Philosophy: What does it take?

[Steel Accord 6,658]

Honestly, I switched after being introduced to FIM.

 

It probably sounds silly, but the friendship lessons of the show, I guess we can call it "Equestrianism," really resonated with me. For some reason, I felt like these were important ideas that a good, utopian society should have. So, I've lately been working on my own philosophical ideas. I've been trying to synthesize Equestrianism with Neo-Confucian and communitarian ideas, with a dash of miscellaneous tenets, such as Aristotelian virtue ethics.

 

I know some bronies think we shouldn't take the show too seriously, but I think there are some good ethical ideas here.

 

Absolutely agreed with you on that last part. Any form of art can give rise to meaningful thought, and this show is no exception. Nay, it's an exemplar of such!

 

Interestingly enough, I sort of came to the opposite conclusion. (Again "sort of")

 

To put it less intelligently than you did:

 

Before I watched this show, I considered my own happiness inconsequential. To me, the greatest calling was to serve an organization of high morals. I chose the U.S. military. (*insert disparaging remarks here* "I'll wait.") While I attended Valley Forge military college though, I found the ideals we swore by, honor above them all, were being ignored or outright defiled by my peers.

 

It made me sick, I felt so lost and confused. That's when a ray of light enter my life.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irQ_d78feMA

 

With that, everything changed. I tried harder to make friends, I smiled more, I began to write for recreation and discovered a talent and passion for it. Suddenly, simply being happy seemed far more noble than submitting myself to an organization that didn't practice what it preached.

 

So I left that school, vowed to become a writer, and well . . . here I am. Not sure if that makes me a Hedonist but I certainly love Pinkie Pie goal in life of making others smile.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Discordian 6,013]

Well I would think debating the existence and/or nature of evil is more philosophical. I get what you're saying though.

 

This is why I asked in the firs place though, does merely being introspective make one a philosopher?

 

Well what would you suggest then?

 

How do I distinguish, within my own heart and mind, the difference between mere poetic and whimsical musings and true philosophical thought?

 

 

I would say a man who at least understands the ideas, and admits to his own faulty thinking, at least has a more legitimate claim than one who continues to insist he is despite faulty thinking.

Legitimate claims are not something I am accustomed to. People tend to disagree with me simply because of the way I think. Not even necessarily on a philosophical level either.

 

 

@@Discordian, 

 

Don't get me wrong. I have a bee in my bonnet about some recurring things I've seen in discussion about philosophy but if I was really on your case for some perceived grievous offense, I think you'd know. Maybe I come off terse, but I am trying to give you some perspective and things to think about.

 

 

 

 

 

For the most part? It's the difference between thinking about things that are real vs. things that aren't. Philosophy's not that ostensive or tactile though I realize, so when it comes to something like epistemology, it's the difference between applying reason and logic to clearly defined premises and goals, vs. daydreaming.

Naw, I get where you're coming from. I fully understand the what I do has a tendency to border on the frustrating simply because there's little reason for it.

 

Honestly based on what you've said in this topic and whatnot I'm surprised you haven't completely raged at me. Seems like I'm the exact type of person you typically don't like to associate with philosophically.

 

But I do enjoy the discussion regardless as it does, in fact, give me things to think about. Can't break a mold if you don't know the form it takes in the first place.

 

 

That's pretty cool! I also think about those kinds of things all the time!

 

 

I must admit, I'm pretty firm on the side of logic. I have a pretty large preference for order over chaos. But, you have brought up some interesting points.

I'm kinda the opposite. Chaos is my tune. While it's dangerous to mess with, even on a casual level, it brings such satisfying results and interesting experiences to the table.

 

The lovely thing about chaos is it can just as easily mix with order when it benefits chaos. Part of why it's so dangerous is because it can be frustrating for others to deal with the reasoning behind it. The reasoning can change on a dime simply by a new bit of information changing the form of everything around it. In my experience people don't like the formlessness it causes.

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

Absolutely agreed with you on that last part. Any form of art can give rise to meaningful thought, and this show is no exception. Nay, it's an exemplar of such!

 

Interestingly enough, I sort of came to the opposite conclusion. (Again "sort of")

 

To put it less intelligently than you did:

 

Before I watched this show, I considered my own happiness inconsequential. To me, the greatest calling was to serve an organization of high morals. I chose the U.S. military. (*insert disparaging remarks here* "I'll wait.") While I attended Valley Forge military college though, I found the ideals we swore by, honor above them all, were being ignored or outright defiled by my peers.

 

It made me sick, I felt so lost and confused. That's when a ray of light enter my life.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71jT61A8qHw

 

With that, everything changed. I tried harder to make friends, I smiled more, I began to write for recreation and discovered a talent and passion for it. Suddenly, simply being happy seemed far more noble than submitting myself to an organization that didn't practice what it preached.

 

So I left that school, vowed to become a writer, and well . . . here I am. Not sure if that makes me a Hedonist but I certainly love Pinkie Pie goal in life of making others smile.

 

 

No worries! At least you found something to give you a better outlook! It is rather disappointing when the people who advocate honor are the most devoid of it. That's why personal development through introspection and philosophy is so important! I guess I do have my preferred method of achieving it, but I suppose I can't argue with your results! Keep smiling!

 

@@Discordian, isn't this the truth! I always get so frustrated by unpredictability and chaos! 

 

I know a lot of people simplify order and chaos into "good" and "evil." It really isn't that simple. I can ramble on about this, but I will just say that I find chaos to be more detrimental to progress. I like planning and organizing! Chaos and randomness aren't exactly best friends with them!

[Discordian 6,013]

A dictatorship is a prime example of real-life Ordered Evil. It's definitely not that simple.

 

And it's true that chaos probably doesn't do much in the way of progress but it's a hell of a lot of fun regardless and one can learn a lot about themselves from chaotic experiences anyway. I actually find myself flustered when order is thrown in my face when I'm being unreasonable. I know it's just me acting out but the two really don't work well together...but there's nothing saying a chaotic and ordered person cannot get along! Otherwise I'd have no friends at all.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

 

 

No worries! At least you found something to give you a better outlook! It is rather disappointing when the people who advocate honor are the most devoid of it. That's why personal development through introspection and philosophy is so important! I guess I do have my preferred method of achieving it, but I suppose I can't argue with your results! Keep smiling!

 

Well I didn't say you were wrong, and indeed, I feel like we've both come to the conclusions we needed at the time.

 

If you'll permit me, perhaps you were in sore need of a system of extrinsic virtues, and found them in the Elements of Harmony and other morals of the show.

 

Whereas I put too much value in the extrinsic and forgot (or perhaps had not yet learned) to look inward. To ask myself if what I was told was right, was truly what I believed was right.

 

Regardless, whatever philosophical belief I do eventually clarify as my own, it's no less valid for me than stoicism is for you.

 

I must ask my friend, as one who clearly has a great understanding of the art, does introspection by itself qualify as being philosophical?

A dictatorship is a prime example of real-life Ordered Evil. It's definitely not that simple.

 

And it's true that chaos probably doesn't do much in the way of progress but it's a hell of a lot of fun regardless and one can learn a lot about themselves from chaotic experiences anyway. I actually find myself flustered when order is thrown in my face when I'm being unreasonable. I know it's just me acting out but the two really don't work well together...but there's nothing saying a chaotic and ordered person cannot get along! Otherwise I'd have no friends at all.

 

Really as oversimplified as it is, the four axis morality system of Dungeons and Dragons serves as a good primer of morality and ethics.

 

Good and Evil stating the characters end goals and Order or Chaos their method; Neutral being possible for one or both of the previous.

[Discordian 6,013]

Well I didn't say you were wrong, and indeed, I feel like we've both come to the conclusions we needed at the time.

 

If you'll permit me, perhaps you were in sore need of a system of extrinsic virtues, and found them in the Elements of Harmony and other morals of the show.

 

Whereas I put too much value in the extrinsic and forgot (or perhaps had not yet learned) to look inward. To ask myself if what I was told was right, was truly what I believed was right.

 

Regardless, whatever philosophical belief I do eventually clarify as my own, it's no less valid for me than stoicism is for you.

 

I must ask my friend, as one who clearly has a great understanding of the art, does introspection by itself qualify as being philosophical?

 

 

Really as oversimplified as it is, the four axis morality system of Dungeons and Dragons serves as a good primer of morality and ethics.

 

Good and Evil stating the characters end goals and Order or Chaos their method; Neutral being possible for one or both of the previous.

Indeed. They make for good umbrella descriptions at the very least. Sometimes the specifics of one's character are irrelevant and more easily fall under these umbrellas if they absolutely must be defined.

 

Oh and on the note of introspection...I've done a lot of it. A LOT. Technically you can only get so far without the experiences to back it up but I've found that on some level you can take the experiences of others rather than your own and it helps put yourself into perspective.

 

But there's a problem with it, and you may have noticed it in my posts: Too much introspection leads you to turn every conversation into a "me, myself and I" type of thing. I have a pretty terrible habit of starting every thought and sentence with one of those three words.

 

Granted in my case one must stay centered in order to keep a chaotic nature such as my own under control as it's very easy to become something...unspeakable but it's sort of a downside of introspection. I'd say to watch out for it.

 

@@Steel Accord

Edited March 30, 2014 by Discordian

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

@@Steel Accord, perhaps the discrepancy revolves around application?

 

The introspective philosopher, and I do believe introspection is a key part of philosophy, concerns themselves with relating their experiences with the world they encounter. They consider different aspects of epistemology, and some may, like Descartes, arrive at the conclusion that our own senses cannot be trusted, yet we know that we exist because we are self-aware. Others, like the existentialists, are almost intoxicated with the senses, and become infatuated with the emotional struggles of the self. Perhaps, for you, an introspective philosopher, MLP helped you come to some self-realization about the actions and beliefs you needed to espouse to be a better person.

 

I guess the show hit me on an extrinsic level. I've always been very political. Political philosophers take the ideas they generate, and seek to apply them on a macro level. In my case, using MLP ideas to create a societal concept. The line between intrinsic and extrinsic can be blurry, indeed I believe that a utopian society require people at large to be more introspective, but I think this application difference has lead to the alternate approaches.

 

 

 

@@Discordian, one way I like to differentiate between chaos and order is taking the case of the Daedra and Aedra in the Elder Scrolls. A lot of people in the universe think the Daedra are evil, when the truth is more subtle. They merely represent the forces of change and emotion. Sometimes they are beneficial, sometimes they are deleterious, most of the time they are simply esoteric. I just have this obsession almost with solving the unsolvable and eliminating variables. I guess it makes sense that Twilight is my favorite and Pinkie is my least favorite! 

[Nine 707]

 

 

Honestly based on what you've said in this topic and whatnot I'm surprised you haven't completely raged at me. Seems like I'm the exact type of person you typically don't like to associate with philosophically.

If I went far enough down this road with you? I don't know .. maybe. But I feel like if I asked enough of the right questions, I'd find you to be more reasonable than this one side interest. Besides, some things may still bother me on principle, but it's been more than two years since I've really raged on anyone about anything. I guess I don't see the point in it, and it looks bad too. 

[Discordian 6,013]

@@Steel Accord, perhaps the discrepancy revolves around application?

 

The introspective philosopher, and I do believe introspection is a key part of philosophy, concerns themselves with relating their experiences with the world they encounter. They consider different aspects of epistemology, and some may, like Descartes, arrive at the conclusion that our own senses cannot be trusted, yet we know that we exist because we are self-aware. Others, like the existentialists, are almost intoxicated with the senses, and become infatuated with the emotional struggles of the self. Perhaps, for you, an introspective philosopher, MLP helped you come to some self-realization about the actions and beliefs you needed to espouse to be a better person.

 

I guess the show hit me on an extrinsic level. I've always been very political. Political philosophers take the ideas they generate, and seek to apply them on a macro level. In my case, using MLP ideas to create a societal concept. The line between intrinsic and extrinsic can be blurry, indeed I believe that a utopian society require people at large to be more introspective, but I think this application difference has lead to the alternate approaches.

 

 

 

@@Discordian, one way I like to differentiate between chaos and order is taking the case of the Daedra and Aedra in the Elder Scrolls. A lot of people in the universe think the Daedra are evil, when the truth is more subtle. They merely represent the forces of change and emotion. Sometimes they are beneficial, sometimes they are deleterious, most of the time they are simply esoteric. I just have this obsession almost with solving the unsolvable and eliminating variables. I guess it makes sense that Twilight is my favorite and Pinkie is my least favorite! 

I honestly don't know enough about Elder Scrolls lore. I played Oblivion a lot but not much of any of the others. I didn't even know there was a race called the Aedra.

 

 

If I went far enough down this road with you? I don't know .. maybe. But I feel like if I asked enough of the right questions, I'd find you to be more reasonable than this one side interest. Besides, some things may still bother me on principle, but it's been more than two years since I've really raged on anyone about anything. I guess I don't see the point in it, and it looks bad too.

Indeed. There's more to a person than one interest. I wouldn't think of holding any hate you had for me against you through this one discussion. People don't have to agree on everything to get along.

 

And I agree about raging. It's been a long time since I've gone into full-blown rants against something. More often than not it's pointless and just doesn't look good.

[Nine 707]

@@Discordian,

I'm not entirely rational anyway .. I just wouldn't publicly advocate for anything else, or make a definite claim based on anything else. I think of reason as a common bond between people - something one person can demonstrate to another. So in talking to anyone, likeminded or not, one should feel free to give a reasonable viewpoint. But an irrational one belongs to oneself; and ought to stay inside oneself. It can't ever really be shared. This is more or less my view of the supernatural. What I believe and how that fits into my metaphysics, I think is outside the scope of this thread. It isn't territory I tread often in largely unknown company anyway.

If you did know me better though I don't even know what you'd think of me. I suppose you might wonder why I'm such a big fan of reason and rational evaluation anyway. 

[Discordian 6,013]

My view is that everyone uses reason and rationality. What can I possibly say that hasn't already been said in a rational way?

 

That's why I throw the irrational and crazy out there. Most may not pay attention to it but for those who do it gives them something to think about outside of the realm of the current train of thought set by the creation of a thread such as this or any conversation of the like.

 

I absolutely abhor repeating everything that's already been said by someone else so half the time it's the only way I get any sort of word in on a subject.

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

@@Nine, I do understand where you're coming from. I'm a pretty staunch rationalist, particularly with public and societal concerns. It tends to follow considering my attachment to logic. 

[Nine 707]

 

 

I absolutely abhor repeating everything that's already been said by someone else so half the time it's the only way I get any sort of word in on a subject.

ahhhhh ..

You know I had a suspicion it might be this.

I know exactly how you feel. It's how I used to feel, before I overburdened myself with ways to pick on nearly every position in philosophy.

 

@,

I just think that public discourse only has room for reason. I'm willing to make private allowances for nearly any crazy thing you can name, but drag it into the public, political, policy making ring, and then Babs gon hafta smack a filly. 

[Steel Accord 6,658]

@@Steel Accord, perhaps the discrepancy revolves around application?

 

The introspective philosopher, and I do believe introspection is a key part of philosophy, concerns themselves with relating their experiences with the world they encounter. They consider different aspects of epistemology, and some may, like Descartes, arrive at the conclusion that our own senses cannot be trusted, yet we know that we exist because we are self-aware. Others, like the existentialists, are almost intoxicated with the senses, and become infatuated with the emotional struggles of the self. Perhaps, for you, an introspective philosopher, MLP helped you come to some self-realization about the actions and beliefs you needed to espouse to be a better person.

 

I guess the show hit me on an extrinsic level. I've always been very political. Political philosophers take the ideas they generate, and seek to apply them on a macro level. In my case, using MLP ideas to create a societal concept. The line between intrinsic and extrinsic can be blurry, indeed I believe that a utopian society require people at large to be more introspective, but I think this application difference has lead to the alternate approaches.

 

Well I have heard Equestria compared to Plato's Republic on multiple occasions.

 

For our purposes, I'd rather keep specific political affiliation out, as I'd much rather discuss philosophy on a personal level. Speaking of which though, I morally place the highest and most sacred of importance on the individual. I have also caught myself contemplating the very meaning of "the self" and selfhood.

 

What makes an individual? Would my personal continuity be retained if uploaded to a computer, or would that just be a copy?

 

Are their schools of philosophy that place a great deal of weight and thought around individuality and it's nature?

Edited March 30, 2014 by Steel Accord

[Discordian 6,013]

ahhhhh ..

You know I had a suspicion it might be this.

I know exactly how you feel. It's how I used to feel, before I overburdened myself with ways to pick on nearly every position in philosophy.

I should make something clear though: I do not think the way I do just to be different, just to have a voice. I truly think the way I do naturally.

 

I've been accused of doing it just to stand out more times than I can count. :okiedokielokie:

[Steel Accord 6,658]

I should make something clear though: I do not think the way I do just to be different, just to have a voice. I truly think the way I do naturally.

 

I've been accused of doing it just to stand out more times than I can count. :okiedokielokie:

 

I didn't think you did. Trust me, like Nine, I've had my share of pathological contrarians. Their ramblings aren't nearly as creative as yours! 

 

Your thoughts, as inconsistent and radical as they are, sound original enough to clearly be your own and not just knee-jerk denial of what the other person said.

[Nine 707]

 

 

I've been accused of doing it just to stand out more times than I can count.

 

Well then I won't do that.

And I do get it. I really .. really *do* get it but that's all I cansay here.

[Discordian 6,013]

I didn't think you did. Trust me, like Nine, I've had my share of pathological contrarians. Their ramblings aren't nearly as creative as yours! 

 

Your thoughts, as inconsistent and radical as they are, sound original enough to clearly be your own and not just knee-jerk denial of what the other person said.

I'll hope that was a compliment for the sake of my sanity.

 

 

Well then I won't do that.

And I do get it. I really .. really *do* get it but that's all I cansay here.

Trust me, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if you did accuse me of such a thing. Just saying that it happens quite often and it's most certainly not the reason.

 

And though I probably don't need to say it I hope you don't take the things I say personally and keep what we've discussed here in mind when we cross paths in the future.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

 

 

I'll hope that was a compliment for the sake of my sanity.

 

Yes it was. Sorry, I thought my intent was clear. 

[Discordian 6,013]

Oh it was but sometimes my sarcasm meter can be waaaaaaaaay off so I was playing it safe.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

Oh it was but sometimes my sarcasm meter can be waaaaaaaaay off so I was playing it safe.

 

Sarcasm is utter anathema to my nature. Not that I hate those who are sarcastic, but I have a certain disability which makes it difficult for me to recognize sarcasm and other forms of double-speak.

 

As such, sincerity is my default tone, and a cultivated virtue.

[Nine 707]

@@Discordian,

I think maybe you think I'm less sympathetic than I actually am. Really, don't worry about it. 

[Discordian 6,013]

I agree so much. I do sarcasm once in awhile myself but I've always been to be brutally honest about things. Sugar coating is my worst enemy.

 

But spend enough time on the internet and even the most innocent of comments can be sarcastic and you might not even know.

@@Discordian,

I think maybe you think I'm less sympathetic than I actually am. Really, don't worry about it.

Naw, more like I have an incessant need to overexplain and sometimes point out the obvious. Bad habits.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Discordian

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

@@Nine, I hear you there. I'm a member of The Skeptics Society.  Along with other things, they keep an eye out for pseudoscience like anti-vaccine advocacy and other Flim and Flam-esque medical quackery.

 

@@Steel Accord, of course we can stay at the micro level!

As for individualism, look into the existentialists, such as Camus and Nietzsche. They can get political, but sidestep it if you wish. You might like the American transcendentalists like Thoreau. Oscar Wilde wrote a lot about being true to yourself; he was a consummate bohemian.

 

@@Discordian, I would still find your randomness entertaining and probably enlightening in a way! I think I shall keep you around as a foil...  

Edited March 30, 2014 by OmniaVincitEquorum

[Nine 707]

 

 

As such, sincerity is my default tone, and a cultivated virtue.

I propose the invention of sincere sarcasm, right now. 

 

 

 

Naw, more like I have an incessant need to overexplain and sometimes point out the obvious.

It's cool

 

 

 

 Along with other things, they keep an out for pseudoscience like anti-vaccine advocacy

Hah. Yeah, there's a very special kind of stupid. Even after all that vaccine-autism stuff was thoroughly disproven and the guy admitted to being a fraud, it still lives on.