Metaphilosophy

There are four tenets to a good philosophy. It must be interesting and sincere, coherent, consistent, and truthful.

To be interesting and sincere, the philosophy must stem from personal experience. One must have a deep insight into what one philosophizes over, and one must have the ability to put the insight into words to some degree. Of course, regarding high, philosophical concepts, words often fail. Nevertheless, one must try to make the philosophy meaningful.

A philosophy being coherent stems from it being interesting and sincere. The words have to make some measure of logical sense. The sentences must relate to experiences that we can recognize. In short, the philosophy must be grounded in reality. Really, this is simply a check on the sincerity of the philosophy. If the philosophy stems from empirical observation, it is naturally coherent, because nature itself is coherency in the flesh.

There is only one way for a philosophy to be consistent: the philosophy cannot make unwarranted postulations. This requirement is intimately tied up with the other requirements, because if the philosophy is sincere and coherent, it must be consistent. If one sees a red ball on a table, one can use the fact, "I see a red ball on a table" to improve their philosophy; this would be a sincere, coherent, and consistent statement. (An interesting side-note: I do not, at this moment, see a red ball on a table. Did I have the right to write that sentence? Is it a legitimate observation? This would make a great debate. I hold that I do have the right to make counterfactual observations, because one way to define reality is by what it is not. Anyone care to take this on? You don't necessarily have to disagree either -- you could just expound upon the idea. But, I digress.) But one cannot take the extra step and say "life is like a red ball on a table" with no evidence, because that is an unwarranted postulation.

For a philosophy to be truthful, it must be the same as telling the truth. You have to actually believe what you are saying. It cannot be a lie.

A great philosophy, I believe, is humble. It states the facts, humbly, with no extra stuff that you just made up. It gives insight because of its simplicity. It is full of meaning, yet devoid of postulations. That is my philosophy of philosophy.

The Negative Magnolia

Searching, finding, classifying, using, reading, talking, reporting, sitting, standing, walking can all be done in entropy. This entropy has a dulling effect on the mind, like carbon dioxide has on the planet. Experience can be closed — it can exist inside a building with no windows. Keeping busy keeps you in the system; it keeps you indoors, breathing old air and reading yellow pages between musty book covers. I look for these things, like a bee looks for flowers.

The open door. It is defined by spacial constraints, but it is an anti-object. I walk outside: which brings the new. The sparkling air brings externalism — I feel fresh. I don't refer to internal things anymore. I don't refer to flowers within flowers. I can go inside an object, I can go through an anti-object. If you think about it, it's a beautiful thing — the door. It's a happy thing. If we had no doors, no cracks in the walls, we could have no objects. If we had no objects, we could have no doors. Really, looking through the anti-object is as beautiful as looking inside the object.

Forms of Moral and Immoral Thought

Much of the time moral thought is covered by mundane decisionmaking. Sometimes, when one thinks of moral issues, they reach an obstacle to further thought — or a moral dilemma. Moral dilemmas seem to come in four forms. These four forms are as follows:

The Brick Wall: Where one follows a line of reasoning, and wishes to continue, but there seems to be no logical next step following the end of a sequence of steps.

An example would be the moral idea that each step for world peace makes a difference, but no logical steps are available to take at the moment.

The Difficult Decision: Where two or more separate logical lines of reasoning about the same subject (or moral choice) seem to lead to opposing but equally valid conclusions with reference to their respective lines of reasoning.

An example would be the question: should I invest in the markets? Either yes because: by investing in morally sound ventures encourages moral thought, and it is analogous to giving a loan to someone--if someone just gives free money, that could engender the idea that one does not have to be responsible to society. Or, no because: the very idea of investment is based on greed--requiring that charity must be reciprocated is a greedy approach. By investing one only creates the cause for bad decisions based on greed.

The Fine Line: Where a set of moral choices with a high degree of similarity and exceedingly subtle distinctions lead to greatly different and opposed conclusions.

An example would be the role of advertising. Is it okay to make people want something? If one has the intention of creating an unhealthy system of dependence on the product in question, it could be bad. However, if one simply capitalizes on desires that are already there, it is just a natural outcome of people's desires and morally neutral.

The Empirical Scale: Where a moral choice changes based on the number of empirical observations that fall into different categories.

An example would be creating a large magazine for a certain medical disorder. If enough people have the disorder, this decision is justified. However, if only one or two people in the world have it, it's probably better for patients to rely on news from their doctors alone.

Thought that overturns moral decisionmaking generally comes in three forms. The three forms are as follows:

Moral Rationalization: Where one searches for and comes up with a moral line of reasoning specifically to justify an immoral act.

Moral Hesitation: Where one feels an urge to do a moral act, and suppresses it. Usually this is followed by Moral Rationalization.

Moral Overwhelming: Where a strong emotion such as anger or guilt overwhelms one's decisionmaking, causing one to make a bad decision.

As with any dilemma or problem, moral problems are solved with patience and methodological thought.

Thoughts on Religion

Question: What does your religion mean to you?

Answer: It means everything to me. It inspires me to benefit others, it gives me strength in times of doubt, it carries me through in times of trouble, it gives me the patience and fortitude to make great works of art, and it protects me from evil and hell. These things are what religion is for, and I encourage everyone to find these things in their religion.

Question: But, especially in some religions, these things can be so easily perverted into something which causes hate, intolerance, and violence. What should one do when religion leads them on this path?

Answer: Abandon it.

Question: Abandon it forever?

Answer: If something causes these negative things, it is not a true religion and is worthless. Sometimes the truth is buried deep in garbage. That doesn't mean the garbage should be taken as truth.