My beliefs
Oh fine, I guess there's no harm done in posting my beliefs. Well, a lot of it is posted on my site: www.geocities.com/takingovertheworldin3easysteps/index.html (beware. It has very disturbing and dark content left right and centre, even by my standards. It disturbes even some of my closest of friends. Please do not visit if you don't have a very tollerant mind. Above average won't cut it here).
Basic beliefs I have is not do onto others what you would like them do to you, but rather, take actions of which you believe would be most desirable. It would follow that you take account of the likely consequence of your actions into consideration. For instance, let's suppose you have an urge to go punch a guy. It would feel wonderful at first, but that guy might have friends who will beat you half to death the next day, so beating the guy up in the first place would not be a desirable action.
I guess you could say that I'm a consequentiallist, for being a believer that the ends justifies the means. However, I also believe that a road to hell is NOT paved with good intentions. If your intent is good, and the outcome is not good, then you are not guilty (no willful harmful mental intent). HOWEVER, if you make the same mistake over and over again, and cause bad outcome, then you are guilty on grounds of stupidity.
I do not believe in a final judge to say if you are good or not. I believe everyone has the capacity for that, and who better to judge you other than yourself? If you live a life and can honestly say "I have not committed acts against my moral principles (whatever they may be) which cannot be justified", then you have just lived a moral life. However, there's a catch. The moral principles must be YOUR'S (you must have thought critically about your beliefs). I can't stand authoritarianism. Sure you can agree with authoritative sourses such as the bible, but you must agree because you believe it is right, and not because it is the bible (or your mother, or the instructor, or someone you respect). I understand the second and this paragraph has smell, taste, and feel of relativism, and I understand the problems of the relativist theories. I know this part need to be worked on.
I do not believe in a heaven or hell, for I do not believe in eternal enlightenment or eternal damnation. I believe a conscious entity has the ability to change for better or for worse. For there to be a heaven, where you obtain eternal bliss, it would be as painful as eternal torment. This is because eternity of the same state offers no variation, and thus, no excitement. There is no drive for self improvement or to do anything, and thus existance is pointless. That being said, the other alternatives I can think of are death is the end, or reincarnation. Personally I'm more comfortable with the idea of reincarnation, for the 1st option has too much existential horror. I also like the idea of reincarnation because it offers a renewed drive for existance at every life/death cycle.
I believe that the universe runs in cycles. A cycle begins with the big bang, and ends with the big crunch. During the time between the big bang and big crunch, all the souls gather and have a festival. At the end of the festival, each soul would get a vote on who will be the next God. The one who is hated the most will be the one voted to hold that position, where he/she/it/other will have the tormentful task of regulating the flow of souls between the living and the dead for the duration of the next cycle.
Well, that's the basic synopse of what I believe. (Goodness, I hope all of those made logical sense and are to the point. I hate to be rambling on and on about useless stuff. I mean, rambling on about useless stuff and not getting to the point is you know, pointless. Personally I enjoy writings that are short and sweet. I find that many philosophical writings lack that virtue. They just go on and on for 50 pages trying to make one point. I mean seriously, we have better things to do in our lives than to listening to people pulling random flowery words out of their behind trying to prove a point, that in the end, people just gets tired of reading and give up. Or if they are forced into reading the stupid article, and end up dredding whatever subject the article is on. Seriously, how do those philosophers do it? I already ran out of useless junk to write).
Basic beliefs I have is not do onto others what you would like them do to you, but rather, take actions of which you believe would be most desirable. It would follow that you take account of the likely consequence of your actions into consideration. For instance, let's suppose you have an urge to go punch a guy. It would feel wonderful at first, but that guy might have friends who will beat you half to death the next day, so beating the guy up in the first place would not be a desirable action.
I guess you could say that I'm a consequentiallist, for being a believer that the ends justifies the means. However, I also believe that a road to hell is NOT paved with good intentions. If your intent is good, and the outcome is not good, then you are not guilty (no willful harmful mental intent). HOWEVER, if you make the same mistake over and over again, and cause bad outcome, then you are guilty on grounds of stupidity.
I do not believe in a final judge to say if you are good or not. I believe everyone has the capacity for that, and who better to judge you other than yourself? If you live a life and can honestly say "I have not committed acts against my moral principles (whatever they may be) which cannot be justified", then you have just lived a moral life. However, there's a catch. The moral principles must be YOUR'S (you must have thought critically about your beliefs). I can't stand authoritarianism. Sure you can agree with authoritative sourses such as the bible, but you must agree because you believe it is right, and not because it is the bible (or your mother, or the instructor, or someone you respect). I understand the second and this paragraph has smell, taste, and feel of relativism, and I understand the problems of the relativist theories. I know this part need to be worked on.
I do not believe in a heaven or hell, for I do not believe in eternal enlightenment or eternal damnation. I believe a conscious entity has the ability to change for better or for worse. For there to be a heaven, where you obtain eternal bliss, it would be as painful as eternal torment. This is because eternity of the same state offers no variation, and thus, no excitement. There is no drive for self improvement or to do anything, and thus existance is pointless. That being said, the other alternatives I can think of are death is the end, or reincarnation. Personally I'm more comfortable with the idea of reincarnation, for the 1st option has too much existential horror. I also like the idea of reincarnation because it offers a renewed drive for existance at every life/death cycle.
I believe that the universe runs in cycles. A cycle begins with the big bang, and ends with the big crunch. During the time between the big bang and big crunch, all the souls gather and have a festival. At the end of the festival, each soul would get a vote on who will be the next God. The one who is hated the most will be the one voted to hold that position, where he/she/it/other will have the tormentful task of regulating the flow of souls between the living and the dead for the duration of the next cycle.
Well, that's the basic synopse of what I believe. (Goodness, I hope all of those made logical sense and are to the point. I hate to be rambling on and on about useless stuff. I mean, rambling on about useless stuff and not getting to the point is you know, pointless. Personally I enjoy writings that are short and sweet. I find that many philosophical writings lack that virtue. They just go on and on for 50 pages trying to make one point. I mean seriously, we have better things to do in our lives than to listening to people pulling random flowery words out of their behind trying to prove a point, that in the end, people just gets tired of reading and give up. Or if they are forced into reading the stupid article, and end up dredding whatever subject the article is on. Seriously, how do those philosophers do it? I already ran out of useless junk to write).
posted by Psychopathic Puffin at 6:05 PM
2 Comments:
Well, what can I say? I take pride in my individuality and uniqueness. I have learned that the most influential and powerful writings are the ones that are so different at the time, that it makes people shudder (such as Hobbes, Neitzche, etc.).
A lot of my writings are based on my belief that your dark side is a part of you. To deny its existance is to be untruthful to yourself. You must acknowledge your dark side and embrace it. Just make sure you do it without causing undesirable consequences ;).
~Psychopathic Puffin
Funny that. I'm a Molecular Biology & Genetics major, but I'm a Philosophy minor ;).
Post a Comment
<< Home