RE: Favorite Philosophers?
December 7, 2017 at 11:58 am
(This post was last modified: December 7, 2017 at 12:08 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
Oh yes definitely Bertrand Russell. I mustn't forget Bertie!
Oh and Socrates and Epicurus.
Also Karl Popper. Especially for his endorsement of negative utilitarianism.
And I guess one specific idea by Edmund Husserl had a bigger impact on my life than any other philosopher. He is the founder of phenomenology. And understanding phenomenology along with Kant's seperation of the phenomena and noumena, has influenced me more than anything else. By itself that idea allowed me to 100% avoid the paradox of hedonism forever.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_hedonism)
Which was the main source of my unhappiness, frustration, boredom, rumination, O.C.D. and excessive introspection for many years.
I also find desire utilitarianism/desirism that was founded by Alonzo Fyfe very interesting. Here's a FAQ about desirism:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2982
To sum it all up in my very standardized Hammy-like long-winded way: Overall my philosophy in general combines the ideas behind phenomenology founded by Husserl, and Kant's separation between the noumenal and phenomenal world, which is reminicent of Plato, but then I combine it with Aristotle's understanding that it's still all really one world really, just conceptualized in two different ways, although one half of it is not detectable by the senses, that's the point, and I combine that with Arthur Schopenhauer's agreement that Kant is basically right about most things but here are a few of his mistakes, and that it's ultimately one interconnected undifferentiated world, and nonexistence is impossible since nonexistence isn't a thing, it's simply that some things aren't existent there is no thing called nothing, and then I combine that with Schopenhauer's emphasis on compassion and an absence of free will, and that we're all connected, but in a non silly way, I also agree with Schopenhauer that music is the highest of all the arts because it is the most abstract and therefore the most original and purely emotional as opposed to representational, it comes more from within, how we feel, rather than from copying the world or writing about or making movies out of stuff that has already happened, etc, it also has a tempo that can sync up with your heart rate so that makes music emotional too. I also agree with Kant that lying is mostly just plain wrong, although I disagree 100% that it's wrong in spite of the consequences, I think it's wrong because of the consequences both to ourselves and others, and even white lies often do more harm in the long run than we like to admit. I think desires are relevant to ethics but suffering is more relevant, and I agree with Nietzsche over Schopenhauer when it comes to the fact that living life to the full is more important than turning away from the world. And I agree with Taurek that suffering cannot be aggregated and the numbers in and of themselves shouldn't count. I'm also a presentist. I guess I'm a phenomenological eternalist but the important thing is I acknowledge the noumena and say that real reality is changeless, all one connected thing made of many smaller parts, there is no true 100% empty space (if it's teeming with quantum activity . . . it's not empty space or "nothing") . . . so I am a noumenological presentist. And I also think that present experiences, memories and moments cannot be aggregated in one individual temporally any more than between separate individuals. Because every experience is like a separate individual really. We just tie that all together with our memories, our memories are what make us us, but we still only experience one experience or memory at a time. The baseline is important but acuteness is more important than chronicness. And we are often wrong about our own experiences and memories.
I also disagree that a genuine experience groundhog day, living the same day over and over, could ever be boring. Because the movie isn't a true example of groundhog day. As every day is slightly different because the protagonis remembers experiencing the day before, and he starts to get sick of it only because he remembers it. If he lived the same day over and over but had his memory wiped at the end of each day so it was like experiencing it for the first time every time... then even if he did that for all eternity that would be experientially identical to only living the day once. So things aren't boring because we do them over and over, things are boring because we remember already having done them over and over. And this is why identical experiences cannot be aggregated and why chronicness doesn't matter but acuteness does. Intensity and moments matter more than time and space.
Anyway that's that for now lol.
Oh and Socrates and Epicurus.
Also Karl Popper. Especially for his endorsement of negative utilitarianism.
And I guess one specific idea by Edmund Husserl had a bigger impact on my life than any other philosopher. He is the founder of phenomenology. And understanding phenomenology along with Kant's seperation of the phenomena and noumena, has influenced me more than anything else. By itself that idea allowed me to 100% avoid the paradox of hedonism forever.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_hedonism)
Which was the main source of my unhappiness, frustration, boredom, rumination, O.C.D. and excessive introspection for many years.
I also find desire utilitarianism/desirism that was founded by Alonzo Fyfe very interesting. Here's a FAQ about desirism:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2982
To sum it all up in my very standardized Hammy-like long-winded way: Overall my philosophy in general combines the ideas behind phenomenology founded by Husserl, and Kant's separation between the noumenal and phenomenal world, which is reminicent of Plato, but then I combine it with Aristotle's understanding that it's still all really one world really, just conceptualized in two different ways, although one half of it is not detectable by the senses, that's the point, and I combine that with Arthur Schopenhauer's agreement that Kant is basically right about most things but here are a few of his mistakes, and that it's ultimately one interconnected undifferentiated world, and nonexistence is impossible since nonexistence isn't a thing, it's simply that some things aren't existent there is no thing called nothing, and then I combine that with Schopenhauer's emphasis on compassion and an absence of free will, and that we're all connected, but in a non silly way, I also agree with Schopenhauer that music is the highest of all the arts because it is the most abstract and therefore the most original and purely emotional as opposed to representational, it comes more from within, how we feel, rather than from copying the world or writing about or making movies out of stuff that has already happened, etc, it also has a tempo that can sync up with your heart rate so that makes music emotional too. I also agree with Kant that lying is mostly just plain wrong, although I disagree 100% that it's wrong in spite of the consequences, I think it's wrong because of the consequences both to ourselves and others, and even white lies often do more harm in the long run than we like to admit. I think desires are relevant to ethics but suffering is more relevant, and I agree with Nietzsche over Schopenhauer when it comes to the fact that living life to the full is more important than turning away from the world. And I agree with Taurek that suffering cannot be aggregated and the numbers in and of themselves shouldn't count. I'm also a presentist. I guess I'm a phenomenological eternalist but the important thing is I acknowledge the noumena and say that real reality is changeless, all one connected thing made of many smaller parts, there is no true 100% empty space (if it's teeming with quantum activity . . . it's not empty space or "nothing") . . . so I am a noumenological presentist. And I also think that present experiences, memories and moments cannot be aggregated in one individual temporally any more than between separate individuals. Because every experience is like a separate individual really. We just tie that all together with our memories, our memories are what make us us, but we still only experience one experience or memory at a time. The baseline is important but acuteness is more important than chronicness. And we are often wrong about our own experiences and memories.
I also disagree that a genuine experience groundhog day, living the same day over and over, could ever be boring. Because the movie isn't a true example of groundhog day. As every day is slightly different because the protagonis remembers experiencing the day before, and he starts to get sick of it only because he remembers it. If he lived the same day over and over but had his memory wiped at the end of each day so it was like experiencing it for the first time every time... then even if he did that for all eternity that would be experientially identical to only living the day once. So things aren't boring because we do them over and over, things are boring because we remember already having done them over and over. And this is why identical experiences cannot be aggregated and why chronicness doesn't matter but acuteness does. Intensity and moments matter more than time and space.
Anyway that's that for now lol.
![[Image: nkjdachvtkv8hcv5kz20.jpg]](https://images.moviepilot.com/image/upload/c_fill,h_470,q_auto:good,w_620/nkjdachvtkv8hcv5kz20.jpg)
![[Image: nL4L1haz_Qo04rZMFtdpyd1OZgZf9NSnR9-7hAWT...dc2a24480e]](https://external-preview.redd.it/nL4L1haz_Qo04rZMFtdpyd1OZgZf9NSnR9-7hAWTNVY.jpg?width=216&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=7b11e8b38bea0eacc8797fc971574ddc2a24480e)
