Isnt having a philosophy kind of like sticking to the same strategy?

[spaceman Bryce]

For instance Phil Ivey has stated that there is no strategy that works against great players, you have to adjust constantly. And as he quoted from mike tyson, "Everyone has a strategy until they get hit."
Life strategies seem similair. For instance, lets talk about objectivism- a philosophy that appeals to me a lot. Ok so pure capitalism and pure selfishness are the only way to go. Governments should only pay money to protect citizens from brute force ie terrorist and other nations and criminals. Francisco Danconia, yays! But if you follow those principles exactly there will come a point when it starts to suck. You grow wealth through good investing and management, perhaps with an innovative idea, and you make it an ethic to be profitable to achieve your maximum potential. This is all cool. Then you have people at dinner conversations talking about a charity and you explain that charities are bad because the poor should build there own wealth and you are only creating leeches. This is also cool. But what about when you explain to your uncle who only has one leg that its not in his interest to lend him a dollar.This is the point where most people just give the dollar and say well, I cant be selfish all the time.
What happens when you follow the rules of PUA but then you fall in love, despite not even believing in it?
What happens when the greatest good for the greatest number involves the end of your life?
What happens when communism leaves gateways open for things far worse than capitalism?
What happens when loyalty becomes so absolute that your loyalty leads you to do terrible things?
What happens when the amish go to the city?
What happens when a christian marries a muslim? Or worse what happens when you feel terrible for not marrying some one becuase of their religion?
What happens when your generous nature is abused?
What happens when your reputation repels the only type of people you truly like?
What happens when a hermit feels isolated but has grown to isolated to make friends ever again?
What happens when your step by step plan is shattered by a sudden revelation?
SO i submit the spaceman bryce philosphy that I have come up with :
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.

[guesswest]

I'd agree with all of that in terms of it being a good idea, at all times, to remain open to changing your beliefs/ideas as new evidence presents itself. One thing I would say though - I feel like you're maybe using the word 'philosophy' incorrectly. In my mind that'd refer to the approach rather than the belief that's formed as a result of the approach, in the same way 'science' refers to a method, not the content of the beliefs you form as you apply that method.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I would say though - I feel like you're maybe using the word 'philosophy' incorrectly. In my mind that'd refer to the approach rather than the belief that's formed as a result of the approach, in the same way 'science' refers to a method, not the content of the beliefs you form as you apply that method.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. Philosophy is justified belief. The justification is as essential as the belief.

[madnak]

I'm not sure how to begin responding, but you should post here more often.

[spaceman Bryce]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd agree with all of that in terms of it being a good idea, at all times, to remain open to changing your beliefs/ideas as new evidence presents itself. One thing I would say though - I feel like you're maybe using the word 'philosophy' incorrectly. In my mind that'd refer to the approach rather than the belief that's formed as a result of the approach, in the same way 'science' refers to a method, not the content of the beliefs you form as you apply that method.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I am using it the wrong way. But I thought that Science is different than philosophy because you can come to logical conclusions. 2+2=4. But in philosophy it doesnt seem like any logical conclusions are made. But perhaps most people misuse the term then. So what is the word for the result of philosophy then? rigid logic? A mission statement? What would be a good result with the approach of philosophy?to be replaced by science? Although I don't consider myself a scientist or a philosopher(maybe a bit of a philosopher) so maybe I am just talking myself into the ground here.. Ok I need to focus my ADD here.

Plato.Fire. diehard. The matrix, Ice cream. sex. Adrianna lima. Beaches.Spongebob squarepants.Eyes.Shadows. Blood. Ducks.water. Philosophy. OK.

"I'd agree with you that in terms of it bieng a good idea, at all times, to remain open to changing your beliefs/ideas as new evidence presents itself."
hmmm I guess i did say that. However, in addition, I don't think people should have beliefs/ideas about a few things

1.The Meaning of Life- This question is used over and over as the deepest question possible. All reasoned inquery into this question points to one of 2 things
1.We do not know
or 2.there is no meaning of life
However the majority of people in the world believe that the meaning of life is to serve whatever the believed formed the world. This question is completely dead, unless you are legitametly capable of finding out new metaphysical facts about the universe which I believe only a handful of scientist and thinkers in the world even know how to look for, and that is a LONG quest that even those people cannot fully comprehend, then you shouldn't think about this question since it has been done to death. A better question is "what is a life of meaning?"- This question leads to more varied and comprehensible answers.
2.What is the ultimate way to Invest/Gain power/get Hoes for farming?
There is no ultimate way to do things, because things change constantly.
3.actually, Im sorry I wrote something so incoherant. Im going to go watch family guy and stare at pictures of adrianna lima while eating ice cream now. Im tired.

[J. Stew]

Non-attachment, that would be the philosophy of not being attached to a philosophy. This philosophy isn't a philosophy, but at the same time is. It's a paradox. It is potential and realization at the same time. You have a philosophy and you don't have a philosophy, so the mind is in a constant state of readyness. The mind is not attached to ideas that become stale and outdated, yet at the same time the mind is not vacant of these ideas. The web of ideas that interconnect to create some meaning of truth for the philosopher, harbor in the philosopher's conscious awareness. The ideas of truth and meaning and justness are there and they are what you think but at the same time they are not You because You see them floating around in your awareness like clouds passing in the sky. Because you have the ability to Witness your thoughts and not attach to them, you are the thoughts, but not the thoughts at the same time, which is the paradox, which is the philosophy of no philosophy, which is the only way to ride the stream line to the infinite, to experientially live the conceptual paradox IMO.

[spaceman Bryce]

[ QUOTE ]
Non-attachment, that would be the philosophy of not being attached to a philosophy. This philosophy isn't a philosophy, but at the same time is. It's a paradox. It is potential and realization at the same time. You have a philosophy and you don't have a philosophy, so the mind is in a constant state of readyness. The mind is not attached to ideas that become stale and outdated, yet at the same time the mind is not vacant of these ideas. The web of ideas that interconnect to create some meaning of truth for the philosopher, harbor in the philosopher's conscious awareness. The ideas of truth and meaning and justness are there and they are what you think but at the same time they are not You because You see them floating around in your awareness like clouds passing in the sky. Because you have the ability to Witness your thoughts and not attach to them, you are the thoughts, but not the thoughts at the same time, which is the paradox, which is the philosophy of no philosophy, which is the only way to ride the stream line to the infinite, to experientially live the conceptual paradox IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
yay!

[guesswest]

Actually philosophy is exactly like science and math in that regard - and don't forget science and mathematics emerged from philosophy.

It maybe means something a bit more artsy/vague in common parlance, but as an academic discipline it's just about applying logic and the rationale to arguments and looking for cohesion. In exactly the same way 2+2=4. The only difference is perhaps that the components in philosophical arguments are normally too fuzzy to do it with quite as much neatness.

Edit: And the word you're looking for would probably be 'theory' - just like science/math.

[madnak]

That is far from the truth. You're basically tossing the large part of philosophy out the window. Not everything in philosophy is in the Aristotelean tradition.

[guesswest]

You probably have a point as far as philosophy outside of the west goes - but I think that applies to all western philosophy, with the possible exception of some very recent stuff. And those principles were well in place before Aristotle.

And I really think of non-western philosophy as being a completely seperate discipline - no less valid, interesting or useful for it. But the difference is so big and so fundamental that the shared name is misleading and IMO inappropriate.

[madnak]

Not so much. Aristotle really solidified them. The sophists certainly had a different approach. (Judging by Plato anyhow).

Do you consider Nietzsche "very recent?" Do you believe he was a philosopher in the sense you're describing? Do you think it's irrelevant that the philosophers of the last century have largely abandoned the traditional approach? Or do you not consider many recent thinker to be philosophers at all?

Western philosophy really loves putting itself on a pedestal as though it's completely different stuff. It isn't. There is nothing but hubris on both sides preventing the integration of different approaches.

[guesswest]

I'm not talking about formal symbolic logic and the like here, I'm just talking about deductive reasoning, which predates Aristotle by a long way, you can trace it as far back as Parmenides at the very least - and permeates more or less every aspect of western philosophy as far as I can tell.

As far as Nietzsche goes, I consider him to be an extraordinarily talented thinker - he's also so totally unique in western philosophy I really have no idea how to categorize him. I'm not attacking the validity or integratability of different approaches to philosophy, it's not a snobbery of methodologies, and I probably worded my initial post poorly - I'm just suggesting they aren't comparable because they don't share premises.

[madnak]

Okay. Well, if it's just deductive reasoning in general, I think plenty of that goes on all over the world... but you do have a point in that some "philosophies" tend toward mysticism and the like. I do consider seemingly mystical approaches like that of Taoism to have a strong (if implicit) deductive component.

In that sense, I'd say that while science and philosophy are based on similar principles, the standards of scientific inquiry are much more rigorous.

[guesswest]

I agree that there's plenty deductive reasoning goes on around the world. I was really lumping all that in with 'western philosophy' where it occurs with some reasonably progressed layers of construction. With only very loose reference to geography - probably not a good move on my part in terms of clarity. But the contrast is mysticism and mythopoeia, which is plenty interesting and certainly worthy of study, but just doesn't seem to speak the same language.

Anyways, though I'd agree science is more rigorous, I'd say that's only because it's able to be more specific. A major function of philosophy IMO is delineating areas of enquiry to a sufficient extent that they can emerge as independent disciplines, which is what happened with the sciences, probably most recently with psychology. So I think the content is there such that we can get that rigorous and formal, it's just a case of digging it out of the philosophical swamp, since philosophy concerns itself with 'everything else'.

And on the issue of Taoism. I can't see any deductive reasoning in the Tao Te Ching, implicit or otherwise. But you may be right that it's there, I don't think I'd want to recognize it if it was, I feel like it'd spoil it.

[bearly]

"ride the stream line to the infinite", "experientially live the conceptual paradox"........what do you think these phrases mean?.........b

[bearly]

perhaps you are confusing dogma and creative activity. i would hope you all got the "philosophy is an activity" speech no later than the end of your fresmman year. a great many of the posts on this forum suggest that a lot of professors dropped the ball.........b

[bearly]

the Tao is very specific. if it can be said to have a subject it would be "learning to live in a state of perfect non-attachment". the tao, on the other hand, involves discussion, reasoning, and deduction..........b

[bearly]

you will find nothing more rigorous than the discipline required to participate in the Tao...............b

[bearly]

"justified belief" might describe the results of philosophical inquiry................b

[madnak]

The Tao is very specific? See, here I thought that

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao;
The name that can be named is not the eternal name."

I assume with your capitalization you're referencing more orthodox forms of Taoism? I think a state of "perfect non-attachment" is more characteristic of Buddhism, really. Not that it doesn't apply to Taoism, but I wouldn't say it could be described as the essence of Taoism.

It's true that when I mention Taoism I'm referring to philosophical Taoism, and when I mention Buddhism I'm referring to philosophical Buddhism.

Personally I'm more of a Discordian myself.

[J. Stew]

Think about thinking until there is non-thinking, but if you think there is no thinking in non-thinking you are thinking. . . the conceptual paradox. . . there is thought, but who is the thinker, is the thinker different than the thought itself? There is thought and some underlying essense supporting the thought, that which thought manifests from. If there is attachment to thought, the mind is bound by those thoughts the thinker thinks are truth. But what is truth but relatively true to some other truth that is relatively true . . . Here there is Truth if the separate self unlocks itself from the delusion of believing it's own fears and desires are real. Sure they are real, but only insofar as you believe in them. So what is left when you don't believe your thoughts constitute reality while still believing in them because you are in fact thinking them? The conceptual paradox, you are that, but not that at the same time, potential and potential realized/manifested at the same time.

[guesswest]

As a longtime student of the tao I have no idea what it means.

But one thing I would say - is the distinction between philosophical and religious interpretations did not exist and would in fact make no sense at all in the culture from which it emerged.

[madnak]

I don't live in that culture.

Taoist practices and beliefs go way beyond Lao Tzu. The fact there are different sects of Taoism is enough to indicate that there's a difference between the philosophy and the practice.

[guesswest]

I'm not exactly saying there is no point at which philosophy and religion seperate here - but I'd contend that the lions share of taoist literature is so deeply immersed in this principle (I don't know what word to use to describe this, monosomethingorother) that it's very hard for philosophy to see it well.

I'm also not sure the existence of different sects says anything either way on the issue of a difference between philosophy and practice - they could have diverging views for any number of reasons.

[madnak]

I suppose you're right. It's the basis of those differences that matters.

Regardless, when dogma is involved philosophy isn't, in my opinion.

[mikeevans12]

No, it is not like sticking to the same strategy.

Philosophically we search for principals that can govern our everday actions and thoughts. Situations in life can present us with a problem where we have conflicting concepts, all applicable to a certain moment of choice, that all relate to foundational principals. Why does this occur?

Some principals are objective, but thier transformation into practice is not objective. For Example, I will use poker. The objective principal is to make decisions that maximize your EV. That is the basis to any winning strategy. I promise that every winning player trys the hardest to make that part of thier straegy. Now in particular moments of choice in a poker hand, many other factors come in. No matter what a player chooses to consider and decide in the end is all related back to that foundational principal.

In life, we are more atuned to apprehending relative conditions as oppossed to objective principals. Like the process of conditioning we begin our knowledge of life through experience. The next progression is when we develop rules that help us make decsions. If we are lucky, we can think and debate within ourselves up to the point, where we begin to notice a foundational principal that governs all situations.

Every theory is up to debate, but we still have to formulate some concepts to govern the content of our experiences. To deny this formulation will lead one to solipsism (there is no knowledge). The most imporant development of conceptions is to find the ideas that can give direction to life. Lets take economics. The most important thing is to allocate resources efficently. Now the complex task that follows is deciding what is "efficent". Capitalist see efficency as maximization and equilibrium. On the other hand, communist see it as equity and equality. Nither system is perfect, and each can be the best course of action under certain circumstances. To Americans Marx's ideas sound useless, because they lack motivation for the people. In the historical inevitablity that Marx explains people will join together to overthrow the rich and in effect craft thier economic agenda, in the form of communism. If each people is willing to dedicate to communism it will work. But that is not the case as far as I can see, and we are left having to work with communism. My conclusion is that for the time being under these conditions, capitalism will be the dominant application of the strategy of allocating scarce resources effciently.

Having a true philosophy begins with apprehending the foundational, then applying it through the coherent collections of sub-principals based on the foundation and relative conditions.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
"justified belief" might describe the results of philosophical inquiry................b

[/ QUOTE ]
Philosophy is justifying your beliefs. Happy?

[bearly]

in terms of philosophy or "comparative religions" i would have no quarrel. i'm trying to give some sense to the practice of the Tao. a very different matter. i can't draw the character here, but a traditional drawing takes the basic character for "head" and flanks it on the left and below w/ a traditional radical taken from earlier characters
"to run or rush" and "toes", hence "to walk". now this is where we have to go carefully. the radical i spoke of occurs in many chaacters where the english "way" is used, even in the chinese character for "pass away". now, to where i am going. the character for Tao, the way or the path, can, and in my opinion should, be read "the path the head has taken" or "the way the mind has chosen to go". i'll stop as i'm trying to put into words 45 years of thought and reflection on the matter. ..............b

[bearly]

if you are being sarcastic, go spank yourself. otherwise, go back to aquinas and see how often "faith seeking reason" sounds like "reason seeking faith"...................b

[bunny]

No sarcasm - I was just sloppy first post. I believe philosophy is justifying your beliefs. "Happy?" kinda meant "Do you agree?"

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm trying to give some sense to the practice of the Tao.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that it's possible. Intuition is more useful than reason in this case (IMHO).

[Mr. Now]

We all seek integrity (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/integrity/#1) in thought and action. This leads to happiness, joy and even bliss.

The ugly alternative is inner conflict (http://www.primalworks.com/thoughts/thought030630.html).

No reasonable human wants that.

Matthew 12:25. 'And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand'.

Little wonder so few people are willing to feel the feelings spawned by cognitive dissonance (http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm)

Philosophy works because people want answers. If you have no desire for answers, you may get to experience peace (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=peace) .

For the record, Phil Ivey is my favorite player. He lives here, now.