I was raised in a religious family (evangelical, even), identified as a communist in my early adolescence, then as a libertarian by the time I reached adulthood, and was severely skeptical almost to the point of nihilism by the time I finished college (and have now swung back to somewhere in the middle of that range), so at least some people's views can vary wildly over the course of their lives.

On the other hand, my core values were really the same all along, and it was just what I thought was the best way of achieving those values that changed over time. But then those values were things like truth, knowledge, goodness, justice, etc, which I think are pretty universally valued; it's just what people think is the best way of achieving them that varies.

, and was severely skeptical almost to the point of nihilism by the time I finished college — Pfhorrest

Sceptical of what?

I began on the left politically. But philosophically I always leaned in the direction of anthropology and a Darwinian point of view. I tend to find analytical philosophy uninspiring and have always leaned towards a sort of phenomenological view of life. If I drift in another direction I usually return to that.

Edit: but I don’t remember consciously choosing any of those.

I was wondering how we find the philosophers or philosophy we engage with? Are we choosing it or are we hardwired? Can we really throw something aside and change horses, or be persuaded to change our perspective on those big questions by the arguments of others? Have you ever convinced someone to change their mind? — Brett

In my experience, people do change. But it takes time. People are deaf in the short term to exactly what they 'need' to hear. I mean in retrospect they will realize that their critics were right. But our big issue positions are like virtual selves that we must defend at almost all costs. So we just change one little part of our Neurathian raft at a time, so we don't drown.

Sceptical of what? — Brett

Everything. Infinite regress arguments I learned about in philosophy classes seemed to have gone completely unanswered. Here were these arguments showing that we had no good reason to think that anything was real or moral, and attempts at defeating them, and the faults of those attempts... leaving us with the still-undefeated skeptical arguments. I was freaking out, asking fellow students and professors how the hell they can just continue living normally in the face of this, and the best anyone could give me was basically a shrug and a comment like "you just can't live like nothing is real or moral, so I just ignore it and carry on as though things are". I really really didn't want to accept them, so I continued acting as though I thought things were real and moral, but for a few years at least just sort of felt like those were my baseless opinions and nobody could ever have any claim to tell anyone else that anything was actually real or moral, just their own baseless opinions about that all.

Can we really throw something aside and change horses, or be persuaded to change our perspective on those big questions by the arguments of others? Have you ever convinced someone to change their mind? — Brett

In mathematics it is trivially easy. If the claim is provable, then nobody will contest it. In science it is also relatively easy. If the claim is falsifiable but nobody manages to falsify it, then it will also be accepted. There is, however, no such benchmark as provability or falsifiability in philosophy. There is no paperwork procedure of which one can verify the output documents in order to accept or reject a claim. Therefore, I do not even try to persuade anybody of philosophical viewpoints. As far as I am concerned, everybody believes what they want. Some people will believe what I say but others won't, and, as far as I am concerned, that is entirely expected.

There is, however, no such benchmark as provability or falsifiability in philosophy. — alcontali

That may be true and you may not try to persuade others of your viewpoint, but plenty of others here give it a go. And many of us try to change the political positions of our friends and associates. Maybe not so much now but definitely in our early years. If you were a capitalist you are very likely to argue with a communist over ideologies or vice versa. But that question was probably the least important in my post.

My primary interest was whether your choice of philosopher and philosophies is hardwired. And whether anyone has switched horses along the way, and if so how did it happen? Was it through conversation with others, reading, or a revelation of sorts?

My changes happened for different reasons. I just kinda grew out of my religious views in the same way I grew out of Santa Claus, influenced by various sciences I learned aboard in school and in books and educational TV. My transition from communist to libertarian was heavily influenced by discussion with people on the internet in my adolescence. My descent into nigh-nihilistic skepticism was prompted by formal philosophical study. My recovery from that was the result of private philosophizing about ongoing life experiences. And my transition to libertarian socialism was the result of my own philosophizing about problems with right-libertarianism that people on the internet constantly argued about, and then independent reading to see if anyone else had come up with similar ideas who could back me up, when my “new solution” proved unpersuasive on either the right-libertarian internet communities I grew up with or the state-socialists there arguing against them. Lots of my subsequent philosophical refinements have followed that last pattern: try to extend an olive branch to the “other side” with a novel third position, piss off both sides in the process, search for other more established thinkers with similar ideas to back me up.

Psychophilosophically, furthermore, pscyhopathiphilosophically, we are hardwired by evolutionary changes. This means hardwired for cooperation, but also for individualism. We'll save our fellow man from a fire, but we want the best car and the best-looking mate for ourselves. The species is not heterogenenous; some mutations made some people more left-centred, more right-centred, and more center-centred.

I am talking about "hard-wired" in terms and the sense of the most typical and detectable behaviour cluster, psychophilosophicopoliticopsychologically only. Particularly that of it which is hard-weird.

Psychophilosophically, furthermore, pscyhopathiphilosophically, we are hardwired by evolutionary changes. This means hardwired for cooperation, but also for individualism — god must be atheist

So, for instance, an apparatchik of the communist party is overriding his hardwired beliefs in individualism and cooperation and choosing party ideology. Or is that ideology hardwired in him?

So, for instance, an apparatchik of the communist party is overriding his hardwired beliefs in individualism and cooperation and choosing party ideology. Or is that ideology hardwired in him? — Brett

Hohoh!! An apparatnyichkaya Gyevotchka can pretend to be a communalist, in order to serve her individualism. Because observed behavior of another is not a guiding post in measuring someone's motivations -- and sadly it is only behaviour we can base or judgment of other's motivs and characters.

An apparatnyichkaya Gyevotchka can pretend to be a communalist, in order to serve her individualism. — god must be atheist

So, no such thing as a communist, just an opportunist.

My primary interest was whether your choice of philosopher and philosophies is hardwired. — Brett

No, not possible. For example, I came to realize that conclusions about ethics outside the regulatory framework and system of religious law can only be spurious. That makes me reject all forms of system-less ethics.

This has wide-ranging ramifications on my political opinions. I reject every possible political claim about morality or even legitimacy. This means that I never allow politicians to lecture me on ethics or to invent new obligations or laws. I do not owe them anything. Islam is the ruthless solution to that problem. And no, I wasn't born into the religion.

So, no such thing as a communist, just an opportunist. — Brett

Notice, I wrote "can". You jump into wrong conclusions.

Notice, I wrote "can". You jump into wrong conclusions. — god must be atheist

So, for instance, an apparatchik of the communist party is overriding his hardwired beliefs in individualism and cooperation and choosing party ideology. Or is that ideology hardwired in him? — Brett

So then, back to the beginning.

I was wondering how we find the philosophers or philosophy we engage with? — Brett

No doubt we're drawn to philosophies with which we share questions and/or existential concerns.

Are we choosing it or are we hardwired? — Brett

Hardwired to choose, no?

Can we really throw something aside and change horses, or be persuaded to change our perspective on those big questions by the arguments of others? — Brett

Sure, why not?

Have you ever convinced someone to change their mind? — Brett

I've been told I have even by some members of this site. Almost never happens, yet occasionally someone hears what she needs (is open) to hear. Like art, which plays with shifting perspectives, philosophy - dialectic - explores, or examines, alternative interpretations of concepts (formal) and facts (physical) occasionally generating gedankenexperiments from which (scientific, or artistic, or political) hypotheses may be formulated.

In mathematics it is trivially easy. If the claim is provable, then nobody will contest it. — alcontali

Yet 'provability' is a philosophical criterion, or principle, and not a mathematical concept.

In science it is also relatively easy. If the claim is falsifiable but nobody manages to falsify it, then it will also be accepted. — alcontali

Likewise, 'falsifiability' is a philosophical criterion, or principle, and not a scientific concept.

There is, however, no such benchmark as provability or falsifiability in philosophy. — alcontali

Philosophy consists in dialectics (Socrates, Adorno) - giving & taking of reasons to Question or Problematize, or grounds for belief disbelief or doubt - from which principles & criteria, of varying degrees of use (not truth)-value, in one or more domains of Inquiry and/or Practice are derived. That they "will be accepted" or "nobody will contest" them are mere dogmatic, or anti-philosophical, shibboleths (e.g. scholasticism, physics/math-envy, etc); instead, convergence without any terminating consensus (Peirce, Popper, Feyerabend, Haack). Philosophy's "benchmark" consists in both intelligible grounds (re: doubting) and sound reasons (re: questioning, problematizing).

Yet 'provability' is a philosophical criterion, or principle, and not a mathematical concept. — 180 Proof

Likewise, 'falsifiability' is a philosophical criterion, or principle, and not a scientific concept. — 180 Proof

Provability and falsifiability are epistemic criteria. So, there is a way to back the proposition with objectively verifiable paperwork of a particular type.

If paperwork of a particular type exists to justify a proposition, in terms of epistemology, then there exists a particular procedure to fill out that kind paperwork, i.e. according to computability.

Therefore, in another thread, we have been discussing and investigating whether epistemology and computability are essentially not one and the same thing?

Hence, it is a question mark if epistemology will not some day be migrated to (meta)mathematics, just like logic has been already.

That they "will be accepted" or "nobody will contest" them are mere dogmatic, or anti-philosophical, shibboleths (e.g. scholasticism, physics/math-envy, etc); instead, convergence without terminating consensus (Peirce, Popper, Feyerabend, Haack). — 180 Proof

If the justification cannot be verified objectively/mechanically, then the epistemic status of the claim being justified is not knowledge. Therefore, seeking objective justification is a legitimate goal, simply, because it turns what would otherwise be mere conjectures into sound knowledge.

If it is not possible to turn particular conjectures into knowledge, then let them remain mere conjectures. I have absolutely no problem with that. Furthermore, I do not seek to convince anybody of the conjectures that I may personally believe in. In the end, we all use them, and people are free to believe what they want.

So, for instance, an apparatchik of the communist party is overriding his hardwired beliefs in individualism and cooperation and choosing party ideology. Or is that ideology hardwired in him?
— Brett

So then, back to the beginning. — Brett

I frankly don't understand your question. That's why I dodged it the first time.

I meant to say that individualism and cooperetiveness are opposing forces. Maybe I should have drawn a diagram to show that.

So if you override your basic beleif, and you override the opposite of your basic beleif, (both can't be hardwired, only in chance cases -- most people are this way or that way, only some people are divided in their hardwired psyche in the middle), then you choose whatever you want? Why would you want to do that? I can't see a real-life example of this conceptualized question. If you have to choose one end of the two, why override both in the first place? No instance emerges where it can be true. Although I am not denying it can be true, but I can't see how that can happen. You deny both ends of the spectrum, only to choose one end of the spectrum, is what I read in your question.

I can't answer your question. I simply see no sense in it.

@brett Whether your philosophy is hardwired or not, you can behave and advocate as if you believed the opposite to what you are hardwired for.

Behavour simply does not reveal hardwiredness.

But sometimes it does, for instance, when a communist is subjected to extreme torture to give up his comerades, he or she may withstand the torture for the sake of the communist ideal.

Or take the religious wars in any time in history: people went to death freely in order to preserve the dominance of their faith over an area or population. Case in point: Ottoman Turkish invasion of Hungary. Both sides took upon their lips the name of their respective gods in fights in battles. This I know for a fact, because my uncle was one of them who died in fight. !-:

I was wondering how we find the philosophers or philosophy we engage with? Are we choosing it or are we hardwired? — Brett

Probably both. It's the old Nature vs Nurture conundrum. I have seen many scientific observations which imply that our basic physicality and personality are pre-set by our inherited genes : Genetic Determinism. But I've also seen some studies indicating that the "accident" of Caesarean birth makes a noticeable difference in a baby's personality (e.g. calm vs anxious), due in part to differential effects on the immune system. And natural left-handers can be taught to become right-handers. So, we are obviously not born with a blank slate, but with a basic operating system that affects all subsequent development. Some behaviors, like duckling imprinting, seem to be hardwired. But other behaviors and preferences, especially in humans, are affected by experience and learning in a specific environment.

So, by the time we reach adulthood, our basic philosophical worldviews are mostly settled. After that, we merely try to work-out the few paradoxes and contradictions that remain unresolved after hardwiring and experience have established the foundation. That "working out" is what we call Philosophy. Even the most open-minded philosophers will have a hard time seeing their innate bias though. Yet, as long as we are aware of the pitfalls of prejudice we can work around our blind-spots. For example, those common logic traps have been marked like a mine-field by our predecessors in the form of philosophical Fallacies, Therefore, with personal resolve and some guru guidance, we can expand the boundaries of genetics and culture enough to make reasoned choices of our own. But of course, some are more successful than others at navigating the mine-field of fallacy.

My genetic setting seems to be of the calm, optimistic type (liberal). Yet it is also easily distressed by disorder (conservative). My mother was a laissez faire child-raiser, but my father was more authoritarian, and my religion taught me to be a good person, yet anxious about my eternal destiny. As a result of all these conflicting external influences on my hardwired nature, I now tend to both instinctively and deliberately choose philosophers and philosophies that fall somewhere in the moderate middle, between conservative duty and liberal opportunity. Is that "free" choice illusory, or effective, or a cop-out? Who knows? But my choices are what makes me, me. :cool:

As a result of all these conflicting external influences on my hardwired nature, I now tend to both instinctively and deliberately choose philosophers and philosophies that fall somewhere in the moderate middle, between conservative duty and liberal opportunity. Is that "free" choice illusory, or effective, or a cop-out? Who knows? — Gnomon

It's the old Nature vs Nurture conundrum. I — Gnomon

This is probably where we always end up with such discussions. Your optimist/distressed duality can possibly be the result of parents imprinting behaviour. (Whether we’re born with a clean slate I don’t know. Not completely I suspect). You instinctively choose philosophers that fall in the middle. Instinctively because you seek a balance instead of extremes. The instinct us against taking risks. So your choice of philosophers doesn’t seem to be so much a choice as finding yourself in a comfort zone.
That seems a bit like going with the flow, (no insult intended).
There have been individuals who have turned their backs on their cultural norms and chosen other paths. Some have rejected their religion, or embraced Marxism or even fascism. Though cultural norms say nothing about who they are, I guess. All they have done is make their own choice.

My interest is still whether each individual finds what they need in philosophy, not what is right or logical, but what satisfies their inclination (because it’s not always about right and logic, is it?) or whether those inclinations can change over time and so chose another direction in philosophy.

Are we seekers of truth or seekers of confirmation about things? Can your position of being in the middle be called a truth, or comfort?

This might be a rant but I’ll leave it up anyway.

In my experience, people do change. But it takes time. — thing

Like stepping stones, one philosopher to the next as you grow.

Which raise the question of whether staying with one philosopher or position is really growing philosophically?

No, not possible. For example, I came to realize that conclusions about ethics outside the regulatory framework and system of religious law can only be spurious. — alcontali

Do you recall how this came about?

Whether your philosophy is hardwired or not, you can behave and advocate as if you believed the opposite to what you are hardwired for. — god must be atheist

Yes. But can it only be “as if”? Can one live it as real and override what you’re hardwired for? Assuming we’re moral creatures (you may or may not agree) were quite capable of not acting morally, so going against what we’re hardwired for.

Are we choosing it or are we hardwired? — Brett

I suggest we are hardwire for reason; from reason comes philosophy. Experience may mediate, but reason is always the adjudicator, for the adoption or maintenance of a philosophical doctrine.

It’s an open question in philosophy whether people are actually capable of acting in ways they think is immoral. Socrates famously argues that all wrong is done through mere ignorance of what is right; everyone means to do right, they just might be wrong about what that is. Though my position is subtly more nuanced, I lean in that direction myself. Weakness of will is I think the only factor Socrates misses; we sometimes do things we think are wrong out of weakness to do what we mean to do, too.

I’d likewise argue that everyone is always trying to believe whatever is true. There’s just a difference in how skilled someone is at figuring out what that is, and how much strength of mind they have to put into the effort of doing so.

Maybe we are all different when we come to talk about philosophy.

My experience of it is that I was involved in some part of my life, some occupation, or exploration about living and someone would say “So and so has something to say about that” and I would check it out and digest it. As I got older I would find myself in different situation and the same sort of comment would come up again about different philosophers or philosophies. At some stage I stepped back and tried to see if there was some pattern or consistency.

Sometimes what I’d thought no longer worked for me, it just didn’t resonate as well as it had but it had already led me to other things.

It seems to me my philosophy has come from experience first. Like a permanent evolution.

@Bitter creek in another OP said he saw a bright streak of “ mystical romantic idealism” in my posts. Do I, without even knowing it?

I’d likewise argue that everyone is always trying to believe whatever is true — Pfhorrest

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that a philosopher should be able to challenge his own beliefs in what is true. And by doing that then find he may be wrong.

Yes I’d agree. And the strength to go on doing that and not quit or take lazy intellectual shortcuts is what I meant by “strength of mind”.

Yes. But can it only be “as if”? Can one live it as real and override what you’re hardwired for? Assuming we’re moral creatures (you may or may not agree) were quite capable of not acting morally, so going against what we’re hardwired for. — Brett

Yes, I do believe as well that we are moral creatures.

And yes, one can live a life, an entire life, in an "as if" state. Living in an oppressive communist regime taught me that. Most of the generation of my parent's age lived a lie. They were, well, you know, with a statistical spread, all religious, to the day they died. And hardly any one of them openly worshipped their god. They openly denied their own gods. THE RAISING OF FAMILY AND SURVIVAL OF THE INDIVIDUAL WAS STRONGER A MOTIVATION THAN TO DECLARE ONE'S OWN HARDWIRED (AFTER AGE 9 OR SO) PHILOSOPHY AS TRUE.

The generation that followed, me and my brethren, were all-out atheists, thank god.

This was not the first, not the last time in history where one had to deny his or her own hard wire. Pot Pol comes to mind. And the age of spread of Christianity over most of Europe outside the ex-territories and domains of the Holy Roman Empire in the middle ages.

Socrates famously argues that all wrong is done through mere ignorance of what is right; everyone means to do right, they just might be wrong about what that is. Though my position is subtly more nuanced, I lean in that direction myself. Weakness of will is I think the only factor Socrates misses; we sometimes do things we think are wrong out of weakness to do what we mean to do, too. — Pfhorrest

Again, I agree. I think what you mean by weakness of the will is a tendency to give in to the wrong philolsophy / ideology when we are confronted with a choices to make between what feels right for us and what feels wrong for us, while the "wrong" has its own fringe benefits.

My solution to this conundrum? Nobody sells his or her own soul to the Devil. We, humans, instead, rationalize our decisions that are incompatible with our moral stands, and off we go merrily.