what is your personal philosophy?

[open mind]

the topic is pretty self explanatory i'd say but here are a few of my philosophical stances to get us started.

i believe every culture has serious flaws that inhibit the advancement of humanity as a species, but i don't automattically believe one culture is superior to the other.
i believe humans should be free to do what they choose to do as long as it doesn't affect another humans ability to do the same.
i believe that those who do overstep those bounds should be punished in some form.....but it shouldn't involve the stripping of rights or inhibit their progress for the rest of thier life.
i believe in the possibility that absolute harmony with the universe is attainable.......but no human society created up to this point can supply it.

[oldwirehands]

I was only born in 1986 but from what I've experienced and learned in the 22 years I've been alive; things are getting worse.

Everyone seems to be completely consumed by the seven deadly sins. I'm not a Christian but those sins really do hold civilization back. They can be overcome. But people choose to ignore it. Instead they'll be anticipating Tila Tequila's Shot of Love 2.

Ignorance is bliss until you find yourself in shackles.. or your children or your grandchildren. This bliss isn't going to last forever.

[salmarnirecho]

My personal philosophy: everyone deserves to have their basic needs met.

Capitalism is obviously not the answer, it's just social Darwinism that favors the rich. But at the same time, I think communism would require a tremendous amount of indoctrination, which I absolutely despise. I don't know what the answer is. What I do know, is that despite our enormous superiority complex, America is definitely not the greatest country on earth. We have our colossal flaws just as any other country does.
bubu_Sk8er, you bring up a great point. Rather than worry about our environment, or the well being of the human race even, we're worried about Tila Tequila. And I guess that statement begs the question, why? Why do we care about a bisexual with a television show more than we care about a genocide in another country? I'm not totally sure, but my guess would be that it's easier. Tila Tequila demands nothing from us. Watching a genocide unfold does.

But what do we do?

[Dre Okorley]

I don't think people have all the answers, and neither does the government(also people). Co-dependency on the government only seems necessary because they've made it necessary(like dumping drugs into poor and black communities, for example, and we look to them for the solution to all our problems). If co-dependency is wrong on all other levels, why are we so gung-ho about being cradled like little babies by our government?

[saysmydoctor]

George Orwell had it right: Slavery is freedom.

[Machu505]

Orwell was right about everything.

[Dre Okorley]

Well, 1984 was certainly prophetic in SOME ways, but I don't idolize the guy..

[bung]

Life is utterly pointless, but since I'm here I might as well have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames.

Televisions ruins more minds than drugs.

Life is beautiful, but death is immaculate.

[nwptrl]

I think the people of Burma have it right. "Live for nothing, or die for something." They got it from a cheesey rambo flick, but it's how they have to live. So many people who believe in the inherent good in society stand-up and take this same pledge everyday to some extent. It's not a bad philosophy to live by.

[oldwirehands]

Life is utterly pointless, but since I'm here I might as well have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames.

Televisions ruins more minds than drugs.

Life is beautiful, but death is immaculate.

We are intelligent conscious beings in a beautiful world. Whether or not we were given this consciousness or is a product of random chaos, we are lucky. Self-development the key to happiness. Self-development is also just another thing people ignore. We must take time out of this chaotic world to reflect deeply and learn from our experiences. To know one's self brings meaning to this life. You have the power to direct it in anyway. If life is really pointless to some people, they might as well just kill themselves.

[bung]

We are intelligent conscious beings in a beautiful world. Whether or not we were given this consciousness or is a product of random chaos, we are lucky. Self-development the key to happiness. Self-development is also just another thing people ignore. We must take time out of this chaotic world to reflect deeply and learn from our experiences. To know one's self brings meaning to this life. You have the power to direct it in anyway. If life is really pointless to some people, they might as well just kill themselves.

How does self-actualization and introspection bring meaning and purpose to life itself?

And why would I want to kill myself when I like being alive so much?

[oldwirehands]

How does self-actualization and introspection bring meaning and purpose to life itself?

And why would I want to kill myself when I like being alive so much?

Self-development provides a sense of accomplishment. Its not easy in the world we live in today with all the distractions surrounding us. Entertainment is so easily accessible, I'm surprised when I actually meet someone who is aware of them self and the world around them.

If you like being alive so much then why would your life be pointless? I just don't see wanting to really go on in life if I felt there was no point to it.

[spud73]

I was only born in 1986 but from what I've experienced and learned in the 22 years I've been alive; things are getting worse.

Everyone seems to be completely consumed by the seven deadly sins. I'm not a Christian but those sins really do hold civilization back. They can be overcome. But people choose to ignore it. Instead they'll be anticipating Tila Tequila's Shot of Love 2.

Ignorance is bliss until you find yourself in shackles.. or your children or your grandchildren. This bliss isn't going to last forever.

See I don't really believe that - some things improve, others degenerate, but I think it stays about the same overall, rather than getting better or worse.

In response to the original question, I'm of the 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' school of thought.

[bung]

Self-development provides a sense of accomplishment. Its not easy in the world we live in today with all the distractions surrounding us. Entertainment is so easily accessible, I'm surprised when I actually meet someone who is aware of them self and the world around them.

If you like being alive so much then why would your life be pointless? I just don't see wanting to really go on in life if I felt there was no point to it.

Deriving satisfaction and enjoyment from something, or even pain and dejection for that matter, does not mean that that "something" exists for that reason. I can extract joy and fulfillment and beauty from life, but in no way does that mean that life itself is as it is for my benefit. What's the purpose of a sunset? Sure, we know why the sun appears to set in our sky, and people certainly derive pleasure and satisfaction from viewing a sunset, but the sunset does not exist for that purpose.

Regardless of what one accomplishes, be it something great that will be remembered for generations or simply something that provides a personal sense of accomplishment, or even if one accomplishes nothing, the same result will be awaiting that individual, which is death. Thus, it is irrelevant, on a grand scale, what actions human beings partake in because, no matter what they are, the universe will continue existing as is, unchanged. All humans could instantly die this second and it would mean nothing. If human life had a purpose or a point, that would not be so. Certainly some consequences would need to occur for all these lives to truly have a point. If something has a purpose or a point, and that something is destroyed or ended, it would need to have some kind of impact on that which allows it to continue existing.

For example, a roller coaster that exists in a theme park has the purpose of bringing in money for the owners of the park. If the roller coaster is destroyed, the income that it would make would be lost, affecting the profits the park makes. However, if a human being existing in the universe is destroyed, it would have no effect on the universe at all.

Life allows me to know joy, amusement, satisfaction, introspection, knowledge, love, beauty, and a countless number of other things. The fact that life has no point has no bearing on my ability to experience these things, and it is only human nature to continue that which gives one pleasure. So if I were to kill myself I would lose what is most valuable to me, life, and that would not be in my best interest to cease what I give my highest reverence to.

[Nevuk]

Humanity as a whole is incapable of living in a system with automatically differing levels of power, without making it incredibly unjust. Free will is an illusion, but freedom is necessary. Emotions are not worth pursuing in and of themselves, but neither are logic or rationality. Philosophy is mental masturbation. All definite statements are false, as is definiteness itself. Dogma is the worst sin, either negative or positive. Binary oppositions and being only capable of seeing differences in qualitative rather than quantitative terms is one of the major blocks to us evolving as a species.

This life could be real, it could not be real. Both are equally possible, and I will treat it as such. Centralization of power into the hands of the few is at the root of much of human history since agriculture. Anarchy is not a utopia, it has many problems of its own, but it is the best system currently in existence. Panarchism is probably the best method for implementation of Anarchism.

There's a few contradictions there, but there always are in a personal philosophy. I've stayed a bit away from the non-blanket statement political side of things, because I wrote a short paper on that last semester that I can just copy and paste. I was asked a question and told to right a paper on it, basically.

Problematic Consentient
[name removed. I don't want people on AP stalking me.]

Should We Consent to be Governed?

No. In fact, consenting is impossible. Unless there is an alternative, an exit option, it is meaningless. However, our lack of consenting does not affect the state. Since not consenting is impossible, the State should be resisted whenever possible, preferably passively but actively if there is no other choice. Anyone except for a fascist should agree with this concept, actually. One of the characteristics of a State (or any entity with power) is to seek to consolidate and protect its power, so it must be resisted constantly and vigilantly to prevent tyrannical growth.
There is no conceivable justification for any State. Were a utopian state to truly exist, it would not be justified. Freedom cannot exist within the confines of a State. Any rights, liberties, you possess within one are not yours. They are on loan from the State, to be revoked on any whim.
An exit option must exist for realizable consent. By this, I mean there should be no consequences for not consenting. If consequences do exist, then it is coercion, not consent. For this reason also, it is impossible for “tacit” consent to occur. This is coercion, implicitly. Your “no”, in this case, involves the revocation of home, family, friends, and property. In many societies exile is considered a worse punishment than death.

“Would you trade your freedom for liberty?” There can be no concrete definition given for Freedom, as it is an abstract concept. In addition, it is a personal subject which is defined differently by different people. My working definition of freedom is : to be free to do what you wish, as long as it does not impinge upon the freedom of others. Important to note about this is the others caveat. Herein lies the distinction between a societal and individualist anarchist. It appears to me, that unless everyone in the society is free, then no one in the society is capable of being free. This is the reason for the caveat, it is required for there to be freedom at all.

For this reason Freedom cannot exist within the confines of a state. If there is a specific way to act that is free, then that is not actually freedom. Rather, it is an attempt to display freedom in a way that conforms to the socially acceptable ways to display freedom. This socially acceptable way to display freedom is always defined upon the socially accepted way to not display freedom. Your freedom is constrained upon the rules of what it means to be free, and this becomes infinitely more pervasive if you are aware of your own self-assured status of Freedom. In the State, you have liberties. Not freedom. The differences is that liberties are apportioned freedom. And some have more rights (liberties) than others, and are given free rein to impinge on others freedom.
The paradox of all Revolutions is related, any attempt to revolt is defined upon the society it is trying to overthrow. The only perceivable method around this I perceive is a revolutionary movement which manages to find a way to exist outside the western basis of rationality, binary thought. Deconstruction is insufficient, as it still falls into this trap. Solving this is a prerequisite to any truly successful revolution.

Some believe that they should take part in the State, in order to shape it more clearly into a better one. Immediate flaws are perceivable with this. Once one begins to think of the State as a tool, they begin to wish to protect and consolidate the State’s power. This will occur if this is actively resisted. Any action performed by a State will be a furtherance of it. Even if it is infinitely detrimental to it at the moment, it will later on be an action which furthers its purpose of consolidation. A person attempting to make a tool of the state will inevitably find themselves made a tool of it, as they are constrained to perform within the confines of the State’s power, and all of their accomplishments are a praising of the State itself.

I know I have merely stated positions on issues and theories for the most part. No amount of justification can be given to justify these points, I feel. But then, the same has proven true of most other stances in politics. It is for this reason I have confined it to theory. In addition, others have already done this far better than I am capable.

[oldwirehands]

Deriving satisfaction and enjoyment from something, or even pain and dejection for that matter, does not mean that that "something" exists for that reason. I can extract joy and fulfillment and beauty from life, but in no way does that mean that life itself is as it is for my benefit. What's the purpose of a sunset? Sure, we know why the sun appears to set in our sky, and people certainly derive pleasure and satisfaction from viewing a sunset, but the sunset does not exist for that purpose.

Regardless of what one accomplishes, be it something great that will be remembered for generations or simply something that provides a personal sense of accomplishment, or even if one accomplishes nothing, the same result will be awaiting that individual, which is death. Thus, it is irrelevant, on a grand scale, what actions human beings partake in because, no matter what they are, the universe will continue existing as is, unchanged. All humans could instantly die this second and it would mean nothing. If human life had a purpose or a point, that would not be so. Certainly some consequences would need to occur for all these lives to truly have a point. If something has a purpose or a point, and that something is destroyed or ended, it would need to have some kind of impact on that which allows it to continue existing.

For example, a roller coaster that exists in a theme park has the purpose of bringing in money for the owners of the park. If the roller coaster is destroyed, the income that it would make would be lost, affecting the profits the park makes. However, if a human being existing in the universe is destroyed, it would have no effect on the universe at all.

Life allows me to know joy, amusement, satisfaction, introspection, knowledge, love, beauty, and a countless number of other things. The fact that life has no point has no bearing on my ability to experience these things, and it is only human nature to continue that which gives one pleasure. So if I were to kill myself I would lose what is most valuable to me, life, and that would not be in my best interest to cease what I give my highest reverence to.

I get what you're saying but I don't believe the human race exists for the universe. There really is a meaning that you can only give yourself. Like I've stated before, all of this is a gift. You are alive in breathing out of pure luck. There is in no way we could comprehend an answer of why the universe exists at this point in time and probably never will. The only thing we can do is form answers with the knowledge we already know. You could go as far to say that human life is pointless on the grand scale of things but nonetheless, it is a gift. We can form our own meanings with that gift.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just see this pointlessness and form a meaning around it. Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" speech definitely explains that we are absolutely nothing compared to the universe. I don't think that just because the universe doesn't need us to exist, that there is no purpose to an individual's life subjectively.

[saysmydoctor]

Well, 1984 was certainly prophetic in SOME ways, but I don't idolize the guy..
I wasn't calling him a prophet, but his party slogans are true.

[Dre Okorley]

I was calling him a prophet, but his party slogans are true.

True, true

[saysmydoctor]

Just realized I called him a prophet, meant to say 'wasn't.'

[GiggsOho]

Regardless of the government at hand, I feel that you should spend your time on Earth learning from the mistakes of the past, apply them to the present, so the future is better than what you were initially born into. Sounds cliche, but I believe if every human aspired to do this, this world would be a lot better off. Call me an idealist.

[Love As Arson]

My views on life and politics generally flow from my Marxist perspective, though a bit is borrowed from Sartre's existentialist conception of the dialectic.