Critique My Philosophy of Life?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-11-2013, 10:50 PM
Wink RE: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
(23-11-2013 05:45 PM)Philosofer123 Wrote:  I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have.

Enjoy!
Is an interesting read, much of which I agree with.

- Atheism of course!
- Afterlife - What would that be for?
- Free Will - Just an illusion
- Morality - Unnecessary beliefs
- Life meaning, purpose or value - Nothing inherent, just make them up as you go along, if you feel the desire to do so.

I do have a little constructive criticism for you (just my opinion, take it or leave it)
The following two phrases seem incompatible
"Cultivating self-sufficiency and emotional detachment promotes peace of mind"
"Cultivating friendships promotes peace of mind"

"Living a simple life promotes peace of mind"
I think life is too short to be so risk adverse. Sometimes complexity can be fun

"I believe that in almost all circumstances, achieving and maintaining happiness is the only rational ultimate goal"
Personally I don't value happiness as highly as you do. One possibly can attain maximum happiness via drugs or mental retardation.
Sometimes overcoming adversity, possibly going through pain to achieve a goal can bring great rewards.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2013, 01:34 AM
RE: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
(23-11-2013 05:45 PM)Philosofer123 Wrote:  I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have.

Quote:I believe that the most effective way to achieve and maintain happiness is to aim for the achievement and maintenance of peace of mind

That isn't a matter of philosophy it is an empirical matter, specifically a neuroscientific matter. You present no evidence that peace of mind is the "most effective way to achieve and maintain happiness" (emphasis added).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2013, 01:47 AM
RE: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
(23-11-2013 10:14 PM)Philosofer123 Wrote:  I agree that free will impossibilism also renders irrational such positive emotions as pride and gratitude toward others, but that is a small price to pay relative to the wide range of negative emotions that are rendered irrational.

But then you write:

Quote:Becoming comfortable with oneself involves building high self-esteem,

You have precluded the possibility of having any self-esteem because you have negated the legitimacy of the notion of competence (broadly understood) which is central to self-esteem. By your own account you can neither accept responsibility for your failings nor take credit for your traits and accomplishments. So where is this self-esteem to come from?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2013, 02:55 AM
RE: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
(23-11-2013 10:14 PM)Philosofer123 Wrote:  Also, the regress argument establishes that free will impossibilism (the way I define it) is true.

The regress argument is irrelevant. Why not "aquatic life impossibilism"? "Not eating impossibilism?" The list is endless. What is the significance of the (in)ability to evade causal continuity to human agency? Contra-causal free will is impossible for all material persons because their persons require nourishment and are susceptible to material hazards. They must eat, breathe and avoid large falling objects. Contra-causal free will--which is what the regress argument refers to--is incoherent for any material person so how can it serve as a test of human freedom? So humans don't have the ability to act without antecedent causes influencing their actions. So what? What does have this quality? How is contra-causal free will even theoretically possible for a material person? Aristotle posited a God as an uncaused cause because a God is immaterial and has no needs. What would motivate the actions of a contra-causal material person? What would cause it to choose option A over option B? How would its behaviour be comprehensible to anyone? How could it even survive by acting contra-causally?

Contra-causal free will is coherent only for an immaterial and self-sufficient person, i.e. some sort of deity. It is entirely irrelevant to humans. Human free will has absolutely nothing to do with contra-causal free will. Since no one claims that humans have contra causal free will demonstrating that they don't have contra causal free serves no purpose. Furthermore, contra-causal free will is not necessary for moral responsibility and it is actually damaging to the notion of moral responsibility.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2013, 12:02 PM
RE: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
(23-11-2013 10:23 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(23-11-2013 10:14 PM)Philosofer123 Wrote:  If you believe that you can refute the arguments for either free will impossibilism or negative hedonism, then please try to do so.

I already have refuted your "free will impossibilism".

In order to refute my "free will impossibilism", you must refute the regress argument that is presented in the document. You have failed to do so.

Simply disagreeing with my definition of "free will" is not a refutation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Philosofer123's post
24-11-2013, 12:05 PM
RE: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
(23-11-2013 10:42 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(23-11-2013 10:14 PM)Philosofer123 Wrote:  The notion of ultimate responsibility is what is relevant to eliminating a whole range of negative emotions. Therefore, while it may be absurd (after all, I have shown it to be impossible), it is not arbitrary.

It is entirely arbitrary. Moral responsibility doesn't depend on "ultimate origination" which is effectively the same as contra-causal free will. There is no reason to equate freedom with contra-causal free will. That is an arbitrary move. Why not equate human locomotion with levitation and then conclude humans don't really move when they walk because they aren't levitating? Contra-causal free will is something that gods are supposed to have so on what grounds is an atheist using that mythical power to equate with human freedom? Contra-causal free will is a supernatural power so how can that form the basis of any meaningful discussion of human agency?

When humans say they acted freely they mean they were able to do what they wanted. The ultimate origin of their wanting is irrelevant to assessing their moral responsibility or freedom. If a person's brain is functioning normally then they are free if they can do what they want. The idea that a person acted freely only if they were able to subvert causality is absurd and arbitrary.

What might be required for "moral responsibility" is irrelevant to my philosophy. I never mention "moral responsibility" in my document because I am a moral skeptic, so it would make no sense for me to opine on what is required for "moral responsibility".

I have already explained why I choose to define free will in terms of ultimate responsibility. This is why it is not arbitrary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2013, 12:15 PM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2013 02:11 PM by Philosofer123.)
RE: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
(23-11-2013 10:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-11-2013 05:45 PM)Philosofer123 Wrote:  I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have.

Enjoy!
Is an interesting read, much of which I agree with.

- Atheism of course!
- Afterlife - What would that be for?
- Free Will - Just an illusion
- Morality - Unnecessary beliefs
- Life meaning, purpose or value - Nothing inherent, just make them up as you go along, if you feel the desire to do so.

I do have a little constructive criticism for you (just my opinion, take it or leave it)
The following two phrases seem incompatible
"Cultivating self-sufficiency and emotional detachment promotes peace of mind"
"Cultivating friendships promotes peace of mind"

"Living a simple life promotes peace of mind"
I think life is too short to be so risk adverse. Sometimes complexity can be fun

"I believe that in almost all circumstances, achieving and maintaining happiness is the only rational ultimate goal"
Personally I don't value happiness as highly as you do. One possibly can attain maximum happiness via drugs or mental retardation.
Sometimes overcoming adversity, possibly going through pain to achieve a goal can bring great rewards.

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback, Stevil.

I agree that there is a tension between emotional detachment on the one hand, and making true friendships on the other. That said, I believe that they both individually promote peace of mind.

I do believe that living a simple life promotes peace of mind, for the reasons noted in the document. Complexity might sometimes be fun, but it does not promote peace of mind.

Regarding drugs for happiness, remember that I define the goal as achieving and maintaining happiness. Drugs only give you a short-term high, and have obvious long-term problems.

Regarding mental retardation, remember my view that maintaining peace of mind is the most effective way to maintain happiness. And my definition of peace of mind includes retaining one's mental faculties. That said, I think it is interesting to consider whether one would choose happiness over retaining all of one's mental faculties.

Regarding going through pain for "great rewards"--what is the reward, if not happiness?

Again, thank you for your thoughtful feedback.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2013, 12:19 PM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2013 02:07 PM by Philosofer123.)
RE: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
(24-11-2013 01:34 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(23-11-2013 05:45 PM)Philosofer123 Wrote:  I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have.

Quote:I believe that the most effective way to achieve and maintain happiness is to aim for the achievement and maintenance of peace of mind

That isn't a matter of philosophy it is an empirical matter, specifically a neuroscientific matter. You present no evidence that peace of mind is the "most effective way to achieve and maintain happiness" (emphasis added).

I present several arguments and considerations designed to show that peace of mind is the most effective way to achieve and maintain happiness (see bottom of page 5 and top of page 6). If you think you can refute these arguments, then please try to do so.

And if you think you have a better way to achieve and maintain happiness (the way I define it), then I would like to hear it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2013, 12:28 PM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2013 01:06 PM by Philosofer123.)
RE: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
(24-11-2013 01:47 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(23-11-2013 10:14 PM)Philosofer123 Wrote:  I agree that free will impossibilism also renders irrational such positive emotions as pride and gratitude toward others, but that is a small price to pay relative to the wide range of negative emotions that are rendered irrational.

But then you write:

Quote:Becoming comfortable with oneself involves building high self-esteem,

You have precluded the possibility of having any self-esteem because you have negated the legitimacy of the notion of competence (broadly understood) which is central to self-esteem. By your own account you can neither accept responsibility for your failings nor take credit for your traits and accomplishments. So where is this self-esteem to come from?

Interesting point, Chippy. I appreciate your continued engagement with my philosophy.

You are correct that according to free will impossibilism, my traits are due entirely to luck. That said, I would recognize that I have those traits and I would feel fortunate to have them--which, in my view, is adequate for self-esteem. Regarding the notion of "competence", I can still recognize that I am competent in many ways, even if the fact that I am competent is ultimately a matter of luck.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2013, 12:30 PM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2013 01:09 PM by Philosofer123.)
RE: Critique My Philosophy of Life?
(24-11-2013 02:55 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(23-11-2013 10:14 PM)Philosofer123 Wrote:  Also, the regress argument establishes that free will impossibilism (the way I define it) is true.

The regress argument is irrelevant. Why not "aquatic life impossibilism"? "Not eating impossibilism?" The list is endless. What is the significance of the (in)ability to evade causal continuity to human agency? Contra-causal free will is impossible for all material persons because their persons require nourishment and are susceptible to material hazards. They must eat, breathe and avoid large falling objects. Contra-causal free will--which is what the regress argument refers to--is incoherent for any material person so how can it serve as a test of human freedom? So humans don't have the ability to act without antecedent causes influencing their actions. So what? What does have this quality? How is contra-causal free will even theoretically possible for a material person? Aristotle posited a God as an uncaused cause because a God is immaterial and has no needs. What would motivate the actions of a contra-causal material person? What would cause it to choose option A over option B? How would its behaviour be comprehensible to anyone? How could it even survive by acting contra-causally?

Contra-causal free will is coherent only for an immaterial and self-sufficient person, i.e. some sort of deity. It is entirely irrelevant to humans. Human free will has absolutely nothing to do with contra-causal free will. Since no one claims that humans have contra causal free will demonstrating that they don't have contra causal free serves no purpose. Furthermore, contra-causal free will is not necessary for moral responsibility and it is actually damaging to the notion of moral responsibility.

Once again, you are quibbling with my definition of free will, and you have failed to refute the regress argument. The regress argument establishes that ultimate responsibility does not exist, and I have already explained the relevance of that conclusion to my philosophy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: