Your philosophical views

Post Reply New Topic

This is a challenging topic.

My ideas and views have changed over time, but the basic golden rule still applies.

Rationalism and logic apply in all situations. Overreacting and extreme views are counterproductive, yet all humans at one time or another have displayed them, even me.

Taking the time to understand another's point of view as helped me to continue to learn and grow. I learn from young and old, from those I love, from those whose views I do not share, and those whom I will never understand, for whatever reason.

The mind and body must both be exercised for optimal health. Keeping an open mind and taking an eclectic approach to religion, philosophy and politics keeps one's personal morals and ethics standards consistent. Respect for self and others is woven with practising what one espouses. Do the best you can, learn from failures as well as successes.

My personal views can be summed up as agnostic and utilitarian.

I try to not be tied down by firm beliefs, but I have tendencies toward Ontologic-Physiologic, Deterministic, and Indifferent views.

What currently bothers me, is that "The Everything" seems to be of relevance only within itself. This is a barren, infertile line of thought, surely, but it still bothers me.

--Science and a life and thinking methodology based on science is best.
--There is no God or heaven or hell
--Morality is relative
--The universe does not owe us anything
--The universe is not fair
--One should do what he can to maximize his potential and influence
--People are clearly not equal
--What the universe is and what we would like it to be are distinct from one another

i am leaning more twords being agnostic these days

I'm a radical ultra-fundamentalist brahmin christian ("small" 'c' christian), who believes that Jesus was part of the knowledge tradition dating back to ancient times, when knowledge had been respected.

I've been thinking maybe I should start my own church. I'm one of those whose opinion of Paul is that he was a government meddler whose job it was to derail this new knowledge-based spiritual movement of the followers of Yeshua (aka "Jesus Christ"). As far as I'm concerned, Paul committed the first big "Corporate Takeover" and high-jacked christianity away from Peter; he was always fighting with Jesus' own disciples, whom he despised, considering Judaism to be regressive, insisted his gospel was the only true gospel, and accused those churches who adhered to the ways of Jesus and Peter of "doing the work of Satan"!

Thanks to him, christianity became so divided, and so superstitious, it was easily taken over and further subverted by a politician named Constantine only about 3 centuries later.

My church would be called something like:

"The First Brahmin Church of St Peter and the Sons of God"

kind of sounds like some old cowboy singing group, doesn't it?

My church philosophy would include teachings of Old and New testament, The Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Mahabharata.

Our fundamentalist philosophy would be to use logic and intuition to individually verify spiritual or theological propositions for ourselves, regardless of what is presented in "the name of truth". Since we've been lied to so much by religion, ours would not be one.

I would put a big sign on the lawn in front of my church; it would say the following:

"Blasphemy of the so-called Churches, Temples and Mosques. All they seek is Ignorance; they maintain Ignorance in the name of Jesus Christ, Bhudda, Shankara Charya, and Rama Krishna"

revisted Topic

I'm a radical ultra-fundamentalist brahmin christian ("small" 'c' christian), who believes that Jesus was part of the knowledge tradition dating back to ancient times, when knowledge had been respected.

I've been thinking maybe I should start my own church. I'm one of those whose opinion of Paul is that he was a government meddler whose job it was to derail this new knowledge-based spiritual movement of the followers of Yeshua (aka "Jesus Christ"). As far as I'm concerned, Paul committed the first big "Corporate Takeover" and high-jacked christianity away from Peter; he was always fighting with Jesus' own disciples, whom he despised, considering Judaism to be regressive, insisted his gospel was the only true gospel, and accused those churches who adhered to the ways of Jesus and Peter of "doing the work of Satan"!

Thanks to him, christianity became so divided, and so superstitious, it was easily taken over and further subverted by a politician named Constantine only about 3 centuries later.

My church would be called something like:

"The First Brahmin Church of St Peter and the Sons of God"

kind of sounds like some old cowboy singing group, doesn't it?

My church philosophy would include teachings of Old and New testament, The Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Mahabharata.

Our fundamentalist philosophy would be to use logic and intuition to individually verify spiritual or theological propositions for ourselves, regardless of what is presented in "the name of truth". Since we've been lied to so much by religion, ours would not be one.

I would put a big sign on the lawn in front of my church; it would say the following:

"Blasphemy of the so-called Churches, Temples and Mosques. All they seek is Ignorance; they maintain Ignorance in the name of Jesus Christ, Bhudda, Shankara Charya, and Rama Krishna"

First off, I don't think human beings are, compared with the rest of the universe's processes, (dimensions and physics, etc.) special. I don't believe we're former angels, but ape things with a uniquely large reliance on the small yet unusually prominent and complicated fraction of our mind that's cognitive and self-aware. This egocentric and self-absorbed personality serves an important role in making us more dynamic organisms, but is cursed by it's own ability to assign and exchange meanings between itself, external sensory input, and the rest of the nervous system's processes... so that maybe we think we matter a bit more than we actually do.

This isn't meant to sound angsty or nihilistic, but maybe the spiritual deity that most societies throughout history have prayed to is for the sake of feeling recognized, when we can't quite recognize exactly what we are. Self-awareness can be a curse, eh? The Christian "Forbidden Fruit of Knowledge" is a good analogy here.

But, I don't believe the meanings we assign to things (EVERYthing, external and in the mind) are necessarily meaningless, in light of thinking self-awareness has run away with our emotions. I be a good or bad person because I want to, unconditionally, which by the way is ironically close to the unconditional love many deities (literally) endorse.

Really, when I start thinking about possible incidences of the existence of a God who's created EVERYthing, my brain goes into science fiction mode, and I know it. And when I try to justify who and/or what I am, I can be more honest and at least have a non-theoretical rhetoric about what I'm talking about.

The world is not in stasis. If you don't f with things they will f with you.

Treat others the way you want to be treated. (unless your a sadomasochist)
Allways make more koolaid/tea when you drink the last of it (courtesy)
Pick up after yourself (courtesy again)
Allways do more then your share of the work when working with others (so they can't b***h)
Never be a hero (they allways die)
And allways wrap it up (safety first)

"Life is pain, anyone who tells you different is selling something." ( "The Princess Bride" )

This is mine. It makes sense of my life, which is what matters about a philosophy in my opinion.

I would say Individualism.