My Philosophy

[2001]

For the longest time my mind has been searching for understanding of everything. So, I have finally come to my own conclusion of things like; How did the universe come to be? How did earth come to be? Is there a spiritual life to humans and if so what is it like? I summed it all up nice and short for you to see and I do care what you think about my beliefes because I want to know yours. Just to see if anybody thinks like I do. Do it the way I did it, write something for the universe, earth, spiritual aspect, and afterlife. Don't be afraid of ridicule, it's just the internet.


The Universe

The universe is ever expanding, stretching outwards like a balloon. This started long ago, by the power of a God/Goddess/numbers of Gods.

Earth

Earth is not the first planet to support life. Earth is the most advanced in terms of life as a whole, meaning Earth has the most species organized by 6 domains. Most other planets with life support 1 to 3 domains. There are some planets that support the Domains Fungi, Plantae, and Animalae, but few. Only Earth supports Human (Homo sapien) life.

Human's Life

Life can be explained by this flow chart:

Birth
-- l
Life
-- l
Death
-- l_______________
-- l--------------------------l
-- l--------------------------l
Nirvana..............Reincarnation

Nirvana

Nirvana is the ultimate reality. In Nirvana, a being is one with everything. The mind is completely seperated from the body, beyond a sub-concious state of mind, but totally aware of everything therefore desiring nothing.


I might add more later but I want go to deep. Just posting this to see if anybody is like me.

 

[CaptainEvilStomper9]

I might regret asking this but what led you to those conclusions?

 

[2001]

What is there to regret?

I came to these conclusions after mixing my favorite ideas from a couple of religions and ideas and my own ideas. This is just something I like to believe, not some concrete way of thinking.

 

[CaptainEvilStomper9]

Hmmm its kind of silly to adopt random theories from different things when there is no evidence that points to any of it. It's like your saying "I like the way this sounds so I'll believe it".

 

[2001]

Then it is just as silly to believe in any other religion as a whole.

 

[Luigitoilet]

It is. There is no way to find any "truth" (if one such thing exists, I don't believe it does). To me, searching for a universal answer is a waste of time and thought.

but whatever helps you sleep at night

 

[jugfingers]

what makes you think the universe is constantly expanding.


it seems more likely that it expands and contracts like breathing.


I liked your explanation of nirvana though.

and also other planets supporting fungi life.


psilocybin has a molecular structre unlike any other molecule on earth and mushroom spores have the ability to travel through space on solar winds.

spores have also been found at highest points in the atmosphere.

many mushroom species especially psilocybe have decent possibility of originating from another planet somewhere in the universe

 

[Mewter]

what makes you think the universe is constantly expanding.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/198347/expanding-universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/cosmo.html

Interesting philosophy by the way.

 

[Evil Eye]

Do some research on theoretical physics, the specifics of theology (not the broadest strokes), and especially on dimensions above the third that are mathematically (almost) proven. Then read some of the more out there but credible philosophical works. Then read some Stephen Hawking or something.

Then get back to us.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Becasuse we are the elite of the internet and we will not bother thinking about anything not proven or supported by 20 different sources.

 

[Crimson King]

Or logical people.

 

[rathy Aro]

It is. There is no way to find any "truth" (if one such thing exists, I don't believe it does). To me, searching for a universal answer is a waste of time and thought.

but whatever helps you sleep at night

Then what pray tell is a good use of time and thought?

 

[Luigitoilet]

Focusing on things that are more tangible, streams of thought that don't lead to dead ends and blind guesses, self reflection and improvement, finding your own meaning and definition to the life that you live through day to day, non-hypothetical scenarios, etc.

 

[2001]

Do some research on theoretical physics, the specifics of theology (not the broadest strokes), and especially on dimensions above the third that are mathematically (almost) proven. Then read some of the more out there but credible philosophical works. Then read some Stephen Hawking or something.

Then get back to us.

Ah yes, my 30 page research paper, 25 page manifesto, and 300 page diary of outlines, summaries, and reviews of the most intellectual books on philosophy is almost complete. I will post it to this website of 168,000 members very soon. Just be patient.

Focusing on things that are more tangible, streams of thought that don't lead to dead ends and blind guesses, self reflection and improvement, finding your own meaning and definition to the life that you live through day to day, non-hypothetical scenarios, etc.

This just an extremely small outline of my beliefes. I am not challenging anyone to disagree with me nor am I trying to convince anyone to share my thoughts. I do not ask questions about the universe everyday because I know I do not and cannot know the truth. I can only guess.

Also, I am supprised so many people actually took the time to click on this topic, read it, and respond.

 

[Evil Eye]

Heh your sarcasm was pretty unnecessary, considering my point was that if you're trying to formulate a whole new belief system, you should probably be more knowledgable about belief systems in general.

You did say "I want to go deep", then I told you how to go deep.

 

[2001]

go and the to were switched around actually. that was typo where i was actually trying to say i dont want to go to deep. too lazy to change it. sorry

 

[Melomaniacal]

Incoming ****-load of questions:

Can you explain your belief on reincarnation?
Are new souls (or whatever you wish to call them) created, or are they the same souls being reborn? If they are being created, how does this work? How is it decided that this unborn will get a reincarnated soul, and this one will get a new one? If souls are not being created, how do you explain population increase? Do some people not have souls? Who?

Also, how is it that you can believe this to be true when you are aware that you essentially made it up for yourself? Do you believe it to be true? If you do, what you do base it on?

Here's a sentence that doesn't end in a question mark.

 

[n1000]

Wow dude, this is all completely made up. You haven't described a philosophy, just a set of beliefs. These beliefs are completely unjustified.

Let's not dwell on unfounded beliefs. The question remains, is this belief system meaningful in any real way. That is, does it affect the way you interact with the external world. Do cosmological ideas or the belief in extraterrestrial life answer any questions about ethics?

 

[VitaminC]

Wow dude, this is all completely made up. You haven't described a philosophy, just a set of beliefs. These beliefs are completely unjustified.

Beliefs don't require justification. It's all preference. Religions have lasted thousands of years, and only justified themselves on the words of people we can't even know existed. There's no way of knowing anything for certain, so we just take what we can get.

 

[ranmaru]

I don't think philosophy back then was about facts... well, it is, but it is one trying to understand the inner workings of the life around us.

Edit:

Ok that first post does not seem like philosophy at all to me. It does not get my brain ticking.

Reincarnation? I don't believe in that. I only believe in what I see with my eyes. Sure, birth > toddler - preteen - teen - mid life crisis - old age? > death is the only thing I believe here.

And I didn't even read the Nirvana part. How old are you?

I'm catholic, but I"d rather think logically. So don't use the excuse "Oh well priests can say anything and we'd believe it, why not with philosophy?"

 

[Melomaniacal]

I'm catholic, but I"d rather think logically.

You do realize how easy it would be for someone to call you out on this, right?

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

You do realize how easy it would be for someone to call you out on this, right?

^This.

Ortho, what does that statement even mean?

 

[Indigo Jeans]

Heh your sarcasm was pretty unnecessary, considering my point was that if you're trying to formulate a whole new belief system, you should probably be more knowledgable about belief systems in general.

You did say "I want to go deep", then I told you how to go deep.

This just seems a little silly, because there is no way to base philosphies on other previous, older philosophies to make the credible. There was obviously a point where someone did what 2001 just did, just did some deep thinking, then came to completely unfounded ideas. Then other people adopted and changed that original set of unfounded ideas, and so on and so forth. In the end, it's impossible to base a set of beliefs on anything but what you believe.

 

[n1000]

"In the end, it's impossible to base a set of beliefs on anything but what you believe." This is so ****ing circular and pointless. There are a number of distinct sources for beliefs, empirical observation, a priori reasoning from other beliefs, and of course, hearsay.

The prudent thinker both examines their beliefs and also considers from where they got them.

This is why Vitamin C's post is true enough, but useless: Beliefs do not require justification. Take a look at the OP if you don't believe that. However, beliefs may be justified...and of course we can know some things for certain, "I am typing or I am not typing." or "Within the axioms of Peano Arithmetic 2+2=4." Pure abstraction, pure logic, unequivocally true.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

There's a distinction between things that can be proven and things that cannot. One is called a philosphy, and the other is called a law.

When talking about a law, we're talking about something that is completely based on science and mathematics, and so can be proven.

"Within the axioms of Peano Arithmetic 2+2=4."

This is a law. Of course 2+2=4. It is readily proven. There's no way a sensible person could say with the utmost confidence that two plus two does not, in fact, equal four.

But a philosophy cannot be proven. You can't prove that there is reincarnation. You can't prove that "peace is the way". That's why philosophies are also called beliefs.

When talking about beliefs and philosophies, it's always going to be "****ing circular and pointless". You can't prove a belief, and basing a new set of beliefs on one that is simply older doesn't necessarily lend the new set "credibility" and "truth". It's all based on prespective.

 

[n1000]

No, sorry. Philosophy != Belief. A belief is the notion that some concept is true. A philosophy is a system of thought, most broadly.

We may prove certain things within the realm of philosophy (logical truths), but you are correct in saying that a personal philosophy cannot be proven. In fact, the idea of "proving" a philosophy is a bit strange, I'm not sure any personal philosophy can be denoted by a set of provable facts.

Beliefs, and thus the systems of philosophy hinging on them, do not require "proof". They do, however, demand justification. "I believe in X because I have seen it." Seeing X does not prove that it exists, but it's better than believing in something you haven't seen. (NB:I use "seeing" as an example, there are of course other types of evidence which lend credence to beliefs)

The belief in reincarnation has nothing to do with Philosophy. Reincarnation cannot be observed, in fact it's unclear whether or not the idea of reincarnating souls has any consequences whatsoever.

On the other hand we may believe that "peace is the way," and we may justify (though not prove) this idea based on axioms of our philosophy. Seek peace because experiencing violence events are unpleasant, live peacefully because it's easier, etc. To decide to live peacefully is an ethical decision both justifiable through deductive reasoning (though the soundness of the premises may be questioned...) and it actually affects an individual's decision making. There is no evidence for Reincarnation, no justification for holding it as a belief and most importantly, whether or not one believes in reincarnation doesn't have any real consequences!

 

[ranmaru]

^This.

Ortho, what does that statement even mean?

You do realize how easy it would be for someone to call you out on this, right?

Right, sorry. Umm, first, I am Catholic as I said, but I guess I forgot to mention that I don't really attend often. Its been months since I set foot in a church. Religion isn't really important to me or my family.

What I meant was that I may be catholic, but I like to think logically. I like thinking. I didn't mean to throw in there what religion I am, its just others were saying that, and I wanted people to know. Just know that I am open, and I like to think.

Do you understand now? : D

 

[Melomaniacal]

Right, sorry. Umm, first, I am Catholic as I said, but I guess I forgot to mention that I don't really attend often. Its been months since I set foot in a church. Religion isn't really important to me or my family.

What I meant was that I may be catholic, but I like to think logically. I like thinking. I didn't mean to throw in there what religion I am, its just others were saying that, and I wanted people to know. Just know that I am open, and I like to think.

Do you understand now? : D

I think I do.

So, what makes you/why are you catholic, if you don't mind me asking? This isn't some kind of trap question where I'm going to try to argue religion with you, I'm just curious.

 

[ranmaru]

I think I do.

So, what makes you/why are you catholic, if you don't mind me asking? This isn't some kind of trap question where I'm going to try to argue religion with you, I'm just curious.

I was always catholic. I am catholic because my parents are catholic, and we went to church often. But after a while we slipped.

Thats all. And plus my beliefs also not as strong. Or my faith rather. Just laziness. ^_^

 

[Grim Tuesday]

"In the end, it's impossible to base a set of beliefs on anything but what you believe." This is so ****ing circular and pointless. There are a number of distinct sources for beliefs, empirical observation, a priori reasoning from other beliefs, and of course, hearsay.

The prudent thinker both examines their beliefs and also considers from where they got them.

This is why Vitamin C's post is true enough, but useless: Beliefs do not require justification. Take a look at the OP if you don't believe that. However, beliefs may be justified...and of course we can know some things for certain, "I am typing or I am not typing." or "Within the axioms of Peano Arithmetic 2+2=4." Pure abstraction, pure logic, unequivocally true.

This is something I've always wanted to bring up, there isn't any proof that you are typing or not. We could all just be imagining the exact same thing at the exact same time.

Nothing can be proven because of probability, there is always a chance something will be wrong no matter how ridiculous it sounds.

Focusing on things that are more tangible, streams of thought that don't lead to dead ends and blind guesses, self reflection and improvement, finding your own meaning and definition to the life that you live through day to day, non-hypothetical scenarios, etc.

QFT

 

[n1000]

There doesn't need to be proof you idiot. The proposition is everything inside the quotes "I am typing OR I am not typing." So if everything is in our imagination...well that proposition is still true because it's a ****ing tautology.

Furthermore, the claim that "nothing can be proven because of probability" is bull****. With only deductive logic we cannot deduce from "A causes B" that "B causes A". However, in Bayesian Probability, knowing that A being true raises the probability of B, then observing B raises the chance that A is true: if P(B|A)>P(B) then P(A|B)>P(A)

We may not be able to prove that something will happen with probability but of course we can prove probabilistic arguments.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

There doesn't need to be proof you idiot. The proposition is everything inside the quotes "I am typing OR I am not typing." So if everything is in our imagination...well that proposition is still true because it's a ****ing tautology.

Okay, overreaction much. There's no need to call me an idiot and swear about it. I'll say this nice and clearly.
1. It is possible that every person who looks at this post may just be imagining that you even said the typing quote. Highly improbable, but possible.
2. Now, just because every single person might be imagining the exact same thing doesn't make that thing true, it just makes it seem to be true.

Furthermore, the claim that "nothing can be proven because of probability" is bull****. With only deductive logic we cannot deduce from "A causes B" that "B causes A". However, in Bayesian Probability, knowing that A being true raises the probability of B, then observing B raises the chance that A is true: if P(B|A)>P(B) then P(A|B)>P(A)

But there is always a possibility it won't work like that. I'm not sure how at the moment, but you can't say it is completely 100% possible that A will always cause B, thus making it impossible to 100% prove.

We may not be able to prove that something will happen with probability but of course we can prove probabilistic arguments.

Argument in quote.

 

[n1000]

Now you stuck your foot in it. Look up "tautology". (P or not P) is necessarily true. If I don't exist and I never typed this, then "I am not typing" so "I am typing or I am not typing" is also true.

I'm tempted to leave your second argument as it stands, you know? I can't really tell what you mean. What is "100% possible"? "100% prove" is obviously redundant.

A does not need to cause B. This is not what we're trying to prove. With the knowledge that A and B are conditionally related there are truths which can be deduced, through probability, about the likelihood of A or B given the other.

If you insist on denying the existence of probabilistic proof then you must either deny that probability has any real relevance (physics disagrees) or you must deny the possibility of knowing premises which is a pretty gay thing to do so you shouldn't do it.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Now you stuck your foot in it. Look up "tautology". (P or not P) is necessarily true. If I don't exist and I never typed this, then "I am not typing" so "I am typing or I am not typing" is also true.

Woops, misread that. Okay then not EVERYTHING can be brushed off as not accurate, but I exaggerated. The majority of things can be disputed no matter how "true" they seem

I'm tempted to leave your second argument as it stands, you know? I can't really tell what you mean. What is "100% possible"? "100% prove" is obviously redundant.

The reason you can't tell what I mean is probably cause I couldn't tell what you meant. For starters: "With only deductive logic we cannot deduce from "A causes B" that "B causes A" - Actually, no. You can't tell that B causes A just because A causes B.

A does not need to cause B. This is not what we're trying to prove. With the knowledge that A and B are conditionally related there are truths which can be deduced, through probability, about the likelihood of A or B given the other.

If you insist on denying the existence of probabilistic proof then you must either deny that probability has any real relevance (physics disagrees) or you must deny the possibility of knowing premises which is a pretty gay thing to do so you shouldn't do it.

Reply in quote.
You seem like quite an intelligent person, but calling me an idiot in your earlier post and swearing for no reason has severely lowered my level of respect for you.

 

[ranmaru]

Fun fact: We forget to prioritize. Meaning we forget, so that we CAN prioritize.

Medina, J. (2008) Brain Rules: 12 principles for surviving and thriving at work, home, and school.

Quite in interesting book.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

I think a lot like you. I'm always trying to figure answers out using logic to everything. I respect your mindset with that being said.

What's the purpose of life? I've basically come to find... My personal belief is "love" it's an attempt to find the one your to spend your soul with eternally.

 

[ranmaru]

The purpose in life is for you to find out. To be happy. To do what you always wanted to do. And to share your happiness with someone. Something around those lines. So just live your lives, and have fun, with the people you love or will love.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

The purpose in life is for you to find out. To be happy. To do what you always wanted to do. And to share your happiness with someone. Something around those lines. So just live your lives, and have fun, with the people you love or will love.

It's this kind of belief that would affect my life, because if there's an afterlife I want to be able to spend it with the one that I love the most, too.

 

[ranmaru]

I don't know if there is an afterlife, so I'll do what I can now, and leave whatever happens to me after I die to fate. Or basically, just wing it.

 

[2001]

What was I thinking....