LibriumArcana.Games

So here's a little game inspired by a conversation I had the other day on the qualities of original thought. SO, we are going to see how much originality there is in original thought around here. Basically, if you don't subscribe to any particular clear-cut belief system (or are unaware that someone has given a name to what you think), post a summary of yours, and the rest of us draw parallels to existing schools of thought and discuss influences, similarities, and differences.

I'd start with mine, but I have to run to class in a few minutes. Does anyone else want to give this a whirl? :ROFL

Personally;

My philosophy mostly resembles Taoism with a mix of Satanism and one tenet which is most touted to be of Christian Origin (but its origins are in fact lost to time, and we'll never know for certain unless a certain police box is found) which is the quite obvious; "Treat others as you would expect to be treated yourself."

Oh god... I have to specify.

I have actually been thinking about this for a while. I know I subscribe to the epstomological and metaphysiical tenenats of naturalism, in that I am an agnostoatheist (I cant KNOW whether god exists, but I dont think he does) and am a rock-solid empiricist

Ethically, this is where I get a bit odd. I subscribe to an odd form of rule-utilitarianism. Instead of placing value on happiness and suffering, I place value on functionality. In the end, it allows me to also place secondary value on happiness and human beings, while giving me a consistent (as far as I know) reason to be a conservationist.

Nothing on this planet works better than a finely tuned ecosystem, properly evolved over thousands/millions of years. They should only be interfered with insofar as is necessary for our human selves to function and advance as is proper (because we are sapient we have more of a capacity to appreciate and secondarily, suffer from, mal-function than an ecosystem and our being messed up and mal-functioning causes harm to other functioning systems, which is not good), and efforts should be taken on our part to minimize that interference.

It alsom allows me to concern myself with the needs of individuals. All in all, I havent found major flaws in it, other than odd outside cases which are impossible to occur... (like breakdowns of trhe laws of nature)

I would point out that, like all ethical systems, what I place value in is at least intellecually, arbitrary.

... wow.. what big words you all use.

God exists, by whatever you care to name Him/Her/It. Ghosts, demons, aliens... who knows? There's something out there that causes supernatural things.

Life is never simple, just a funny string of coincidence and happenstance that makes it all seem like there's a grand destiny.

I'm a secular humanist by philosophy, ultimately agnostic as I cannot ultimately disprove the existance of anywhere between zero and infinite gods, but as I see no evidence for any supernatural interference in the universe, for all practical purposes I am atheist, and such I call myself religiously.

You could also call me a materialist in the classical manner, as I do not believe in any sort of existance beyond the physical universe.

*kicks the desk* This is it. This is real. And you know what? It doesn't bother me at all. So what if my thoughts come from electrical and chemical impulses within the squishy mass of my brain instead of some unobservable immaterial soul? It doesn't make it any less significant, so I give a hearty "up yours" to anyone who says that I make life meaningless because I don't allow any mysticism in it. Meaning is what we put in it, and kittens are still cute even if we think that because we're geared to be attracted to the distorted proportions of adults. I guess that would fall under secular humanism, too, but no doubt there is some additional label for my "up yours and I don't care" philosophy.