Skip to content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Add
About | Wiki | Legacy

Philosophy of life

4 replies [Last post]
User offline. Last seen 7 years 21 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-08-23

I have updated ‘Philosophy of life’ section in the booklet titled ‘Philosophy of life and other essays’ located at following URL,

http://www.angelfire.com/ex/bjgupta/Booklet.htm

May I look for its review by honorable members of the forum.

Regards,

(B.J. Gupta)

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 weeks 17 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
Hi B.J., I've just read it

Hi B.J.,

I've just read it and I think it's an interesting brief exposition of thoughts and there are some in my opinion good thoughts in it.

Regarding chance in life or "luck" I've recently written an article that is relevant to that called "Success, Failure and what has Luck to do with it". I think chance or luck are nothing but "unknown causes" among overall cause and effect chains. Thinking of it this way should encourage one to be more observant or aware of what's going on around him in order to know more of the causes of the effects he or she undergoes in life.

Regarding humans being social animals I would agree, but I don't see this as necessarily contradictory to being "self made". If a human individual has a natural tendency to live socially and therefore interact with other people and grow as a result then this characteristic is a part of that individual's "self". It is still that individual who chooses how and with whom to interact. Life is a string of choices. These choices are what ultimately leads to experiences that shape him or her. Since these choices are made by his or her self, he or her can still be considered "self made", even if his actions involved interacting with others.

That's one popular misconception which I think is quite fallacious and dangerous; that there is some sort of a dichotomy between individual and the society, or that they are in any way at odds. Society is nothing but an abstract concept for a multiple of individuals, multiple selves.

Regarding morality being against following self interest and acting in somebody elses interest I would disagree there. Morality is certainly most relevant when interacting with other people, but if it requires self sacrifice then what it's really about is a sacrifice of an entire society because the society consists of many of "self". This leads essentially to self repression and self destruction. Instead, I think morality is about naturally enforced reciprocity, a natural balance that emerges when individuals stop denying themselves. Do onto others as you would others do onto you. That's the reciprocity. If everyone realizes that what they give they may receive then they will give in kind to what they wish to receive. If you do not want to be stolen from then don't steal. If you don't want to be killed don't kill. From this two moral statements already emerge for you then: "you shall not steal" and "you shall not kill".

Of course some people will steal and expect others not to steal from them, but if those who are to be stolen from can defend themselves then the thief already faces tremendous danger and disincentive from stealing.

I think both "a" and "b" among your three ways of promoting morality apply at the same time. And I am staunchly opposed to "c" because those "regulatory controls" are established by human individuals just like you and me so who gives them the right to make the rules? And if it is human individuals whose morality we control doesn't the same apply to the rule makers? That doesn't work and never really did (hence why politicians tend to be so massively corrupt, why wars are fought and why poverty persists). Concern for others can come from within as soon as we promote understanding of value. Since we all need to survive and wish to prosper we pretty much depend on other people (division of labor, free market as the more efficient means of creating prosperity) so caring for what other people want so that we may apply our talents and interests to produce it becomes an integral part of our self interest. I don't think "morality in your self interest" is intrinsically tied to religion.

Finally, speaking of religion.. I am an atheist yet I don't find my life purposeless as you seem to be saying. I think each individual can give his life purpose on his own, regardless of whether there is a god or any kind of out worldly force. I am spiritual though, even as an atheist, in that I worship the natural harmony of the universe and desire to align myself to that harmony by living a life without self contradiction, self repression and self delusion because nothing in nature denies its existence as itself.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. Let me know what you think.

All in all though, that was an interesting booklet.

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

User offline. Last seen 7 years 21 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-08-23
Reply to Libervisco

Thanks Libervisco for reviewing my message. Pl note my following observations to your comments,
1. "Regarding humans being social animals I would agree, but I don't see this as necessarily contradictory to being "self made". "
I wanted to say that many of us normally attribute our failures to society but do not give due credit to the society for the success. Hope you will agree.

2. "And I am staunchly opposed to "c" because those "regulatory controls" are established by human individuals just like you and me so who gives them the right to make the rules?"
Inspite of limitations ,noted by you , of method 'c', it seems to be only method available. Right to make rule is given by society we make.

3. "I am an atheist yet I don't find my life purposeless as you seem to be saying"
I was expressing views of theists who think that what is left if 'God' is not there for you.

Regards,

(B.J. Gupta)

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 weeks 17 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
> I wanted to say that many

> I wanted to say that many of us normally attribute our failures to society but do not give due credit to the society for the success. Hope you will agree.

I agree. We wouldn't be who we are without influence of other people and society is nothing more than "other people".

> Inspite of limitations ,noted by you , of method 'c', it seems to be only method available. Right to make rule is given by society we make.

Actually I think the method "b" seems better and I just think it shouldn't be cast away too soon. I don't think method "b" is dependent on religion at all. Just as an atheist can be spiritual so can he understand that caring for other people can and is in his self interest. Combine that with private self defense from those who fail to respect other people's rights and you've got all the enforcement you need. No need for "c".

> I was expressing views of theists who think that what is left if 'God' is not there for you.

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

User offline. Last seen 7 years 21 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-08-23
New sections added in ‘Philosophy of life and other essays"

Dear Members,

I have added two more sections viz “What is philosophy?” and “What is philosophy of
Life?” in the booklet.

I would appreciate your review and feedback.

Regards,

(B.J. Gupta)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.