Over the past decade, I have formulated my philosophy of life.  The entire exercise has been personally beneficial, and I hope that you will benefit from reading it.

A brief summary and link to the full document may be found here.

I am posting my philosophy here to solicit feedback so that it may be improved.  I look forward to a productive discussion.

Views: 235

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think that "living well" is an appropriate primary goal in life, and "peace of mind" is a necessary and desirable component of this. 

As TJ has pointed out, what you call a philosophy of life is something of a "mission statement" rather than a comprehensive philosophical system that integrates cosmology, ontology, epistemology and ethics into one cohesive and logical answer to various problems. The few philosophers who attempt this take decades to do this and few succeed.

From what I've read, this philosophy, for the most part, is actually more of a description of humanism or rational-empiricism. The first section on atheism, is, again, more of a description rather than a philosophical analysis or clear answer to a question. That doesn't mean it isn't a good description, it is decent IMO, but description is not the same thing as an answer to a question. Here are some notes on the first subsection (atheism). As you must have noted by now, Anglo-saxon philosophy (analytical) is mostly about the gritty work, careful use of terms and definitions etc.

There is a presumption of atheism because theists propose the addition of a major metaphysical entity (the Abrahamic God) to what is already known to exist (the physical universe). That is, theists make an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There are a few issues with terminology and a couple steps which are absent (that is a gap in the argument). I think what you mean is this:

Claiming a God (or supernatural entity) exists is an extraordinary claim. The default position on all such claims should be skepticism and a lack of belief in it. Such claims are extraordinary because they make claims that far exceeds believably by an objective observer and the claim implies further claims which provide further problematic issues. Such claims should be well backed up with detailed definitions, explanations and evidence. Those who posit God exists, are making an extraordinary claim and they should back this claim up with detailed definitions, explanations and strong evidence.


Next part:

None of the standard arguments for the existence of the Abrahamic God are persuasive, as they are all subject to damaging objections. For detail, please see the recommended reading below.

Consier:

None of the standard definitions and explanations of God nor evidence given are persuasive as they cannot stand up to critical analysis. For example,

(consider giving an example or two, i know it ads more text but making such a broad claim yourself, ought to be covered up with at least the name of a couple examples if not a short explanation of one or two of them). Next:

There are a number of effective arguments against the claim that God exists which justify a rejection of the claims (the default position of atheism). Briefly summarized as follows:

athiesm is a lack of belief, not a positive claim (at least in most philosophical texts)

There are a number of effective arguments against the claim that God exists which justify a rejection of the claims (and thus taking the default position of atheism). Briefly summarized as follows:

The list of arguments that follow, are generally well written. Good concise explanation. One thing i think we should all be careful is claiming that we have evidence there is no God. We don't. We can sufficiently point out fatal errors in their description of their God. We cannot prove his non-existence though. It's impossible to prove the non existence of a cosmological entity (though we can be 99.99999999% confident it doesn't exist).

There is one argument which is new to me:

if God has a mind without a brain, why would he not create humans the same way?

I'm not sure this follows. God can give humans whatever brain he wants to give them. By creating faulty humans it's likely that every fuctioning part of the body he gives us is a shadow of his own. This isn't the same as the "faulty eye" problem, where a needlessly messy and complicated structure exists (the small blind spot in the eye) which would show terrible design even for the puny imperfect humans God creates. An easily damaged brain however is not the same in my opinion. We have thick skulls and I'm fairly sure having thicker skulls would create numerous other problems (like heavier weight on the neck and rest of the body, drain of various resources to maintain bone structure instead of our nervous system or having stronger lungs, hearts, sex organs, resource hungry senses (touch, sight, smell, equilibrium, etc).

If you find this useful, I'll have a go at a couple other sections.

Davis, thank you for your detailed feedback.  Yes, please feel free to share your thoughts on the remainder of my philosophy.

I agree that my philosophy is not a comprehensive system, but it is not meant to be so.  Rather, I include in the document only what is needed to advise myself on how to live well, which is the primary purpose of the exercise (see top of page 1).

Thank you for your discussion.  It's made me learn a lot and pushed my knowledge a long way. 

I've come up with an answer to the question of the foundations of ethics and morality, and a framework that organises the subject, which is a universal ethical formula that, in theory, anyone can use to guide them in any situation; and together these form a unifying factor that makes the whole thing understandable and cohesive. 

Does this seem like an answer to the question of "atheist morality"?  I understand that some people don't see the need for one, and that's fine, but it can't be denied that it's always been an issue: Christians have always been able to mock us because we didn't have a clear, organised moral philosophy, which, to be fair, they have.  Now we have this, which explains things in terms of evolution, and what's more, incorporates the existing Christian framework, which actually is the same if you look at it. 

The questions are: what should I do, and why should I do it. 

The answer comes in two [short] parts: 

1.  Origins of the raw ethical pressure  http://yellowgrain.co.uk/healing_principle.html

2.  How human beings satisfy this ethical pressure (cooperation)

a.  deriving the rule abstractly  http://yellowgrain.co.uk/personal_ethics.html#definition_of_goodness

b.  evolution of the ethical values involved  http://yellowgrain.co.uk/personal_ethics.html#evolution

c.  real-world advantages to following the rule  http://yellowgrain.co.uk/personal_ethics.html#advantages

The rest of the page is still under development and needs to be worked over. 

I can't seem to get any professionals - bigwigs - to take notice.  Presumably they think I'm just another crank with a computer and a pile of weed.  And why wouldn't they?  I'm not bothered, because if it's good, it'll get noticed in the end, and in the meantime, I'll just carry on working up the rest, filling in the framework by describing the rest of morality, from the basics up. 

RSS

© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service