SOME WORDS OF WISDOM
- Thread starter [ n a v ]
- Start date
Technically a theory is a hypothesis based on factual evidence that can be proven or misproven. I'm not exactly sure that philosophy can be proven or misproven. And when philosophical techniques are put into effect within different cultures and societies, it always has a different outcome. This lack of consistency is what makes me wary of taking philosophy seriously (although I do enjoy philosophical conversation).
I think that philosophy can be a matter of opinion in the fact that they are many different philosophies. Rosseau and Hobbes and Locke and Plato and Nietzche and Machiavelli all have different philosophies that can be understood and taken seriously, however only one or none of them can be factually true because if we used them all at the same time they would contradict each other.
John Stewart Mill has the utilitarian "theory" which basically states that people should do as much as makes them happy without harming another person. Nieztche says that it is okay to harm another person on your quest to achieve a goal because, in Machiavellian terms, "the ends justify the means".
So when I say philosophy is an opinion what I mean is that, while Mill and Machiavelli both have good "theories", you have to make the opinion to choose one or the other. We can argue philosophy all day long, but if you view people as something valuable while I only view them as a means to an end, then that very small difference of opinion can lead to completely different philosophical ideologies.
I think that philosophy can be a matter of opinion in the fact that they are many different philosophies. Rosseau and Hobbes and Locke and Plato and Nietzche and Machiavelli all have different philosophies that can be understood and taken seriously, however only one or none of them can be factually true because if we used them all at the same time they would contradict each other.
John Stewart Mill has the utilitarian "theory" which basically states that people should do as much as makes them happy without harming another person. Nieztche says that it is okay to harm another person on your quest to achieve a goal because, in Machiavellian terms, "the ends justify the means".
So when I say philosophy is an opinion what I mean is that, while Mill and Machiavelli both have good "theories", you have to make the opinion to choose one or the other. We can argue philosophy all day long, but if you view people as something valuable while I only view them as a means to an end, then that very small difference of opinion can lead to completely different philosophical ideologies.
Welcome to GOM.
I agree with some of your maxims but they are rather trite, no offense.
For example, "The PURPOSE OF LIFE, is a LIFE OF PURPOSE."
Have you seen that movie, "Mystery Men"?...
Very trite and in this case it sounds like the purpose of life is word-jugglery. A similar statement may be, 'a small dog is a dog that is small'.
Not to come down on you or anything... once again, welcome to GOM.
I agree with some of your maxims but they are rather trite, no offense.
For example, "The PURPOSE OF LIFE, is a LIFE OF PURPOSE."
Have you seen that movie, "Mystery Men"?...
Very trite and in this case it sounds like the purpose of life is word-jugglery. A similar statement may be, 'a small dog is a dog that is small'.
Not to come down on you or anything... once again, welcome to GOM.
![[ n a v ]](/xf/data/avatars/s/13/13106.jpg?1534684272){kind=avatar}
Not even the author knows where to go. Otherwise, why not simply state it? I am very averse to these mystical, self-help, pseudo-spiritual sentiments.
The implication in the above quote is that it doesn't matter so much what we focus on, but that we have focus. This is fool's philosophy. Those who are truly enlightened know what is life. Many people know what they want out of life, that is no qualification. First we have to know what is life, what is self, what is the Absolute. And what is the value of revolutionizing the direction of further material suffering? Certainly, if you don't know where you are going, you will be sure to fall to this line of philosophy.
The implication in the above quote is that it doesn't matter so much what we focus on, but that we have focus. This is fool's philosophy. Those who are truly enlightened know what is life. Many people know what they want out of life, that is no qualification. First we have to know what is life, what is self, what is the Absolute. And what is the value of revolutionizing the direction of further material suffering? Certainly, if you don't know where you are going, you will be sure to fall to this line of philosophy.
well, in my opinion, people are born with a set of skills, differences, passions etc, that are designed to help direct your life and give you an idea of this "purpose". i think knowing what is life, and self, and absolute will help clear one's mind and help them discover what their purpose TRULY is, what it was meant to be, and not what (thru conditioning and other influencing forces) we THINK it is. i agree, to blindly live with drive and focus, but have it not be on anything specific and meaningful, is foolish.