It was there just a minute ago, now it's gone! It's probably in the lounge. Try there if you would like to post.

I don't see it there.

Then it's been deleted. :sad:

There was nothing philosophical about the OP, so I deleted it. (This is a pattern with AS in OPs and posts, which is why he's been suspended several times.) @Agent Smith Please stop spamming us with low effort OPs or you will be banned.

Your own worldview is interesting - the one salient feature I recall of it is that you seem to be trying to solve a deep mystery. You have multiple leads, tying them up into a coherent belief system is not going to be easy.

There was nothing philosophical about the OP, so I deleted it. Agent Smith Please stop spamming us with low effort OPs or you will be banned. — Baden

Okie dokie mon ami.

Thank you. Yes. I mean, yes to the category of value I think the thread lead to. It lead to seeing people sum up their positions on a number of philosophical areas. It was interesting to see what got batched in a single person. And then also some of the terms people used were either coined or new to me and I wanted to explore those. We don't really get to see that kind of information batched like that about people. Which I think gave the thread value. We tend to encounter indlvidual positions from individual posters. I liked seeing overviews. Might not have gone anywhere, but I thought it already provided value. That you got threatened with banning seem a stretch. Also, it seems like my asking about what happened to the thread led to your getting a threat. Though perhaps you got a pm or something. Anyway, I liked it. And despite seeing how it didn't lead to a traditional discussion, I thought it led to interesting crossections and information.

I'm not sure coherence is one of my goals for my philosophy (ies). I would like to find out deep stuff and perhaps solutions to how to live and live well. Those can be coherent (or not).

The OP consisted of writing a list of five or six fairly unrelated categories, e.g. classical logic, pessimism etc., called doing that presenting a "weltanshauung", and then asked posters to make a similar list. That's not philosophy and it doesn't invite philosophical thought. E.g. Does "My worldview is classical logic" make sense to you? It's more "I like these philosophical flavours; what philosophical flavours do you like?"

A worldview would be less a list of unrelated philosophical stuff and more an orientation towards the world that integrated philosophical ideas in an individual way. If he had done that, it might have been a worthwhile OP. Otherwise, it's Lounge or bin and seeing as AS has been asked many times to rein in his tendencies towards this type of thing, I'll be choosing bin more often than not.

I'll add that being apparently very cooperative in this way:

Okie dokie mon ami — Agent Smith

as AS usually is, is nice, and he certainly comes across as a nice guy. But it has to be followed up with actual changes in posting behaviour. We're not being unreasonable to ask for that.

And if someone wants to present a worldview in an OP, try this. That might be interesting.

"a worldview is an ontology, or a descriptive model of the world. It should comprise these six elements:

An explanation of the world
A futurology, answering the question "Where are we heading?"
Values, answers to ethical questions: "What should we do?"
A praxeology, or methodology, or theory of action: "How should we attain our goals?"
An epistemology, or theory of knowledge: "What is true and false?"
An etiology. A constructed world-view should contain an account of its own "building blocks", its origins and construction."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview

But six words in a list, no.

:clap:

as AS usually is, is nice, and he certainly comes across as a nice guy. But it has to be followed up with actual changes in posting behaviour. We're not being unreasonable to ask for that. — Baden

Socrates did accept the verdict of the Athenian court. Not that I compare myself to Socrates. It's just that I should meet the standards of the community I'm part of. I hope the charges against me are limited to quality issues.

I have no option but to agree with your appraisal and recommendations. My mappa isn't going to help us navigate the territoria in any meaningful way.

Last I checked, Pyrrhonism was in and of itself a weltanschauung and my agnosticism dovetails into it.

My pessimism may be peculiar to me though - haven't had much luck in life.

Nihilism is arrived at via elimination/cancellation - 180 Proof very often points out how all religions cancel each other out, leaving nothing but nothing.

Virtue ethics is my preferred ethical theory for a simple reason - the sage is moral.

Gracias for the kind words.

My Pyrrhonism, intended/accidental, makes me what in the world of espionage would be called a double agent, a traitor to both sides, just like @Gnomon, who's facing a lot of flak from the very people he wants to serve ... in good faith, presumably.

Last I checked, Pyrrhonism was in and of itself a weltanschauung and my agnosticism dovetails into it. — Agent Smith

And yet ataraxia (or wu wei) and eudaimonia eludes you, amigo. Maybe your skepticism is postmodern (or Gorgiasian) rather than Pyrrhonian?

And yet ataraxia (i.e. wei wu) and eudaimonia eludes you, amigo. Maybe you're skepticism is postmodern (or Gorgiasian) rather than Pyrrhonian? — 180 Proof

Correctamundo señor! I haven't been able to make the connection between aporia and ataraxia. I believe I must've read some St. Augustine/St. Aquinas whomsoever of the two mocked/critiqued this claim by Pyrrhonists.

I hope the charges against me are limited to quality issues. — Agent Smith

Other than that, you're charitable and friendly in your interactions and we would like to be able to keep you here if we can.

Other than that, you're charitable and friendly in your interactions and we would like to be able to keep you here if we can. — Baden

Much obliged!

Other than that, you're charitable and friendly in your interactions and we would like to be able to keep you here if we can. — Baden

This is Eddie, your shipboard computer, and I'm feeling just great, guys, and I know I'm just going to get a bundle of kicks out of any program you care to run through me. — Heart of Gold computer

Rubbin' salt on an open wound? Youch!

I could be considered an older, glitchy, version of ChatGPT. :cool:

I just don't see the sinister or aggression of an Agent - no insult intended.

I just don't see the sinister or aggression of an Agent - no insult intended. — unenlightened

Muchas gracias. No offense taken.

Too early in the morning for this. I'm sure you're right though. ChatGPT writes at least half my mod posts.

@Bylaw it is, after all, a war of worldviews.

Bylaw it is, after all, a war of worldviews. — Agent Smith

I'm not sure what the 'it' refers to.
I have a sense that people have official worldviews and then often something else and/or something more complex going on (underneath, sometimes, on the side). We want to varying degrees to be seen as (including by ourselves) Good, Rational, Smart, on the Right Team, Spiritual, Not Fooled, Brave, Noble....The 'wanting to be seen as' is like a virus in our worldviews, how we deal with other worldviews and what we choose to say is our worldview.

Like the older brother is not going to admit that he disagrees with his sister about school, music, films, etc., because he loved it before she was born when he was an only child and she came and ruined it. (that's a metaphor. I'm not suggesting Freudianish reasons for all these splits.) He might not even know or be able to call it up. And there are all these old battles two between 'sides'.

Indeed, worldviews may not be well-articulated, giving an illusion that it either doesn't exist or is ill-formed. By "it" I mean life. You have a point as to what I interpret as putting on a show, but don't be so quick to dismiss/judge a professed weltanschauung as a farce. It could be that no worldview is gonna is gonna make the cut.

I don't mean it's a farce. I think there may be significant overlaps with what they actually believe. I just mean that I don't assume it matches, and often behavior and things said in other contexts show these other views seeping up to the surface or not hidden well.

I mean, it would be a kind of fascistic self-relation to eliminate all of this. I am not trying to put people down for inconsistancies in a general way. But I do think that there is a lot of explaining our positions after the fact of having them or wanting to have them.

:up:

Then I was mistaken, apologies. Do you agree/disagree that what the world is going through is a war of worldviews?

There are certainly conflicts between worldviews, but I suppose if I were to generalize I would say there is a war between people with no empathy and everyone else. The everyone else is involved in a lot of paradigmatic conflict. Which helps the people with no empathy.

I would say there is a war between people with no empathy and everyone else — Bylaw

:up: :up:

Yes. We are faced with the challenge of achieving a new kind of social consciousness whose operation is predicated on empathy.