What philosophy do you follow?

[Anonymous]

Someone asked what philosophies we would never follow.

Well, let me ask what philosophies, if any, you do happen to follow.

Personally I can't quite fit into any preconceived philosophical box. Philosophy usually comes across to me as the art of denying reality and common sense in the name of sounding intellectual.

I believe in pietas, that the individual should render his or her duty to one's family and friends, community and State, and Higher Powers. After one has satisfied those demands, one is free to enjoy life in whatever manner one sees fit. I suppose this could be classified as individual duty tempered by individual freedom.

If you were looking for a grand speech complete with ontological and metaphysical conjecture, sorry, I choose not to speculate. I believe in a simple but honorable life in the here and now, and I leave the subtler workings of the universe to those who claim some grand vision from the Gods or Plato's cave. If that doesn't buy me a ticket into the intellectual club, I can learn to live with it I suppose

So what do you believe in?

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Salve Romule,


You could say I'm a cynic. But being a true cynic I'm quite cynical towards being a cynic. I don't follow anything until it has been proven or thoroughly tested. I hate rules and commands. I like to be free, but 'responsable free', not egocentric, but thinking at other people and what they feel and like me to do.

I bleieve when you set a lot of rules people will obey them because of fear for the punishment, and even more dangerous, because they are rules, and thus no longer thinking about the reason why these rules are made.

So I actually don't believe anything, and I do not not follow any philosophy, and I'm sceptic to anything that will bind me.

Vale,

Loc

[Anonymous]

Salvete,

Interesting that this is asked. I personally consider myself a Stoic. However, that could not be all that I am, and I would never say that that is my completeness. I am of many philosophies, one being that of the man for whom I am named, Cicero, another of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, yet a third of Epicurus, and a forth of Heraclitus.... I'm not much of a studier of modern philosophy though, so I couldn't comment much on that. Anyway, I don't think it's a question of what philosophy one follows, but, rather, what aspects of philosophies one chooses to live by.

Optime Valete,

M. Tullius Cicero

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salve Urse

Like most people, when the pressure is really on I will fall back to what I know best, what I was first taught as a child, and that is Stoicism. Neoplatonist metaphysical speculation interests me, but it is no more than that, speculation. Philosophy for me concerns how one lives their life, what code of ethics they follow, and for me that always comes back to Stoicism.

Vale
Moravius Piscinus

[Publius Dionysius Mus]

Salvete!

I do not follow a certain philosophy, I do have some philosophical concepts I tend to live with. "Festina lente" is one of them; I try to avoid all kinds of stress and nervosity, but without being too lazy. My life style is a little laid back, and it suits me perfectly.

Another concept I like very much is "Carpe diem"; every day many things are to be enjoyed, and each day is different. I take everything the way it comes and I try to enjoy it as much as possible. For example, before I went to university, I did not like studying. Now that I am in university (History student), I like what I do (very much!) and I enjoy studying (not only studying for exams, but mostly the simple reading of interesting information, and just being occupied with History).

And I also try to use the Golden Rule as much as possible: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you". A concept worth following, and in fact the very basic ethis in most philosophies and religions. The Golden Rule in all its forms should be followed more often, it should in fact better be part of our mind - such a basic concept should be used by everyone, everywhere.

These are some of the philosophical concepts I like to follow - there are possibly some more, but these were the ones I could easily describe.

Valete bene

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Salve,

I try to avoid all kinds of stress and nervosity, but without being too lazy

You are doing a good job, amice, although I donot know what your description of "too lazy" is

I also would like to say that philosophies who rely upon matters of "honour" are strongly rejected by me. Family honour still causes many murders in Bosnia, Sicily, Afghanistan, Iran etc. If you would stretch those 'honour-cases' (or is it written 'honor'? You already must have noticed my native language isn't English ) to the extreme it would end with the last person on earth killing the one but last person. I would rather have my family humiliated than killing someone; because this is the most severe humiliation that a human can take: killing another human.

No conflict has ever been solved with 'honour-behaviour', and that is one of the reasons why it - luckely - has almost disappeared from our western societies.

Valete et in fides,


Locatus

[Publius Dionysius Mus]

Salve,

I try to avoid all kinds of stress and nervosity, but without being too lazy

You are doing a good job, amice, although I donot know what your description of "too lazy" is

Salve Locate!

I thought you would say this...

Vale bene

[Aulus Dionysius Mencius]

Salvete omnes!

This is an interesting topic, but the answer to the question is, in my case, not quite that simple.

I am still exploring all kinds of philosophies, and I have to say that, well... there are elements in many philosopies that I tend to agree with, both Roman and others.

As some of you may know, I am studying Eastern Languages and Cultures, and China has many different philosophies, for every field of society.When it comes to government, I tend to follow Legalism.

When it comes to certain ideas about my place in the big world, I try to follow both Confucianism and Taoism. I know these schools are rivals, but I believe that, despite their differences, they can complement each other...

Vale bene
Aulus Dionysius Mencius

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Salve Menci,


Nice to see you here! So we finally meet again...


Vale,

Loc

[Aulus Dionysius Mencius]

Am I so easily missed, Locate?

Your thoughts are heart warming, my friend

Untill we meet again... in the meantime, at least try to behave, will ya?

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salvete Urse et alii,

You wrote:
"If you were looking for a grand speech complete with ontological and metaphysical conjecture, sorry, I choose not to speculate. I believe in a simple but honorable life in the here and now, and I leave the subtler workings of the universe to those who claim some grand vision from the Gods or Plato's cave. If that doesn't buy me a ticket into the intellectual club, I can learn to live with it I suppose."

Respondeo:

Well, in a sense this is a philosophical statement!

Many people think of philosophy as something for alienated, pipe-smoking men with beards. This image is not new; in ancient Greece many anecdotes have been recorded testifying of this caricatural image that has plagued philosophers over the centuries. In a sense, it's true. Those who think profoundly, systematically and originally often have an odd outlook on life and have equally odd habits. Einstein, for example, couldn't tie his shoelaces.

I like simplicity in philosophy, and I've often been confronted with the fact that I'm too much the sceptic "man with the hammer of logic" rather than someone who believes in vague concepts. Philosophy (and reality) is all about definition.

I like philosophy with practical use, i.e. philosophy you can apply in everyday, mundane situations. Unpractical philosophy can be interesting as an intellectual exercise, though .

The main key word in my personal "philosophy" (a potpourri of Buddhism, Nietzsche, the sophists, Herakleitos, Hume and others) is empathy. Next to logic, I think that is what we should all exercise...

Scorpio

[Anonymous]

The main key word in my personal "philosophy" (a potpourri of Buddhism, Nietzsche, the sophists, Herakleitos, Hume and others) is empathy. Next to logic, I think that is what we should all exercise...

I am genuinely curious, sir, and if I may ask ... how does the Buddhist concept of no-self exist parallel to the Nietzschean belief in the individual will to power? They appear, prima facie, as internecine constructs.

You've elicited my curiosity.

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve Urse,

Good question .

Buddhism believes in the doctrine of anatman of no-self, as it's translated. Comparable to what Hume thought, Buddhist teachings deny a fixed, immutable self but rather see it as a more or less haphazard combination of observations, situations and feelings. What causes the illusion of "self" is the ego.

Nietzsche's will to power (Wille zur Macht) doesn't actually run counter to this. The "will to power" is deeply resident in all living beings. If it wasn't there, said being would perish quickly because it wouldn't "care" for its own existence.

Buddhist exercises which try to eradicate all suffering and bring you into a state of mind that is one of undisturbed peace (comparable, perhaps, to Stoic apatheia?) is one of the most pure manifestations of will to power: by gaining self-control and being enlightened, you gain the ultimate control over your environment (ironically, by letting go of everything...).

Vale!
Scorpio

[Anonymous]

Salvete, fellow IVLII! I can't believe this: Another member of my Gens who also happens to live in the exact same part of the world, which is nothing short of incredible coincidence of inestimable odds, considering that there are people from all over the world on here.

Makes me wonder if it really is coincidence after all, or perhaps Fate is just playing its hand.

Personally I can't quite fit into any preconceived philosophical box. Philosophy usually comes across to me as the art of denying reality and common sense in the name of sounding intellectual.

This is precisely the reason that I suggest to people that they separate the posturing pseudo-intellectual tripe which commonly tries to pass itself off for philosophy in the modern day, from actual philosophy such as the Stoics and others fashioned it, which is accessible to everybody, and is completely relevant, essential, and delivers an extremely useful common-sense approach to daily living.

I believe in pietas, that the individual should render his or her duty to one's family and friends, community and State, and Higher Powers. After one has satisfied those demands, one is free to enjoy life in whatever manner one sees fit. I suppose this could be classified as individual duty tempered by individual freedom.

If you were looking for a grand speech complete with ontological and metaphysical conjecture, sorry, I choose not to speculate. I believe in a simple but honorable life in the here and now, and I leave the subtler workings of the universe to those who claim some grand vision from the Gods or Plato's cave. If that doesn't buy me a ticket into the intellectual club, I can learn to live with it I suppose

So what do you believe in?

Everything you mentioned in the first paragraph above is exactly what Stoic philosophy is all about; it's a practical, common-sense, "living" philosophy that is meant to be lived, rather than speculated about in coffee shops by a bunch of pseudo-intellectual brats.

Anyway, feel free to write back with more; It's already 4:38 a.m. here local time, and I need sleep.

[Anonymous]

This is a very interesting question. My philosophy as everything concerning myself is still to be defined, and I do not think it will ever will be etched in stone, life is ever-evolving.

From the limited knowledge of Philosophy I have (and yes it is highly limited) I must say that Plato and Nietzsche are somewhat my favourite Philosophers, or at least Plato's conception of the State and Nietzsche's ideas such as the Will To Power, Self-Overcoming, and the Overman, are highly interesting.

Even though I generally live by the Golden Rule mentioned above (possibly due to the Christian brainwashing suffered at a young age or perhaps my innate nature) I tend to believe in a rational manner that Machiavelli was right when claiming that the end justifies the means, and in that regard a fundamentalist approach might be taken. I believe that the logical truth combined by the Machiavellian principle will lead to victory determined by how much energy and vigour you put in your actions and how limited you are by any morality a la Golden Rule.

In this regard I would like to quote Nietzsche when claiming that "There is no beast without cruelty" and men is a beast indeed and in this regard, he is the crudest form of beast around. I consider evil and cruelty as part of human nature and unfortunately they cannot be eradicated as easily as one would wish.

[Quintus Pomponius Atticus]

Salve Menci,

When it comes to certain ideas about my place in the big world, I try to follow both Confucianism and Taoism. I know these schools are rivals, but I believe that, despite their differences, they can complement each other...

Exactly ! As yin and yang complement each other, so the chinshih ('cultured gentleman', cf. the Greek 'kalokagathos' or Cicero's 'vir bonus') should imo develop both sides of human nature, occuring in Taoism and Confucianism.

I very much like the statement of the the poet Po Chuyi, who "utilized Confucianism to order his conduct, utilized Buddhism to cleanse his mind, and then utilized history, paintings, mountains, rivers, 'wine, music and song (typically 'Taoist' activities - add. Atticus) to soothe his spirit.'

Further reaction on this earlier topic later, but I should get myself back to work now ...

Vale !

Atticus

[Quintus Aurelius Orcus]

Salvete
The philosophy i follow is more Platonism or neoplatonism mixed with the idea of yin and yang.
Attice, what do you mean by this:

cf. the Greek 'kalokagathos' or Cicero's 'vir bonus'

Carpe diem is one of things i regard highly. For everyone, pleasure will be different, or seeking that you think of as pleasure. For one (Mus for example) might be laying back and drinking. Although that is one of things i also enjoy. For another person, this might be his hobbies or interest, intellectual or others.
valete
Romulus

[Aulus Dionysius Mencius]

Salve, mi Attice

You wrote:

Exactly ! As yin and yang complement each other, so the chinshih ('cultured gentleman', cf. the Greek 'kalokagathos' or Cicero's 'vir bonus') should imo develop both sides of human nature, occuring in Taoism and Confucianism.

One pedantic comment, if I may.
The Chinshih of whom you speak is a combination of the two correct terms Chunzi, which is the cultured gentleman you referred to, and 'shih', which is a confucian official.

In amicitia

[Quintus Pomponius Atticus]

Salve Romule,

Attice, what do you mean by this:
Quote:
cf. the Greek 'kalokagathos' or Cicero's 'vir bonus'

What I meant to say was just that the ideal of the 'chinshih' in Confucian ethics corresponds greatly with the Roman and Greek ideals of the 'perfect person' ('kalokagathos' and 'vir bonus' are simply the words Plato and Cicero used to describe that), and also with the English ideal of the 'cultured gentleman'.

For example, have a look at the following website : first click on "Confucianism", then on "principles". There you can read an explanation of the cardinal Confucian virtues. Then, compare those to the list of Roman virtues on this location. You will notice the resemblances immediately.

Vale,

Q. Pomponius Atticus

[Quintus Pomponius Atticus]

Salvete,

After having commented on a posting in this topic, I will now try to draft very briefly my own philosophical inclination, which is highly eclectic. I will do so in the form of Marcus Aurelius' enumeration of the people who helped to form his character in the introduction to his Meditations.

From Socrates, I learned to continually question myself, my conduct and my opinions.
From Plato, to strive to attain the high ideals of wisdom, justice, temperance etc.
From Aristotle, to keep the middle way, and to pursue knowledge and contemplation as the highest form of human activity.
From the Stoic philosophers, to control the things in my power wisely, and to accept the things not in my power.
From Epicurus, not to disdain the simple forms of happiness life contains, but actively to enjoy them, and not to strive for the vainer kinds of enjoyment that get in their way.

Valete,

Q. Pomponius Atticus