▲ 48 ▼ What is your opinion about adsurdism and stoicism? (lemmy.world) submitted 11 months ago* by OneSpectra@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world 34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] mmhmm@lemmy.ml 9 points 11 months ago (1 child) I like my philosophy flexible permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (2 children) Meta-utilitarianism? Apply the most useful philosophy to each problem separately? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DecaturNature@yall.theatl.social 3 points 11 months ago syncretism is my default. The only reason to choose one at the exclusion of another is if conclusions are based on fundamentally different assumptions. For example, ancient stoics would borrow from Epicureans when they made a good point. Likewise, Thomas Jefferson borrowed from both John Locke and others when drafting the Declaration of Independence. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15f6pl/comment/c7m1fpn/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] mmhmm@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) For me, I have a mental knapsack full of philosophical approaches. A situations scope, impact, and effect may demand a different philosophical framework to meet my or the groups goals. There are some ideologies I won't touch or entertain. There are some I can only accept under very specific terms and timelines. I have my favorites and more that I'm friendly with. So ya, a sort of meta-utlitarianism! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hypna@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) I'll begin by confessing that I also tend to apply philosophies situationally, but I'd be curious how you'd respond to the criticism that such an approach sort of gives away the game that philosophical applications are all post hoc rationalizations for our existing, non-rational preferences. I've found that to be the strongest criticism of such an approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mmhmm@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago I feel that post hoc reasoning is not a flaw. It helps build a coherent moral framework. To the hammer, everything is a nail. Why limit the philosophical tools pre or post any need i guess permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (2 children) Meta-utilitarianism? Apply the most useful philosophy to each problem separately? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DecaturNature@yall.theatl.social 3 points 11 months ago syncretism is my default. The only reason to choose one at the exclusion of another is if conclusions are based on fundamentally different assumptions. For example, ancient stoics would borrow from Epicureans when they made a good point. Likewise, Thomas Jefferson borrowed from both John Locke and others when drafting the Declaration of Independence. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15f6pl/comment/c7m1fpn/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] mmhmm@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) For me, I have a mental knapsack full of philosophical approaches. A situations scope, impact, and effect may demand a different philosophical framework to meet my or the groups goals. There are some ideologies I won't touch or entertain. There are some I can only accept under very specific terms and timelines. I have my favorites and more that I'm friendly with. So ya, a sort of meta-utlitarianism! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hypna@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) I'll begin by confessing that I also tend to apply philosophies situationally, but I'd be curious how you'd respond to the criticism that such an approach sort of gives away the game that philosophical applications are all post hoc rationalizations for our existing, non-rational preferences. I've found that to be the strongest criticism of such an approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mmhmm@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago I feel that post hoc reasoning is not a flaw. It helps build a coherent moral framework. To the hammer, everything is a nail. Why limit the philosophical tools pre or post any need i guess permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DecaturNature@yall.theatl.social 3 points 11 months ago syncretism is my default. The only reason to choose one at the exclusion of another is if conclusions are based on fundamentally different assumptions. For example, ancient stoics would borrow from Epicureans when they made a good point. Likewise, Thomas Jefferson borrowed from both John Locke and others when drafting the Declaration of Independence. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15f6pl/comment/c7m1fpn/ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mmhmm@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) For me, I have a mental knapsack full of philosophical approaches. A situations scope, impact, and effect may demand a different philosophical framework to meet my or the groups goals. There are some ideologies I won't touch or entertain. There are some I can only accept under very specific terms and timelines. I have my favorites and more that I'm friendly with. So ya, a sort of meta-utlitarianism! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hypna@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) I'll begin by confessing that I also tend to apply philosophies situationally, but I'd be curious how you'd respond to the criticism that such an approach sort of gives away the game that philosophical applications are all post hoc rationalizations for our existing, non-rational preferences. I've found that to be the strongest criticism of such an approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mmhmm@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago I feel that post hoc reasoning is not a flaw. It helps build a coherent moral framework. To the hammer, everything is a nail. Why limit the philosophical tools pre or post any need i guess permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hypna@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) I'll begin by confessing that I also tend to apply philosophies situationally, but I'd be curious how you'd respond to the criticism that such an approach sort of gives away the game that philosophical applications are all post hoc rationalizations for our existing, non-rational preferences. I've found that to be the strongest criticism of such an approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mmhmm@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago I feel that post hoc reasoning is not a flaw. It helps build a coherent moral framework. To the hammer, everything is a nail. Why limit the philosophical tools pre or post any need i guess permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mmhmm@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago I feel that post hoc reasoning is not a flaw. It helps build a coherent moral framework. To the hammer, everything is a nail. Why limit the philosophical tools pre or post any need i guess permalink fedilink source parent