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.
My criticism is that your positions/beliefs about things are vauge and non specific, as posted here. A link to a 13 page paper could use a bit more description.
(Also, this specific forum is for debate. What is the debate?)
I am looking for opposing views on any of the philosophical positions I take (in the first half of the document), as well as on any of the methods that I have proposed for maintaining peace of mind (in the second half of the document).
In short, I am happy to debate anything in the document.
The way we do things around here is that if you want to debate, you present a topic, your position and put it on here for discussion. My suggestion would be for you to select on of the items from your document that you would like to debate, summarize your position and post it in a new thread.
It’s better than that of the usual one post wonders. The author organizes his thoughts into bullet points: most of his arguments consists of citations to actual philosophers. Quite readable, though I’ve only scanned the first third or so. I’ll quote from the beginning: List of my philosophical positions [ul]
[li] Atheism[/li][li] Afterlife skepticism[/li][li] Free will impossibilism[/li][li] Moral skepticism[/li][li] Existential skepticism[/li][li] Belief that death is usually harmful for the one who dies, but is not something to be feared[/li][li] Negative hedonism [/li][li] Political hedonism [/ul][/li] The first 2 have wide representation on this board. Free will has been debated here and found wanting (I say this as someone who believes that some form of free will is defensible and probable: I didn’t participate in that thread too much IIRC).
Moral skepticism as presented will run into some flack here.
Greetings Philosofer and welcome to the straight dope message board! I’m guessing you are aware that middle aged amateur philosophers run the risk of becoming crackpots: let’s both try to avoid that. Your paper (which I haven’t finished) is way too broad for a single thread. I’d recommend that you open a new one on moral skepticism, trying to maintain a level head. I think you presented a worthwhile exercise, but many find it difficult to defend their work with the proper frame of mind.
Don’t worry about your protecting your broader picture. Just kick back and present your views on one of your topics. Recognize that we very rarely settle anything on this board: the best we can do is uncover some of the main salient (and not so salient) points.
Also, I think something similar to Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit deserves to be incorporated into any decent life-strategy philosophy. Also2, you might be interested in the work of the Center for Applied Rationality.
But the one-post wonders are so much more entertaining!
But yes, I agree. Maybe the OP is just an exercise in self-indulgence. In any case, at best, this can only turn into a meta-debate about what a debate isn’t. If the OP has something to say, let him say it in the context of a meaningful focused topic.
Why do people come to this board assuming we CARE about their philosophies of life? Did some prankster scratch the hobo sign for “there are people here who are interested in what you have to say” on our gatepost? I’ve given up on them reading the board before posting, but has Cecil taught them nothing about how they can only expect snarky derision anywhere his name appears? Or worse, a smack down by people who understand philosophy better than they?
I’m going to go out front and scratch “λ” on the gate. It means “a beating awaits you here” in Hobo.
(sigh) Okay, that’s out of my system. Philosofer, please sum up one aspect of your philosophy for us to discuss. And I’d think you would know by now that nobody from this board, nor any other board, is going to read your full treatise, except to rip it apart. Not even your relatives. Allah did not dictate the entire Koran in one sitting, and God took hundreds of years to finish the Bible. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon pretty quickly, but how long did it take for Moroni to write it? My point is that we are like little children and need things spoonfed if we are going to grasp its significance. Humor us.
Philosofer, I second the suggestion given above: Pick one topic from your document, and present your argument concerning that topic. Don’t link to it, put the argument here on the board. I read it and I think there are things worth discussing in your paper, it’s just that a single thread here can’t take on an entire philosophy of life. That’s too big for a thread.
Thank you for the warm welcome, Measure for Measure.
I have posted my entire document on other forums and had productive discussions, both on individual positions as well as more general issues such as internal consistency.
I look forward to hearing from someone who is willing to read at least part of the document and provide constructive feedback.
Philosofer, if you would like to debate any specific aspect of your thoughts, post that thought and your arguments for it to debate.
From the regfistration agreement:
Linking to a separate site and asking for a discussion of some vague point found within some lengthy screed violates that rule.
I am closing this thread.
If you would like to debate a single topic, post it with your arguments included in the post.
