The daisies-watcher!
Hi steemers! (is that the proper form of address? maybe steemies? steemians? homo steemiens?)
I already posted 3 articles before writing this introduction, and they may say more about me than this post will.
I’m interested in all things under the sun, but sadly the pressures of time mean I have to prioritize. I made my choice when I decided to become a philosopher, seeing as philosophy is the discipline that, compared to all others, mostly embodies the all-things-under-the-sun ideal.
My interests are varied, so I don’t know exactly what I’ll be posting about. For now, I chose to rehash some content from a book I wrote, based on my diary entries, called The Meaning of Life . In my opinion, it’s the only systematic and genuine theory about the meaning of life out there. I can make this confident statement, because so little has been written about the meaning of life that it’s easy to form informed and confident opinions on the matter! For example, right now, there’s basically just one professional philosopher in the whole Anglo-Saxon tradition dealing mostly exclusively with the topic of the meaning of life, and his name is Thaddeus Metz . His name alone sounds cool to me for some reason, so I’m glad to be in the same lonely crowd as him!
My main gripe with what analytic philosophers are doing, is that they seem to be drawing inspiration almost exclusively from ethics, and applying similar tools and reasoning to the meaning of life question, thus basically making the meaning of life a subdiscipline of ethics; whereas I on the other hand am trying to do the reverse, in fact not only subordinating ethics to the meaning of life, but possibly other areas too, such as epistemology.
“Philosophical discussions concerning the meaning of life do not reflect the question’s centrality. Though the question is fundamental, discussions of it are mostly derivative: I have encountered nothing in them that I have not met before in some treatise about ethics. It is my conviction, that a real discussion of the meaning of life ought to serve as the basis rather than a mere offshoot of ethics.” - MOL, p. 45
My main goal here will be to try and provide original content. I’ve only been here a few days, and most articles I've read with the philosophy tag are highly plagiaristic, really more like summaries, like someone at school who was told to sum up a book he read in 500 words. I click on an alphabetically adjacent tag, the photography tag, whenever I want to see something that is truly original, in its own humble way, and regain hope in steemankind!
That is all! Thanks for reading!
Welcome to Steemit @alexander.alexis :)
Make sure to participate in this weeks giveaway to get known in the community!
Here are some helpful resources to get you started:
If you find this bot helpful, give it an upvote! It will continue to upvote introduction posts. Your upvote will give it more power in that. If you think you have something all new users should know, please tell.
Welcome to Steem @alexander.alexis I have sent you a tip
Welcome to steemit, happy to have you here
I am @alienposts , my real name is achraf :)
Checkout my blog posts, Enjoy your time here and let's get this party started :)
Excellent! Now I almost know everything about you :)
:P
welcome alexander.alexis to the community, follow me @jzeek and i will do the same in return thanks.
Hello there @alexander.alexis and welcome to Steemit! I just upvoted you!! I hope you enjoy your time here and make lots of $$$. If you're interested in lotteries, please check my profile out @steemitlotteries. I run FULLY TRANSPARENT LOTTERIES with promotional posts where I issue FREE TICKETS for those who help me curate my promotions. All the best! :)
Welcome to the platform, I wish everything work out for you. It’s not easy here but not difficult neither but just ask an extra effort, engagement is the key good luck I’m @goodaytraders Start by following people and they will do the same.
Welcome to Steemit! I hope you will enjoy it as much as I do! :-)
Look into meaningness.com
My take is a combination of Buddhism and existentialism... And not necessarily any form of either. Of the existentialists, I'd say Shestov and Heidegger are my favorite. Of the various forms of Buddhism, probably Rinzai Zen and vajrayana Buddhism of the Aro lineage. Meaningness approaches the meaning of life from Aro Buddhism, and it's probably the best reflection of my overall view. I don't think Western philosophy can solve the problem, because it's attached to over thinking, and the practice of meditation to free your mind from addiction to thoughts is essential.
Just looked at Thaddeus Metz's article on the meaning of life, it's very incomplete and makes some bad assumptions. I don't think you can assume that God is supernatural. God is an idea that is anthropologically and psychologically useful and reflects the potential of the unknown as interpreted by the system 1 mind. It's possible to practice multiple religions without literal belief, and it's even possible to have faith without belief, when you take faith to be the experience of overwhelming feeling of awe of the unknown unknowns, like from a strong acid trip, rather than as blind belief in ridiculous axioms. This is the position of Shestov and Zen: radical empiricism beyond the domain of the rational mind. This is evident from the practice of observing the rising and fading of your thoughts, no woowoo assumptions required. In fact, my rejection of rationalism is out of skepticism. It makes assumptions that fail to hold up to observational evidence.
Just saw this comment of yours!
Well, you have to admit Metz's point of view is the more common point of view, right? I grew up in a predominantly religious (Christian Orthodox) culture, and I never heard any religious person here describe his faith the way you just did! (or, rather, 4 days ago!) They do have blind faith in ridiculous axioms, and they do think matter is fundamentally different from the stuff our soul is made of. So I think Metz is describing the predominant view in our western culture, and in that sense I don't know that he's so wrong in assigning God to the supernatural category. Doubtless, a proper explanation of why he did it would have to be more thorough, but then there's the word limit...
Nice page! Superficially it reminds me of my own book in parts. Once you get into the nuts and bolts it's quite different. It would be interesting to read the whole thing as soon as I find the time.
Buddhism has some awesome insights, but in its essence I think it's wrong. I will be discussing it later, but it's in the latter parts of the book so it might be a while!
I don't much like the word existentialism unless it's just used superficially. Because every single existentialist has different views on things, and the guy who started it all - Nietzsche by most accounts - has nothing to do with the ones who came later (in my opinion).
Heidegger, I'll be frank, 80% of what he says I don't understand! Certain things he says that I can understand are, as in Buddhism, great insights. But I often suspect - or worry - he's to a large extent a quack.
Just a side-note: I'm Greek. In Being and Time, he gets every single Greek translation wrong. I don't get that. It might be because he's trying to use the Greek passages as a springboard for his own ideas, but then he does make historical claims that are supposed to be authentic, not just metaphor. Anyway...
I practice meditation - just 10 minutes a day though! Very lazily Western!
Hmm interesting note on Heidegger getting Greek wrong. I find Heidegger to be one of the most Buddhist Western philosophers, and I think he would have done far better had he written in Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese, or Japanese. Same for Nietzsche. Most who were influenced by Heidegger seem to be terrible. Nietzsche's Superman should actually be interpreted as bodhisattva; his ideas are almost identical to tantra. The best philosophers in recent years are Nassim Taleb and Jordan Peterson.
How 'bout Schopenhauer? He was more avowedly Buddhist.
I started off with atheist skeptical empiricism. Schopenhauer is good, but still too metaphysical. I would say Taleb, Kahneman, and Spengler were the first big game changers for me, and currently I identify the most with Shestov, tantra, and Zen, all of which most people greatly misunderstand. I'd say Hume and Darwin are more authentically Buddhist than Schopenhauer.
Ok I get what you mean. You basically see Buddhism etc. as very realist-empiricist views of the world. .. Not the way I see them though. Science didn't flourish with them for a reason. They seek to conquer things with their mind instead of with their hands, if I may put it that way. But anyways, that's a talk for another day/post!
Looking forward to reading more original philosophical musings from you