Stranger Journal #3

World View: (I will also demonstrate on what grounds I reject any competing idea. To unilaterally establish a name firstly will not accurately assess the combination of ideas and make the framework less universal [which I believe it very well could be] Additionally, the thought of creating 'independent' philosophies is flawed as there is very little chance that we could possibly create a NEW philosophy that thousands of years of philosophers has not already created. As a result, I will demonstrate which of those created philosophies I combine and subscribe to.)

Personal Philosophies:

     I embrace a primary classic combination of Naturalism and Existentialism. I embrace Naturalism on the ground that matter is the only thing that can empirically proven to exist. However, I do not accept (as per my view on most philosophies) the exclusionary view of the theory. Thus, from Naturalism, I gain my perspective that external matter is the only provable existence (However, not to make internal emotions meaningless. See Materialism below) and a view of relatively (in the scientific analysis of time) linear history with no determined  purpose. This in enhanced by my acceptance of (primary) Existentialism. Effectively, existence precedes meaning. Hence, there is no inherent meaning to existence. I justify this though the analysis of all other biological life in the universe. To not accept such a view would be to accept a special narcissism unprecedented in biological history. Meaning based philosophies inherently discriminate against all things non-human through both personal and moral philosophy when their existence is deemed meaningless. As an extension of an INHERENTLY meaningless existence, any creature (under analysis, humans) create their own inherent value. As a result of our individual decision, to value others in comparison to a set value is impossible. Such a view would justify genocide and the commodity of people creating a dehumanizing framework. However, as a result of the inherent creating of meaning, most sub-links of Existentialism are rejected. Take the view of Absurdity for example: Such a perspective demands a inherent meaninglessness to all existence. Operating in such a framework, the only personally beneficial outcome is effectively suicide (Nietzsche is WRONG!). Following the result of NOT seeing mass suicides globally, indicates that such a philosophy is inherently flawed. These acceptances form the foundation of all following beliefs that I (and seemingly, most humans) hold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkV-of_eN2w

     As an extension of Existentialism, I accept the initial layers of Nihilism. (i.e. the lack of meaning resulting from social structures to our personal being). However, empiric prove demonstrates that predictability can allow humans (and any creature) to affect change. The simple use of science and repeatable demonstrations prove that this is true. Whether the result is from some perceived conscious or purely biological is irrelevant. Thus, credibility is what we collectively determine it to be. For example: if everything around us was simply an imagined and fictitious place, meaning would still exist because whether it is objectively 'real' or not is not significant: our perception is.

     My view of demonstration of predictability and empirical proof comes from my reliance on external Pragmatism. This is not traditional pragmatism as the belief does not stem from the idea that the existence of something MUST be proven, but rather that something that exists CAN be proven. For example, simply because at one point in time, people had not been able to prove the world is round does not mean that at the time the world was flat. Also, the necessity of a or negative effect is overly totalizing. As per Cuomo's analysis of binaries, a sense of moderation is applicable, especially following the existentialist view above around 'meaning'. To view a result solely in context as positive of negative in respect to humans or even to the individual reverts back to narcissism. However, it is true that all ideas surrounding social structures (including truth, knowledge, morality, politics) can and should be tested, but not the the extent that a lack of tests indicates a lack of existence.

     Consistent with the basic acceptance of Naturalism, I accept Materialism. Following Naturalism and Pragmatism, everything is ultimately explicable from matter including conscious thought (esp. following our discovery of neurons, the effect of biology on our previously assumed 'conscious thought' creates a far more rational explanation of existence and morality). However, an exclusive view of materials as the sole and primary value is not consistent with the pretext of Existentialism. Thus, it becomes simply one mechanism in which individuals can find meaning (the same analysis applies to Hedonism below).

     It reasons to follow that Determinism is demonstrable. From any objective perspective, chance does not exist. While to any particular individual, luck may seem possible, it is not rational. For example, if a baseball hits you on the head, it is less a result of your 'bad luck' but rather that someone playing baseball hit the ball at the particular angle and velocity that caused gravity to pull it into that exact position. You were in that position because you were heading towards a particular goal because your conscious thought told you to. The two in combination very rationally resulted in you being hit with the ball. While there can be multiple variables in a situation, that does not include any element of uncertainty. It may appear less evident in an interaction between two human beings, but following the acceptance that conscious thought is a result of biology, any effect could be rationally explained though the psychology of the situation.

Hedonism presents a similar contrast to materialism. Here exists a view that people can choose to, or not to accept as true depending on whether they feel it adds value to their existence (following the Existentialist framework. I personally believe in a combination of both). However, only rational Hedonism can be accepted.  Egoistic Hedonism continues to ignore the effects on any other creatures. Per the establishment of meaning through personal value, it is impossible to value your own success over the consideration of others (see Utilitarianism under moral philosophies). However, one may choose to be either Rational or Egoistic in their view of pleasure based on their individual value. (I believe rationally as I view pleasure as a accumulative commodity. It seems that most humans appear to accept this view considering that we will work to get money to survive in the future).

(The following are my personal conclusions following the logically established framework above)

     While through the view of personal values in Existentialism, Pessimism cannot be inherently dismissed, I personally reject it as I do not find value through such an outlook. To me, such a view would revert to a contradiction with a view of any extraneous desire to exist. The same is true for both Theism and Deism. The deduced framework of Pragmatism indicates that lack of ability to prove or disprove the existent of a higher being makes it impossible to objectively accept the true existence of a God. However, following the same framework, those who believe in a God(s) for the sake of comfort cannot be considered wrong following the same view in existentialism as that belief gives those humans a value to their life. In summary, a God(s) does not exist, but we cannot morally stop people from believing in them (so long as the beliefs subscribe to the moral standards below).

Moral Philosophies:

     As an intrinsic individual value to existence has been established from Existentialism, it is impossible to value the existence of one person over another (inherently). Therefore, value of one life is equal to any other. So from an individual perspective, we must take care to value to most amount of others when also considering what is best for us. More objectively, this provides one possibility to value life over others. This is a scenario in which someone (or people) have to die where their death will protect someone (or people) whose life will protect the lives of more than those who die. A similar approach must be taken to view quality of life. As it is impossible to value everything for every person, the most moral action is to try to improve the lives of the majority (from a controlling, government-type perspective). Therefore, a Consequentialist branch of morality must be primarily adopted (in particular, utilitarianism).

     It would take far to long to analyze why this was chosen (other than the consistence with an established philosophical framework) over competing moral philosophies so I will only contrast it to the most polar opposite, Deontology. The means based view of Kant's philosophy must be accepted too the point that the majority believes that it dehumanizes or removes value from their views on valuing human existence. However, this practice becomes immoral the moment it justifies more death to uphold the morality it describes (per the rationale above). This describes the classic case of Deontological contradiction that a moral means-based philosophy exists to solely uphold the philosophical world it describes (i.e. an effect).