By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

 

My reading of Philosophy came after i was installed with basic concepts by my parents.  (Primarily my dad).

 

I was raised that if you can't prove it, it isn't true, never believe something 100% as common beliefs are often wrong, and there is no proper excuse for breaking a promise.

 

The last one i feel needs to be explained.  Not that there isn't a good reason to break a promise, but to never hide from the fact that you've broken it.   For example... If I promised to take you to the theater but i stopped to save a homeless man from dying.   I made the correct choice, but I shouldn't let that blind myself to the fact that i let someone down on my primary promise... and therefore should not think that making the "right" choice absolves me from making it up to those i've wronged.

 

As such, I'm for doing things that help the greater good.  However we must be sure scientifically that such things will work, as often common and we must not under any circumstances forget that we are in fact going out of our way to hurt others to help others.  That it serves the greater good does not absolve the fact that others are being hurt, and because we are hurting others, it is of the highest importance that when we do these things we review them heavily, and reform them often, and not be unwilling to completely get rid of things and replace them.

 

 

Ironically, I'd say Marx actually is my strongest philosophical influence.   The only problem I have with Marx is that he was not a dispassionate logical scientist.  He was a dreamer/true believer with a genius analytical mind.

 

As such.  His observations on how society worked were genius.   His views on where society is going however were HIGHLY flawed as they contradicted his observations on how society works.

He failed to conceive that the proletariat who took power would only become the new ruling class.  As tends to be the case with the vast majority of revolutions.
His obervations were fairly true on human nature, but his predictions went against his very observations as he expected the proletariat to ignore human nature.  As if they were a totally different people.
Oddly his future plans and thought makes it seem more like he'd agree with Mortimer.