What do you think is the worst philosophical viewpoint?

[Svenparty]

I was pondering this to myself and I found that Nhlilism(without the next step into Existentialism) and many anarchistic viewpoints that argue that the strongest of humanity should rule using sheer brawn over logical thinking.

How about you? Any philosophies that seem to not be applicable or useful in life?

 

[Jedamethis]

Which ones think that there's no point? That one.

 

[Revolutionary]

I actually kinda' like some aspects of nihilism. But the philosophy behind anarchism as a political movement is pants on head retarded.

 

[BlindTom]

Cartesian Dualism and HH Price's theories on the afterlife.


Also agnosticism in practically all its forms.

 

[cgentero]

Ethical Hedonism, basically that being a selfish prick is the morally right thing to do.

 

[BlindTom]

Ethical Hedonism, basically that being a selfish prick is the morally right thing to do.

Are you talking about hedonic calculus? Because you just described the exact opposite of what hedonism usually means in ethical terms. Ethical calculus is about maximising the most pleasure for the most people OVERALL. It means that you don't go around stopping people from enjoying sex because it's "evil."

 

[SckizoBoy]

No disrespect OP, but such a question won't draw much discussion, because no philosophy can be so unproductive as (as you mention) nihilism, where the fundemental tenet is that life has neither purpose nor intrinsic value.

You're better off asking which is the best philosophical standpoint, since most philosophies have aspects that are justifiable, and can be resolved with the way in which we live (or rather, would like to live).

Also, don't forget that philosophy can be divided into a number of aspects, namely abstract, moral/ethical and natural. Natural philosophy (the forerunner of what is science) can neither be decried as particularly bad a viewpoint nor praised as a relatively good one, because it's simply the human observation of natural and mathematical systems. It is neither good nor bad, it merely is. It's the analysis and deduction that is criticised, not the method.

Abstract philosophy is based purely on conjecture and derives much of its nature from the way in which its conceiver developed his/her train of thought and depth of analysis. Schools of abstract philosophy can't really be described as 'bad' per se, just flawed, but that's based almost entirely on the reader's view of material existence.

Thus 'bad/worst' philosophies can only really be applied to the moral/ethical...

But what do I know, I'm just a biologist...

 

[Spygon]

Also agnosticism in practically all its forms.

Why because i have had no proof on either side fully supporting true belief.So people do not make up an answer well i can see how blindly following a belief is so better

 

[rabidmidget]

Solipsism.

Ok, ok, it's fine, but anyone who brings it up in an argument not directly linked to it should be castrated.

 

[Jake Martinez]

Social Darwinism.

 

[BlindTom]

Also agnosticism in practically all its forms.

Why because i have had no proof on either side fully supporting true belief.So people do not make up an answer well i can see how blindly following a belief is so better

Have agnostics decided whether cthulhu exists yet? What about JC Denton or Optimus Prime? Concluding that there is no evidence to support the existence of these entities is obviously, as you have put it, blind belief. Those silliy atheists with their Resonable Doubt and falsifiable beliefs.

Have agnostics decided whether food keeps them alive yet? What about water? or air? They've yet to die for lack of them so I suppose they're just blindly eating, drinking and breathing in the meantime. Those silly theists, how dare they choose to keep a viable objective truth in mind?

 

[Custard_Angel]

Whatever David Hume was on about.

Nothing really exists.
Everything is the product of our imaginations.
Science doesn't work.
God is an impossibility.
etc
etc
etc

Alot of what he said is either unknowable or entirely unuseful.

 

[Krantos]

Hard determinism.

Essentially, it states there is no such thing as free will. We all make decisions based on prior experiences and if we were put into the same choice (with no memory of having already made it) we would always make the same choice because our previous experiences "determined" the outcome. Determinists think that you never really "choose" anything, it's all chosen for you by your experiences.

The theory goes on to debate whether people should be held accountable for their actions since they never had the option to do anything else. Then it pretty much comes to the conclusion that you still have to punish people as a form of deterrent. So, really, it's a pointless argument.

 

[BlindTom]

Hard determinism.

Essentially, it states there is no such thing as free will. We all make decisions based on prior experiences and if we were put into the same choice (with no memory of having already made it) we would always make the same choice because our previous experiences "determined" the outcome. Determinists think that you never really "choose" anything, it's all chosen for you by your experiences.

The theory goes on to debate whether people should be held accountable for their actions since they never had the option to do anything else. Then it pretty much comes to the conclusion that you still have to punish people as a form of deterrent. So, really, it's a pointless argument.

Yeah hard determinism always struck me as an interesting thought experiment with absolutely no ethical applications. From the perspecive of our own esense experience it really doesn't matter that we live in an iron block universe, we must still either continue to assume that we do not or... I dunno, shut down in despair? Do the exact opposite of what we want to do? Even then amoral causality would have made us act in such a way in response to hard determinism.

Ultimately I find it hard to hate on hard determinists for just this reason. They're probably not going to do any harm.

 

[Spygon]

Also agnosticism in practically all its forms.

Have agnostics decided whether cthulhu exists yet? What about JC Denton or Optimus Prime? Concluding that there is no evidence to support the existence of these entities is obviously, as you have put it, blind belief. Those silliy atheists with their Resonable Doubt and falsifiable beliefs.

Have agnostics decided whether food keeps them alive yet? What about water? or air? They've yet to die for lack of them so I suppose they're just blindly eating, drinking and breathing in the meantime. Those silly theists, how dare they choose to keep a viable objective truth in mind?[/quote]

You either do not know what agnostic views are as your two point?s counter act themselves. Because can you prove there is not a god and they are one of them three people or maybe all three. No you can not so you cannot say either way.But agnostics have decided if food keeps them alive as they are a undeniable proof of it as when people do not get food, water or air people die.

Agnostic views are not they do not believe nothing it is they will say they know an answer.They also do not say a philosophical view point is the "worse" because they do not know as people are argueing over theoretical views that they can not prove or disprove.

 

[BlindTom]

Also agnosticism in practically all its forms.

Have agnostics decided whether cthulhu exists yet? What about JC Denton or Optimus Prime? Concluding that there is no evidence to support the existence of these entities is obviously, as you have put it, blind belief. Those silliy atheists with their Resonable Doubt and falsifiable beliefs.

Have agnostics decided whether food keeps them alive yet? What about water? or air? They've yet to die for lack of them so I suppose they're just blindly eating, drinking and breathing in the meantime. Those silly theists, how dare they choose to keep a viable objective truth in mind?

You either do not know what agnostic views are as your two point?s counter act themselves. Because can you prove there is not a god and they are one of them three people or maybe all three. No you can not so you cannot say either way.But agnostics have decided if food keeps them alive as they are a undeniable proof of it as when people do not get food, water or air people die.

Agnostic views are not they do not believe nothing it is they will say they know an answer.They also do not say a philosophical view point is the "worse" because they do not know as people are argueing over theoretical views that they can not prove or disprove.

Out of interest what is your mother tongue?

My points do not counter one another, they are two viable ways of looking at the same truth. I can objectively say my beliefs however I feel no need to preach my beliefs on an internet forum. That's a sign of insecurity in theist and atheists, and a sign of.. Well, of existence in you agnostic types.

 

[Krantos]

Also agnosticism in practically all its forms.

Why because i have had no proof on either side fully supporting true belief.So people do not make up an answer well i can see how blindly following a belief is so better

Have agnostics decided whether cthulhu exists yet? What about JC Denton or Optimus Prime? Concluding that there is no evidence to support the existence of these entities is obviously, as you have put it, blind belief. Those silly atheists with their Reasonable Doubt and falsifiable beliefs.

Have agnostics decided whether food keeps them alive yet? What about water? or air? They've yet to die for lack of them so I suppose they're just blindly eating, drinking and breathing in the meantime. Those silly theists, how dare they choose to keep a viable objective truth in mind?

I know you're basically trolling at this point, but I think you're missing the point of agnosticism. A person can be an Atheist and still be an agnostic. Likewise, they can be Christian, Buddhist, etc.

What defines an agnostic is the unwillingness to declare something is "Truth" without supporting evidence. They can have strong beliefs in the existence or non-existence of God, but they're willing to acknowledge there is no conclusive proof one way or another. This doesn't change their views, but it does enable them to more easily sympathize and accept views they don't agree with.

A good example I like to use is sub-atomic particles. Prior to their discovery, a person could reasonably say "Sub-atomic particles do not exist, since there is no evidence." These people would have been completely justified by the science of the time, but they still would have been wrong.

Agnostics just keep that in mind. They're still free to believe whatever they want. They're just more reserved when it comes to dealing out "Truths" and "Facts."

 

[BlindTom]

Also agnosticism in practically all its forms.

Why because i have had no proof on either side fully supporting true belief.So people do not make up an answer well i can see how blindly following a belief is so better

Have agnostics decided whether cthulhu exists yet? What about JC Denton or Optimus Prime? Concluding that there is no evidence to support the existence of these entities is obviously, as you have put it, blind belief. Those silly atheists with their Reasonable Doubt and falsifiable beliefs.

Have agnostics decided whether food keeps them alive yet? What about water? or air? They've yet to die for lack of them so I suppose they're just blindly eating, drinking and breathing in the meantime. Those silly theists, how dare they choose to keep a viable objective truth in mind?

I know you're basically trolling at this point, but I think you're missing the point of agnosticism. A person can be an Atheist and still be an agnostic. Likewise, they can be Christian, Buddhist, etc.

What defines an agnostic is the unwillingness to declare something is "Truth" without supporting evidence. They can have strong beliefs in the existence or non-existence of God, but they're willing to acknowledge there is no conclusive proof one way or another. This doesn't change their views, but it does enable them to more easily sympathize and accept views they don't agree with.

A good example I like to use is sub-atomic particles. Prior to their discovery, a person could reasonably say "Sub-atomic particles do not exist, since there is no evidence." These people would have been completely justified by the science of the time, but they still would have been wrong.

Agnostics just keep that in mind. They're still free to believe whatever they want. They're just more reserved when it comes to dealing out "Truths" and "Facts."

Sub atomic particles are not a viable analogy as their existence is synthetically verifiable.

The unwillingness to accept something as "truth" without supporting evidence is a sign of any reasonable human, regardless of theological beliefs. It is arrogant to assume that people who don't share your views are incapable of basic logic. It is also arrogant to assume that anyone who isn't agnostic cannot easily sympathise and accept views they don't agree with. Why should agnosticism have any effect on ethics whatsoever?

Agnostics are not free to believe what they want, they are afraid to stand up for a belief so they sit on the fence.

 

[Krantos]

Sub atomic particles are not a viable analogy as their existence is synthetically verifiable.

Prior to their discovery they weren't. Who knows, in 50 years maybe science will be able to prove the existence or non-existence of a higher power.

The unwillingness to accept something as "truth" without supporting evidence is a sign of any reasonable human, regardless of theological beliefs.

I think the biggest issue you and I have right now, is I don't consider agnosticism to be a "Theological" belief. Rather, I view it as a way to approach beliefs. Most Atheists I've met don't simply not belief in god, they believe there isn't a god. It's the difference between a passive and an active belief. Hard Atheists actively believe in the non-existence of a higher power. This belief is not supported by evidence. They take the lack of counter evidence as evidence for their side.

It isn't.

An agnostic Atheist, on the other hand, says "I don't believe in a higher power, because I have not seen any evidence. Show me some evidence and I'll consider adjusting my views."

It is arrogant to assume that people who don't share your views are incapable of basic logic. It is also arrogant to assume that anyone who isn't agnostic cannot easily sympathise and accept views they don't agree with. Why should agnosticism have any effect on ethics whatsoever?

Here, lets assume there are two people: Tim and Jon. Tim believes unequivocally in A. Tim believes that A is the Truth. He believes that people who don't believe in A are wrong. He believes there is no debate to be had.

Jon, on the other hand believes in B. He's believed in B for many years. However, he takes an agnostic view towards it and acknowledges that his own views may be wrong. He is after all, only human.

Which of the two would be more predisposed to accept the other's opinion? I didn't say that non-agnostics couldn't be understanding and accepting. I merely said the way agnostics approach their beliefs make it easier.

Agnostics are not free to believe what they want, they are afraid to stand up for a belief so they sit on the fence.

Word of advice: This sounds mightily like an ad hominem attack. Not constructive to a civilized debate.