I think irrational belief, rather, is at the root of all systems of thought, from nihilism to analytic philosophy, to existentialism, to Islamism. A truly rational system of thought would begin with a single root, "I exist", for instance, and then every branch of the system would perfectly follow from that, but no one is so perfectly rational as to be able to develop and maintain such a system. Such a system would actually be incomplete; it would be impossible to live within the world of experience and yet rationally construct such a system from within experience; the system would have to be constructed from outside experience (analysis), but analysis exists within experience. — Noble Dust

That sounds very similar to what I see in Gabriel Marcel's writings.

Putting aside his sexual orientation, no matter what it might have been. I wouldn't want to live Wittgenstein's life. I don't see much that is worthy of admiration. He clearly physically assaulted some of the children in his schoolroom. He was hard to get along with.

I suppose he did have some good qualities. He valued honesty. He even went so far as to go back and apologize to the schoolchildren.

He definitely had some interesting things to say about philosophy.

Are you referring to this?

That a man of Wittgenstein’s background and ability led such a difficult and unsettled life is indicative of his complex and troubled personality. He was prone to introspection and self-castigation and throughout his adult life experienced suicidal impulses and bouts of depression and at times feared for his own sanity. Being something of a loner he often sought complete solitude yet was a magnetic personality who formed many friendships and evoked awe in virtually all who met him. He was a compelling teacher who had a profound influence on many of his students, both on the philosophical outlook of those who became philosophers and on the life choices of those who did not. But he could be a difficult, demanding and overbearing friend and several major Cambridge figures, though admiring of his intellect and integrity, eventually broke off their friendships with him or sought to keep him at arm’s length.

He also had 3 brothers who committed suicide.

Our conversation brings up 2 issues. 1. What evidence is there that Wittgenstein was gay? 2. If he was gay (I'm not sure he was) then what evidence is there that Wittgenstein suffered because he was gay?

I'm actually fairly liberal and am in favor of same-sex marriages.

The fact of his sexual orientation has never been at issue as far as I am aware. — charleton

I still don't know why it is that you believe this to be true.

There is not a scrap of doubt that he had relationships with men and women in his life — charleton

What is your source of information for Wittgenstein's sexual orientation? I've seen some speculation, but is there anything more concrete?
From Philosophy Now.

That a man of Wittgenstein’s background and ability led such a difficult and unsettled life is indicative of his complex and troubled personality. He was prone to introspection and self-castigation and throughout his adult life experienced suicidal impulses and bouts of depression and at times feared for his own sanity. Being something of a loner he often sought complete solitude yet was a magnetic personality who formed many friendships and evoked awe in virtually all who met him. He was a compelling teacher who had a profound influence on many of his students, both on the philosophical outlook of those who became philosophers and on the life choices of those who did not. But he could be a difficult, demanding and overbearing friend and several major Cambridge figures, though admiring of his intellect and integrity, eventually broke off their friendships with him or sought to keep him at arm’s length.

It has frequently been claimed that Wittgenstein was gay and that he fell in love on several occasions (usually with young men who combined intelligence with innocence and gentleness). However, it is probable that his sexual life was very limited as he believed that sex, and physical proximity in general, only serve to undermine true love.

I don't know that his sexual preferences caused any problems. I'm not even sure if we can say we know he was gay.

I'm no expert on the mind by any means, and I enjoyed reading David Chalmers' The Conscious Mind and John Searle (I don't remember which book I have.. but this looks good. I just ordered it for myself).

The Stoics, I have no preference; but, at the same time, it's hard to understand how Marcus Aurelius wanted his Meditations to be burned and not given to the public — Posty McPostface

I know some who are trained in the classics believe that he did intend to have them published.

Wittgenstein, I think this doesn't require further explanation. It's obvious that he was not only a supreme philosopher but as well as a great human being at it, too. — Posty McPostface

As others have pointed out, he had some serious flaws.

I'm currently beginning to question whether many of my own problems stem from my lack of a concrete belief system. — JustSomeGuy

This is interesting to me, because I believe many of my own problems stem from the fact that I grew up with a concrete belief system.

Reading Putnam edited by Maria Baghramian

Thank you!

Cicero liked some Stoic ideas

While Cicero would adhere to a moderate skepticism in general philosophical matters, he admired Panaetius and drew on a number of Stoic ideas in formulating his own ethical and political teachings

- but he was an Academic Skeptic.

I'm okay with just saying "seeking after systems" instead of Dogma. Not everyone who is looking for a system is going to be dogmatic about it (assuming dogma has a negative connotation). I mentioned a definition of dogma in one of my earlier posts.

If there are other options beside the 3 I mentioned, I'd like to hear them. I think nihilism is a legitimate 4th category. Are there others?

Or to ignore the complexity of the situation. — tEd

Regarding systems:
It seems to me like the paradigm is, "What you need to do is to think and analyze... that is THE most important thing to do in life." What about our actions? What about other people? How should we treat them? What about my first person experiences? Do they mean nothing?

But, I still like exploring systems. And I wonder if we'll ever find one that explains everything.

Another way to interpret the parable, is that the river is life, and because we're in the middle of it, we need a raft. We all need to assess our raft and continually improve upon it as we cross the river.

(edited slightly)

I was saying that I'm eclectic, because I tend to pick and choose from among various ideas from a wide range of philosophical thinkers.

There is something to be said for being eclectic. I like exploring ideas from a wide range of categories.

It may be just too Eastern for my Western mindset. And I've never had a master whose teachings I was fearful of doubting.

I do feel like I'm on a journey to find the best way to make sense of the world and the best way to live my life. I suppose I could take the parable to mean that there may be times when I think I've found that way, when in reality, I may need to give up that way because it is lacking. But, to put it in terms of the parable... there will always be other rivers to cross, so other rafts.

As far as Wittgenstein goes. He seemed to have come to the conclusion that philosophy is meaningless, that there are no real problems in philosophy, and he was so sure of this that he encouraged others to find other things to do besides philosophy. I don't agree with his conclusions.

I read the parable, but I'm not sure what to make of it.

Platonism might have its dogmas, but Plato's views and ideas were constantly evolving and changing. — Wayfarer

That's definitely worth considering. Perhaps I am just projecting the dogmas of Platonism onto Plato.

I do think that good philosophers are those who are always willing to challenge their own beliefs, and consider other possibilities.

Edit: I started reading Plato's dialogues about a year ago, and I really enjoy them. I find myself going back to them often.

What do you think of this definition?
Definition of dogma
plural dogmas also dogmata play \-mə-tə\
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets

Plato as non-dogmatic? Maybe. I think others have made the case that he was pretty sure that his theory of the forms was "the right way" to view knowledge. (Although he definitely challenges the notion himself in Parmenides).

But, I think I could probably change my title to "Systems or Existentialism or Relativism or Nihilism" and it would still convey the same idea. Meh... it's a work in progress.

I think it could be said that some seek after systems (some of those who seek after systems are more dogmatic than others)... if not systems, then Existentialism or Relativisim or Nihilism. If one was to seek after systems, then it's healthier to continue to doubt one's system, vs dogmatically assert that it is THE correct way to view reality.

I kinda doubt we'll ever find that complete system, and I wonder if trying to find an analytic way to describe everything could cause one to miss out on living a fulfilling life. For me Existentialism is more down to earth in that it deals with how to live our day to day lives, vs sitting around thinking about stuff. On the other hand, theories of knowledge seem pretty important, and I wonder how existentialists deal with the subject of knowledge.

I think I may start describing myself as an Existentialist who has an affinity for analytic philosophy (although I plan on looking into Phenomenology and other continental ideas).
My two favorite philosophers right now are Gabriel Marcel and Hilary Putnam.

But dogmatism, as in being unwilling to even question one's own beliefs — Noble Dust

Dogmatism isn't all bad. I've been looking into Hilary Putnam. He seems to have been on a quest to find "that system" and promoting it's dogma. But.... he also changed his mind several times. He was willing to listen to criticism and change his mind when he deemed it necessary. It seems to me that searching after a system doesn't have to make one a rigid fundamentalist who is unwilling to question his own beliefs. If I were to search after a system (become a Dogmatist) Putnam is a good example to follow, IMHO.

Rather, I suggest that being a 'Relativist' implies that one can see no objective way of comparing the worth of opinions. There are of course subjective measures. In my case, I like opinions that are conducive to flourishing. — andrewk

I think we're on the same page. I see no reason to disagree.

I guess I don't understand you then. — Thorongil

What about the differences between Aristotle's views and Plato's views? Weren't they each basically promoting a different set of dogma? (and didn't each have a complete system? they covered knowledge, ethics, etc.).

One could decide to look at each of those systems and decide which of those systems (and aren't there other complete systems? Berkely's, Kant's, etc)is closer to some objective truth, or better at explaining reality, or comes closest to describing the "basic furniture of the world". One could even create one's own system. Or one could become an existentialist, or a relativist or a nihilist.

I started thinking along these lines when I was reading Shestov (I think it was him). He suggested that one couldn't be a "real" philosopher and hold a teaching position. Because to hold a teaching position means that one must adhere to and teach a set of dogma, and a "real" philosopher challenges accepted dogma.

I think a better term than dogma would be foundationalism. — Thorongil

Isn't foundationalism just a theory of knowledge? I'm talking about complete systems of philosophies that would include a theory of knowledge.

But isn't nihilism a dogma? It seems like a nihilist has to have this kernel of anti-dogma which repels every other dogma. — Bitter Crank

If nihilism is a dogma, then can't the same be said of foundationalism?

For me, existentialism is considering the possibility (for some it may be "accepting") that there truly is no system, no dogma to discover and/or adhere to.

Instead of looking for some system (or accepting some system) an existentialist sees the world afresh as a free being who has the first hand experience of finding himself in various situations.

Instead of looking for some system (or accepting some system) an existentialist insists on taking seriously the fact that he is a free being in an essentially meaningless (no system, no meaning) universe (even Christian existentialists consider meaninglessness or absurdity).

An existentialist wonders, "if no system, then how should I live?"

Since these three rings encompass such a large circus of ideas, are more possibilities needed? — Bitter Crank

I suppose one could choose to be eclectic. But still, wouldn't one then be an eclectic Dogmatist, Existentialist or Relativist?

I'm trying to decide whether I want to continue as a Dogmatist in search of a Dogma to explain, elaborate on and adhere to, or to just accept Existentialism.

I do like reading about the history of Analytic philosophy (the history of the search for a complete system is fascinating), and I enjoy reading Existentialist philosophers.

I'm never sure what existentialism is supposed to be, so it makes poor dogma. — Bitter Crank

Would you like to know what I think existentialism is supposed to be?

@ the OP
I've found this app to be very helpful. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/28211

Quite often I see complaints about certain behavior, and I find myself to be blissfully ignorant.

I see it's no longer available (but I've installed it and it still works great). Maybe SophistiCat will make it available again?

Want a better forum culture? Use the "ignore" button....

I'm still working on Anger and Forgiveness by Martha Nussbaum.
And I just started How the Laws of Physics Lie by Nancy Cartwright.

@Wayfarer & Noble Dust
Thank you for those comments. Much appreciated. (I just ordered God Has Many Names).
I always thought Jesus displayed a pluralistic view of religion in the way he dealt with the Samaritan women at the well.
On second thought, I just read the story again.. Maybe not.

The woman said to him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem." Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming" (who is called Christ). "When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us." Jesus said to her, "I am he, the one who is speaking to you."

I'm looking over the wiki entry on pluralism. (bold and underlining are mine) I am also thinking about pluralism vs monism in regards to metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and logic (and truth).

Pluralism is a term used in philosophy, meaning "doctrine of multiplicity", often used in opposition to monism ("doctrine of unity") and dualism ("doctrine of duality"). The term has different meanings in metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and logic.

In metaphysics, pluralism is a doctrine that there is more than one reality, while monism holds that there is but one reality, that may have single objective ontology or plural ontology. In one form, it is a doctrine that many substances exist, in contrast with monism which holds existence to be a single substance, often either matter (materialism) or mind (idealism), and dualism believes two substances, such as matter and mind, to be necessary.

In ontology, pluralism refers to different ways, kinds, or modes of being. For example, a topic in ontological pluralism is the comparison of the modes of existence of things like 'humans' and 'cars' with things like 'numbers' and some other concepts as they are used in science.[1]

In epistemology, pluralism is the position that there is not one consistent means of approaching truths about the world, but rather many. Often this is associated with pragmatism, or conceptual, contextual, or cultural relativism.

In logic, pluralism is the view that there is no one correct logic, or alternatively, that there is more than one correct logic.[2] One may, for instance, believe that classical logic is the correct logic generally, but believe that paraconsistent logic is the correct logic for dealing with certain paradoxes. However, there are different versions of logical pluralism depending on what one believes 'logic' to be and what it means for a logical system to be 'correct'.

What I'm wondering about, is: is it necessary to find "the one system"? And what if one's preferred way of viewing ultimate reality is in conflict with other ways to view reality(that seems pretty likely, doesn't it?)?

I'm leaning toward just accepting that we may never find that complete system, and accepting that there are a plurality of views.

Are you are stating that pragmatism is the best system? Or are you open to a plurality of competitors to pragmatism?
What if someone says, "I don't find pragmatism appealing....I like X instead." Must he be converted to pragmatism?

In short: for me the answer is to seek to emulate not people, but their admirable acts. — andrewk

That sounds like a pretty good policy. But, what about adding "... admirable acts and qualities"?

If man does have a nature, then it seems to have changed over time. What was man's nature 1 million years ago? 200000 years ago? 20000 years ago? Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke suggested that man is a blank slate.

On the other hand:

E. O. Wilson's sociobiology and closely related theory of evolutionary psychology give scientific arguments against the "tabula rasa" hypotheses of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. In his book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (1998), Wilson claimed that it was time for a cooperation of all the sciences to explore human nature.