Everyone already has a personal philosophy that they live by. The problem is that most people never got to choose exactly what it is. I'm here to change that...
Excellent stuff. I’ve come to think of it as “active philosophy” vs “passive philosophy”. Everyone has philosophy in their life, and often when someone is dismissive of philosophy this typically means they inherited someone else’s philosophy and never gave it further thought, so they are living a sort of “passive philosophy”. Only once one is willing to questions one’s own assumptions does it become active.
I challenge you to use AI to develop a morphological field that your readers can use to invent all possible philosophies, then write an article about it and give me an acknowledgment credit. Leibniz may have tried to do something similar to this but that was before morphological analysis was invented.
Morphological analysis as invented by Fritz Zwicky is easy to understand, just ask AI for help or google. You take a subject matter like “philosophy” and decompose it into parameters and associated elements. For Example, one parameter could be “God” and then the elements under that would be all ways of interpreting this ie atheism, agnosticism, spirituality, deism. Another parameter might be “Human Rights” and then the elements would be “objective” and “subjective/relational” Using this matrix of parameters and elements, when set up correctly (this is the hard part!), it should become possible to discover all possible philosophies, both actual and not yet invented.
Your article is very informative and appreciated! I suffered for years from religious toxicity. At first, I didn’t understand it…the trauma seemed normal to me, but through therapy and my journaling, I have created my own philosophy. It’s mine all mine❤️
First, being aware how unhappy I was, therapy helped with that. Then the realization that my feelings and values were completely different than what I was taught growing up…essentially damaged from religious indoctrination. I do not keep in contact with anyone from that part of my life.
Reflection, reading and journaling help a lot. I know what truly matters to me. I have deal breakers and never let anyone tell me who I should be. I live by that and I’m ever evolving.
My philosophy: nothing is true, everything is permitted. Which is to say that our subjective take on reality is but an illusion to the objective reality. So if people were to make truths pertaining to their subjective perception, what is it to say that they won’t let go of them when it’s permitted for them to do so. MAGA is a great example of this.
Spydah, thanks for sharing. So you do think there is an objectively true reality? Or you don’t think there is anything objectively true? This is what I was wondering after reading your comment.
This is coming from a Hindu concept of maya and Brahman.
Maya: Maya is the cosmic illusion or the power that creates the appearance of the phenomenal world.force that makes the one reality (Brahman) appear as many diverse and changing forms. I may choose not to believe in climate change. I may choose to not believe in science. Who knows, there may be a deeper knowledge behind “science” that we’re unaware of. The rest of the world may choose to live in this illusion. So be it, that the world heats up and disasters rein as for it is permitted for this to happen because of the very illusion we chose to live in. Or, we could consider the fact in front of us and perhaps it would be permitted that these disasters die off.
Hey Paul - I have been working on this, but without guidance or much structure or examples. I’ve been thinking of it more as thinking through and the documenting “My Worldview”. The impetus came from documenting a similar document for my Agency. I thought - this Manifesto style document for my company, why don’t I have one for myself 🤔
This assumes rational self-authorship is inherently beneficial. But rationality isn’t neutral, and egoic freedom doesn’t guarantee well-being. Inherited beliefs often stabilize meaning and motivation. A philosophy optimized for autonomy or coherence can just as easily undermine the individual:
Paul, what are your thoughts on the idea that we’re asking modern brains (mine, for example) to do things (sift philosophies of life) that modernity hasn’t prepared me to do? You nod to the dopamine economy in another post so I assume these topics - extending, as I think they do, beyond dopamine/attention - are on your mind. Surely my brain is capable of philosophical efforts, but if the food and ideas and frequency of stimulation I introduce to it on a daily basis are fighting this ultimate goal, there must be other methods of redress (?).
If isolating to food, then first in food. Then in my ability to discern which foods may or may not be hurting me, then in my ability to consistently choose the beneficial food and avoid the bad stuff. Regarding who might be best to explore alternative diets - me and anyone who suffers from the same predispositions, I would think?
If you suspect that your diet is holding you back, would you expect a solution in philosophy or in food? who might be best equipped to explore and test alternative diets?
Excellent stuff. I’ve come to think of it as “active philosophy” vs “passive philosophy”. Everyone has philosophy in their life, and often when someone is dismissive of philosophy this typically means they inherited someone else’s philosophy and never gave it further thought, so they are living a sort of “passive philosophy”. Only once one is willing to questions one’s own assumptions does it become active.
This is a really helpful way of putting it Ishmael. I am going to screenshot this comment.
Thank you sir!
I challenge you to use AI to develop a morphological field that your readers can use to invent all possible philosophies, then write an article about it and give me an acknowledgment credit. Leibniz may have tried to do something similar to this but that was before morphological analysis was invented.
Fascinating idea. Can you say more about what you have in mind? I may just do it.
Morphological analysis as invented by Fritz Zwicky is easy to understand, just ask AI for help or google. You take a subject matter like “philosophy” and decompose it into parameters and associated elements. For Example, one parameter could be “God” and then the elements under that would be all ways of interpreting this ie atheism, agnosticism, spirituality, deism. Another parameter might be “Human Rights” and then the elements would be “objective” and “subjective/relational” Using this matrix of parameters and elements, when set up correctly (this is the hard part!), it should become possible to discover all possible philosophies, both actual and not yet invented.
Is Narcissus capable of creating a philosophy that has any congruence with Reality Truth & The Beautiful?
http://beezone.com/adida/narcissus.html
Your article is very informative and appreciated! I suffered for years from religious toxicity. At first, I didn’t understand it…the trauma seemed normal to me, but through therapy and my journaling, I have created my own philosophy. It’s mine all mine❤️
You’re so welcome. How did you go about creating your own philosophy?
First, being aware how unhappy I was, therapy helped with that. Then the realization that my feelings and values were completely different than what I was taught growing up…essentially damaged from religious indoctrination. I do not keep in contact with anyone from that part of my life.
Reflection, reading and journaling help a lot. I know what truly matters to me. I have deal breakers and never let anyone tell me who I should be. I live by that and I’m ever evolving.
My philosophy: nothing is true, everything is permitted. Which is to say that our subjective take on reality is but an illusion to the objective reality. So if people were to make truths pertaining to their subjective perception, what is it to say that they won’t let go of them when it’s permitted for them to do so. MAGA is a great example of this.
Spydah, thanks for sharing. So you do think there is an objectively true reality? Or you don’t think there is anything objectively true? This is what I was wondering after reading your comment.
There is an objective reality. But I don’t think anyone can perceive of it 100%.
Got it. So by “nothing is true” you mean “no one can perceive the truth 100%”
This is coming from a Hindu concept of maya and Brahman.
Maya: Maya is the cosmic illusion or the power that creates the appearance of the phenomenal world.force that makes the one reality (Brahman) appear as many diverse and changing forms. I may choose not to believe in climate change. I may choose to not believe in science. Who knows, there may be a deeper knowledge behind “science” that we’re unaware of. The rest of the world may choose to live in this illusion. So be it, that the world heats up and disasters rein as for it is permitted for this to happen because of the very illusion we chose to live in. Or, we could consider the fact in front of us and perhaps it would be permitted that these disasters die off.
I hope this makes sense🤣
Hey Paul - I have been working on this, but without guidance or much structure or examples. I’ve been thinking of it more as thinking through and the documenting “My Worldview”. The impetus came from documenting a similar document for my Agency. I thought - this Manifesto style document for my company, why don’t I have one for myself 🤔
I’d love to learn more about your course.
This assumes rational self-authorship is inherently beneficial. But rationality isn’t neutral, and egoic freedom doesn’t guarantee well-being. Inherited beliefs often stabilize meaning and motivation. A philosophy optimized for autonomy or coherence can just as easily undermine the individual:
https://open.substack.com/pub/0xagro/p/max-stirner
Paul, what are your thoughts on the idea that we’re asking modern brains (mine, for example) to do things (sift philosophies of life) that modernity hasn’t prepared me to do? You nod to the dopamine economy in another post so I assume these topics - extending, as I think they do, beyond dopamine/attention - are on your mind. Surely my brain is capable of philosophical efforts, but if the food and ideas and frequency of stimulation I introduce to it on a daily basis are fighting this ultimate goal, there must be other methods of redress (?).
If isolating to food, then first in food. Then in my ability to discern which foods may or may not be hurting me, then in my ability to consistently choose the beneficial food and avoid the bad stuff. Regarding who might be best to explore alternative diets - me and anyone who suffers from the same predispositions, I would think?
If you suspect that your diet is holding you back, would you expect a solution in philosophy or in food? who might be best equipped to explore and test alternative diets?
This is a fun place to start - try out the philosophy bot 🤖
https://open.substack.com/pub/aiblewmymind/p/how-to-clone-anyone-with-ai-philosophers?r=1rtoni&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay