1 2 > 
 
   
 

What is your philosophy on life?

 
Yahsene
 
Avatar
 
 
Yahsene
Total Posts:  139
Joined  13-11-2007
 
 
 
05 January 2008 13:24
 

If you were to choose a philosophy which fully defines your view on life, which philosophy would it be and why?

 
bahoeps
 
Avatar
 
 
bahoeps
Total Posts:  7
Joined  05-01-2008
 
 
 
05 January 2008 13:41
 

I follow Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
 
Metaphysics: Reality
Epistemolgy: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politcs: Capitalism

This has not failed me, excepting when I ignored these tenets.

 
 
Yahsene
 
Avatar
 
 
Yahsene
Total Posts:  139
Joined  13-11-2007
 
 
 
05 January 2008 14:23
 
bahoeps - 05 January 2008 06:41 PM

I follow Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
 
Metaphysics: Reality
Epistemolgy: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politcs: Capitalism

This has not failed me, excepting when I ignored these tenets.

What does “me” and “I” mean in this context. You have said, “This has not failed me, except when I ignored these tenants.” What can fail or achieve through these tenants? And what is to be achieved or lost?

 
bahoeps
 
Avatar
 
 
bahoeps
Total Posts:  7
Joined  05-01-2008
 
 
 
05 January 2008 14:50
 

“Me” and “I” refers to myself.  Simply, when I have ignored, say Reality, I have suffered adverse consequences.  Likewise, when I have rejected Reason for Emotion.  What can be achieved through consistent adherence is a relatively stable and prosperous life.  What can be lost is that very stability and prosperity, not to mention self-esteem.

 
 
Yahsene
 
Avatar
 
 
Yahsene
Total Posts:  139
Joined  13-11-2007
 
 
 
05 January 2008 15:08
 
bahoeps - 05 January 2008 07:50 PM

“Me” and “I” refers to myself.  Simply, when I have ignored, say Reality, I have suffered adverse consequences.  Likewise, when I have rejected Reason for Emotion.  What can be achieved through consistent adherence is a relatively stable and prosperous life.  What can be lost is that very stability and prosperity, not to mention self-esteem.

I’d like to discuss a few things mentioned here with you.

First you say that “I” and “Me” refers to your self. What is your self? When a person says “My” self this is a possessive statement, correct? The self is yours. So what is the you that possesses this self? Are you saying that the self is an identity/ego and that the you which possesses it and holds it is the mind?

Second you say that when “you” reject reason for emotion then you suffer. Which are you referring to here, the identity or the mind?

Third you insenuate that you are seeking stability in life. You (as either the mind or the identity manufactured by the mind) are seeking something stable and secure and solid in a universe that is not so stable and secure and solid. Would it be safe to say that this attempt for an illusion of stability is a form of ego/identity comfort?

Fourth you mention that you are trying to preserve the self-esteem. What is to prosper or be esteemed and who will esteem it?

 
bahoeps
 
Avatar
 
 
bahoeps
Total Posts:  7
Joined  05-01-2008
 
 
 
05 January 2008 16:12
 

I’m afraid that I don’t understand your confusion regarding the “self.”  I’m refering to me, Bruce Hoepner. A thing is what it is.  Identity exists regardless of the mind so that is not an issue.

Of course I seek stability and security.  Those are the conditions that provide the most reasonable foundation for a happy and successful life.  Of course the universe is chaotic.  So what?  Should I not strive for my own well being?  Should I, instead,surrender to the chaos?  Please!

Frankly, I don’t know what “ego/identity comfort” is.  I want to have a happy, productive life.  As for self esteem, that is for me.  It is the state of mind that is most condusive to the happiness and productivity that I seek.

If you don’t feel good about yourself then you won’t be able to accomplish squat.

Please read Ayn Rand’s book “Philosophy: Who Needs It.”  She can explain this much better.

 
 
Yahsene
 
Avatar
 
 
Yahsene
Total Posts:  139
Joined  13-11-2007
 
 
 
05 January 2008 16:44
 
bahoeps - 05 January 2008 09:12 PM

I’m afraid that I don’t understand your confusion regarding the “self.”  I’m refering to me, Bruce Hoepner. A thing is what it is.  Identity exists regardless of the mind so that is not an issue.

Bruce Hoepner is a name given to a baby and that baby grew up in a society (environment) and formed an identity off of that name and society and that is what the self is, unless you are speaking as the mind which formed the self. There is a difference between the two, is there not? One is a subjective reality (the identity) and the other is an objective reality (the mind/brain). I accept that one is authentic (the mind) and do not accept that the other is real (the identity). Whatever you you have created is a fabrication, a mirage in your head. I cannot see it and neither can anybody else. If you are speaking as that mirage then this conversation is fucked from the start and leading the wrong way down a one way road off a cliff. You assume that I am confused because you cannot answer my question without giving me two words attributed to a body (your name). I am not confused. You are.

Of course I seek stability and security.  Those are the conditions that provide the most reasonable foundation for a happy and successful life.  Of course the universe is chaotic.  So what?  Should I not strive for my own well being?  Should I, instead,surrender to the chaos?  Please!

Who is seeking stability and security? It’s a very simple question. Is it the identity or is it the mind which created the identity?

Frankly, I don’t know what “ego/identity comfort” is.

Something that makes your ego bigger and your identity more secure and safe. Christians have God and you have ______? Fill in the blank. It may be anything from esteem (praise) to financial wealth to a big family who celebrates your appearance every time you walk through the door. Whatever it is that goes in that blank space, it is an illusion. It is your god and it is only real inside of your head. Nobody is secure and nothing is stable. There is no stability and the delusion of stability is the problem in the minds of men and women around the world who have not yet fully realized that one day they will die and it will be finished, over and done.

I want to have a happy, productive life.  As for self esteem, that is for me.  It is the state of mind that is most condusive to the happiness and productivity that I seek.

Do you realize how many abstractions you are using?

1. Happy
2. Productive Life
3. Self
4. Me
5. State of Mind
6. Happiness
7. Productivity
8. I

All abstractions. Not a single concrete word.

If you don’t feel good about yourself then you won’t be able to accomplish squat.

If you do feel good about yourself then you won’t be able to accomplish squat. Everything that you accomplish will one day go away. None of it will last. You won’t last, your name won’t last and nothing that you do will last forever. It is all doomed to disappear with enough time and nothing you attempt to do will stop that from happening. It is your fate. So, chasing after accomplishments is a chasing after the wind. It is a chasing after shadows, mirages and illusions. There is no accomplishments in the future to be achieved. They don’t exist. All living takes place now.

Please read Ayn Rand’s book “Philosophy: Who Needs It.”  She can explain this much better.

I’m not interested in Ayn Rand’s philosophy. I am not talking to Ayn Rand. I am talking to you.

 
bahoeps
 
Avatar
 
 
bahoeps
Total Posts:  7
Joined  05-01-2008
 
 
 
05 January 2008 16:53
 

Please forgive me, but are you suggesting that there are multiple realities?

 
 
Yahsene
 
Avatar
 
 
Yahsene
Total Posts:  139
Joined  13-11-2007
 
 
 
05 January 2008 16:57
 
bahoeps - 05 January 2008 09:53 PM

Please forgive me, but are you suggesting that there are multiple realities?

If it helps you to view it that way, sure. There is the objective reality (the reality that actually is) and there is the subjective reality (a reality that is, inside your head). Your identity belongs to the subjective reality in your head. It is not objective, yet you accept it as real, why? It is just as much a delusion as God is.

 
bahoeps
 
Avatar
 
 
bahoeps
Total Posts:  7
Joined  05-01-2008
 
 
 
05 January 2008 17:15
 

So you do not accept the evidence of your senses as real?  How did you arrive at this conclusion?  What is your premise?

My identity just is.  It is a consequence of my existence, which is undeniable.  I accept it as real because there is no other rational option.

What is in my head came from, and could only come from my sensory perception of existence.  It is an extension of reality.  It is not seperate.

I’ll have to carry this on later as I am going out to eat.  I look forward to your response.

 
 
bahoeps
 
Avatar
 
 
bahoeps
Total Posts:  7
Joined  05-01-2008
 
 
 
05 January 2008 17:15
 

So you do not accept the evidence of your senses as real?  How did you arrive at this conclusion?  What is your premise?

My identity just is.  It is a consequence of my existence, which is undeniable.  I accept it as real because there is no other rational option.

What is in my head came from, and could only come from my sensory perception of existence.  It is an extension of reality.  It is not seperate.

I’ll have to carry this on later as I am going out to eat.  I look forward to your response.

 
 
Yahsene
 
Avatar
 
 
Yahsene
Total Posts:  139
Joined  13-11-2007
 
 
 
05 January 2008 18:06
 
bahoeps - 05 January 2008 10:15 PM

So you do not accept the evidence of your senses as real?

How else is one to perceive the world around them? Of course the senses are real. What has that to do with the identity? Are you assuming that one cannot see without an identity? Watch an infant as it looks at a butterfly. Are you convinced that the infant, who laughs at the butterfly and observes it for what it is cannot see it simply because it cannot identify with it? It is the very indentity and identification which dulls our senses from sensing. What would tasting be without the identity standing as a barrier between your mind and the taste? What of the whole are we missing by identifying with fractions? The experience cannot be pure with the identity. The identity is man’s barrier. That is what was meant by “Know Thyself”. Once the self is seen as it is then the existence with it is entirely different. It is no longer one of slavery, but freedom. One may continue to wear the mask of identity or they may discard it entirely, but the awareness changes. That was the message of Buddha, Lao Tzu and Yeshua. To return to our infant state with awareness. To see through undivided eyes.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?  What is your premise?

Which comes first, the identity or the mind? Can an identity exist without a mind, before the mind forms it?

My identity just is.  It is a consequence of my existence, which is undeniable.  I accept it as real because there is no other rational option.

That is incorrect, sir. Your identity is a consequence of the experiences which your mind has given words and images to. If you had been born of a different race, and of different parents with different genes, and you (as the body or mind) had encountered the exact same environment there would be an entirely different identity in your mind. Your mind would have formed a totally different identity and therefore it is not a consequence of your existence, but of your mind and your mind’s incapacity to perceive what is, without identifying. You, as the identity, are the result of your perceptions throughout your past existence. The existence itself has not formed you. You have formed you. The question is not whether you exist or not, clearly you must for we are communicating with one another. I am typing to you and you are reading and replying to me. This is clear. This is an objective reality. We are speaking to one another, sharing experiences. This is happening. It is not a theory or a possibility, it is a fact. The question is one of awareness and not whether there is a thing which can be aware.

What is in my head came from, and could only come from my sensory perception of existence.  It is an extension of reality.  It is not seperate.

Wait there! Look at what you have just said. This is a very beautiful truth. You are the result of your sensory perception of existence. Consider this. You, your ideas, your name, your image of yourself, your philosophy and beliefs and all of it is based on what you have perceived through your senses. If you are perceiving and forming all of this, this self concept, then you must be the brain, the mind. This must be the true you. This means that the image of you in your head, the idea of you, is not the real you . . . it is merely a mirror which you use to reflect back your true selfless self. Through this mirror you can remain an animal and pursue base animal desires and remain trapped in this illusory power struggle which leads down a dead end road (as we all know it does) or you can use this false-self to see the truth: You are not separate from existence, from the universe. You are not an individual just floating around trying to conquer existence, you are a part of an infinite and gloriously beautiful process and each and every human being walking this earth belongs to the same species as yourself, on one small nothing planet which is just a mere speck on the beach of space and time . . . just nothing and everything all at once. Do you see it, sir? Don’t argue this, please. Don’t just shrug it off and say, “Sure” or “No” . . . really consider it. If you discover this to be true and really see it then everything that is false will fall away. If you remain aware of this fact, this truth, then humanity is one step closer to world peace. If you do not, then the dream continues on for you (the mind) and you will go right back to this worthless and meaningless cycle of shadow chasing (pursuing ambitions and desires and running away from fears and anxieties). All I ask is that you consider it deeply. Don’t just accept my word for it and don’t argue what I am saying without considering it. Just consider it. Spend a few days on it, or a few weeks on it or even a few months on it. If you move into it and argue for and against it yourself, becoming both sides in the argument and carry out this fake dialogue either in your mind or on paper then you will see that it is true. Logically, it is true. Scientifically, it is true. Religiously, it is true.

I’ll have to carry this on later as I am going out to eat.  I look forward to your response.

I’ll be logging off now as well. Wifey wants to go to the beach. If I’m not back for a while, just consider it for yourself. If you move into this subject and discover that what I am saying is nonsense and that the mind created the identity and somehow this identity is real (as you see it) and can be proven to the world to be real, then go back to your identity. But, when you see that it cannot, and it cannot be, then see that the identity (the self image) is your creation and that you are not it and consider this in all aspects of life.

Peace, gotta go.

 
J.C.
 
Avatar
 
 
J.C.
Total Posts:  231
Joined  18-10-2007
 
 
 
09 January 2008 20:46
 

-deleted-

[ Edited: 07 March 2011 16:52 by J.C.]
 
Yahsene
 
Avatar
 
 
Yahsene
Total Posts:  139
Joined  13-11-2007
 
 
 
09 January 2008 21:37
 
Joel Armstrong - 10 January 2008 01:46 AM
Yahsene - 05 January 2008 06:24 PM

If you were to choose a philosophy which fully defines your view on life, which philosophy would it be and why?

I can’t say that I have embraced any philosophies of the past.  I continue to search for my own meaning in life, which, essentially is what a philosophy is.  The meaning of my life comes from a desire to create a more sustainable earth for the generations beyond us, and to enjoy my life in a way that is healthy for my offspring that someday might inherit my DNA.  This approach to life has to do with nurturing and providing for the future. 

This philosophy follows the example set by nature.  A mother and father generally cares for their offspring, and will even sacrifice extensively to protect it.  Why do we as humans not respect this consistent trend of nature by being more aware of how our own lifestyles and actions will affect the generations that come after those of our grandchildren or the many generations after them that we want to have an opportunity at what we have lived?  We do want them to have that opportunity, don’t we?  Is there anyone who would say they don’t care about the future generations of humans that will come after us?  It seems unnatural to me for a species to not be concerned with the health and well-being of it’s offspring.  In the natural world, other species do not have the ability to see into the future as we as humans do to a certain extent.  We cannot always control mother nature, but we would seem to have the ability and obligation to control our actions in a way that creates a more sustainable world.  Our consciousness and knowledge about the earth give us the capability to be quite cognizant of the results of our actions on future generations. 

We have the science, knowledge, and ability to predict the consequences of our impact on this earth, why do we not have a philosophy to address it?

I’m not saying that everyone is not living sustainable, or that many are not trying to make efforts at creating a more sustainable world.  I’m simply saying that so far overall, we are on what appears to be a clearly destructive path overall, in terms of our relationship with the earth.  Religion has much to do with that, by making people believe that what lies beyond this earth is more important than their lives on this planet they are actually living on, and by being the source of so much conflict in the world.  But there also seems to be a lack of awareness overall in terms of our psychological relationship with the earth.  We have become so separated from it as a species, that we no longer co-habitate with it, we simply dominate and consume it for the most part.

I think you and I see eye to eye regarding this part. Everything you wrote here seems very logical to me and makes perfect sense.

My philosophy might be one of the reasons I believe in God, other than the obvious strategic reasons.  By believing in God as the source of life, I feel it gives me a connection to the source, or at least makes me more aware of it, even though I may not understand it or have the capacity or perspective to know exactly what that source might be.  I’m also not saying that those who don’t believe in God cannot have some connection with the source of life or with nature.  I’m simply saying that my belief in God helps me feel connected to it.  Maybe I am wrong, and am simply a romantic idealist.  I’m not claiming certainty in my belief, and there is nothing religious about it; It is a post-theological belief in God.  I also claim no certainty about my approach to life, and it is open to change.

What does the word God mean to you?

 
J.C.
 
Avatar
 
 
J.C.
Total Posts:  231
Joined  18-10-2007
 
 
 
12 January 2008 21:03
 

-deleted-

[ Edited: 07 March 2011 16:52 by J.C.]
 
Yahun
 
Avatar
 
 
Yahun
Total Posts:  486
Joined  24-10-2007
 
 
 
12 January 2008 21:18
 
Joel Armstrong - 13 January 2008 02:03 AM
Yahsene - 10 January 2008 02:37 AM

What does the word God mean to you?

The source of life, whatever that may be, or whatever that may involve.

Seems pretty vague. What value is there in feeling connected to something that you cannot comprehend or even explain? Is it a form of comfort?

Just curious, I’m not trying to challenge you. If that is your view then that is your view, who is to say it shouldn’t be what it is. As Thoreau said, “If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” and “‘They pretend,’ as I hear, ‘that the verses of Kabir have four different senses; illusion, spirit, intellect, and the exoteric doctrine of the Vedas’; but in this part of the world it is considered a ground for complaint if a man’s writings admit of more than one interpretation.”

If this is an interpretation which you have gained from your own personal experiences in life then I congratulate you. If I were to suggest anything it would be to ask yourself what belief in this source means and whether that belief changes your actual objective existence or only alters your subjective perspective of it.

 
 1 2 >