Philosophy Identity & Practice

[. No.6603157]

>What philosophy do you identify with?
>Have you practiced it's tenets in a social setting?
>How did that work out for you?

[Anonymous No.6603167]

I don't identify with any philosophy, since I'm not identical to any philosophy.
>it's
One time I started criticizing people's use of imprecise and nonsensical language in public & got shouted off a bus

[Anonymous No.6603170]

a true intellectual does not follow another man's reasoning blindly, therefore all followers of philosophies are plebs par excellence

[. No.6603172]

>>6603167
It always autocorrects its to it's for me. I don't notice sry.

[Anonymous No.6603174]

Buddhism. I try to be more empathetic in social situations. People think I'm good person

[Anonymous No.6603176]

What kind of philosophy? Ethical? Epistemological? Ontological?

[Anonymous No.6603249]

Philosophically, I'm a Thomist.

God-tier metaphysics, excellent, clear action guidance, deep synergies between all its branches (i.e., between epistemology, ethics, metaphysics and theology), inspires sharpened sense of wonder at creation and its Author. Philosophically it also seems relatively low-cost: Zero existential angst, no requirement for irrational faith, socially acceptable, promotes healthy virtues. The main cost is being slightly out of sync with the times, but I like it- it means there's no shortage of worthwhile struggles to fight.

Socially, there is (duh) excellent synergy with Christianity, so you get a lot of help living it out, and no shortage of role models. Thomism encourages socially-conducive character traits, and allows you to hold these sincerely, so it works out well practically.

Thomism has also made me pretty conversant with other traditions- it bridges the classical and the modern worlds, seeing the good in but also rectifying the defects in each. It's even good for talking with the East- the Parmenidean and Heraclitean dialectic to which Aristotle responded forms the basis of much Eastern thought, and Aristotle is one of the philosophical ancestors of Thomism.

[Anonymous No.6603259]

>>6603167
>One time I started criticizing people's use of imprecise and nonsensical language in public & got shouted off a bus

>>>reddit.com

[Anonymous No.6603263]

>>6603249
Didn't Kant fucked up Thomas?

[Anonymous No.6603266]

>>6603263

Tried, but (IMO) failed.

[Anonymous No.6603279]

>>6603266
Care to explain why?

[Anonymous No.6603287]

>>6603279

Seems like a lot of work for me to set out Kant's arguments *and* the Thomistic rebuttals. Perhaps you might post those arguments of Kant's which you think refute Aquinas's positions, and we can go from there?

[Anonymous No.6603289]

>>6603157
solipsism, at times skepticism

[Anonymous No.6603308]

>>6603287
It was something like "Metaphysics are not science, because we have no experience from them, only a priori shit. So, then, everything based on metaphysic logic (as Thomas Aquinas thoughts) are irrational and false". I remember it from my philosophy classes and I couldn't take it out of my head.

[Anonymous No.6603343]

I find the majority of Schopenhauer's philosophy to be an excellent explanatory model of the world and an effective guide to conduct. I am dubious about some of the technical underpinnings of his philosophy (a form of Kantian idealism) but this is not fatal to most of his writings.

[Anonymous No.6603362]

>>6603157
Pessimism for the most part. I was always psychologically pessimistic, so it was interesting to read Schopenhauer, whose philosophy I had independently emulated in my own thought, at least in a few regards.

[Anonymous No.6603366]

>>6603289
EDGELORD OVER HERE OMG

[Anonymous No.6603481]

>>6603308
Thomists counter by saying that Aristotelian metaphysics has used a posteriori propositions from its inception. There are numerous positions from which the a priori/a posteriori and analytic/synthetic distinctions can be attacked, as well, so by undermining those distinctions one could presumably BTFO Kant Thomistically.

[Anonymous No.6603499]

>>6603157
I'm a reluctant absurdist with a strong level of skepticism thrown in.

I wish I could be Catholic or something.

[Anonymous No.6603506]

>>6603157
I try and fail to live up to Kantian ideals.

[Anonymous No.6603537]

>>6603506
It's the intent that counts anon.

[Anonymous No.6603543]

>>6603157

Pessimism: Zapffe, Schopenhauer

well yes, i have made other people very depressed

yes, they respect you more for being so pessimistic (also i have material for being pessimistic, i live in a third world country and i have gone through some shit)

[Anonymous No.6603550]

>>6603308

I like ragging on Kant, so let's set out his argument against the Cosmological Argument.

First, he says that the inference of a necessary being from contingent being, is a disguised version of the Ontological Argument, which is the inference of the existence of a necessary being from the concept of a necessary being. Kant argues this by saying that, since the cosmological argument necessarily goes beyond experience to its conclusion, therefore the attribution of existence to the necessary being occurs not as somehow extracted from phenomenal experience, but on the basis of an attribution of existence that comes only from the mind, which is illegitimate.

Kant's move here depends upon the assumption that there is no connection between thought and reality than "experience." The basis of the Cosmological Argument is causality, not experience. Indeed, the user of the cosmological argument recognises that experience is itself a connection to the reality of things through causation.

So prima facie, Kant is

a) simply question-begging unless he can show that causality as such is a principle confined to the subject, rather than something which, though available to experience, also transcends mere experience. and

b) undermining the ability of experience to tell us about the reality of anything, because he denies our experiences derive from reality via a causal process working extra-mentally to connect our beliefs with reality.

These are pretty bad moves, especially b), since if unchecked it threatens Kant with self-refutation.

This brings us to Kant's treatment of the particular premises of the Cosmological Argument- the key being his treatment of causality. He denies that the causal principle has ontological significance, assuming that its relevance is confined only to the world of experience. But again, this begs the question: he asks you to assume with him that causation makes sense only in the context of phenomenal experience, without dealing with the arguments for the opposite conclusion.

What Aristotle or Aquinas would have said to Kant is that his concept of causation was all wrong, to begin with: causation is the means by which one thing derives existence from another, not the relations a subject draws between phenomena. Experience of reality is itself unconnected to reality, unless it is derived from reality, but since causation undergirds to this process of derivation, it is incoherent for Kant to disbelieve in such real causal connections, which are necessarily more-fundamental than experience itself. The existence of a metaphysical connection between mind and world, moreover, entails a kind of objective directionality: effects, of their very nature, "point to" their causes which are external to them. (cont'd)

[Anonymous No.6603554]

>>6603550

Thus, insofar as any effect is properly understood, it will point to its cause, without having to contain that cause in the idea of the effect itself. Kant does not attend to these metaphysical features of his own ideas, which are nonetheless crucial to their truth, hence even on his own idealist grounds produces an inferior analysis.

Since empirical experience, therefore, does not need to contain in itself all that it may legitimately tell us of reality- since it can point-to realities we cannot experience in themselves- Kant's critique of the cosmological argument fails.

TL;DR- metaphysics is derived from experience- even a priori shit comes from experience or be caused by reality, if it is to be true. The idea that experience could only deliver metaphysical insights because it contains metaphysical insights, ignores the fact that experience can not only contain, but point to, objects of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.6603573]

>>6603554
Are you literally saying experience can deliver insights into noumena?

[Anonymous No.6603576]

>>6603157
I am a Thomist
I use this as a guide through my life
Married 20+ years, 5 kids, great job, many friends - so far, so good!

[Anonymous No.6603583]

>>6603573
Yep! Kant a shit.

[Anonymous No.6603588]

>>6603157
>What philosophy do you identify with?
Existentialism
>Have you practiced it's tenets in a social setting?
Yes.
>How did that work out for you?
For example, if I'm getting mad at someone I will have an existential moment. I'm getting mad at the actions of an arrangement of particles. My brain is just wired to make me feel that this mass of atoms is important and has free will. Getting mad at a person is like getting mad at a stick for hitting you in the face. It works pretty well and it helps cultivate a more free-spirited approach towards life.

[Anonymous No.6603595]

>>6603583
So how would this work, unless we're to make assumptions about things we cannot know?
Also, ever read Hume?

[Anonymous No.6603597]

>>6603543
>Thinks philosophical pessimism boils down to being negative

Keep reading, sport.

[Anonymous No.6603606]

Platonic idealist
I don't play the flute
No passions, so meh.

[Anonymous No.6603612]

>>6603576
you forgot cuckold

[Anonymous No.6603616]

>>6603606

[Anonymous No.6603618]

>>6603362
>Pessimism
this is being sad twice. Once over the world which does not turn out like you want it, the second because you decide to be sad whereas there is nothing sad nor joyful about the world

[Anonymous No.6603625]

>>6603612
What is it with your weirdos and that term? Did someone add 'cuckold' to the Hipster Dictionary so you get a nickle every time you use it? Do you have any idea how hilarious it is to hear a kissless virgin toss around that term?

[Anonymous No.6603649]

I find myself mostly in agreement with Foucault.

Closest thing I came to actually practising it was in quoting his definition of genealogy as a special type of laziness, in defence why it took me 3 years to write my masters.
And also his scepticism to various narratives and discourses.

[Anonymous No.6603666]

>>6603595

Yeah, done a few courses on Hume. He's not as smart as he thinks he is.

I don't think we do need to make assumptions about things we don't know, to believe that we have access to noumena. Here's a rough sketch of how I think it works:

1) From reason alone we can show that denying the possibility of all knowledge is itself impossible to coherently do.

2) From experience alone we can derive the problem of the one and the many, which allows us to conclude the existence of universals, matter, actuality and potency, maybe the existence of God as a bonus. We should realise that the being of any idea lies in its formal, abstract principle, rather than in the particular. These are just the universal and ineradicable existential preconditions for experience.

3) Ideas originate from somewhere, and they don't originate from the rational subject qua rational subject, since to be an idea is not to be a rational subject. So they must originate from outside the rational subject- in the world. Since we've already derived hylomorphism, there's no problem grounding ideas in things, and truth in the formal identity of ideas in the intellect with forms in the world.

Certainly, these ideas may not be exhaustive, and we might get false ideas, especially when phenomena aren't isolated or repeated (which helps us isolate the phenomena apart from accidents of time) and our epistemic tools are unreliable, but that's ok- repeating phenomena are pretty much inevitable, so the most commonplace things, at least, are roughly knowable in some respects and we can improve our methods from there, in light of what we know about abstraction and how it must work in relation to particular experiences.

[Anonymous No.6603687]

>>6603573
Actually, what he's saying is that the concept of the noumenon is useless & accusing Kant of 'u can't know nuffin'-ism, which is an accurate accusation made by Hegel and many others.

[Anonymous No.6603704]

>>6603625
>Do you have any idea how hilarious it is to hear a kissless virgin toss around that term?
it is funny to us as well. Everybody wins

[Anonymous No.6603710]

>>6603649
>And also his scepticism to various narratives and discourses.
such as ?

[Anonymous No.6603718]

>What philosophy do you identify with?
egoism

>Have you practiced it's tenets in a social setting?
a silly question

>How did that work out for you?
i simply do what interests me, regardless if it's in my best interests, so it probably works as well as anything else from an outside perspective

[Anonymous No.6603869]

>>6603718
How is it a silly question? If you haven't practiced the philosophy you claim to live by socially then you're lying about claiming to live by it.

[Anonymous No.6604043]

>>6603869
the key words are social settings

[Anonymous No.6604053]

>>6603287
his first mover argument states essentially that any series must have a first term

but the series of negative numbers or the series of fractions has no such first term!

[Anonymous No.6604085]

>>6603597

what do you mean? you meant nietzsche slave morality? antinatalism? ligotti? going full christianity?

[Anonymous No.6604144]

I read through all of Ayn Rand's essays and literature when I was younger and practiced objectivism's tennets in social settings. This helped me build integrity, get rid of anxiety and develop a consistent work ethic. I also became an asshole and inconsiderate of what really was constructive and helpful criticism.

Now I am a Stoicist and I feel content and happy in all areas of my life.

[Anonymous No.6604495]

I don't know how much I fuck with any specific school of thinking since what I've always taken away from philosophy is a healthy sense of doubt and lots of questions but in my day to day life being altruistic and generous helps me sleep at night and gives me some sense of fulfillment I guess I suppose that's some manner of moral value.

[Anonymous No.6605010]

>>6604053
Clearly not, since Aquinas famously thought it was impossible to prove that the world was not past-eternal. For Aquinas, it's essentially-ordered causal series, where within the same moment no member exists or moves but for some other member, which are important.

[Anonymous No.6605023]

I'm a pyrrhonist (at least I think I am).
It doesn't have any tenets to practise, it's just a point of view. Just because I don't know if the weather forecast is right doesn't mean I'm not going to get a raincoat if they say it's going to rain tomorrow, you feel me?
I talked to a friend about it, he started out by saying I was insane and it was impractical but by the end of the conversation he decided that he was one too.