What you believe is the source of knowledge.
I believe that our senses and instruments we create to enhance our perception can tell us valid things about the “real world”. The validity of these perceptions is determined by whether others can perceive such things as well; if I can see a purple buffalo in my room but no one else can, I am inclined to believe that I am hallucinating. If the purple buffalo cannot be detected by any other means, I am certain I am hallucinating.
Subjective perceptions (such as memory, feelings, etc.) can have value, but they are trumped by objective evidence. A strong feeling that X is true has not been effective in my life in predicting whether X is indeed true. Memories can be false or colored by what you wish had happened. However, if I am trying to determine why I am unhappy and I run through in my head various possibilities and a surge of additional unhappiness occurs when I think of a certain thing, I will believe that that thing is the cause of my unhappiness. However, should I find out that this unhappiness occurs whenever I take a certain drug that often has depressive side effects, I will be inclined the think that the true source of my unhappiness is the drug’s side effects, and that my brain manufactured some reason to be unhappy.
All beliefs I hold are provisional (as far as I can tell). I may in fact not exist; I may be a brain in a jar making up the world; A might not equal A. I believe in what I think in necessary to function in this world, but should evidence opposing my beliefs come to the fore, I would hope that I would change my beliefs. Nothing is 100% certain, but is assigned a varying degree of probability based on my experience and reason.
What you believe is the cause of existence.
I think that reality is real. This particular universe may have always existed (no time existing before it), or it may be going though a boom-and-bust cycle of big bang/big crunch. There may be other universes. Things that we can never perceive objectively may in fact exist, but it is unwise to speculate too much about the reality of things that cannot be perceived when one has not ruled out an explanation that *can be proved.
What you believe is your prime directive, or principle of morality.
I would go with an intelligent, empathic, knowledgeable application of the golden rule or categorical imperative. I like the categorical imperative because it gives you a directive in things that may not affect other people (i.e., should I keep myself in good health?), and also it has more syllables and sounds more impressive. (However, since it is less well known, you sometimes get people who say things like “Well, say I want to be a painter; that can’t be moral since if everybody was a painter we’d all starve. ::rolling eyes:: Why people feel the need to make themselves artificially stupid when analyzing moral imperatives is beyond me.) I believe a vital part of morality is learning and understanding; it is immoral to not find out as much as you can about a situation before making a judgment. Ignorance is a very poor excuse for wrong behavior. “Well, I thought they were possessed, so it was all right for me to kill them.” No—you are morally obligated to do your best to determine if they are actually a danger (and to read up on epilepsy, in this case).
What you believe is the essence of human perception.
Since this was listed as “aesthetic” before in your list, I’m going to assume that’s what you wish to know about. You can clarify what you are asking for if my assumption was wrong. I believe that our perception of beauty/ugliness is determined by genetics, culture, upbringing, psychology and free will. I think the great majority of us are hardwired to see certain things as beautiful: babies, healthy members of the sex you are attracted to, nice days, lush trees. Yes, those darn genes again. The babies and healthy people aesthetic is pretty self-evident to help our survival; healthy foliage implies the presence of food; good weather is comfortable. I think man finds recognizing patterns to be useful, and so thinks ordered, harmonious things are aesthetically pleasing. Culture can change or enhance the hardwired perceptions; in the 19th century the most attractive women were the ones who looked like they were about to keel over from pneumonia. That’s hardly a good trait for the genes to encourage! But at that time the ultimate woman was one who was completely dependent on her man; it also showed that the man has the resources to support a completely useless person (also a possible explanation for foot-binding in China). Now our culture endorses a thin body and large breasts, but once a more zaftig look was “in”. A more voluptuous look was popular when only the rich could afford that much food; now mostly only the rich have the free time and money to get a personal trainer and breast implants. Upbringing also helps determine what one finds pleasing: one reason why I like poetry is because my mother was an English (and Psych) teacher, so I have been exposed to and encouraged to like poetry. As to which particular poems I like, I think I can find psychological reasons why for most of them; I like ones that praise courage, free-thinking, etc., because those are things I also find valuable. “Free will” is my last ingredient for our aesthetic perception. About a year ago, I decided I was going to learn more about modern poetry, and therefore like it, since I always find things more interesting the more I know about them. So I chose to use my knowledge of myself to learn to like something I felt no great preference for before.
I told you I got wordy on weekends. So what philosophies do I endorse, Lib?
)