believe "God" is any kind of being that you can "talk" to and ask him for things or that he cares if you even go out and kill somebody (not that that is a good thing to do)

No matter can be created or destroyed. Obviously at sometime if you went infintely far back in time their had to be nothing at one time... I just believe that "God" is just the force that broke this and started the chain of events for all of life being created. And as a determinist i believe that one first event started the first effect. this then that lead to the infinite amount of causes and reactions of all of the rest of the events that have occured and that will ever occur in the future.

I think more or less like you do. Except I don't call it "god".

Nor do I in any way let it affect my general thought about other matters.

Anyways, I'm more or less of a "scientific-communist" believing in as small and widespread, decentralized government as possible and the obliteration of the old capitalist order coming through the working class' liberation. Or whatever.

gilhyle

24th August 2006, 01:06

Dialectical Materialism

Marxism

Not empiricism, not rationalism, not idealism.

My experience is every time I read Karl Marx, I agree with everything he says - not because I need to; I just do. Sometimes I try to disagree with him but I always end up agreeing with him (and disagreeing with every description of what he believed) ....thats almost true for Engels and Lenin, 70% of the time for Trotsky......and almost zero for everyone else.

Of the people I disagree with (everyone else), Hegel and Freud are constantly impressive. Nietsche, Habermas, Heidegger, Derrida, Quine, Badiou, Davidson, Sartre, Lukacs......nah, they are all just wrong.

Every once in a while Adorno says something good, but he talks a lot of nonsense as well.

Hamster

24th August 2006, 02:36

Anarchism

Environmentalism

Empiricism

Indeterminism

Alcoholism

mauvaise foi: You should specify, which kind of Pragmatism you believe in...

rouchambeau

24th August 2006, 02:47

Pastafarianism.

Hamster

24th August 2006, 02:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 11:48 PM
Pastafarianism.
Damn, I hate religious zealots... :angry:

The Rover

24th August 2006, 05:16

Originally posted by Taiga+Aug 23 2006, 07:28 AM--> (Taiga @ Aug 23 2006, 07:28 AM)

liberationjunky
Neo-creationism- intelligent design(from a non-religious standpoint)

Non-religious creationism? It's an oxymoron. Who is this mysterious designer if not god? [/b]
The Invisible Pink Unicorn. :D

RevolutionaryMarxist

24th August 2006, 05:41

Materialist,

Realist,

Atheist,

Marxist-Leninist,

Of the people I disagree with (everyone else), Hegel and Freud are constantly impressive. Nietsche, Habermas, Heidegger, Derrida, Quine, Badiou, Davidson, Sartre, Lukacs......nah, they are all just wrong.

Sartre was still a communist anyway, but nvm that.

I personally agree with a lot of points by Nietzsche - he isn't the 'demon-nazi-facist-proto-hitler' that many see him as - Walter Kaufmann, one of the best scholars of Nietzsche (Sadly passed away recently) has shown in his various works how the past translations of Nietzsche have been terrible, and very different from his actual views.

He purposely hid his truth in a language that was rarely rivaled in Germany let alone Europe, and his confusing style is another reason why translating was so difficult (He likes to make up words as well - a special trait of the German Language in General.)

You have to be able to recognize the Sarcasm in his writings from the mildly-serious comments, for all his books are littered with humor everywhere.

His main ideas of the 'ubermensch' were basically a form I guess, of a mix between idealist-and-materialist, in which you are personally calm to the world and do not let idealism run rampant and control you as Christianity and religion has it, and instead simply go out and let your beneficial emotions run free while eliminating the negative ones.

aka - enjoy life.

and His critique of morals and studies on the history of ruling classes and the Church are very excellent.

Postteen

24th August 2006, 15:08

labels...obsesson with -isms...*sigh*

I try to read a lot and form some sort of a personal ideology, which is close to anarcho-communism, (anarcha)feminism, atheism, rationalism, meterialism, Internationalism..

RevolutionaryMarxist

24th August 2006, 17:02

Originally posted by Beatle [email protected] 24 2006, 12:09 PM
labels...obsesson with -isms...*sigh*
well thats how most people think of other people modernly :rolleyes:

mauvaise foi

24th August 2006, 18:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:07 PM

Of the people I disagree with (everyone else), Hegel and Freud are constantly impressive. Nietsche, Habermas, Heidegger, Derrida, Quine, Badiou, Davidson, Sartre, Lukacs......nah, they are all just wrong.

Sartre's great, except for his ontology, which is just confused and contradictory (he tries to combine Heidegger and Descartes, which is damned near impossible). But Sartre's phenomonology and analysis of the human condition is excellent. (You can probably tell I love Sartre by my name, which means "bad faith," one of Sartre's terms.)

Heidegger had some excellent insights, but his association with the Nazis tends to overshadow that in the minds of most people, unfortunately. Nietzsche is one of my favorites as well. Kierkegaard, Unamuno, and Jaspers are awesome too. Habermas can be full of it sometimes, but every once in a while he says something good. Quine is one of the best analytic philosophers of the 20th century. "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" is a classic. Another one of my favorites is Daniel Dennett, who was a student of Quine.

I'm not a big fan of post-modernism, but every once in a while Derrida or Richard Rorty will make a good insight. As far as pragmatists go, however, I'll take Quine or Dewey over Rorty any day.

As for thinkers I don't like: Plato, Aristotle, Derrida (for the most part), Foucault, Lyotard, the Logical Positivists, and probably a lot of other people I can't think of right now.

Taiga

24th August 2006, 19:31

Originally posted by The Rover+Aug 24 2006, 05:17 AM--> (The Rover @ Aug 24 2006, 05:17 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:28 AM

liberationjunky
Neo-creationism- intelligent design(from a non-religious standpoint)

Non-religious creationism? It's an oxymoron. Who is this mysterious designer if not god?
The Invisible Pink Unicorn. :D [/b]
You silly, it was Flying Spagetti Monster! :D

violencia.Proletariat

24th August 2006, 23:43

No matter can be created or destroyed. Obviously at sometime if you went infintely far back in time their had to be nothing at one time... I just believe that "God" is just the force that broke this and stared the chain of events for all of life being created.

So how exactly can something that is not material change material? How can this "god" change the physical world if he can't theoretically (by your own theory) be a part of it.

Delta

24th August 2006, 23:46

Determinism has been proven scientifically incorrect a la Quantum Mechanics. At least in the sense that you can't correctly predict the future if you knew everything there was to know now. You could in principle calculate what the probability of each possible future occuring would be, but that's about it.

liberationjunky

25th August 2006, 00:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:47 PM
Determinism has been proven scientifically incorrect a la Quantum Mechanics. At least in the sense that you can't correctly predict the future if you knew everything there was to know now. You could in principle calculate what the probability of each possible future occuring would be, but that's about it.
[QUOTE]

I have read a decent amount of studies on quantum mechanics and I do not believe it disproves determinism. I know where your comming from, how quantum mechanics has alot to do with the probability of the sub-particals of atoms well act at any given time. I still do not believe that this disproves anything. Just cause we can't breakdown the sub-particals an infinite amount of times and do not truely understand the systematic way they most likely work in doesnt mean there isnt one. There are more questions then answers available in QM so far like how we dont even know where the subatomic particles go when they seem to "dissapear". Until we can learn some more about this feild of knowledge I am pretty sure there will not be any definite evidence against determinism. (if there ever will be)

Delta

25th August 2006, 01:33

"Definitive" conclusions don't come in science, although they can in math. All you can do is look at the body of evidence.

If the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics wasn't correct, then we'd have a lot of explaining to do....

Umoja

25th August 2006, 02:39

Atheism
Rationalism
Epicurianism (Ancient Greek-Atheism)
Socialism (Sort of)
Secular Humanism

Viva Fidel!!

25th August 2006, 05:14

Communisim
Atheism

Rage Against Right

25th August 2006, 10:27

Well im kinda younger and still making my mind up about a lot of things....and i know what im not.... but i try and make my own beliefs out of a conjunttion of other ideaologies and theories

I agree with socialism
marxism
nieztche
ummm..pink floyd
communism

buti hate having to genrealise things

hoopla

25th August 2006, 18:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:44 PM

No matter can be created or destroyed. Obviously at sometime if you went infintely far back in time their had to be nothing at one time... I just believe that "God" is just the force that broke this and stared the chain of events for all of life being created.

So how exactly can something that is not material change material? How can this "god" change the physical world if he can't theoretically (by your own theory) be a part of it.
How does something material change something material, out of interest? :)

liberationjunky

25th August 2006, 22:27

Originally posted by hoopla+Aug 25 2006, 03:41 PM--> (hoopla @ Aug 25 2006, 03:41 PM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 08:44 PM

No matter can be created or destroyed. Obviously at sometime if you went infintely far back in time their had to be nothing at one time... I just believe that "God" is just the force that broke this and stared the chain of events for all of life being created.

So how exactly can something that is not material change material? How can this "god" change the physical world if he can't theoretically (by your own theory) be a part of it.
How does something material change something material, out of interest? :) [/b]
I dont believe that God is material first of all, and i can not prove to you my belief is the way the universe started. Im sure that no one else in the world can prove their belief about how the world began either.

SocialJustice19

26th August 2006, 23:37

Originally posted by Taiga+Aug 23 2006, 07:28 AM--> (Taiga @ Aug 23 2006, 07:28 AM) Anarcho-Communism, Atheism and Materialism

... and by the way, how it's possible?

liberationjunky
Neo-creationism- intelligent design(from a non-religious standpoint)

Non-religious creationism? It's an oxymoron. Who is this mysterious designer if not god? [/b]
Non-religious creationism? It's an oxymoron. Who is this mysterious designer if not god?

A non religious standpoint I believe would be one that isn't part of one or any religion. You can be non religious and still believe in God. So it isn't an oxymoron to believe in intelligent design (i.e god).

Labor Shall Rule

27th August 2006, 00:46

I believe in a thing called Jesus.

rouchambeau

27th August 2006, 01:57

ummm..pink floyd
Best belief evar!

Labor Shall Rule

27th August 2006, 05:18

All of you are sadly going to burn in hell.

Blue Collar Bohemian

27th August 2006, 07:08

I believe in the human spirit.

Comrade J

27th August 2006, 10:22

Pessimism usually :D

Rationalism
Atheism
Marxism
I-Am-Cool-ism. Just kidding.

Labor Shall Rule

27th August 2006, 10:33

Originally posted by Blue Collar [email protected] 27 2006, 04:09 AM
I believe in the human spirit.
I believe in the Holy Spirit.

The Freewheelin' Tiger

27th August 2006, 13:12

McCarthyism
-isms that have to do with kissing ass to a higher power and force "morals" and/or require monetary donation

:lol:

Okay all joking aside:

According to that list, Rationalism
Socialism
Agnosticism
Some principles of buddhism
A pinch of confucianism
Chillin

LoE

27th August 2006, 23:38

nihilism
narsism
atheism
materialism (there's nothing but material your feelings are a damn biolocigal thing that's all nothing "holly" or "meta-phicic)
neo-communism ("humans will sit on thier butt and machines will do all the work " see there's no class, see there's communal ownership, see there's technology, so the thng that you can do for communism is to be narsist and invate anything you can to bring tomorrow to today-- ok you'll not call this communism so I call it neo-communism)

rouchambeau

28th August 2006, 00:35

All of you are sadly going to burn in hell.
Awesome! See you there.

Iron_Prophet

2nd September 2006, 06:38

Economics: a modified Socialism

Spiritual:Neo-Creationism (which, unlike it's sister philosphy, believes in using science to plead its case)

War:Pacifism

Human Rights: GLBTism

I believe, as Pierre Proudhon did, that even in an anarchy there would still be coercive forces and that oppression would just be more localized rather than a state wide thing. So I am hoping to develop a sociopoilitcal philosphy that would place people, not political activists and advocates for this government or that government or even lack of a central government, would be the deciding force in the development of humanity.