Writing your own Philosophy

[LostSouls7]

I have come to the conclusion that the only way to be happy is to write your own philosophy

and then live it!!

To many many read the books and works of others to find their own answers.

But to become the Philosopher is the way to truly rise up to your real potential.

Some old books can give you tips. But only you can write your own Philosophy.

My Philosophy is strange and something different from what other people think is normal.

But if society does not understand my philosophy or thinks it's strange, then I

know I am doing i right !

[SpiritWriter]

Me too

[back to earth]

Even if I did write 'my own' philosophy ... it would be based on my life input , what I have read and experienced, other things I have studied.

Some times one thinks one has developed a philosophical idea, then later one realises one has picked up a warped or incorrect version from another philosopher.

If it IS a valid system, one should be able to hold one's own end up with it in discourse, debate and discussion, according to the concept of philosophy with other (sometimes very learned ) philosophers.

I prefer to think I am developing my 'magical view of the Universe' ... but then again, that can come against the same scrutiny.

Good luck

Edited November 13, 2014 by back to earth

[Frank Merton]

One's philosophy can be a variety of things, and perhaps before one decides to write it all down one should have an idea of which kind one intends, or of course maybe all of them, a bit of a challenge.

There is the problem of how to be happy. Then there is the problem of what it means to be and how to be good. These aren't necessarily the same. I dare say there exist rather happy but either evil or at least amoral people.

Then there are philosophies of work, of beauty (music, art, literature, poetry, love, food, and whatever we do), as well as the theory or philosophy behind politics and economics and history and law and so on, often tempered by ideas about justice and progress and alleviation of suffering.

Then there are more "analysis" things, such as what is it to know something, how to know something, how to understand something, on what grounds if any to believe, what is science and how to do it, what is sentience and emotion and experience and living, and of course why we die and what happens then if anything.

Finally, it is always useful when one thinks one has a great new insight into some issue to check the literature (mainly the great philosophers of history) to be sure it hasn't already been thought of and either refuted or at least debated. There is no point going to great mental effort re-inventing the wheel. I find reading philosophy (mostly commentary or description of the great ones, who tend to be hard to follow and at a minimum need annotation) a considerable joy, as so often I am either forced to abandon some notion or at least modify it, or realize that it is nowhere near the final answer I had thought.

I haven't mentioned God or deities, frankly because they are not relevant and just confuse matters.

[Beany]

I would add that one's philosophy needs to be mutable and able to grow & change as our understanding of the forces around us and ourselves change throughout our lives. What I believed or perceived just 10 years ago has changed greatly; I am not the same person now that I was then. Without change our philosophy becomes dogma, which signals the end of the story and leaves no room for new experiences and understandings.

[Frank Merton]

I would add that one's philosophy needs to be mutable and able to grow & change as our understanding of the forces around us and ourselves change throughout our lives. What I believed or perceived just 10 years ago has changed greatly; I am not the same person now that I was then. Without change our philosophy becomes dogma, which signals the end of the story and leaves no room for new experiences and understandings.

Yea but if you do that people are bound to call you inconsistent.

[Beany]

Yea but if you do that people are bound to call you inconsistent.

I've been called worse. Most of my friends aren't black & white thinkers anyway.

[back to earth]

I would add that one's philosophy needs to be mutable and able to grow & change as our understanding of the forces around us and ourselves change throughout our lives. What I believed or perceived just 10 years ago has changed greatly; I am not the same person now that I was then. Without change our philosophy becomes dogma, which signals the end of the story and leaves no room for new experiences and understandings.

One of the 4 principles of healthy psychology: 'Review the internal map'

(Against 'outside' reality.)

[Beany]

One of the 4 principles of healthy psychology: 'Review the internal map'

(Against 'outside' reality.)

Boy howdy, for me that's what it's all about, the internal map. There's often discrepancies between my internal map and the external world that make me re-examine myself and eventually lead to an "aha" moment when I make a shift of understanding or perception. Reminds me of was it Plato's? cave analogy.

[GrimmOne]

Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law - guess that ones taken already

[back to earth]

One day it might be ... ( NB 'shall be ' )

Here is one that isnt taken'

'Do what thou wilt IS the whole of the Law

[StarMountainKid]

To paraphrase The Buddha, "Beware, the Philosopher is entering the village." lol Just kidding.

I had to look up 'philosophy' to remember what it was. Wiki has a lot of pages to read on the subject. The word means, "love of wisdom'. Then I looked up "wisdom". Knowledge and experience seem to have a lot to do with being wise, or doing the proper thing at the right time.

Some Buddhist monk, when asked what is the essence of The Buddha's teaching replied, "An appropriate response."

I think that's a good definition of wisdom and philosophy. I do think that working out one's own philosophy is a good thing. It may clean the mind and focuses the mind on the essencials. I think we all have our own philosophy, but most of it is not well thought out or rational.

Good luck, Lost Souls7. I hope you become happy and live your personal philosophy, as you say.

But if society does not understand my philosophy or thinks it's strange, then Iknow I am doing i right !

[Frank Merton]

OK, time to see if I can state "my philosophy" in a few words. "Do no harm."

[GrimmOne]

One day it might be ... ( NB 'shall be ' )

Here is one that isnt taken'

'Do what thou wilt IS the whole of the Law

The thing about that philosophy is that if everyone did it there would be total anarchy

[Border Collie]

OK, time to see if I can state "my philosophy" in a few words. "Do no harm."

Ok that is cool. Maybe something a little more positive, though? Maybe (for me) "try to do some good."

Or, for all of us when posting in Internet forums "try not to be a dick".

[Beany]

The thing about that philosophy is that if everyone did it there would be total anarchy

Maybe not, because true philosophy is a thoughtful thing, not driven by primal urges or the ego.

[Border Collie]

The thing about that philosophy is that if everyone did it there would be total anarchy

That sounds like a good philosophy!

[JinxDeMynx]

some farmers grow wheat

but that's just a theory

a Grain Theory

[aka CAT]

OK, time to see if I can state "my philosophy" in a few words. "Do no harm."

Your philosophy presumes everyone's definition of harm the same.

[Frank Merton]

Ok that is cool. Maybe something a little more positive, though? Maybe (for me) "try to do some good."

Or, for all of us when posting in Internet forums "try not to be a dick".

The trouble with trying to "do good" is one becomes a do-gooder, a self-righteous prick.

[Frank Merton]

Your philosophy presumes everyone's definition of harm the same.

There may be situations on the edges where one can quibble, but for the most part harm is not hard to recognize.

[Border Collie]

The trouble with trying to "do good" is one becomes a do-gooder, a self-righteous prick.

Hmm maybe. But then you wouldn't be doing any good.

[Frank Merton]

Hmm maybe. But then you wouldn't be doing any good.

Well I dunno: does it enter your head that there is a difference between doing good and being good? Anyway, the point is to first ask what harm one is doing or likely to do. It is in fact impossible to function without doing harm -- walking down the street harms the sidewalk -- so when I say "do no harm" I really mean, "do no Harm."

[Arpee]

The trouble with trying to "do good" is one becomes a do-gooder, a self-righteous prick.

Good point.

Even with the "don't harm others" rules, they can still use that to control. All they would have to do is say that they're controling in order to "protect" others (even though they are really doing it for power and control).

Maybe, this is a better rule:

Do what you want, and allow others to do the same.

This rule encourages people to make their own choices and express themselves while allowing others to do the same.

or, basing it off of The Declaration of Indepence:

Respect each others Pursuit of Happiness.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Arpee

[aka CAT]

The trouble with trying to "do good" is one becomes a do-gooder, a self-righteous prick.

Sounds like an inferiority complex, like 'the pot calling the kettle black,' to me.

There may be situations on the edges where one can quibble, but for the most part harm is not hard to recognize.

Granted physical harm is easier evidenced, demoralization can be far more detrimental.

To whom it may concern,

My experience is that the vast majority of those who claim to have their own philosophies

know nothing about philosophy itself. In fact, I would bet that, in a blind test of sorts,

nearly all of the participants in this discussion so far would do one of two things with

most any great philosopher's treatise: either immediately put the book down or nod

off nearly from the start.

Edited November 25, 2014 by aka CAT