I don't have a single philosophy so much as I try to understand as many lenses as possible and then view issues through the lens that most appropriately matches reality.

I think I have a good grasp on
-The Marxist-Leninist and Marxist-inter sectional lenses
-The objectivist lens
-The Neocon/unilateralism lens
-Broadly "alt-right" lens.

Also, I crave more and more lenses through which to view the world, art, and media.

Edited 10/11/2018 16:55:58

what does it mean that a philosophy is flawed?

A philosophy that contradicts itself from its first presupposition.

in which order do you study rouge NK? from worst to best and then you have only gotten through the worst ones up till now?

loads of different philosophies are internally consistent so if that was the metric it's very easy to give an answer to one that is not flawed

Edited 10/11/2018 19:03:09

I'm a Christian. This means that I'm studying the bible in order to form my understanding of reality.

If you want to study philosophy from a Western focus then read the Bible, the Greeks, and of course the Western canon from the "medieval" to the "modern" period.

Edited 10/17/2018 19:27:04

@El-sin: What is your motivation for those actions? What you are describing fits into basically any ethical school.

E.g: If you try not to hurt others through your actions out of duty, then we are talking deontology, but it could also be hedonism, if you are merely trying to optimize pleasure and minimize pain.

what is a world view, and how is a philosophy contained whitin it? how do one asses depth and validity. how do you know that there is an objective truth and what do you even mean by objective. why is it certain that we can make a worldview of it and how can they correspond whit one another? also can you make one theory about the totality?

Edited 10/11/2018 20:51:33

A worldview is a complete picture of reality. For example the Christian worldview. It's more inclusive than just a philosophy because it also has a view of history and of science. Validity is easily determined, it just means something is internally consistent. Depth includes empirical accuracy but also good explanations of history and the intuitive factor - because the nature of truth is itself intuitive to some extent. It's very easy to show that there is an objective truth because if there weren't, there wouldn't even be a way to make universal truth claims without self-contradiction. A worldview is just the more or less accurate picture of reality. Any reality whether you're talking about a true or a false one has a corresponding worldview, a way to view it. And all worldviews make theories about the totality of reality. Christianity and Islam for example are theories about what everything is as a totality.

The problem with philosophy is that it is all theoretical and can never be proven. If it could, it would be science. You are literally just reading an opinion of someone and using that to justify everything. And if there truly was someone that was correct we wouldn't have philosophy in the first place and just follow that instead.

Of course, this is a gross simplification, if you want more you're gonna have to join me on twitch for that one :P but my point is philosophy should not actually be taken seriously outside if just learning about people's mindsets. If you truly wish to gain meaning, do what you believe in or probably go into some other field where you can actually prove things like chemistry or physics. But what do I know I merely do politics.

If you want to study philosophy from a Western focus

why on earth would you want to do that?

My philosophy is that taking one introductory Philosophy class in no way qualifies one to spout "facts" they learned as truth.

XD

Yes, I do have a philosophy.

i think everyone is entitled to their on philosophy, no matter how much education. ofc, some people's philosophy's might be "better" but everybody has power of thought and right to their own opinions

edit: take if with a grain of salt if you want, I'm only 19 and have only had AP pysch in highschool :D

Edited 10/12/2018 17:04:20

I kind of agree with Rogue, except I believe in universal truths. Those that are not universal, can be subject to the individual.

Nihilists claim that there is no objective truth, so explain to me how it is not objectively true that killing and raping children isn't immoral and bad.

@MrTrolldemort
"If you truly wish to gain meaning, do what you believe in or probably go into some other field where you can actually prove things like chemistry or physics. But what do I know I merely do politics."

But how can you know, what you truly believe in, if you do not know, how to truly believe in something?

"If you truly wish to gain meaning, do what you believe in..."-"...I merely do politics"

I have bad news for you, friend.

hey you look cool join my much better thread about the newest league in WZ

https://www.warzone.com/Forum/318921-new-coin-challenge

heh heh...you seemed to have caught me in the act. Getting the rhetoric out of me. Anyways, let me dissect your argument

"But how can you know, what you truly believe in, if you do not know, how to truly believe in something?"


I think I established this when I said that without evidence a "belief" is meaningless. Philosophy is a contradiction proclaiming the truth when it can never appropriately show its proof. Their attempts never work as their reasoning is inherently biased from their own perceptions. That includes me, mind you, so you can say the same about what I'm saying as I am giving a bigger definition of my philosophy. In the end, no one is correct and can never be.

"I have bad news for you friend"

Oh I know (evil snickering for when I conquer the world)

"Philosophy is a contradiction proclaiming the truth when it can never appropriately show its proof."

Philosophy does no such thing. Every ethical school has it's reasoning, and, when learning these schools, you also learn the long list of arguments against their theories, as well as the counter-arguments to these. All philosophers (I reckon) understand, that our field is never conclusive. The schools are somewhat biased, as those who study them, typically does so based on own convictions. But, you have to remember, from where the word philosophy has it's origin. Phylos Sofia. The love of knowledge. Modern philosophy educations have very extensive courses in logic, argumentation theory, and so forth. Recognizing biases is a small task for people that has devoted their life to philosophy.

Regardless of which of the ethical schools you agree with, they all provide the same thing: An understanding of, what you believe in. Are you a hedonist? Are you an existentialist? Do you think, that the world is immaterialistic? Good on you. Now you have a better understanding of, why you do the things you do, and why others do the things, that they do.

People can be be correct to some extent - If the school makes perfect sense in their perception of the world, then that's their subjective truth. The primary problem as I see it is, that people are different, and therefore act differently. Any discussion about which school is objectively true is to me silly. It's obviously virtue ethics. (Sorry :) )The study of the different ethical theories might be more important than ever now, due to multiculturalism and the problems it carries with it. Back in the day, societies usually had some kind of common ground for what to believe in, but now it's a mishmash of many cultures, that have all cultivated certain ways of thought throughout centuries.


You encourage people to find meaning in other fields of study, as you find philosophy to have a lack of meaning, but what about politics, then? It's a heavily flawed system you have decided to dedicate your time to. It's effectively the study of short-term solutions, as the primary focus of any politician/party always will be to get re-elected.