/lit/ - Literature

nerds lol

>>13981397
Buddhism
Pessimism
Skepticism
Existentialism

>>13981397
You should call it Fence Sitting Bitch Boyology

>>13981397
It's a nothing philosophy. Just an empty vessel. Might as well don't do anything.

>>13981397
Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. You more or less just created a Yoga lite.

>>13981397
Oldfag here. Sounds like where my head was at when I was a teenager. Not all that bad a place to start from, but now you are gonna have to be working on that first step, creating your philosophy... What you have written out is the tabula rasa (if you'll forgive the expression), now you need to get to work. After getting about 20 or 30 years of life experience under your belt you might start to see something good, at least that is what happened to me.

>>13981406
Thanks. Will check out some of the main texts of these.
>>13981408
I'm interested in argumentation against my philosophy. You say I'm fence sitting. Perhaps. But, surely the diverse situations presented in life require more then just dogmas to solve them. I think a person can do more practically if he adjusts his philosophy consistently instead of remaining stilted.
>>13981409
But you can do anything with it. I'm doing more with myself now I've adopted this philosophy of my own creation.
>>13981418
Actually read that just recently. Very short and very good. Big fan of esoteric stuff like that.
>>13981433
You are absolutely right. I've started with the Greek philosophers as /lit/ said and picked up some other interesting philosophers later down the line.

>>13981459
>Actually read that just recently
Well, it shows, but you clearly did not fully grasp it or you would realize that the philosophy you created is Yoga.

>>13981459
You're a retard but I like you.

>>13981397
vague-ism

Basically the only thing this philosophy supports is that we're uncertain about everything in life. It offers no real answers and poses no real questions. It's completely pointless, a system for the most bland of basic bitches

>>13981492
No I didn't get it, you're right about that. Went right over my head. But it was still a fun read.
Yoga is fun too.
>>13981501
Thanks, I get that a lot.
>>13981512
That could be another name for it. Meta is just a cooler word though. Meta means self-referential. It's Metaism because you have to create your own philosophy.
>>13981521
But yet that in itself is a system of philosophy. Isn't it? To hold the believe that philosophy is useless is to still utilize a philosophy. Philosophy is too wide to get around, to high to get over, and there isn't even a door. Any belief is a philosophy. Any disbelieve if a philosophy.

>>13981397
Nominalism?

How old are you if you don't mind me asking?

>>13981540
The broad nature of philosophy doesn't give your personal philosophy a purpose. You can't even take a stance on if you actually believe anything or not for pete's sake
This is a system that goes fucking nowhere and says absolutely fucking nothing

>>13981557
which kind?

>>13981591
>This is a system that goes fucking nowhere and says absolutely fucking nothing
To me, his system sounds like, "Stop rationalizing things".
>>13981597
There's different kinds?

>>13981540
>Yoga is fun too
Anon that sounds like a belief
Under your own personal school of thought, which preaches that one should not believe or disbelieve anything, this would be a no-no
Realize how retarded this is yet?

>>13981540
>No I didn't get it, you're right about that.
Get a few different annotated copies, study them. You can not even see you are reinventing the wheel, what makes you think you can create a viable philosophy?

>>13981612
two which have completely different meanings

>>13981651
Ok, what are they and what are their differences?

>>13981521
>>13981540
Whoops. Before, in the the Apu Petting A Cat picture featuring post, I responded to your comment under the belief that you were discussing ALL philosophies. I see now that it was about Metaism. To Re-respond to your comment;
>>13981521
This system does offer an answer. It offers the answer that there isn't a golden rule that will always make you a moral person. You must act is the moment and do what is perceived as the best most logical option. It's Anti-Dogmatic. Is that not a useful way to live? But what is "Best" or "Most logical." ? Any functional person has the ability to notice that certain actions have certain results. The idea would be to preform the actions which the person believes would be most likely to result in that which they want to occur. If you want a coin to come up heads, you have to at least flip it. You cannot believe that it will never come up tails, though, just because it's flipped a certain way.
>>13981589
I'm Nineteen, and yes I live with my parents. I'll admit it. But please, my young age should not prevent you from debating my philosophy. I try to be open to criticism.
>>13981591
The stance is that due to the (seeming) fundamental uncertainty of life, nothing can be fully known or unknown. That is the stance.
>>13981612
I'd never advocate for ceasing rationalization. That isn't my intent. A true Metaist would go through many different philosophies. Rationalism, Empiricism, Skepticism, Stoicism, so on.
>>13981636
I believe things, but nothing fully. Faith, but never certainty. Confidence but not conviction. 99% but not 100%.
>>13981650
I will re-read it, perhaps. I was told to write down my ideas by my parents, who I've discussed this with to the point of them getting rather bored.

>>13981692
>I'm Nineteen, and yes I live with my parents.
>my young age should not prevent you from debating my philosophy.

Absolutely not but, I would have guessed your age pretty much correctly, even if you hadn't told me purely based on how you are talking about philosophy. I don't mean this in a negative way, I would love to go back and be in your shoes experiencing it all for the first time again, reading everything I could get my hands on, trying to concoct bold new formulations of what I was learning.

My advice: People in this thread are going to give all sorts of shitty replies, because you are framing this as though it was original or useful thinking. They are going to say essentially "your shit ain't shit, fuck off kid" in one form or another. They are right, but this isn't particularly helpful to you probably. So here is what I will say, realize that everyone has been where you are and has tried to do what you are trying to do, everyone realizes in hindsight that it was dumb as they grow and build a more concrete understanding of life and the tradeoffs of various philosophical perspectives. You aren't thinking anything wrong you are just thinking a thing that literally everyone thinks as part of their journey. Learn to be humble and read a ton. When you look back on this or on writings you have made in a journal about this, you might feel embarrassed or cringe but you shouldn't because this is a part of growing up.

>>13981692
Read more
You're young and have much to learn, most great philosophers only hit their stride well into their elder years
The only other thing I have to say is that your system sounds like a centrist meme that many spew on here, you don't have the confidence to really believe in anything

>>13981661
one is the rejection of universals the other is a rejection of abstractions as real bodies somewhere.

>>13981788
Thank you anon. I suppose the next step would be different for everyone, correct? However, I'm still fearful of Dogma and overconfidence. Is it not a solid baseline to abstain from complete belief or disbelief? Where did your philosophical investigations lead you?
>>13981814
Why should I have undo confidence in things that are fundamentally, at least seemingly, unknown to me? Please, don't just call me a meme or a disregard my beliefs without explaining your reasoning. I'm not trying to be cocky or present my believes as if they are superior to any other. I'm trying to explain what I believe and hopefully get different perspectives on the matter.

I will read more, though.

>>13981868
So, just for an example to maybe help you.
>Is it not a solid baseline to abstain from complete belief or disbelief?

I don't think you really understand what it is to believe something, or what it means to not believe something. What is the category of 'thing', which you are even considering when you ask that question? What does the concept of 'belief' actually consist of as you are formulating it here?

>>13981978
I will elaborate on those points. "Thing" in this sense means specifically beliefs, personal laws, dogmas, or commandments. I suppose that "things" can be used in the more open general sense, that is, if it can be thought of or has physical mass, it's a thing. That would be too open ended though, so I shall perhaps have to use a better word.

As for belief, I mean the complete conviction that some fellows have. Consider the difference between one who has faith in something and another who fully believes it. It's 100% certainty, This sort of belief what I think should be avoided.

I appreciate you anons being willing to discuss this with me.