So what philosophy do you personally believe in?

I like general-agnosticism, what Robert A. Wilson shilled. Also pragmatism and veganism.

i dont know

can you explain your own unique answer to the problem of universals then?
bonus points if not just a rehashed edition of realism or idealism

>he thinks adopting a unique perspective based on a synthesis of ideas that came before is the same thing as pretending to have all answers to all questions
Dumb frogposter

Stoicism.

If I had to give a name to the overall program, it'd be something like: "Hermeneutic Pragmaticism (working title)", with that out of the way:
Extended Mind (Clark)
Agambenian political philosophy
Onlife Manifesto, as well as more Floridi for the philosophy of information
Aesthetics as a philosophy of experience (not a philosophy of beauty, not a philosophy of art, not a philosophy of perception: eurosa.org/volumes/5/DAngeloESA2013.pdf )
"Affirmative" philosophy of desire, I'd tell you to read Doumulié but his work on the topic isn't translated in English IIRC, think of a line of thought going through Aristotle, Spinoza, Nietzsche and Deleuze as opposed to the "mainstream" and "negative" view of Plato, many religious traditions including Christianity, psychoanalysis in Sigmund and Anna Freud and others.
Jonathan H. Turner for theoretical sociology: given that philosophers can't shut up about society for fifteen minutes, I felt I could read a book of his on the topic, and the more models we have the better.

Just being myself.

didn't think so

I'm a dildo

God

>substance
Ew

Depends on whats backing that Idealism, maybe pass

>Type-identity
Say more plz

So long as you admit it

>mfw

What a fucking retard. Plz expand as to save yourself from this dead philo.

You took your professors too seriously or you're autistic

LOL slave

Which one sandnigger?

NIETZSCHE WAS UNIRONICALLY RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING EVEN THE SHITTY SCIENCE STUFF

(though i luv cultivating the moral law desu ok? lol bye)

No human mind is greater than God's. So God's philosophy is naturally the best.

How do you know the former?

Chaos magick
Panpsychism

It's in the Bible. Before you ask how I know the Bible is true, it's based on faith.

Good for you!!! Srsly Kierkegaards onto something and i think we've only begun to realize it

Tho how do you reconcile all the work thats been done contra texts (in general), let alone the work done against the historicity of the bible. Seems like there are better chasms at which to make the leap of faith.

Isnt it awesome idea that there is an all powerful all knowing all just entity called God who created you and loves you unconditionally for no reason and wants to imbue you with graces and wants you to only be loving to other of his creatures? Pretty awesome if you ask me.

The whole heaven and hell part doesnt add up. The only true Christians are the Christian Universalists.

I'm not a fundamentalist. Most Christians don't take everything in the Bible as literal, and that's true before Christ with Jews and the OT, it's a misconception that they do because of the prevelance of fundamentalism in the US.

Im less worried with fundamentalism than i am with interpreting literally the most important parts. Like if you wanna stone virgins or whatever thats fine by me but you cant just roll up with all this life-denying metaphysics and get a pass bc of your apparent modesty. You're down to take the most extreme doctrines literally but not all the inconveniant ligtle details as well. Why have faith in the bible at all? Why not just use a different text (perhaps one less contended), or just ignore it all together and bind your intuition (or rationalism, if youre based tier) to god and justify it like that.

Stoning was literal before Christ. The Bible talks about why it's no longer something we do, read the Gospel of John. I think maybe you should learn some theology before criticizing the book, or at least read someone who has studied.

It would make sense that you have the possibility to reject God's grace.

Not really.

I'm not sure I'm well-read enough or have the willpower recquired to actually attach myself to a philosophy with any kind of real conviction. I just do my duty and aspire to do it well whilst living my life like anybody else; trying to create happiness for myself and others, not adhering to any well-formulated ethics and morals but rather my own conscience (which in turn has been influenced by loads of different people, writers included). Have I been inspired by different philosophies? For sure, but I don't think I qualify as anything but a basic existentialist muppet.

This desu senpai. My life is objectively awful but after reading Epictetus I was able to turn my frown upside down

Materialism, Nihilism and Hypocritical Egoism.

I can be sympathetic to most of these views, but modal realism is trash.

panpsychism/neutral monism
quasi-realism for values
platonic realism
epistemic structural realism
anti-foundationalist epistemology
deflationary theory of truth
humean laws of nature
libertarian free will

perennial truth

Nigger you're focusing on literally the most insignificant line in that critique. It adds nothing to the argument aside from standing as a placeholder for any one of the dumb particulars modern day believers would reject out of convenience.

>herr durr you dont read your bible or wikipedia or whatever
You can study the book all day, you can study the philosophy all day, but if its a dumb book and its filled with bad philosophy then youre just someone left talking about a dumb book full of bad philosophy.

Egoism and stoicism

And no dont direct me to a passage in the goddamn text under discussion as if that somehow adds validity to what youre saying. We're discussing why id even take such a text seriously in the first place.

>tfw Im the bastard child of bertrand russell and hegel

I wasn't attacking you, that was a suggestion. Based on what you said it sounded like you didn't know about Christ's fulfillment which is theology 101.

nihilism
error theory
naturalism
scientific realism
eliminative materialism
atheism
logical positivism

i belive in the philosophy of whatever book i read last

Well hey i suggest shoving your foot up your ass hoho thats like Human Anatomy 101 right

Team no working memory ftw!

...

Nerd.

The immortal science of Marxism-Leninism

imagine unironically being a metaphysical naturalist or a type-identity theorist in the year 2018

I dunno lol

Ik right. God I'd rather these faggots drop theosophy, chaos magik, or some shit.

>God's philosophy
And which would that be, friend?

>mental states, numbers, moral/aesthetic facts and universals definitely don't exist because DUDE SCIENCE LMAO

Nazism oc

I don't have much of a problem with methodical naturalism, but metaphysical naturalism is brainlet nerd virgin tier

No. No one said shit about science. You're just retarded.

Man Nietzsche would really shake things up for you a bit.

naturalism is pretty much defined as DUDE SCIENCE LMAO

Okay. What does that have to do with not believing in any of the retarded shit you just posted?

because they're non-natural entities (not studied by science)

>NEETzsche

Yeah and im saying you're retarded for believing that. Im still confused what part of that critique is scientific? There's no hypothesis, no test, just the brute fact of your retardedness.

dude functionalism/platonism lmao

>the "consciousness doesn't exist for some reason" meme
>the "science doesn't need mathematical entities" meme
>the "life is just like meaningless and shit btw morality is relative so just like do what you want bro" meme
>the nominalism meme

Putting words in my mouth. The fact that you see the problem in these terms just shows me how little you've read. Less Veeky Forums, more library fr u ok? thnks bye

this but completely unironically

I'm so sorry.

>Putting words in my mouth. The fact that you see the problem in these terms just shows me how little you've read. Less Veeky Forums, more library fr u ok? thnks bye
what are you even going on about?

"hurr you disagree with me so you're stupid for some unspecified reason"

fixed

Marxism

I'm a Russian Orthodox Old Ritualist or "Russian Old Believer"

>babby hasen't read widely enough to understand the contemporary landscape including positions contrary to his view
what is uninformed

explain exactly what you're going on about (it's going to be some trivial/nitpicking shit at best or completely wrong and ignorant at worst)

>reading philosophy is trivial or nitpicking
>disagree with literal retardness is trivial or nitpicking
>hurr durr
If you cant connect the dots here there's not much i can do for you. And dont be so desperate to understand. It's unbecoming.

alright man. I can pretend like you won or that your posts even make sense if you want