Critique My Philosophy of Life?

[SimonaM]

"o Free will impossibilism renders irrational a whole range of negative emotions, including

guilt, regret, shame, remorse, indignation, anger, disgust, outrage, resentment, contempt

and hatred

? When one realizes that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions, all of

these emotions are rendered irrational

? However, with respect to one's own past actions that may have hurt others, one

may still apologize, attempt to rectify the situation, and vow to act differently in the

future. And with respect to others' hurtful actions, one may still respond for the

sake of deterrence.

o Existential skepticism eliminates anxiety caused by a disconnect between events and what

one would otherwise judge to be the meaning or purpose of life"

 So being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
 How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?
 J.P.Sartre was also an existenstialist, yet, he never stopped asking himself the most honest, natural, logical and human question that one may ask himself: who am I? why am I here? why was I born? what is death? The fact that no one can answer these questions does not mean that you must stop asking them.
 Man, your philosophy lacks honesty. Put honesty in your work and rather than provide answers and draw lazy conclusions I suggest you should raise questions (this is what philosophers actually do!).

[SimonaM]

Also, there is no such thing as negative emotions. Emotions are emotions.

 Anger can be very fertile if it´s not pointed toward the others but toward ourselves. There are a lot of people who manage to change their lives and to achieve something good by actually getting angry on themselves.

[Plu]

So being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?

If you assume free will doesn't exist, then yes they are irrational. Of course, if free will doesn't exist you can't exactly stop yourself from feeling them anyway, so that's kinda moot. And holding people responsible is pointless, because they didn't have any way to stop themselves from doing what they did, as they have no free will. It's like holding a computer responsible for following its programming.

Of course that's if you believe that free will doesn't exist. I'm not convinced either way on the topic.

Also it's funny to see religious people complain about others giving lazy answers and telling them not to stop asking important existensial questions.

[Philosofer123]

"o Free will impossibilism renders irrational a whole range of negative emotions, including

guilt, regret, shame, remorse, indignation, anger, disgust, outrage, resentment, contempt

and hatred

? When one realizes that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions, all of

these emotions are rendered irrational

? However, with respect to one's own past actions that may have hurt others, one

may still apologize, attempt to rectify the situation, and vow to act differently in the

future. And with respect to others' hurtful actions, one may still respond for the

sake of deterrence.

o Existential skepticism eliminates anxiety caused by a disconnect between events and what

one would otherwise judge to be the meaning or purpose of life"

 So being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
 How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?
 J.P.Sartre was also an existenstialist, yet, he never stopped asking himself the most honest, natural, logical and human question that one may ask himself: who am I? why am I here? why was I born? what is death? The fact that no one can answer these questions does not mean that you must stop asking them.
 Man, your philosophy lacks honesty. Put honesty in your work and rather than provide answers and draw lazy conclusions I suggest you should raise questions (this is what philosophers actually do!).

Thank you for at least taking a look at the document.

Yes, disgust, anger, outrage and hatred are irrational, once one realizes that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions.  This is a highly therapeutically beneficial realization.  Punishment may still make sense, but for pragmatic reasons (such as deterrence, quarantine, and/or rehabilitation), not for retribution.

I have asked myself a number of questions, and after considerable research and thought, I have reached some conclusions.  There is nothing lazy or dishonest about my philosophy.

[Philosofer123]

Also, there is no such thing as negative emotions. Emotions are emotions.

 Anger can be very fertile if it´s not pointed toward the others but toward ourselves. There are a lot of people who manage to change their lives and to achieve something good by actually getting angry on themselves.

Please read the document more carefully.  In the document, I define "negative emotion" as any emotion that feels uncomfortable.  And it is undeniable that some emotions feel uncomfortable.  Therefore, negative emotions exist.

Anger is not required to "change one's life" or to "achieve something good".

[Philosofer123]

So being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?

If you assume free will doesn't exist, then yes they are irrational. Of course, if free will doesn't exist you can't exactly stop yourself from feeling them anyway, so that's kinda moot.

Please note that I define "free will" in terms of ultimate responsibility.  In other words, I believe that we do have so-called "compatibilist free will," so I believe that with enough effort, we can reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

[Plu]

Hm, having read through your document I feel that while you are right that one cannot be ultimately held responsible for their actions, by the way you define free will people can still be held somewhat responsible for their actions, which means reactions aren't entirely irrational.

It brings to mind the saying "he should've known better". If you can change your path in life, you can avoid bad doing things as well. And that means you might be responsible for the things you do under some circumstances.

I also disagree that you cannot feel significant negative emotions and happiness at the same time. It is quite possible to be happy with some things that are happening and angry/sad/distressed/regretful at others.

[Johan]

Executive, eh? Sounds cool. What were you an executive of?

To protect my anonymity, I am not providing any additional personal information at this time.

Thank you for your understanding.

...and you lost me. Good luck getting other saps to find and read your manifesto for you.

[Solitary]

"o Free will impossibilism renders irrational a whole range of negative emotions, including

guilt, regret, shame, remorse, indignation, anger, disgust, outrage, resentment, contempt

and hatred

? When one realizes that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions, all of

these emotions are rendered irrational

? However, with respect to one's own past actions that may have hurt others, one

may still apologize, attempt to rectify the situation, and vow to act differently in the

future. And with respect to others' hurtful actions, one may still respond for the

sake of deterrence.

o Existential skepticism eliminates anxiety caused by a disconnect between events and what

one would otherwise judge to be the meaning or purpose of life"

 So being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
 How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?
 J.P.Sartre was also an existenstialist, yet, he never stopped asking himself the most honest, natural, logical and human question that one may ask himself: who am I? why am I here? why was I born? what is death? The fact that no one can answer these questions does not mean that you must stop asking them.
 Man, your philosophy lacks honesty. Put honesty in your work and rather than provide answers and draw lazy conclusions I suggest you should raise questions (this is what philosophers actually do!).

If a tree falls in a woods and lands on a human and no one hears it, is it responsible for doing it?     Solitary

[Solitary]

So being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?

If you assume free will doesn't exist, then yes they are irrational. Of course, if free will doesn't exist you can't exactly stop yourself from feeling them anyway, so that's kinda moot.

Please note that I define "free will" in terms of ultimate responsibility.  In other words, I believe that we do have so-called "compatibilist free will," so I believe that with enough effort, we can reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

I'd like to see how that works by dropping you out of an airplane at 30,000 feet without a parachute. :shock:  :roll:  Solitary

[SimonaM]

"o Free will impossibilism renders irrational a whole range of negative emotions, including

guilt, regret, shame, remorse, indignation, anger, disgust, outrage, resentment, contempt

and hatred

? When one realizes that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions, all of

these emotions are rendered irrational

? However, with respect to one's own past actions that may have hurt others, one

may still apologize, attempt to rectify the situation, and vow to act differently in the

future. And with respect to others' hurtful actions, one may still respond for the

sake of deterrence.

o Existential skepticism eliminates anxiety caused by a disconnect between events and what

one would otherwise judge to be the meaning or purpose of life"

 So being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
 How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?
 J.P.Sartre was also an existenstialist, yet, he never stopped asking himself the most honest, natural, logical and human question that one may ask himself: who am I? why am I here? why was I born? what is death? The fact that no one can answer these questions does not mean that you must stop asking them.
 Man, your philosophy lacks honesty. Put honesty in your work and rather than provide answers and draw lazy conclusions I suggest you should raise questions (this is what philosophers actually do!).

If a tree falls in a woods and lands on a human and no one hears it, is it responsible for doing it?     Solitary

 Oh, I´m sorry, I forgot that there are some people to whom you need to explain letter by letter what you´re saying because their minds simply cannot make a commun logical connection. So, I will reformulate and take the time to explain to you, solitary, what I have ment when I asked "Who is to be hold responsible for this horrible crime?". Any person with an average IQ would have understood that I was questioning the concept of the "free will impossibilism" applyed to human beings (whom I believe to be capable of making moral choices) and not to a tree, nor to the dogs that ate the girl (that was my example).

[mykcob4]

"o Free will impossibilism renders irrational a whole range of negative emotions, including

guilt, regret, shame, remorse, indignation, anger, disgust, outrage, resentment, contempt

and hatred

? When one realizes that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions, all of

these emotions are rendered irrational

? However, with respect to one's own past actions that may have hurt others, one

may still apologize, attempt to rectify the situation, and vow to act differently in the

future. And with respect to others' hurtful actions, one may still respond for the

sake of deterrence.

o Existential skepticism eliminates anxiety caused by a disconnect between events and what

one would otherwise judge to be the meaning or purpose of life"

 So being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
 How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?
 J.P.Sartre was also an existenstialist, yet, he never stopped asking himself the most honest, natural, logical and human question that one may ask himself: who am I? why am I here? why was I born? what is death? The fact that no one can answer these questions does not mean that you must stop asking them.
 Man, your philosophy lacks honesty. Put honesty in your work and rather than provide answers and draw lazy conclusions I suggest you should raise questions (this is what philosophers actually do!).

If a tree falls in a woods and lands on a human and no one hears it, is it responsible for doing it?     Solitary

 Oh, I´m sorry, I forgot that there are some people to whom you need to explain letter by letter what you´re saying because their minds simply cannot make a commun logical connection. So, I will reformulate and take the time to explain to you, solitary, what I have ment when I asked "Who is to be hold responsible for this horrible crime?". Any person with an average IQ would have understood that I was questioning the concept of the "free will impossibilism" applyed to human beings (whom I believe to be capable of making moral choices) and not to a tree, nor to the dogs that ate the girl (that was my example).

1) Being condescending is damaging your position emensely.
2) Solidarity has an enormously high IQ, I dare say probably much higher than yours.

[Solitary]

"o Free will impossibilism renders irrational a whole range of negative emotions, including

guilt, regret, shame, remorse, indignation, anger, disgust, outrage, resentment, contempt

and hatred

? When one realizes that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions, all of

these emotions are rendered irrational

? However, with respect to one's own past actions that may have hurt others, one

may still apologize, attempt to rectify the situation, and vow to act differently in the

future. And with respect to others' hurtful actions, one may still respond for the

sake of deterrence.

o Existential skepticism eliminates anxiety caused by a disconnect between events and what

one would otherwise judge to be the meaning or purpose of life"

 So being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
 How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?
 J.P.Sartre was also an existenstialist, yet, he never stopped asking himself the most honest, natural, logical and human question that one may ask himself: who am I? why am I here? why was I born? what is death? The fact that no one can answer these questions does not mean that you must stop asking them.
 Man, your philosophy lacks honesty. Put honesty in your work and rather than provide answers and draw lazy conclusions I suggest you should raise questions (this is what philosophers actually do!).

If a tree falls in a woods and lands on a human and no one hears it, is it responsible for doing it?     Solitary

 Oh, I´m sorry, I forgot that there are some people to whom you need to explain letter by letter what you´re saying because their minds simply cannot make a commun logical connection. So, I will reformulate and take the time to explain to you, solitary, what I have ment when I asked "Who is to be hold responsible for this horrible crime?". Any person with an average IQ would have understood that I was questioning the concept of the "free will impossibilism" applyed to human beings (whom I believe to be capable of making moral choices) and not to a tree, nor to the dogs that ate the girl (that was my example).

You obviously don't get the point I was making. A tree doesn't have free will and yet it is responsible for it's actions just like a person that doesn't have free will is. You assume a person has moral choices to make because they have freewill, and have freewill because they can make moral choices, an argument that is circular and not logical.  And your sarcasm is noted and not appreciated.  :P   [-X  Solitary

[Plu]

Any person with an average IQ would have understood that I was questioning the concept of the "free will impossibilism" applyed to human beings (whom I believe to be capable of making moral choices)

The question is, can you back up your belief that humans are capable of moral choices the way philosofer did, or are you just operating on wishful thinking, making your opinions worthless?

You have critique, but you have nothing to show that your critique is based on facts or rational arguments. It just sounds like the fairly common "I want the world to be X, so you must be wrong for thinking differently."

[stromboli]

Free will is something we have debated here often. If you believe in determinism, or that a god has infinite knowledge of your past and future, then free will in the larger context does not exist. Your capacity for free will is also modified by a number of factors including environment, culture, genetic predisposition and so on. Yet at the end of all that, I can claim to have free will.

I can make a rational choice based on known factors and evidence available to me at the time. free will is ultimately about rational choice. In that context, I have free will.