What is your (current) philosophy?

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Dyakson
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:28 pm UTC
Location: Parish of St Albion

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Dyakson » Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:40 am UTC

I don't know if this is 'philosophy' but my most recent Profound Thought Of The Week is:

Reality may be absolute, but what people have in their heads is an approximation to reality, and everyone's using a different approximation.

What is 'philosophy' anyway? I thought the word is Greek for 'love of learning'. If that's the definition of 'philosophy' then I've always been a philosopher, but the stuff I've been learning about is man-made systems and physical laws and maths and history and stuff like that, not patterns of thought or outlooks on life.

Yes I could look it up on Wikipedia but I'm just about to leave this chair and get out of the house, and Wikipedia takes much longer than that...
Дяксон
Can't actually speak Russian

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Quixotess » Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:12 am UTC

EasyLite wrote:I think people who call themself atheists are a bit hypocritical, since they unconditionally believe in something and they criticize religions for doing exactly the same.


Er...no. There are several types of atheism. Some of us argue that because a universe with a God requires more explanation than a universe without a God, it makes more sense to believe that there is not a God, unless we are presented with evidence otherwise. Some of us are certain that God will never be proven one way or the other, but choose to believe that there is not a God. I've never heard of an atheist who is certain they can prove God's nonexistence (i.e., believes that they *can* know and *do* know that God does not exist), although I suppose there might be some out there. Please don't misrepresent atheism.

As for my philosophy:

I do not believe in a God or gods or first mover or anything like that. I don't really believe that humans have souls. But I do believe that somehow humanity has become more than the sum of its parts--sort of a transcendentalist belief, I suppose. I picture it as each human interaction creating...light, like a spark, and I think we have done enough for there to be a flame that sustains itself. But it came from within us, not from without like a God.

Every once in a while I have a flash of "life is but a dream", but that usually happens when my life is sucking, so that may just be a defense mechanism. Like "what does it really matter if I don't get into college?" kind of thing.
Raise up the torch and light the way.

ErrantBit
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:53 am UTC

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby ErrantBit » Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:08 am UTC

I think the point was that the comment, "Don't blow anything up or be a douchebag," looks suspiciously like it comes from a philosophical position. Unless you are saying it to avoid being blown up yourself. Which I guess is possible.

My philosophical thinking tends to degenerate into me attempting to rationalize utilitarianism, or attempting to rationalize my actions from the standpoint of utilitarianism (I'm not exactly helping starving children in Africa).

I believe that logic is consistent, and that logical tautologies are true. I believe that there is a consistent w-logic extending PA. I believe that while my perceptions cannot be trusted, my ability to reason can. I believe that the simplest explanation is the most likely to yield accurate predictions in the future.

Farfetchedchild
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:00 pm UTC

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Farfetchedchild » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:51 pm UTC

Hmmm... my current philosophy? I guess I have a bundle of ideas that could be called that... lol.
Well, as to God:
I think that knowing if God exists is not possible. By known standards I don't think it is possible for God to exist, but God would be outside of known standards, so I don't know how far those can go here. So, if God follows logic, then God can't exist, obviously. If God doesn't follow logic, we can't know anything about Him with any definitiveness. For an example on how God can't exist under logic think of cause and effect. God would, by most definitions, be the one to 'create' spacetime. To create anything, one must be causing that creation. In order to have cause and effect, there must already be time. Therefore, it is impossible to create time. This doesn't say anything for sure though, as if neither God nor Time can be created outside of time, then creation is not necessary. So God isn't necessary. I'm assuming God would have to be outside of time to fit His definition. Time and God could have existed independently, and by this line of thought would have to. God would seem to have to be within the limits of time, come to think of it, at least to do anything within time. Anyway... just rambling so I'll move on.
Reality:
From there I think that infinite realities may exist, that maybe if something can exist, it must on some plane of existence or other. Due to the nature of measurement and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle I don't see how one can avoid infinity to the second power when counting time. On a given line there is an infinite amount of points, although a finite amount of measurable points. Consider time a line, infinite or not. Between points 1 and 2 there must be an infinite number of other points. This sounds like kind of a spin off from Zenos Paradox, but it is a bit different. Between 1 and 2 there is 1 ½. Between 1 and 1 ½ there is 1 ¼ and so on. Not quite a paradox because you can have an infinite amount in a finite set. Look at the theories of the universe for one. Anyway, statistically if something that is possible is given an infinite amount of time it must happen. Isn't there an infinite amount of time between any two given points on a time line? Almost any geometrical way of looking at time finds this that I know of. So does this mean that every possible thing that can happen must happen? It is all given an infinite amount of time isn't it? If our time line is infinite our finite set contains an infinite series and if it is infinite our infinite contains an infinite. Infinity to the 2nd power in that case for sure (see transinfinite numbers and Cantor (the mathematician)). Doesnt this point to infinite dimensions then? Everything possible is happening on some plane of existence or other. Some brane of existence maybe. But this goes back to what is possible. Say there is only one possible sequence of events. Then, this simplifies things, if not solves all their problems. Ironic if fate is the solving factor. But if not if there is no fate then does free will and our experiences simply average all the possibilities? As in is this world an average of all of our different choices made in the infinite other dementions. (Can you average infinity?... that is a whole other subject.) Or do we just exist on one of those multidimensional planes. Once time is measured to a certain point we come to Planck units of time. The time it takes light to travel across one Planck distance unit. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle proves measurement not possible beyond this point. This just makes uncertainty not nonexistence. Picture it as a larger version of Schrodinger's cat. At a given moment we are alive, dead, jumping up and down, playing football, and all while eating a sandwich. Given free will at least. Of course this is all just immeasurable not necessary I suppose. One has to be an infinite distance away from something to get an accurate measurement. The solution to the Zeno Paradox may prove this wrong, idk... I still have the idea wedged into my mind, though. ( This makes me think of irrational numbers... if they go on with no pattern forever, shouldn't the 'forever' part make them develop a pattern? or can this not happen because it's 'not possible'?). Thats probably wrong, though, due to the same reasons they solved the Zeno paradox (could someone please explain the solution to me so that I can get this idea out of my head if it is illogical... idk if its exactly the same... and I think it has some other elements I may go into in a bit).
Well, thats my basic view on reality. Now for the definitions we put on it...
Other stuff:
I think that every view one can have of reality is clouded by the fact we are perceiving it. Logic contradicts itself and things kind of break into nothing. One must be an infinite distance from something to accurately precieve it. If we define reality, there is no way to know the accuracy of our definitions. Change the lens on a microscope and you change what you see. Of course, there are other things than site... but hopefully you get the idea. Its not so much that perception is reality, but more that its the only reality that really counts in the end. Kind of like something I wrote at one point:

"There is no logical or emotion reason for life. There is only bullshit. This said bullshit is a tool from which we craft religion and faith and hope. This bullshit keeps us breathing. It is an evolved creature. A bio-instinct. This creature has no mind. It has no feelings. It has only a purpose. Its purpose is to exist. And since it exists, so must we."

By this I meant something like: People need a reason to live and reproduce. It's build into us. Whatever we happen to make up is "bullshit". Our "manifest destiny" instinct in life for example. Our need to grow and change as an individual is another. None of these things are necessarily bad, but nothing is necessary. Anything we term as "necessary" is just another "bullshit" concept. Out of Nothing we must create an Idea. Often, this Idea is clouded by it's Ideal counterpart. "Bullshit" is simply a term I use to distinguish anything distinguishable in life. As said, "bullshit" is not negative. Well, so far as we ignore that the concept of negative is "bullshit".
I think that Nothing is non-existant... I mean... once something is defined as nothing... it is something. It has definition. If it is without definition, it is without perception, it is nothing. Nothing, that we know of, is without perception, therefore... logically... nothing is only theoretical. Even though it is non-existant of course. The non-existance of nothing just proves my point.... Kind of a double negative type of thing don't you think? Or maybe just a paradox....
I basically think that since reality can have no real meaning, that we have to give it a meaning. My meaning is just to learn and experience as much as I can... hopefully in a way as painless as possible, but the pain is part of learning.
Please argue against my ideas if you disagree, I like to have my ideas proven wrong, it helps me to develop my philosophies. If you agree... comment too... it makes me feel special... Looking back on this it turned out a bit long, so I'm sorry...

User avatar
errrr
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:18 pm UTC
Location: Swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby errrr » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:22 pm UTC

ErrantBit wrote:My philosophical thinking tends to degenerate into me attempting to rationalize utilitarianism, or attempting to rationalize my actions from the standpoint of utilitarianism (I'm not exactly helping starving children in Africa).


Yeah, I know what you mean. I think this illustrates pretty well what the "your philosophy doesn't really matter" camp is saying.

ErrantBit wrote:I believe that logic is consistent, and that logical tautologies are true.


Well, logic almost never maps to reality exactly. Don't get me wrong, I still think it's neat as a tool and as a common language for mathematics, but I question its value to find "universal truths" about reality.

ErrantBit wrote:I believe that there is a consistent w-logic extending PA.

Do you mean this one? Seems a bit impractical to me, with single deduction steps being apparently undecidable :)

ErrantBit wrote:I believe that while my perceptions cannot be trusted, my ability to reason can.


This I really disagree with :) One can easily fool himself with subtly flawed logic (usually motivated by emotions. Intelligence doesn't save one from this.). That's why I think "Don't be an ass" is a pretty good personal system of ethics; it's just more fault-tolerant. It's still hard to put into practice, though.
"The Internet being what it is, absolutely anything might show up in the collage including -- quite possibly -- pornography, or even nudity." (xscreensaver/webcollage docs)

User avatar
Jjarro
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:29 am UTC
Location: Arvada Colorado, U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Jjarro » Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:30 am UTC

Saying that you don't have a philosophy is like saying that you don't have a biology.
You might not study philosophy OR biology, but you have them. You don't even need to be deeply aware of or interested in their workings to understand this – a cursory inspection will do.

Royall, you have a quote from Anthem in your sig. Beautiful as that book is, have you read any other work by that author? Such as Philosophy: Who Needs It? I ask because one of the basic conclusions of that collection of essays is that philosophy is a vital and unavoidable part of conscious existence.

A quick outing to Google turned up the title essay, in the form of a transcript of the speech Ayn Rand gave the graduating class at Westpoint in 1974. It's among my favorite of her nonfiction works. (This, by the way, is excellent reading for anyone with any level of interest in philosophical exploration.)

The now-forgotten musician Robin Field said it well:
Robin Field wrote:"Everyone has a philosophy/whether he knows it or not
some people fancy philosophy/some think it isn't so hot
theirs they believe is to follow it/not to agree or oppose
their only choice is to swallow it/wincing and holding their nose
most people feel that philsophy's/something they can't understand
so they abosorb their philosophies/out of the culture at hand
letting it dictate propriety/dictate what's false and what's true
leaving the job to society/as if society knew
why should you study philosophy/with all there is to pursue
simply because your philosophy/underlies all that you do
why bother checking your premises/why should you make that a goal
premises can be your nemesis/if they're not under control"


... I wish that man had a children's show. He sings songs about cause and effect, and non-contradiction. The non-contradiction one is titled "A is A" and is a rambunctious ditty about an argument between Plato and Aristotle. The entire album "Reason in Rhyme" was dedicated to dealing with philosophy in poetry and song.

Anyway, my philosophy is probably better represented by the various other works I've sited than by my own attempts to sum it up in a forum post. I suppose a brief excerpt from Philosophy: Who Needs It will serve my purpose.

Ayn Rand wrote:"[my goal]...is not to sell you on my philosophy, but on philosophy as such. I have, however, been speaking implicitly of my philosophy in every sentence--since none of us and no statement can escape from philosophical premises. What is my selfish interest in the matter? I am confident enough to think that if you accept the importance of philosophy and the task of examining it critically, it is my philosophy that you will come to accept. Formally, I call it Objectivism, but informally I call it a philosophy for living on earth."

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:36 am UTC

Universe and earth exist, evolution exist, origin of life cannot be adequately explained at this time.

Strive to be happy and not to impede the happiness of others.

Its really short, but if everyone behaved like that, it would be a happy happy happy world.

User avatar
Wayward
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 7:10 am UTC
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Wayward » Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:47 am UTC

N/A.

Or rather- I've not felt the need to have one. Moral and ethical code I have, a guess at what I should do with my life I have, but a philosophy? I'd rather just live, and not go waxing lyrical about it.
Don't be mean.

User avatar
Jjarro
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:29 am UTC
Location: Arvada Colorado, U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Jjarro » Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:11 am UTC

To people who are replying that they don't have/don't need a philosophy:

Would you agree that what you are essentially saying is "I have never consistently thought about my choices in an intellectual way, working from premises that I have considered"?

User avatar
Wayward
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 7:10 am UTC
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Wayward » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:28 am UTC

Jjarro wrote:To people who are replying that they don't have/don't need a philosophy:

Would you agree that what you are essentially saying is "I have never consistently thought about my choices in an intellectual way, working from premises that I have considered"?




No. NO, even. Just because you don't feel the need to put your thoughts into order doesn't mean they don't exist, you know? Ideas sometimes just float around, and pinning them down and labeling them a philosophy seems pointless and depressing.

So, I neither need, want nor have a philosophy.
Don't be mean.

User avatar
Jjarro
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:29 am UTC
Location: Arvada Colorado, U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Jjarro » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:47 am UTC

It seems to me, then, that our disagreement comes from differing definitions of personal philosophy. I define "having a philosophy" as having feelings on who you are and what the world is, how you know these things, and what's right, what's wrong.

My opinion is that if you give these things active thought and mental attention, you are less likely to carry contradictions and false premises. Because of this, I like to encourage philosophy as a study.

It would seem (and I am admittedly reaching here, please correct me) that your definition of a philosophy is something like "a defined/published system of thought that has been adopted as the truth." If this is the case, then when you say you don't have a philosophy, you're more disagreeing with my definition than anything else, I suppose. My point is that you think, make moral decisions and integrate information into a larger structure. These are among the functions of a philosophy, and I argue that you have one, tended to or not.

User avatar
Wayward
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 7:10 am UTC
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Wayward » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:55 am UTC

Jjarro wrote:It seems to me, then, that our disagreement comes from differing definitions of personal philosophy. I define "having a philosophy" as having feelings on who you are and what the world is, how you know these things, and what's right, what's wrong.

My opinion is that if you give these things active thought and mental attention, you are less likely to carry contradictions and false premises. Because of this, I like to encourage philosophy as a study.

It would seem (and I am admittedly reaching here, please correct me) that your definition of a philosophy is something like "a defined/published system of thought that has been adopted as the truth." If this is the case, then when you say you don't have a philosophy, you're more disagreeing with my definition than anything else, I suppose. My point is that you think, make moral decisions and integrate information into a larger structure. These are among the functions of a philosophy, and I argue that you have one, tended to or not.



Yes, I think you're right. We're defining philosophy differently. But under your definition, I suppose I do have one.
Don't be mean.

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby segmentation fault » Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:53 pm UTC

id like to think everything happens for a reason, and that everything will be okay.

but its just even more depressing that i have to think that.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
quotefall
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:49 pm UTC
Location: Toledo, OH
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby quotefall » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:08 pm UTC

The only philosophy I've figured out thus far is that I hate douchebaggery, and so it is one of my missions in life to be nice to be nice, courteous, and chivalrous to everyone that I can in order to help cancel some of it out.
~Quotefall

"Catch on fire and people will come for miles to see you burn."

This is the job of our government, to enforce the will of the majority without impugning the rights of the minority.

Antifish
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:47 am UTC

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Antifish » Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:35 pm UTC

I believe that there is an absolute universe, and that it is absolutely impossible to know it. Perspectiveism- you can't see a situation without your own position in the issue coloring what you perceive. This leads to a conclusion along the lines of 'What i believe is true, holds true for me, what you believe is true, holds true for you'. I don't believe in an deity that has any resemblance to man (on a side note, when i'm feeling spiritual, I can occasionally see a deity as a force, but not as a personality). However, a devote christian believes in a deity that created man in it's own image. For all intents in purposes, to the christian, their beliefs are true. All data points to it, any data that does not mesh can be understood as 'god works in mysterious ways/ a test of faith'. For me, i believe that i take all evidence at it's face value- but, should the christian be right and myself wrong, that's hardly true.

It's all relative.

This is what i really, at my core, believe. I always allow that any thing i hold true might be wrong. I believe it's impossible to argue someone out of their worldview. This really sucks sometimes, because it doesn't grant much certainty.

I'm also a functionalist- i have no idea if this is a philosophy or not, but the word sounds right for how i work with the world. I don't argue with others, since i don't believe i can convince someone their wrong that way. I am nice and go out of my way to help others, because it makes my life easier. Rather then working on grand, ethical ideals, my day to day life goes by something like 'what works best?'.

In that vein, I'm also a determinism- the universe is a function of cause and effect. Everything happened for a reason, and given the conditions things are, there is only one possible outcome. If their appears to be more, then you just don't have enough information.- My analogy has always been, present anyone with a choice. Now, based on their past experiences, their world view, their current emotion, they will have to pick one option. Noone makes 'real' decisions based on coin tosses or dice rolls.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby TheAmazingRando » Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:07 am UTC

I honestly think that, for the most part, the only thing a high philosophy has any influence on is the discussion of philosophy. I described myself as a "lazy theistic existentialist," but I think most people (at least most reasonable people) fall into the "lazy" category. In day to day life, most people don't think about the philosophical influence of their actions. We just do what we feel like doing, we do things that benefit ourselves, maybe we have some empathy and do things that benefit other people.

I don't think most things people do are actually affected at all by philosophy. I can be existentialist, you can be a nihilist, there may be a determinist over in that corner, and a pragmatist over there, and maybe this person here believes in universal truth and morality, maybe this one is an absolute solipsist. It really doesn't matter, if you put us all in a room and shuffle us around you probably won't be able to see any difference based on our philosophies. We may act differently, but we're all capable of mostly the same things within our own philosophies. We could all, for example, choose to help other people, though possibly for different reasons. We can all act selfishly. If there's little discernible difference between people of different philosophies, based on their philosophy, outside of the discussion of philosophy, then why does it really matter?

So it's perfectly easy to not have a philosophy, at least not any sort of thought out philosophy. You could call "hell, I'll just live my life how I want and maybe try to help people" a philosophy, I guess, but that's not the same as searching for meaning in various places or complicated musings on the nature of humanity.

It's only the extreme actions that make a philosophy really different than any others, but I'm having trouble thinking of just about anything that can be absolutely excluded from any strong philosophy. I could believe I make my own meaning in life, you could believe there is a pre-existing purpose all people in life should follow, either way it will only affect the actions we take, and each could affect our actions in ways that completely overlap, so the philosophies themselves have no practical value, if both can reach each other's conclusions. If both can be identical, it makes just as much practical sense to hold to neither and not bother thinking about it.

Philosophy is great if you like discussing philosophy, but I don't buy that it is necessary or even beneficial in everyday life. It ultimately comes down to discussing unprovable concepts, and entertaining utterly ridiculous ones, which can be fun, but aren't necessarily of great significance. Only the weakest aspects of philosophy (do good vs. do evil, self vs. others, seeking knowledge, seeking power) have any tangible effect, and those are decisions that are mostly made subconsciously. I don't see putting them into words, or finding out how a higher philosophy may fit them (and, again, just about any higher philosophy can fit all possibilities) is important. It's fun, it can be a good mental exercise, but I wouldn't say it's important.

So that's my...philosophy on philosophy?

User avatar
yy2bggggs
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:42 am UTC

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby yy2bggggs » Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:11 pm UTC

TheAmazingRando essentially wrote:I honestly think that, for the most part, the only thing critical thinking has any influence on is the discussion of things. I described myself as a "lazy thinker holding some particular opinions," but I think most people (at least most reasonable people) fall into the "lazy" category. In day to day life, most people don't think of their actions. We just do what we feel like doing, we do things that benefit ourselves, maybe we have some empathy and do things that benefit other people.

I don't think most things people do are actually affected at all by critical thought. I can be existentialist, you can be a nihilist, there may be a determinist over in that corner, and a pragmatist over there, and maybe this person here believes in universal truth and morality, maybe this one is an absolute solipsist. It really doesn't matter, if you put us all in a room and shuffle us around you probably won't be able to see any difference based on our shirt color. We may act differently, but we're all basically doing stuff. We could all, for example, choose to help other people, though possibly for different reasons. We can all act selfishly. If there's little difference between people that I can see, based on the amount of thought they apply, outside of the discussion of things, why should we even bother?

So it's perfectly easy to not think, or at least not have any sort of thing thought out. You could call "hell, I'll just live my life how I want and maybe try to help people" a thought, I guess, but that's not the same as figuring out what really matters in various places or complicated musings on the nature of humanity.

It's only the extreme actions that make any conclusion really different than any others, but I'm having trouble justifying thinking of just about anything that can be absolutely excluded from any deeply thought out position. I could believe I make my own meaning in life, you could believe there is a pre-existing purpose all people in life should follow, either way it will only affect the stuff we do, and each could affect things we do in such a way that we might do the same thing, so the thoughts themselves have no practical value, since we both may have reached the same conclusion about some matter. If both conclusions can be identical, it makes just as much practical sense to hold to neither and not bother thinking about it.

Critical thinking is great if you like thinking, but I don't buy that it is necessary or even beneficial in everyday life. It ultimately comes down to discussing concepts, and considering non-obvious things, which can be fun, but aren't necessarily of great significance. Only the weakest aspects of conclusions (do good vs. do evil, self vs. others, seeking knowledge, seeking power) have any tangible effect, and those are things we have to do anyway because we have to be doing something. I don't see putting them into actual thoughts, or finding out how it rationally holds true (and, again, just about any rationalization can be held) is important. It's fun, it can be a good mental exercise, but I wouldn't say it's important.

So that's my...thought on thinking?

If philosophy (φιλοσοφία) means "love of wisdom", what does it mean to argue against it?

Edit: Per request, I bolded what was different, but the underlined stuff I didn't have to change.
Last edited by yy2bggggs on Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:01 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Image

Antifish
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:47 am UTC

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Antifish » Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:16 pm UTC

I disagree with you on that 'only the weakest aspects have value' argument.

A philosophy is a world view. How you think things really work, how you value stuff. Your relationship with the universe. Now, in abstract that can be argued in ways that seem tangential to everyday value, but understanding how you or other people see the world is a pretty vital component of daily life

And also, critical thinking is pretty damn beneficial to everyday life. Comparative shopping, consideration of your actions, politics.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby TheAmazingRando » Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

@yy2bggggs:
I did not "essentially" write that.
There are differences between philosophy and critical thinking. Replacing "philosophy" with "critical thinking" changes the nature and meaning of my argument. I think critical thinking is incredibly important, but there are plenty of ways to think critically without going for the unprovable meaning of existence. How is, say, analyzing the effects of a given situation, not making stupid decisions, things that actually have a tangible benefit, the same as existentialism vs. nihilism. vs. solipsism vs. determinism?

Do you actually have anything to say about the bulk of what I wrote or would you prefer to misinterpret it? I would also appreciate it if you would make it a little more obvious (bolding changes?) that you edited my post in your quotation, lest people read your version of it and think that's what I actually wrote.

@Antifish:
But if almost all aspects of daily life can be the same regardless of that worldview, why does it matter beyond the basic components that do many a difference, and which can be interchangeable for any higher philosophy? I'm not arguing that all philosophy is impractical, just the high-level musing.

And I never said a word against critical thinking, y2bggggs did. Of course it is beneficial to everyday life, that's why it was a poor comparison on his part.

User avatar
yy2bggggs
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:42 am UTC

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby yy2bggggs » Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:13 pm UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:@yy2bggggs:
I did not "essentially" write that.
I still disagree.
There are differences between philosophy and critical thinking.
Sure. Critical thinking is more specific.
Replacing "philosophy" with "critical thinking" changes the nature and meaning of my argument. I think critical thinking is incredibly important, but there are plenty of ways to think critically without going for the unprovable meaning of existence.
There are plenty of ways to go about philosophy without going for the unprovable meaning of existence. In fact, there's absolutely no lack of philosophers who avoid or even lash out against the notion that there's an absolute meaning of existence.
How is, say, analyzing the effects of a given situation, not making stupid decisions, things that actually have a tangible benefit, the same as existentialism vs. nihilism. vs. solipsism vs. determinism?
Not the same as solipsism vs. determinism (though I don't know what "solipsism vs. determinism" means), but ignoring the applicability to existentialism vs nihilism, analyzing the effects of a given situation is philosophy. "Not making stupid decisions" is philosophy (sounds eerily like "making wise decisions", in fact, and once again--what does philosophy mean?). "Things that actually have a tangible benefit" even sounds like philosophy.

I don't think it's me doing the misinterpreting here.
I would also appreciate it if you would make it a little more obvious (bolding changes?)
A fair request; went back and did this before replying.

Edit:
Do you actually have anything to say about the bulk of what I wrote or would you prefer to misinterpret it?
Only politically, and I'm making such a statement politically. First off, you're not the first in this thread to do so, but there are many people it seems who are coming into this thread--a thread asking people to post their own personal current philosophies (which seem to imply that most people would post the philosophies nearest and dearest to them), and say that philosophy is pointless.

Well, disregarding that you're actually saying this, WHY THE HELL would you even do this? This isn't meant to be a discussion thread about the value of philosophy. You're in effect insulting everyone here.

Second, I'm making the claim that if you don't think about your own positions, that's utterly, not even analogously but precisely, equivalent to your not applying critical thought. In fact, your whole line of reasoning against philosophy is that since you can wind up doing the same things that people who do in fact critically evaluate their own views do (e.g., maybe, hand a dollar to a beggar in the street), then there's no point to critically evaluating your own views.

I honestly, even stretching, allowing for every possible misinterpretation I can think of, cannot see your argument as anything other than a statement about the lack of need for someone to critically analyze things, and an excuse not to.

Now, is it really necessary to critically evaluate your views? No. Dogs don't analyze their views, and they seem to do fairly well. So I don't really disagree there--so I'm not going to even try to "prove you wrong". But I will say that it's pointless to promote such subhuman slavery to one's own prejudices.

And yes, I use philosophy to my real, practical, provable, measurable benefit.
Image

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby TheAmazingRando » Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:38 pm UTC

yy2bggggs wrote:Not the same as solipsism vs. determinism (though I don't know what "solipsism vs. determinism" means)

I didn't mean to introduce a dichotomy between those different philosophies. I was enumerating, not contrasting.

yy2bggggs wrote:analyzing the effects of a given situation is philosophy. "Not making stupid decisions" is philosophy (sounds eerily like "making wise decisions", in fact, and once again--what does philosophy mean?). "Things that actually have a tangible benefit" even sounds like philosophy.

I wrote:You could call "hell, I'll just live my life how I want and maybe try to help people" a philosophy, I guess, but that's not the same as searching for meaning in various places or complicated musings on the nature of humanity.

...

Only the weakest aspects of philosophy (do good vs. do evil, self vs. others, seeking knowledge, seeking power) have any tangible effect, and those are decisions that are mostly made subconsciously. I don't see putting them into words, or finding out how a higher philosophy may fit them (and, again, just about any higher philosophy can fit all possibilities) is important.

I don't see what you're saying as directly contrasting what I'm saying. My point was that, while these basic ideas may be called philosophies (and I don't care to argue whether or not they are, I agree that they can be), they are different than the overarching "higher" philosophies that seem to be prevalent in this thread. These basic ideas are useful, the higher philosophies are not as useful or as necessary. I see a difference between these two sorts of philosophies, and a difference in their importance. Nihilism or Existentialism or Determinism or Solipsism or any of the other great isms make for engaging conversation but have little bearing on everyday life, and thus are not necessary. That isn't to say they may not be interesting to think about, or beneficial for some people, I was responding to the sentiment I gathered from this thread that it was necessary to have a great philosophy such as that, while my point is that only the simple philosophies are really necessary, and are mostly subconscious.

Edit to respond to your edit: I have a philosophy, I posted my own earlier in the thread, I didn't merely come here to say it was meaningless, I was only responding to the discussion and the direction it was moving in. And I still believe there is a difference between simple philosophy and great overarching philosophies, and that the lower form is necessary, and the higher form is not. Unlike critical thinking in other areas, choosing these higher philosophies seems to have no tangible outcome, whereas critical thinking in basically all other areas (including more basic philosophies) has a tangible benefit.

There are aspects of philosophy I enjoy, including musings on heavily abstract things, I just don't think they're necessary, I don't think a person is any less of a human or a critically thinking individual for not bothering to think about them, because they're unprovable and don't have much of an impact. If I think about it, I'm an existentialist, but I don't act as an existentialist, I could be any number of other things and act the same way. The only thing being an existentialist really changes is how I discuss philosophy.

Tomservo
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Tomservo » Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:42 pm UTC

Royall wrote:
Awesomium wrote:
Royall wrote:My suggestion is go by any moral you want; whatever makes you happy.


I agree, it just happens that thinking about philosophy makes me happy.


If having a philosophy makes you happy, go nuts. Just don't blow anything up or be a douchebag.


I personally revel in philosophical discussion, although every now and then I wonder if I am becoming pretentious when I do. Especially as a party rages with the sounds of Drum and Bass thumping through the room and I am conversing with one person over whether animals have philosophy or whether humans have simple ascended to this cognitive ability making us juxtapose real life issues and actually tampering with our life course as we should simply copulate.

Then of course there is the one person at the party who as you discuss things slightly inebriated from the copious amounts of alcohol who says:

If having a philosophy makes you happy, go nuts. Just don't blow anything up or be a douchebag.[/quote]

I have a personal philosophies and I enjoy them discussing whether being agnostic makes you some sort of hypocritical moron as you have accepted the inevitability of life and yet still believe in this omnipotent invisible being.

User avatar
tiny
Posts: 771
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:34 pm UTC
Location: Below the fifth cellar.
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby tiny » Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:29 pm UTC

I found a clip on youtube that fits into this thread very well. Interestingly enough it's an animation for children that was banned from TV because - and I must agree - it's not an appropriate part of a children's program. It's extremely cool, though, and compatible with my MontyPythonism.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=cqi5F5MqqTQ

Nietzsche would have enjoyed it more than the Dalai Lama, while the pope would most likely get herpes from it. Between the butt cheeks, that is :-D
"I write what I see, the endless procession to the guillotine." ~ de Sade

Antifish
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:47 am UTC

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Antifish » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:18 am UTC

Thank you for that... Great point in the whole 'is god good' debate.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Indon » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:53 am UTC

tiny wrote:Interestingly enough it's an animation for children that was banned from TV because - and I must agree - it's not an appropriate part of a children's program.


Pish. Nightmare Fuel builds character!

But seriously, I think it's indicative of the richness of judeo-christian religious culture. I mean, most cultures only have a handful of ways to depict their Big Bad Evil Guy - our major religion has nigh-infinite ways to depict him, and in wildly different ways.

Buuuut I'm getting too far off-topic so I'll shut up now.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
__Kit
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 5:12 am UTC
Location: 16/M/NZ
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby __Kit » Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:16 am UTC

Spend time trying to improve happiness, along as this doesn't decrease anyone elses hapiness, your own future happiness or their future happiness.

Pretty crap really, I spend a lot of time ensuring my happiness in the future, if I can't be happy at that point in time.

Ooh and if something supernatural does exist we cannot comprehend it, like and ant trying to understand the mind of a human

Edit: Hmm, question, would you rather go to hell, or there be nothing after life?
=]

User avatar
kjsharke
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:53 pm UTC

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby kjsharke » Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:16 am UTC

FarFetchedChild wrote:Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle I don't see how one can avoid infinity to the second power when counting time. On a given line there is an infinite amount of points, although a finite amount of measurable points. Consider time a line, infinite or not. Between points 1 and 2 there must be an infinite number of other points. Not quite a paradox because you can have an infinite amount in a finite set. Look at the theories of the universe for one. Anyway, statistically if something that is possible is given an infinite amount of time it must happen. Isn't there an infinite amount of time between any two given points on a time line?


I like your philosophy, but I disagree with you not-quite-paradox (you can have an infinite set on a finite range I think). There is not an infinite amount of time though because when you are talking about time, you are talking about the range, not the set (we don't even know what sort of set it would be. Reals? Computable Reals? Something else?). And anyway, that probability is for a specific event. If you know how often the event happens, you can find the probability per second (or something), but still, "per second" means that you care about the range, not what is between.




I believe: You can separate ideas into a priori ideas (about the world of ideas) and a postori knowledge about our world. Math and logic go into the first category, Science in the second.

We are sure about tautologies, and in math, you can establish that some things are absolutely true given your assumptions. But this does not talk about our world.

Our view of our world is fuzzy. I would say that everything in our world is based on belief. Sometimes Occam's razor gives you a good reason to believe this or that, but that doesn't change its nature. Furthermore, our world of ideas is weaker than our universe. We have uncomputable functions, Gödel's incompleteness theorem, undecidability, Uncertainty Theorem, etc... Science attempts to create a model of our world... We can always make it better, but we will never make it right.

And a lot of things forbid any attempts to understand them in this way. I don't think that the question of our free will can ever really be answered in either way. What happened before the big bang? All that... What if there were millions of worlds just like ours just unaware of each other? Well, that is not part of our world, so can't really ever be true or false, it is inconsequential.

So you can choose what you think makes sense, and it isn't right or wrong. I am an existentialist (existence is intrinsically meaningful), a pantheist, a somewhat ethereal materialist, and a believer in believing, even when it is contradictory or doesn't make sense (perhaps especially then). (But I don't believe {set of organized religions}.) I also believe in the beauty of math, and the (limited) power of science (I am a chemist after all).

Ethics will be on another day (that may not come at the xkcd forums).

User avatar
kjsharke
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:53 pm UTC

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby kjsharke » Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:21 am UTC

__Kit wrote:Spend time trying to improve happiness, along as this doesn't decrease anyone elses hapiness, your own future happiness or their future happiness.

Pretty crap really, I spend a lot of time ensuring my happiness in the future, if I can't be happy at that point in time.

Ooh and if something supernatural does exist we cannot comprehend it, like and ant trying to understand the mind of a human

Edit: Hmm, question, would you rather go to hell, or there be nothing after life?


Sounds like Aristotle if you equate happiness with Eudaimon (human flourishing). And then the second part is what I was trying to say (kinda).

I love existence, but I sorta think that the fact that there is an end (as far as I can see) is part of what makes it great: I'd never want to live forever. (besides, what exactly is hell like?)

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby TheAmazingRando » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:10 am UTC

Indon wrote:
tiny wrote:Interestingly enough it's an animation for children that was banned from TV because - and I must agree - it's not an appropriate part of a children's program.


Pish. Nightmare Fuel builds character!

But seriously, I think it's indicative of the richness of judeo-christian religious culture. I mean, most cultures only have a handful of ways to depict their Big Bad Evil Guy - our major religion has nigh-infinite ways to depict him, and in wildly different ways.

Buuuut I'm getting too far off-topic so I'll shut up now.

To go slightly more off-topic, the character is from Mark Twain's final (unpublished) novel, and is actually the innocent and unfallen nephew of the more notorious Satan.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby 3.14159265... » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:03 am UTC

Live and let live.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Zak
Posts: 2230
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:25 am UTC
Location: In the making.

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Zak » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:41 am UTC

New personal philosophy: Keep posts to a reasonable length.
*waggles eyebrows*

User avatar
fer-sure-maybe
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:03 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby fer-sure-maybe » Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:49 pm UTC

Z.A.K wrote:New personal philosophy: Keep posts to a reasonable length.


I second, therefore, I will try to make sure this is not a block of text, however, i know i will probably fail, spectacuarly.

My Philosophy on Life
Life is to be lived. I refuse to believe that I will spend the rest of my life trying to find the "meaning" of life when I know that it is staring right at me. The meaning of life is to live, to yearn, to love, to hate, to bring doom upon others, to educate, to learn, etc. etc. Oh, and the only people I'm nice/respectful to are elderly people, civil servants and people that serve me, as I'm pretty much cruel and humorous to anyone else, friends/family/strangers/small children/whoever.

My Philosophy on Love
It's for losers, and I'm a HUGE loser, because I can't get enough of it. If you haven't felt pain because of it, you haven't really experienced it. It's domineering, but don't let it control you, can lead to suicidal behaviour and general suckeyness if it all goes downhill. It's an idea to try and prepare yourself for the worst, but most of the time preperation will come to naught as love is unpredictable, unlike in those lovely asian dramas, meteor garden for example (s2). But always remember, the worst possible outcome, usually turns into the best, for both parties.

Titan
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:20 am UTC

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Titan » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:12 am UTC

Personal philosophy:

Nothing matters, at all, ever, because eventually, the universe will return to some equilibrium state, regardless of what forces are applied to it.
Being as how there is no point in life, why not have as much fun as possible while I'm conscious?
While this is a totally selfish philosophy, it works out, because usually the best way to have fun is to make sure that other people are having fun, too.
Also, don't drop out of school... Major funkiller later in life.
//TO DO: make cool sig.
Image
//Check.

Tomservo
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Tomservo » Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:33 pm UTC

Titan wrote:Personal philosophy:

Nothing matters, at all, ever, because eventually, the universe will return to some equilibrium state, regardless of what forces are applied to it.
Being as how there is no point in life, why not have as much fun as possible while I'm conscious?
While this is a totally selfish philosophy, it works out, because usually the best way to have fun is to make sure that other people are having fun, too.
Also, don't drop out of school... Major funkiller later in life.


When people say life will end soon so have as much fun now is a somewhat nice concept, but then I always hear next to it that we must copulate and carry on the species as well then as much as possible. When the universe does return to an equilibrium state I plan on chillig in some shimanic doorway with Daniel Pinchbeck, chewing Psycilobin Mushrooms, thats my afterlife.

User avatar
existential_elevator
The awesomest one!
Posts: 3328
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:31 am UTC
Location: The Ocean of Regret
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby existential_elevator » Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:02 pm UTC

Confession: I may not be as much of an existential elevator as I claim to be.

Actually, I'm completely aware that my internal philosophy is really inconsistent. At the moment I'm trying to work out where I stand with collective ontology: I've boiled it down to Sartre vs Durkheim. That's got to be the most inconsistent two things to think could be right simultaneously..

Other than that, I'm some flavour of phenomenologist, and think that virtue ethics is the way forward.

Bluey
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:32 pm UTC
Location: Montreal, Canada
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Bluey » Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:35 am UTC

I'll treat a lot of subjects quickly and explain if someone asks.

On God: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galilei. I don't believe in a god because it seems irrational to do so. If he exists - I consider it extremely unlikely but do not reject the idea altogether - he'll forgive me.

On death: Death is final. I see no evidence supporting other views. Should I be wrong, should there be some kind of heaven and hell, I wouldn't fear much for myself for the above-mentioned reasons.

On the meaning of life: It follows, from my point of view about death, that we should make the most out of the one life we have. With no fixed meaning of life, we choose our own, and the pursuit of happiness seems to be the most rational choice. How we attain happiness, though, is another question. Also note life is worth living for itself, not for its end.

On happiness: From experience, there is happiness to be obtained in yourself. Acquisition of knowledge and self improvement are very important. So are friendship, love and helping others, three exterior sources of happiness. One has to balance these two sources in order to be truly happy.

On motivation: It follows that, with the goal of happiness in mind, most people have selfish motivations. However, keeping in mind that causing happiness makes us happy, selfishness is often enlightened and moral, though it can also go the other way.

On morality: An action one takes judging it will cause more unhappiness than happiness is immoral. It then follows that an action one takes judging it will cause more happiness than unhappiness is moral. The intention is more important than the result. To obtain results that match our expectations and make a good choice, though, reason is needed.

On choice: Speaking of choice, I don't believe in determinism. While I don't think everything is possible due to outside influence, I think we have genuine free will, that we make choices that aren't predetermined and that they have an influence on our lives. This means I can neither totally blame the individual nor his environment if he makes a mistake.

On reason, rationality, reality, knowledge and science: They're all very important to understanding this world and its components better, which is obviously a good thing.
"The greatest emperors crown themselves." - Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Kachi » Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:14 pm UTC

As humans we have a biological imperative and interest to be happy. That is our purpose in life, and morality consists entirely of what is conducive to that goal.

Even theists understand this on some level. Their goal is to reach a paradise, a place of eternal happiness. Funnily enough, it seems that more often that atheists don't seem to grasp this, at least in my experience. They're more inclined to say that there is no purpose, or that the purpose is something like survival, the attainment of knowledge, etc...

Personally I only have two reasons for not killing myself, but they're plenty of reason enough. 1) To avoid causing sorrow for the people that love me. 2) I figure post-life is very much like pre-life. While I have no problems with pre-life, I have no memories of it. Seems very boring and uneventful-- nonexistance. I figure that I have the rest of infinity to be in that state, so I may as well milk this ticket. Life just seems more interesting than death.

Wish I could expound, but I have to be off.

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Akula » Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:50 am UTC

No Fat Chicks.

Oh, wait, right, Serious Business.

No. My philosophy is basically "adaptivsm" for lack of a better word. Maybe there is a proper title out there for it... I don't particularly care. I also don't care for these arguments between Socialism/Capitalism, Left/Right, Collectivism/Individualism, or any such debate. You cannot pigeon hole the entire world into a single system that will always work. Some policies work better for given situations. None will ever be the best option all the time. Learn to adapt to new circumstances. It's practically a law of the universe that the things that can adapt survive. From biology, to business, to warfare, and everything in between... the one that adapts the quickest and most effectively is the one that succeeds.
"I never let my schooling interfere with my education" - Mark Twain

User avatar
Fenix
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:45 am UTC
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby Fenix » Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:25 am UTC

My current slant on things is that all knowledge is belief and that every 'certainty' humanity has ever stated is, in fact, not at all a certainty but merely the point at which most humans are comfortable believing that any degree of consistent verification 'may as well be' certainty.

Further, that all experience is known only in the moment of the experience and, beyond that point, also becomes a matter of belief as to what actually happened and what it meant.
History is a ghost and the future, a child unborn.

User avatar
zingmaster
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:22 pm UTC
Location: Ha!
Contact:

Re: What is your (current) philosophy?

Postby zingmaster » Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:49 am UTC

I am of the mindset that if I can truly help someone else to live a happier life, then I have succeeded. I'm talking about never leaving a person to wander alone in the world. I believe that we always need to know that there's someone there, not necessarily walking our same path, but definitely in the same general direction. That thought calms me, and I want to spread that to others.

I have other thoughts concerning the philosophy of relationships, but I'll save that for the appropriate forum and a better time.
You get 500 xp.
You collect:
1 :lol: HOBO BONUS :lol:
1 :idea: CHAOS BONUS :idea:
1 rusty dagger

Hold on Dreamaway
You're my sweet charade


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dypepholley and 9 guests