I have a philosophy tell me what you think.?

Question

After having several philosophy courses i have come up with the following philosophy. The world is so divided these days as this relegion hates the tenets of that relegion and this culture can't abide the ways or that culture. All these differences are differences of philosophy so if perception defines reality isn't it fair to say that what any given individual beleives to be true(outside of factual information) is true for that person. I beleive in personal philosophy bubbles-much like personal space bubbles- an area in which all you hold to be true is true. If everyone believed this than noone would have too hate and fight anymore. You could sit next to someone who disagreed with everything you hold sacred and yet not feel threatened or the need to convert them. You are right in your bubble and they are right in their bubble. Doesn't this make more sense than war?

People I think that the murder or torture of others is wrong and most agree so we have made laws about it. A law is the only way to turn opinion to fact so through legal channels we have turned the opinion that murder is wrong into a fact and therefore a person who beleives murder is okay is factually wrong. However, it doesn't matter how much I disagree with a murderer he will continue to beleive that he was right and justified(assuming no remorse) this exactly what I mean.

Of course it's not realistic and will never work I never said it would. Most philosophy is pure and doesn't take into account the filth of human nature.

Answer 1

It does, but since this world is full of busy bodys, it can never work. There will always be someone out there who wants to force their ideaology down your throat.

Answer 2

In general, I disagree. There are a number of points to make.

(a) First, an observation. I have taught philosophy courses. I have found that your view that everyone is right is quite common among undergraduates (at least in California). However, significantly fewer than 1% of philosophy instructors with PhD's hold that view themselves. Draw your own conclusion.

(b) Your post confuses the claim that everyone is right with the claim that the world would be better off if everyone believed that. It is unclear whether you believe that everyone is right simply because the world would be better off if everyone thought that way. These are two separate questions.

(c) Is everyone right? Well let's consider claims about the physical world. You might be sitting in your room on Earth yet believe that you're on Mars. Are you right? I would say no, as would most people. (You might even be locked up or medicated.) If you have just swallowed poison, but believe you've drunk pure water, are you right? Let's just say you're going to die.

What about moral claims? Is premeditated murder okay? Is genocide okay? I doubt that you would say yes, and thankfully, neither does most of the world. There might be areas of dispute (e.g., abortion), but don't let that obscure the areas in which there is overwhelming agreement and widespread condemnation of transgressions.

What about religious claims? Are the atheist and the theist both right, even though their beliefs contradict each other? That makes as much sense as saying that the moon is made of cheese and it isn't. It should also be added that most religious people don't believe that everyone is right. Members of proselytizing religions certainly wouldn't agree, since they think they are saving the souls of others.

(d) You say that the law turns opinion into fact. That is not quite right. The law makes things legal or illegal. We can dispute whether or not actions that are legal are moral, and whether actions that are illegal are immoral. Abortion is legal, but some would argue it's immoral. Slavery has been legal in the past, and female circumcision in the present in some countries, but many would consider these immoral.

(e) You say that even though murder is illegal, the murderer will still think he's right. Okay. Just because people disagree does not make everyone right.


(f) Would the world be better off if everyone believed that everyone is right? That's hard to say, but I doubt it. There wouldn't be any such thing as scientific advancement about the physical world. ("You believe that the sun goes around the earth, and that standing on your head cures cancer? Fine with me!") And people could kill and maim with impunity. I suspect that you think the world would be better if everyone just respected others' liberty to the extent that they don't harm others. That is a very different doctrine.

Answer 3

The way I see it, this "solution" to the problem is actually what the problem is. Everybody wants his or her beliefs to be true. People act out of their beliefs. So there is conflict. People in the Creationist bubble are at odds with people in the Evolution bubble, for example. Evolution threatens Creationism, just by being. Creationists demand that science be regarded as a belief just like theirs, so they are "equal." And it is "unfair" to teach people the one "belief" and not theirs.

Outside of factual information? Anybody can say a fact is not a fact, just a belief, and they do, largely because they believe, rather than think.

Getting people to agree to disagree and otherwise get along is not such a simple matter at all.

Answer 4

Umm specific in a fashion and no. questioning can lead you to the reality and asking questions. yet words are mandatory interior the experience that they are how we get suggestions in the time of. Language is a gadget for verbal substitute. words are area of language. They (words) themselves at the instant are not uncomplicated. In a particularly basically logical experience basically statements have actuality-values. So words themselves do no longer. yet i think of what you're asking is do issues you study and the such tell the reality. Your unlike being all hardcore specific like do words in isolation tell the reality. with the purpose to this i might say that yeah words because of the fact that while prepare in sentences that are statements ( some sentences can't be statements speedy ex. is a command- close that door! ; right here we've a sentence in spite of the undeniable fact that it relatively is no longer a assertion b/c this is neither actual nor fake ) can tell the reality. I mean actually there are truths available regardless of if or no longer they be ethical truths or incredibly information that correspond to the international sort truths ex. this is actual that I typed this little reaction on the instant. this may well be a actuality. So words can tell the reality in statements if that's what you have been asking so like once you're examining something the a number of issues are very plenty actual. numerous philosophy surprisingly ethics is opinionated and so no longer so of course actual and in those circumstances of course it relatively is as much as you to return to a sort that's truer or seems extra logical to you. regardless of incredibly floats your boat in a feeling, yet you need to consistently question each little thing, undergo in concepts that. Even your self (meaning your very own perspectives which you carry) and on an identical time as quickly as you come back to a sort you lower back additionally ought to question that. Skepticism to me is fantastically staggering yet on the sametime don't get out of hand. There do exist issues such as you and me and specific i'm specific of it. issues are genuine and are incredibly there yet this is in basic terms yet another subject remember lol.

Answer 5

Many times war doesnt have anything to do with converting anyone, it has to do with setting people free from a system they don't agree with, but have no way out of.
Do you not agree, for example, that many people who were tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein for his own reasons for control of the people wrong, and those people needed and wanted a different kind of life?
Could you sit next to Saddam Hussein, and have a reasonable conversation with him, knowing what he has done, and the crimes against humanity he has committed, and just because in his screwed up mind, it is just fine what he did?
If your neighbor decided it was alright to murder and rape a 7 year old child, could you sit next to him, and have a discussion, and say to him, "I don't agree with you, but whatever floats your boat, I'll give you the freedom to think and feel that way, because that's your bubble?"
I think you need to THINK a lot more in your philosophy.

What is the point to studying philosophy, and taking time to create a false senario, knowing it will not work? This seems a waste of time.

Answer 6

This is called cultural relativism, and sadly it doesn't work. The reason for it is the same reason that liberty, egality and fraternity (the slogan for the french revolution) do not work together. One's liberty is another one's limitation, so it negates equality. To gain more liberty people have found out, you need to group with people with the same ideas, or truths. But you never really know if your truth is the same of their truth. So the ideas get simplified, and any idea formed in a group eventually turns out to be about 'us' and 'them'. Where 'us' have more rights than 'them'.
The idea about cultural relativism is that you can't really judge another because you don't have the same background. To take an extreme example: western people can't truly *understand* the idea of female circumcision, so they should not judge it.
And this example, is an example where your philosophy might go wrong. The other people are in their own bubble, but they're doing things to a third party, that you don't approve of. I might even come to the situation where *you* are the third party, and where you reason: 'that person has the right to think what he thinks, and now he's thinking of killing me, so that's alright'.
But your philosophy is good, because it makes you *think* about the other one's motives, instead of judging them. This is seed for tolerance. You might still disapprove, but you judge it not by sight, but after consideration, and this is always good.

Answer 7

The "bubble" concept, in my opinion , is the first important step towards self realisation. When you enter through this door of self knowledge many things will fall in place. You will know that all we are doing in this world are playing some roles , some as Christians , some as Hindus, and some as Moslems. In such a role play of a human drama one can enjoy togetherness, division. It will not affect the persons who have realised . For them the one residing inside is one and the same.

Because you see that angle you will not mind sitting next to another with a different perception. But, for all you know, he may also be like you...realised..

The nest step is like the cell division . Your bubble divides into two. Two to four four to..... infinity.

War will have lost its moorings.

Answer 8

A nice thought, but as usual it's one with no practical application to real life. Beliefs don't exist in a vacuum, they shape our actions and behaviors. When you operate under one set of assumptions, someone else still operates under a different one. For example, Person A believes people should walk backward. Person B believes people should walk forward. Neither one wants to interfere with the other's belief system, so both continue to walk in their particular way. The inevitable outcome is that the two will bump into each other. I think the best we can do is try our best to be as understanding as possible as individuals, and accept that not everyone is going to get along.

Answer 9

how would people ever have meetings or get-togethers or marriages? the problem is that it negates the need for compromise, understanding, and flexibility, which require higher level thinking and are key components to communication. war is about power, not agreement. war will never ultimately work because too many of the worlds peoples in first world nations have been exposed to some form of democracy, so for nations to group together and dominate the world so to speak, causes the basis for this : anything makes more sense than war. my bubble agrees with your bubble on that.

Answer 10

“Nothing is proved as that dangerous as the thought of taking yourself to be always right. The ill effect of orthodox principle was such that the world got filled with miseries, unlawfulness, war, crime and hatred. Blind faith on own religion, intolerance and imposition of own religion on others have done a lot of harm to this world. True religions never shout at each others sitting on the branches of same tree, whether it is wise to remain calm reaching to the root. Religion is not a chaos , but a peace. Religion doesn’t spark the war, but is a friendship and love.” .....

from www.godish.homestead.com

Answer 11

You're right.... at least in a general sense that humanity should be able to adhere to:

Truth is relative.... not absolute. Subjective; not objective.

There is no means of determining any objective truth, hence we can by default assume that there is none since its a superfluous concept to have for one who cannot identify nor acknowledge it.


The problem is that people don't understand this simple matter: They genuinely believe their truth to be objective and all-encompassing.... and as such, they will try to impose it upon what they perceive to be aspects of their world.... i.e. other people. Unfortunately, most such people are immune to reasoning or rationality in any form, and the only way to drill the subjectivity of their own so-called "truth" into them is through carefully planned rhetoric...