My Philosophy of Life

Over the past few years, I have formulated my philosophy of life, a 13-page document that may be found at either of the following links:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byh6JnTg3RMecHhxV0pYeklqV0U/edit?usp=sharing

http://www.scribd.com/doc/183418623/My-Philosophy-of-Life

In the first half of the document, I present and defend the following positions: atheism, afterlife skepticism, free will impossibilism, moral skepticism, existential skepticism and negative hedonism. The second half of the document is devoted to ways to achieve and maintain peace of mind.

I have found the entire exercise to be very beneficial personally, and I hope that you will benefit from reading the document.

I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have.

Enjoy!

 

Ok, first page in and I found you already made an error in definition. Atheism is not the belief that the existence of God(s) is "highly unlikely". That is perhaps Atheistic Agnostism. Atheism is the belief that there are no God or Gods.

I'll comment a bit more once I'm further in.

 

Thank you for taking a look.

In fact, there is no single accepted definition of atheism. And even if there were, I am free to define my terms any way I like for the purposes of my philosophy.

 

You must agree to definition of terms to communicate effectively.
But you are correct that you are free to define terms any way you like for purposes of your philosophy as long as your terms are not self contradictory.

 

My philosophy is my document, so I provide the definitions. Whether you agree with my definitions is irrelevant.

None of my terms are self-contradictory.

 

It is relevant to communication silly. At least as or if you provide a definition of terms we can follow what you are saying and be able after all to critique it.

Other than the spoken desire for critique as compared to the statement that whether we agree or not with your definitions is irrelevant, you mean?

 

The point of definitions is that people know what you mean. If you leave it open, you can say something like "I'm an Atheist, but I do believe in a certain God, because this is my interpretation".
Which is fine if you do so for yourself, but it is confusing to anyone who reads your document. It's not more than reasonable to expect a person to read your definitions the way they are supposed to be meant and agreed upon.

From the Oxford Dictionaries:
Atheism: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

 

I have provided my definition of atheism, so you can follow what I am saying and critique it. Again, whether you agree with my definition is irrelevant.

 

That is exactly why I provide my definition of atheism in the document. Again, whether you agree with my definition is irrelevant.

 

Like I said, it is fine if you do so, but don't expect people to agree with it or even take you serious.
The definition of what atheism is, is well established and you can't just change its definition to your suiting and expect others to take it serious. What you describe is not atheism, so anyone seriously reading your paper will critique you for that.

We're not being nitpicks and to me it is relevant that you use the correct definition that is universally accepted rather than your own. Like I said, there is already another term for your definition, which is Agnostic Atheist or Atheistic Agnost.
Especially in philosophy, the meaning and definition of words plays a very important role.

 

That is exactly why I define my terms. Whether you disagree with my definitions is irrelevant.

 

I don't even care about your definition of atheism unless atheism is the philosophy you would like me to critique.
You also said your document was your philosophy. The document being a document, yours or anyone else's is documentation of a philosophy. Your philosophy is your love of wisdom, your document a description of your love. If your philosophy is not caring for agreement how do you know that your definitions are consistent as you claim?

 

This is not a definition nor your philosophy but your impressionistic description of someone else's posing as a point of contention. I propose god is that which we invoke so in your inventory of theists you have lacked a sufficient sampling.

 

Are attempts to lessen the actual amount of suffering futile then?

 

You are your own measure and you know whether you suffer. Suffering is a state of being and having and being are the same. There is no future compensation except on these terms that for every action there is an equal and immediately complimentary reaction. Anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so and a mind without anxiety is wholly kind.

 

These two things are incongruous, that is quick reading and well thought out unless well and quick are the same. A well thought out philosophy is one that can be taught. The well thought out impression comes from your own command of the subject, from your previous learning which substitutes for any integrity that the material of itself may lack for someone not so familiar like myself.

Considering this fact and a lack of guidance I started at the beginning and found no shortage in room for refinement. It is important for the author to accept and dissemble these challenges if he hopes to develop soundness especially if he requests it. Initially I am confused as to what constitutes definition and what his philosophy is behind the definition, the explanations being a series of statements of suspicion.

I haven't gotten that far but I get the impression it may be so. That impression will wear off if he doesn't stumble over himself in expressing his ideas in real time. Referring us to prerecorded material to understand the proportions of his argument is not him presenting the substance of his argument. It is going difficult to be of assistance if he dismisses queries he is uncomfortable fielding as being irrelevant.

And being dismissive lends to dismissal.

 

Thank you for taking a look, Meagain.

I believe that the self exists, and that this is revealed through introspection. As a corollary, I believe that other selves are distinct from my own. With respect to personal identity over time, I lean toward the psychological criterion. Regarding how to behave toward others, please see my guidelines for behavior on pages 11-12 (beginning with "Cultivating a benevolent disposition toward others...").

Thank you for the reading suggestions. I will take a look.

Please feel free to comment on any part of the document that you feel could be improved. I would be particularly interested on feedback on the section on negative hedonism, as well as any methods for maintaining peace of mind that are not in the document.

 

.