Philosophism
 

Yeah, something I created myself. I don't care much for other religions. I'm neither Agnostic, nor am I Atheist, but I enjoy the beliefs I have now, and I call it Philosophism.

Within every religion, there is a large amount of people who view it as facts, or like to start arguments, taking what they've learned in those religions to be fact, and it annoyed me for A long time.

So, here it is, Philosophism. A somewhat religion/belief that is based on the constant questioning of the world around it, even the questioning of this religion/belief itself. A way to gather those of different beliefs and share without accusation, but more a way to spread knowledge and to think about the world around them.

~Nothing is a fact, all is to be questioned~

As a helpful service to the Cellar community, I'll translate:

I haven't read Joseph Campbell, Kant, Descartes, or Derrida, so I'm going to assume that I've created this assume thing that nobody has ever thought of that's a contradictory ad hoc mix of radical skepticism and spiritual pluralism

Within these belief systems, there are like, these people who like, believe the stuff that the belief system is tied to believing in. Like, they really believe it! Don't you hate that?

As I said before, I hate it when people believe stuff, and get all superior about it because they, like believe stuff. I am superior to them, because I believe that everything should be doubted, which is an inherently better belief than the beliefs of all those other people. They should be more like me, and believe what I believe, that everything should be doubted.

Which I will state simply, and elegantly, as an unquestionable fact.

We hope you've enjoyed this service of the cellar community.

Please do me the favor of not driving anywhere near where I need to.

I feel It refreshing to look at possibilities that make others uncomfortable. Even though I find the word philosohism a bit implicate, I find the ambiguity of it relative to the whole argument of other theoretical definintions.

cmon, ya just know this is an 18yr old stoner. weren't you that guy once, smooth? i know i was. i've refined that into my current pickandchoosist religosophy. but is it any different really? dont beat up on the young and vulnerable. save it for dicks like mr condescendingman above me here.

[john leavy]
smooothmonikerman, chewing up newbies and spittin' 'em out.
the smoothmeister
[/john leavy]

good work, sm

I hope there is a Round 2.

Note to newbie: sm is wicked sharp and your self-esteem may get bruised but a few ritual butt whippings later you're in the club. good luck


oh, you may want to try politics next. that's pretty safe territory

Heh, let them say what they want. And i'm not a stoner by the by. For someone who replies under a thread within a section known as Philosophy, Smooth doesn't exactly sound too open to listen to other beliefs. Excuse me if you will if I ignore him. I doubt how high a number of posts generally shows the character of a person, or determine how they should be treated..

You really do make yourself appear intelligent, don't you think? Taking someone's views and warping them to make the person sound stupid themselves. I never stated that "Philosophism" or whatever you may choose to call it was original, I merely stated that what I believe is something I created, not something that another person laid out before me. Next time you decide to try and chew out someone who is new to the forum, get your head out of your arse.

We hope you've enjoyed this service of a guy that joined a forum not for the purpose of being stepped upon by someone who's been apart of the forum longer than me.

-Dunlavy

I never stated that "Philosophism" or whatever you may choose to call it was original, I merely stated that what I believe is something I created, not something that another person laid out before me.

There's a difference between taking the first thing that's laid out in front of you, and making the effort to learn everything you can about philosophy (or anything) and then drawing conclusions. The fact that you believe it is something you created proves that you haven't done much research into what other people have written on the subject. And if you don't make the effort to learn the answers, 'questioning all' is really just being contrary.

You didn't deny the "18-year-old" part of the "18-year-old stoner" supposition. Ten years from now, you may stumble across something you wrote on your Philosophism, and you will laugh at yourself too.

Dunlavy, I'll quit jumping up your ass when you start making sense.

“Doubt Everything”. Really? You want to doubt everything? Ok, start by doubting that chair you’re sitting in will hold you up, that the roof won’t fall in, that somebody isn’t standing behind you with a knife, that the whole world isn’t just 2 minutes old but pre-programmed with mass memories so that we believe to have thousands of years of human history. What’s the problem?

“Spread Knowledge”. What is knowledge, if everything is dubious?

“Gather people who believe different things without accusation”. What if the things I believe are inherently contradictory to the things you believe? The mere fact of my holding them is a passive accusation that your beliefs are false. I think the only way you can concoct this ecumenical wonderland is if the only people you let into your circle are people who really don’t believe anything at all.

“What I believe is something I created”. Why believe it? If you know that some particular idea, thesis, tenet, principle, whatever, has no grounding in reality, and is only based on your creative intuition, why believe it at all? If I create a belief that pink bunnies will one day usher in a utopian socialist paradise if we worship them, what possible reason could I have for thinking it’s true? Ask wolf what we call self-created beliefs held by people that have no grounding in reality.

Here’s why this gets my goad; I think I know what you really mean. What you meant to say is, “These things that people believe can’t really be true, so let’s see if we can get them all together in a room and pick and choose, buffet style, the things we like from each of them and assemble them together in a sort of cold bouillabaisse that manages to believe everything and nothing at all.”

Only you don’t know it well enough to say it.

I thought I'd make my pm reply part of the public record. It may help other new guys understand the lay of the land.

Welcome aboard! You may have caught Smooth at a bad moment. He really is especially sharp in discussions of philosophy. It'd be a shame if you didn't interact with him. The Cellar has a long history of giving new guys a hard time to test their tolerance for opposing ideas. It's just something that evolved over time but it has had the positive effect of reducing the number of thin-skinned posters, which improves our ability to communicate ideas. see yah, Griff

And it also serves to drive away potentially intelligent individuals who aren't interested in taking crap from strangers. Sad.

Talk shit, get shitted on, everyone's pretty much equal round here.

One who has a solid background about WHY they believe what they believe shouldn't be afraid to debate those reasons. This is a group of intellegent debaters, if you're not into that, then this isn't the place for you I guess. Me, I'm still in the info gathering mode, so I don't participate much in the political or philosophical topics.... I read what others write, and ask myself "do I agree with that or not? Why?" I'm not really ready for the debating part there.

garnet, did you take any flak when you first popped up? you are still here and posting. i think you have thinner skin than most of the other regulars, but you've toughened your skin enough to stick around. in just the last 10 months that i've been here, i've seen a lot of people pop up, post something, get blasted and then go into full troll mode. they usually go away. those that get blasted but argue their point intelligently usually stick around and gain acceptance and possibly respect.

Yes, and I probably probably deserved most of it. My skin is pretty thick, so I stuck around. I don't think this guy deserved to get slammed the way he did. He's new, and went out on a limb to start a new thread. What's so hard about giving him a little encouragement? He he made a polite post and got slammed for it. If you disagree with him, fine--but it's not neccessary to attack him.

I'll never understand the stong desire around here to drive away new people. It's not a contest, and I for one wouldn't mind hearing some new points of view once in a while.

I guess my answer to this would be that sm treated Dunlavy the exact same way he would have treated me or you or any other poster. I respect that. Why should Dunlavy get a pass because he's new. sm has gored people in the past over this and, if Dunlavy had lurked and explored the history of this place before walking in and blurting out, he'd have known. But he didn't and I think Dunlavy needs to take responsibility for that and not sm. sm shouldn't have to modify his response based on the characteristics of the poster. sm, it appears to me, replys to posts and not posters.

Personally, I think that's how it ought to be.

HUH? So dunlavy is now responsible for what SM said? Shouldn't people be held responsible solely for their OWN words?

He is in a sense, he talked crap and got bitchslapped for it, SM wouldn't have been able to shred him if he didn't talk crap in the first place.

was SM's post harsh? yep, actually i thought it was a little uncharacteristic of him, but that is ok. When it comes to philosophizin' and structuring a case for a belief SM is top notch. if you want examples, see his periodic grilling of Radar, among others, when their arguments become circular or nonsensical. he saw an immature approach to life's great questions trying to pass itself off as deep thinking and original - he responded to the post.

keep in mind that if Jaguar had responded, rather than SM, it would have sounded a little something like... :stickpoke

Ok, lookout, so you're saying that I can personally insult you the next time I think one of your abortion arguments or pro-Bush statements is nonsensical? You'll be OK with that then, right?

actually garnet, you do post in an insulting manner sometimes, as we all do. like i said, i was a little surprised at SM's approach, but his translation of the original post was pretty darn accurate. he didn't name call, he didn't say "you are a stupid poopy-head" he simply restated, in a more obvious fashion, what the thread started with. he replied to a post without regard to who the poster was. new or old cellarite, the original post was begging for someone to walk by with an auger and set to work.

I enjoy debating about beliefs and the such, but I don't think what SM said counts as a "debate start". I would have gladly debated my point if someone had asked me to elaborate on certain things, or state why they are skeptical rather than purposefully insult me.

So now that you have been specifically questioned you're not willing to respond?

I Can't believe you made that statement. Is that not like calling the kettle black. I am sure your response will be the same as others. You doubt my intellegence, because of my lack of using proper english.That's o.k. you won't find anyone more thickskinned or as hardheaded as me. However, I do agree with you on this subject. Who are we to decide the intelligence of others.
You know I have a brother who is severely dyslexic and he happens to own three buisnesses and lives in a 2 million dollar home. He has an mba. If you saw his writing you would think it was that of a fifth grader. You know the peoples whose checks he signs don't seem to mind........ Sorry for any spelling or grammatical errors........ :biggrin:

Sweetheart, you really need to relax. You've said the same thing in your last five posts, and in case you don't get it, nobody cares.

And BTW, you've been around since last October I can see, so you therefore aren't exactly "new." Regardless, when someone attacks me the way you did (go back to your original thesaurus comment in the other thread), I will respond in kind. Now go take your pills.

Sir, your use of the english language has me encouraged. Beat me please.
I guess every site needs someone to be the token bully. But please, say something that makes sense ever so often........You don't have to be 18 to be a stoner. Apparently, you already knew that......

"Your socks are untied"

Wear sandles instead.

I was going to be an ass, but Arthur Miller died and I am in a greiving mode.
You may want to check your senteces in this post, for I'm afraid they are flawed. I think your final paragraph may need to be questioned; not by me, but you........ Again, I apologize for any spelling or grammatical errors.

I was specifically questioned? Give me a second as I go through the posts again. Seems that i've become lost through other conversations going on.

Ok, well. As responding to some. I am at a young age, and I will likely look at the things I say now and laugh at them in the future after i've come to learn more. What I wrote likely didn't make sense, guess it was "newby instincts" to try and boost myself up. Bit of a common thing for newbies... Guess i'll start on something new now.

Let's see if I can make more sense. I stated that I was bothered by those who have their own beliefs and state them as facts, when really I meant I was bothered by those who have their facts and try to force them upon me.

Secondly, I know I didn't create this myself. I've actually read multiple books and writings based on similar beliefs, which is what inspired me to be what I am now. I can't find many groups and/or people that share the same interests, so around where I am, it's somewhat of something I started here in the area, for those who haven't come in contact with such theories.

And now that I look at what I typed before, I do laugh at it. Because it does not make sense. I hold my beliefs as truths, so i'm contradicting myself. I don't feel like questioning everything, but rather take a wider look on things that have not been proven yet. If that makes any sense.

Sorry if i've come off as a noob. Situations in the real world are probobly adding to it, and i'd enjoy being able to "prove myself" in order to gain respect here.

peace

-Dunlavy

The best way to gain respect here is to just be yourself, be honest, no matter who you are. and this last message is a great example of that.

I,m afraid maybe you need some pills to relax. I take my pills for a terminal illness. I don't know what you were referring to in my last five post. Iapologize for insulting your intelligence in that post. However, I feel I was probably provoked. If you notice in other post, I do not troll or become defensive unless provked. I have just found some of your recent post controversial to previous post you have made. Now go find a doctor and get some valium.
Again, I apologize for any grammatical errors.

The most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war." Desiderius Erasmus
PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :yelgreedy

Give it a rest, you guys.

of course if you want to look like an ass, follow the lead of Brown Thrasher

as i read these posts, i can't help but think "troll mode: active"

Hmmm... I glanced over this thread in hope of finding something intelligent, but - oh, well. BTW, I'm new; so when do I get jumped on, or was the "100,000 Civilian Dead in Iraq" thread my baptism?

People get jumped on when they type before thinking, not when they're new. You seem to do a lot of thinking before you type (even if some of that thinking is misguided.) ;)

Yeah, damn that scientific method, anyhow! You wouldn't believe the trouble it's gotten me in! ;)

Oh, BTW, thank you (I think!)

Dunlavy, here's the problem I have with the kind of spiritual pluralism that you're advocating. When we talk about spiritual belief (metaphysical principles), there are two modes of thinking about the justification for holding beliefs:

1) Statements about metaphysical principles (existence of God, moral laws, etc.) should be evaluated based on their coherence to reality. If we say that God exists, we should only hold this as a "belief" if we have justified reason to think that our statement corresponds with reality, that God actually exists in a real sense. Any statement that we do not have justified basis for holding should be excluded from the list of things we believe as true. The best analog would be the scientist who believes that the earth rotates around the sun because the best evidence available demonstrates that this is the actual case in reality.

2) Statements about metaphysical principles should be evaluated based on the benefit that is derived from holding those beliefs. If we say that God exists, we should only hold this as a "belief" if doing so causes us to benefit in some way from holding the belief. The correspondence of the statement to reality, whether there is actually a God or not, isn't nearly so important as the beneficial state that accrues to me based on my holding the belief. The best analog is a girl sitting in a cancer ward being told be everyone that she is going to get better, and so derives benefit from holding that belief, whether or not it is actually the case in reality.

You seem to be standing in the second camp, category 2, looking at a multiplicity of belief systems and saying, "We need some way of distilling the good benefit that these people derive from holding these beliefs and shed everything that causes conflict between these beliefs. We are entirely justified in doing this, because the reason for holding a belief has nothing to do with how well it corresponds to reality, and has everything to do with the benefit we derive just from holding the belief." This is, I think, almost always the perspective of people who stand outside of belief systems. The problem is that nearly everyone within a belief system holds it for the first reason - they hold the belief based on their justified (whether or not ...) perception that the thing they believe to be true is true in actual fact, in reality.

The problem is that category 2 people really aren't making any sort of statements about metaphysical principles at all - they are making statements about sociology, about the emotional nature of humanity. People in category 2 have so modified the meaning of the word "knowledge" about metaphysical principles as to make it unrecognizable, and as a result, believe nothing at all.

So here's where the conversation goes from here. You tell me know you mean by "knowledge", "believe", "prove", and "justification (for belief)", and we'll see if any of those things make sense in the context of your new ecumenical creed.

I have no problem with you being new. I have no problem with you being young. I have a very strong negative reaction to sloppy thinking, particularly when your sloppy thinking is standing in critique to the thinking of others (category 1 believers). I think we should have this conversation, but you need to not take it personally when I use satire to convey my point.

-sm

A belief is a personal construct, which may or may not be shared with others. A fact is a reality, which is there for everyone to see.

God's existence or non-existence has yet to be proven as a fact based on real occurrences. Various religions have created groups of writings centered around the system of belief shared by their individual members, but Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, or the Earth Mother has yet to appear in a concrete form to the rest of us. I have always found fundamentalist Christians to be the most interesting examples of brainwashed individuals that I have ever encountered. They take a book of belief as their ultimate authority and are horrified if the person they are speaking with does not share this belief. The mind of a fundamentalist seems literally incapable of breaking free from years of indoctrination with a dogma that began from his birth and has continued up to the present day. True believers have the same fascination for me as some people have for fire or leaping from great heights or evil. I am amazed that any human being would abandon precisely that attribute which distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom and defines us as Homo sapiens (sapiens - from the Latin to be wise).

That said, if someone takes solace in a certain belief system and does not act out of it to harm others, then I have no problem with it - believe away. Just don't ask me to share it.

Oh yeah, just noticed that this is my 100th post. Does this mean I now get to believe I'm an official cellar member? Any tracts that I must now deliver door to door? Perhaps a small, but tasteful picture of UT that I might discretely place on my desk? Perhaps an amulet consisting of a monkey at a typewriter that I might wear around my neck and tucked out of sight beneath the collar of my lab jacket? Anything? As a new cult member, I'm eager to obey all commands! :D

I think i'll actually start again tommorow. I have a killer headache at the moment, and i'll prolly head out for bed soon enough. I actually came here to widen my understanding of others' beliefs, more than my own. A way to widen my own views.

There is no specific philosophism. I just called the heading for that philosophism for something to be made up for others to come in and share their beliefs rather than just stating my own. I mean, forums are meant to discuss. There isn't much weight on a topic where all we talk about is one thing. I completely forgot to describe what we were doing in here. O.o

gah

The tatoo team will be there shortly, kindly shave your butt.

there were tshirts....

i'm just going to go ahead and edit my first post to make things more clear...

eh..... darn. Forgot that these types of forums can only edit the last post made..... hum...

changing the meaning of a post after people have replied is the fastest way of getting your ass torn off.

He can edit to the bottom, footnotes as it were.

I agree, new posts are better though.

Schrodinger, you said something interesting in building a taxonomy for "belief" and "fact" that I think bears further investigation.

Lets take the definitions you've given for each (i'm assuming they're from OED or dictionary.com, or some such?) and construct the relationship between them.

In normal, empirical investigation, the causal chain of knowledge goes something like this

[thing in reality] --> [perception of thing in reality(sensate or logical)] --> [knowledge construct of perceptions] --> [belief in knowledge construct]

Take this chain in relationship to the existence of the chair I'm currently sitting in.

[chair exists] --> [I perceive visual and tactile information from the existence of the chair] --> [I interpret the perceived data as being evidence of a chair existing in reality, and reduce the perceptions down to that knowledge construct] --> [I believe in the existence of the chair in reality, to such a degree that i act in accordance with that belief, and sit in the chair]

Note that in this case, the difference between fact and belief becomes a question of degrees; we might say that a fact is a belief that has reached a certain threshold of evidence so as to be normatively accepted by any reasonable person with access to the same data. What we *cannot* say (in terms of our own mental states) is that a fact is a thing which exists in reality, because we have no access to that information! We only have access to our perceptions and knowledge constructs of it. We can speak ideally about things in actual existence, but in terms of our own personal knowledge, there is in no sense a distinction between belief and fact - a fact is a belief of a certain type.

It's important to note that a fact is still contingent on the accuracy of the data received and the accuracy of the knowledge construct drawn from it. If i find a way to alter your brain state so that you perceive a chair in every normative way, even though that chair does not exits, for you that chair reaches the threshold of being fact. You "believe" it to be real, right up to the point where you try to sit in it, and your ass hits the Persian throw rug under it instead. At that point, you have new perceptions that alter your knowledge construct, and so your belief.

I'm going to apply this same idea to metaphysical principles, but I'll do so in a later post - now I need some eggs and coffee, and I have to take down our Christmas lights before our neighbors catch on to the fact that we're pure white trash.

-sm

Better an ass, than a Londener. My ex-wife was from there and she was a bithc.........

Your right... it's not like i'm trying to get out of anything, but I was forgetting to write some things that mentioned that were' not all just talking about mine.

Either way, probobly should have been a safer bet to post in other topics before I started one of my own.

dunlavy, don't apologize for what you posted, just make it more clear; I really do want to have this conversation with you!

Welcome, Quit apologizing. You discussed an idea you had, and in my opinion that is fine.......... Most of the argument you are getting is from only one form of philosophy; that being logic. It's good to be young and to question ideas. I was brought up a fundamentalist. Now, I hate that belief system.

"Those of us who have suffered much become very bitter or very gentle," Will Durant :biggrin:

What the hell? when did logic become an "optional" component of philosophy? I think you want this forum instead

Ok... this'll be it. I apologize for apologizing. ^_^

I enjoy being different. It's what founds most of my beliefs in so many ways. The reason why I want to question everything is because so many of my peers have yet to question anything. I question myself and my existence as well as the existence of everything around me. It's not that I want to continue questioning everything, but rather find a better way to get my own facts and beliefs rather than just take what others hand to me.

When I say i'm tired of religions that have people who take their beliefs as "facts" and place those "facts" ontop of me, it's more based around the whole world than just religions. I enjoy pondering, especially on my own beliefs. I have nothing against the people themselves. They are like me, they have their own beliefs, as I have mine.

When I say doubt everything, I really should have meant "doubt everyone" through a belief of mine that has kept me thinking for many years.

Much of what I belief in can be found in most eastern religions. One of my prime beliefs is the belief in reincarnation. The difference found in mine is that many beliefs feel that you are reborn 15 years forward, while I feel that reincarnation goes beyond space and time, to a point where you could be reborn anywhere at any time. Hence where most of my questions came from about doubt everything. If reincarnation could go beyond space and time, could there not be a point where you are your own family? Where all the friends you've met are actually yourself? If you've lived so many lives over and over that you are the whole population? In murder situations, might there be the possibility that the murderer lead to their own life through the death of the person they killed?

It's just something I like to think upon.

so dunlavy, here's my question.

How do you trace the causal chain of knowledge backward to the fact-in-reality that grounds your belief in reincarnation? Are you saying that you believe it because it is the case, or are you saying that you believe it because you like the effect it has on you to believe it? I trust you see the distinction.

I'll start the causal chain for you

[reincarnation-in-reality] --> [?? perception (logical or sensate)] --> [knowledge construct that reincarnation is a true state of reality] --> [belief in reincarnation, such that you act in accordance with it being true]

Now, if you're saying that your belief in reincarnation doesn't follow this sort of epistemic grounding, then you need to give me a definition for justified belief that makes your comments sensical.

-sm

Unfortunatly, I don't know how to take back the causal chain to prove it. I know I don't just believe in it because I like the effect it has on myself, but from a young age i've always felt as if I had a split life, as if I lived another life before. I don't have specific facts on why I believe what I do, but rather just what I, myself, feel is right. My perception of the world around me has grown this way after multiple large-scale experiences of Deja Vu, experiencing something a friend of mine does as if I had done it in the past.

I wish I could support my theories better, but I still have much to learn, about my beliefs and the beliefs of others.

[brief threadjack] Hey Dunlavy, if you have frequent, instense deja vu experiences that are far beyond what normal people describe, you should see a neurologist. An EEG will determine if you're actually having very mild seizures. And the more mild seizures you have, the more likely you are to have a grand mal seizure (the kind you normally think of, with your body shaking uncontrollably) later in life. [/threadjack]

Two things I've never gotten about reincarnation.

1. If there is reincarnation, then everyone was someone before. Problem is, we have more people now than before. Where did the extra people come from? Take the answer to that question and explain why it doesn't apply to everyone. An unstated assumption of reincarnation, therefore, is that some people used to be someone else and some people are version 1.0 (first generation people). My question is why is it not possible, therefore, that everyone is version 1.0. Ultimately, what question does reincarnation, as an idea, answer? I can't come up with one other than to explain neurotic/pschotic episodes which are best explained in the lab.

2. How come no one ever has/d de deja vu about being a freakin' janitor in a previous life instead of a King, Queen, Emperor, Grand Pooh Bah, etc.

I wanna know how so many people were Cleopatra. I mean I know the girl got around, but ...

Beestie, to partly answer your #1 question (why are there some reincarnated people and some 1.0 people) it's because the reincarnated people either wanted or had to come back for some reason. Maybe they didn't learn what they were supposed to learn or maybe they just want another go at it. Some people choose to remain where they are, others come back. 1.0 people are fresh out of the oven and new to this place. See? :)

Another line of thinking for reincarnation, Schizophrenia. Mayhaps it's more than just one person becoming everyone, what if perchance Schizophrenia was more than a brain disorder, but really two people reincarnated into one body? Have we proven anything?

Most Schizophernia websites have the line "Recent scientific research on the causes of schizophrenia is increasingly suggesting that it is possible to prevent many cases of schizophrenia..." Increasingly suggesting? Possible? "The key message is that the onset and course of schizophrenia are most likely..."

In a sentence, we haven't learned anything yet about it, but rather, we are working off of hypothesises.