Critique My Philosophy of Life?

[Solitary]

The regress argument demonstrates that we do not have ultimate control over any part of our lives.

That means it's also ultimately not possible to change your outlook on life. You can't have the one without the other. If you make a choice, you're responsible for it. If you can change your outlook on life, you are responsible for that change, since you could have also made another choice.

If you're not responsible for anything, you also cannot be responsible for changing your outlook on life, which means it's not you making that choice, as making a choice is requires taking responsibility for it.

If you can't agree with that, I can't agree with your definitions of 'choice' and 'responsibility' and your entire philosophy becomes worthless to me. Sorry.

But his point is that you are responsible with out freewill and just will power with intelligence I believe. Solitary

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm comfortable with my stoicism.

[Philosofer123]

Yes, he would have proximate responsibility, but no, we cannot be legitimately angry with him.  This is because Bob's action is ultimately a function of factors beyond his control--hereditary factors, environment, and perhaps random/indeterministic factors.  Bob is a victim of these factors, just as much as he is a victim of a brain tumor in the analogy I provided.

I'm a bit late in this discussion, I haven't read the thread from the beginning, just a few recent posts, and Plu is having fun with you- one more reasons to barge in,   , anyways, what I would like to point out is the evolutionary angle that seems to be missing from your arguments. Emotions were/are necessary for our survival. For most species, the invidual has an inbuilt trigger to fight or flee. Also having invested a considerable amount of time and energy in raising our offsprings ( passing on our DNA), it is also a matter of survival to make sure our offsprings survive our own mortality. Imagine a mother not reacting if one of its offsprings were to be attacked. You can rest assured that such a species would have been longtime extinct.

Now why would I be angry with Bob? Because I would perceive that if he can attack anyone, he can certainly me, or one of my offsprings that carry my DNA. It's natural for me to see that this individual to be taken care - that is, neutralized so that he is no longer a threat. Now, along this, civilization was born, and many of our institutions were built around the very concept of our survival - think law and order with all its apparatus of police, judges, courts, jails, etc. Those are in place not only to do the noble "justice" ideal that philosophers have been pondering for ages, but at the very fundamental level, to ensure our survival both as individual and the survival of that society. Of course, there are situations in which the survival of the individual clashes with the survival of the society - but that is a different debate, good for another thread.

As to your point, "we cannot be legitimately angry with him," I say, we do get angry, and we can't help it. It's a reaction born out of million of years in the struggle for survival that was passed one from species to species, from individual to individual. Not getting angry would be abnormal and dangerous as it could spell the end of our will to survival.

Yes, our emotions do appear to be the product of evolution.  But that does not mean that the individual cannot reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

Anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

The realization and internalization that anger is irrational helps one to reduce or eliminate anger.  Even if a particular individual "can't help" getting angry, this realization can assuage his anger and reduce the amount of time he remains angry.

[josephpalazzo]

Yes, he would have proximate responsibility, but no, we cannot be legitimately angry with him.  This is because Bob's action is ultimately a function of factors beyond his control--hereditary factors, environment, and perhaps random/indeterministic factors.  Bob is a victim of these factors, just as much as he is a victim of a brain tumor in the analogy I provided.

I'm a bit late in this discussion, I haven't read the thread from the beginning, just a few recent posts, and Plu is having fun with you- one more reasons to barge in,   , anyways, what I would like to point out is the evolutionary angle that seems to be missing from your arguments. Emotions were/are necessary for our survival. For most species, the invidual has an inbuilt trigger to fight or flee. Also having invested a considerable amount of time and energy in raising our offsprings ( passing on our DNA), it is also a matter of survival to make sure our offsprings survive our own mortality. Imagine a mother not reacting if one of its offsprings were to be attacked. You can rest assured that such a species would have been longtime extinct.

Now why would I be angry with Bob? Because I would perceive that if he can attack anyone, he can certainly me, or one of my offsprings that carry my DNA. It's natural for me to see that this individual to be taken care - that is, neutralized so that he is no longer a threat. Now, along this, civilization was born, and many of our institutions were built around the very concept of our survival - think law and order with all its apparatus of police, judges, courts, jails, etc. Those are in place not only to do the noble "justice" ideal that philosophers have been pondering for ages, but at the very fundamental level, to ensure our survival both as individual and the survival of that society. Of course, there are situations in which the survival of the individual clashes with the survival of the society - but that is a different debate, good for another thread.

As to your point, "we cannot be legitimately angry with him," I say, we do get angry, and we can't help it. It's a reaction born out of million of years in the struggle for survival that was passed one from species to species, from individual to individual. Not getting angry would be abnormal and dangerous as it could spell the end of our will to survival.

Yes, our emotions do appear to be the product of evolution.  But that does not mean that the individual cannot reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

Anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

The realization and internalization that anger is irrational helps one to reduce or eliminate anger.  Even if a particular individual "can't help" getting angry, this realization can assuage his anger and reduce the amount of time he remains angry.

I fail to see it as being entirely negative, since it is a necessary component of our survival. I would rather argue that it should be channel in such away to avoid its potential destructive impact. As I see it, anger is one part positive, one part negative.

[Philosofer123]

Yes, our emotions do appear to be the product of evolution.  But that does not mean that the individual cannot reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

Anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

The realization and internalization that anger is irrational helps one to reduce or eliminate anger.  Even if a particular individual "can't help" getting angry, this realization can assuage his anger and reduce the amount of time he remains angry.

I fail to see it as being entirely negative, since it is a necessary component of our survival. I would rather argue that it should be channel in such away to avoid its potential destructive impact. As I see it, anger is one part positive, one part negative.

I define "negative emotion" as any emotion that feels uncomfortable.  In this sense, anger is a negative emotion.  And I do not see anger as a "necessary component of our survival".  As I have already pointed out, anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

[mykcob4]

Yes, our emotions do appear to be the product of evolution.  But that does not mean that the individual cannot reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

Anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

The realization and internalization that anger is irrational helps one to reduce or eliminate anger.  Even if a particular individual "can't help" getting angry, this realization can assuage his anger and reduce the amount of time he remains angry.

I fail to see it as being entirely negative, since it is a necessary component of our survival. I would rather argue that it should be channel in such away to avoid its potential destructive impact. As I see it, anger is one part positive, one part negative.

I define "negative emotion" as any emotion that feels uncomfortable.  In this sense, anger is a negative emotion.  And I do not see anger as a "necessary component of our survival".  As I have already pointed out, anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

I don't think you've done much research if any. All emotions are necessary even though they may be inappropriate.
http://www.caringawareness.com/resource ... Anger.html
Top scientist in their field have been studying emotions for centuries and in particular...."anger." I dare say that they are far more qualified an experienced than you at determining answers.
The problem here is your ego. The emotion of "pride." REAL philosophers do research. They don't just wander about contemplating about things. Thats the difference between you and a real philosopher. Research and qualifications. Seems to me that "your" philosophy is based solely on what YOU feel and YOUR emotions. I don't see anything to back up anything that you are professing.

[leo]

[Biodome]

Anger is evolutionary necessary. If you are not angry at a mosquito that is eating you alive, you will be continuously harmed by it. Being angry helps us to achieve success in eliminating immediate negative outcomes. In this sense, it is a positive emotion. Evolutionary positive.

Anger, however, is a psychologically negative emotion, because it does not make you feel good or content.

All of this depends on how you look at the emotion. In some ways, they are positive and necessary for survival. In some ways, they are negative and we would like to stay away from them.

[josephpalazzo]

Yes, our emotions do appear to be the product of evolution.  But that does not mean that the individual cannot reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

Anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

The realization and internalization that anger is irrational helps one to reduce or eliminate anger.  Even if a particular individual "can't help" getting angry, this realization can assuage his anger and reduce the amount of time he remains angry.

I fail to see it as being entirely negative, since it is a necessary component of our survival. I would rather argue that it should be channel in such away to avoid its potential destructive impact. As I see it, anger is one part positive, one part negative.

I define "negative emotion" as any emotion that feels uncomfortable.  In this sense, anger is a negative emotion.  And I do not see anger as a "necessary component of our survival".  As I have already pointed out, anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

As mykcob4 pointed out in his post, from his link, there is healthy and unhealthy anger, which is pretty much in line with my "anger is one part positive, one part negative", and its neccessity with survival and as an evolutionary process. So I think you need to revise your position, which certainly does not correspond to scientific studies that are presently on the market.  You will undoubtedly find reluctance and resistance from the members of this forum if you persist in speculating from your ivory tower, rather than based your position on scientific studies. Don't regard these attacks as personal, they would be the same on those who espouses religious views and can't back them up with convincing empirical evidence.

[Sargon The Grape]

Why do you say "our IQs"? Do you have multiple personalities or you´re just too coward to speak in your own name?

I do have multiple personalities. They manifest themselves in my head as smurfs. That was the lucid smurf you were speaking to. But the Old Seer smurf is very interested in dragging out your bullshit for 33 pages. And the psycho smurf just wants me to say, "Go suck a dick." No! Bad psycho smurf! We do not use ad hominem on this forum! *strangles self*

[Philosofer123]

I don't think you've done much research if any. All emotions are necessary even though they may be inappropriate.
http://www.caringawareness.com/resource ... Anger.html
Top scientist in their field have been studying emotions for centuries and in particular...."anger." I dare say that they are far more qualified an experienced than you at determining answers.

Clearly you have not done any real research.  The website you reference is authored by yoga teachers, not "top scientist [sic] in their field".  Your declaration that "all emotions are necessary" has no basis.

The problem here is your ego. The emotion of "pride."

Ad hominem attacks such as this are decidedly unphilosophical, to say the least.

Seems to me that "your" philosophy is based solely on what YOU feel and YOUR emotions. I don't see anything to back up anything that you are professing.

What I feel is what is most relevant to my philosophy.  Recall the very first sentence in the document:  "The primary purpose of this document is to advise myself on how to live well."  

If others benefit from my philosophy, that's great.  If not, then so be it.

[Biodome]

Your declaration that "all emotions are necessary" has no basis.

Emotions are evolutionary necessary. They evolved, because they are beneficial for the survival of an individual. I can provide you with tons of scientific papers if you wish. This is a well-known and widely accepted fact.

[Philosofer123]

So I think you need to revise your position, which certainly does not correspond to scientific studies that are presently on the market.

Which statement in my document do I need to revise?  Please quote from my document.

[Philosofer123]

Your declaration that "all emotions are necessary" has no basis.

Emotions are evolutionary necessary. They evolved, because they are beneficial for the survival of an individual. I can provide you with tons of scientific papers if you wish. This is a well-known and widely accepted fact.

I am simply taking issue with the statement that "all emotions are necessary" for the survival of the individual.  Please point me to just one scientific paper that concludes that "all emotions are necessary for the survival of the individual".

My philosophy is designed for the individual, not for the human race as a whole.  Therefore, whether a particular emotion is evolutionarily advantageous is irrelevant to my philosophy.

[Biodome]

I am simply taking issue with the statement that "all emotions are necessary" for the survival of the individual.  Please point me to just one scientific paper that concludes that "all emotions are necessary for the survival of the individual".

My philosophy is designed for the individual, not for the human race as a whole.  Therefore, whether a particular emotion is evolutionarily advantageous is irrelevant to my philosophy.

The original emotion about which we were discussing was anger, and you said that anger was unnecessary. I strongly disagree with that, since anger has been scientifically shown to be evolutionary necessary.

You won't find a scientific paper that discusses all emotions simultaneously, because that would be a ridiculously broad research and no one would even think about doing it. However, you will find that there are scientific papers on the usefulness of specific emotions.

Natural selection cares about the survival of an individual, not the human race as a whole, therefore, the point still stands. Emotions are evolutionary advantageous, and, therefore, necessary for the individual. Thus, you cannot have any assumptions in your work that imply that anger is unnecessary, because it is not.