My Core Beliefs and Philosophy

Well where to start, I am a lot of things and I hold a lot of beliefs that are sometimes complex and woven together. But here is the general picture of what my philosophy is in life. To start off with I'm a agnostic and have been for most of my life. Personally I am up in the air as to if I believe there is a god or not, this is mostly because we cant prove it one way or the other as to if god really exists. Unless of course he all of a sudden shows himself, or shows some sign of his power and influence that is definitive in nature. But if I had to choose a side Id be leaning towards atheism. In a political setting I am an independent. I pretty center in my view like for instance I am liberal in issues like abortion, education, environment, religion, same-sex marriage, war in Iraq and the patriot act. I am conservative for instance in issues like affirmative action, gun control, social security, taxes, welfare, and Immigration. Issues I am moderate or unsure about issues that deal with the death penalty, the economy, and health care.


Other words that describe my beliefs are that I am a nihilistic, absurdist, existentialist. I know that different aspects of these philosophies have semi-contradicting views but I named them all because I am a combination of all of them. Premises of these philosophies that I abide by are that for one existence precedes essence. Existence precedes essence basically means that we exist before any concept can define us. To put it in more detail the opposite is essence before existence, like when you create a sculpture you have an idea of what it would look like, which is the essence of it and the finished product which is the existence of it. Since we are indefinable, we first appear as nothing or as a blank tablet. Our essence does not exist before we are born and so we don’t have pre-programmed beliefs. Second premise is that life is absurd, what I mean by that is that the efforts of humanity to find meaning in the universe ultimately fails. To put it in more detail its not that it’s logically impossible but that it is humanly impossible and therefore absurd. We can create our own meaning and superimpose it onto existence but it cant be objective in nature and is only subjectively useful. Third premise is that there is no eternal, absolute, unchangeable truth. Absolute by its definition is “free from imperfection; complete; perfect:” Which to me means that it is a meaningless word and concept, as what exactly is perfect? Its just in the end a subjectively made up fantasy. I do have to add that even though I believe that there are no absolute truths. I am not even absolutely sure about that because to claim that there is no truth is a self-defeating statement as it attempts to express a truth.

At this point before I go on with asserting my premises is that I view life deterministically both in a universal way and as in a personal way and so hold the premise or belief that freedom of choice or freewill is an illusion. If you were to take in account all of the variables or information that make you who you are i.e. our genes and are environment you would see that freewill does not exist and is like I said an illusion. (By the way if you think about it freewill is also a meaningless word). Plus if one was to know all of these variables that made up the universe one could predict the future of both events and actions. But only if you don’t take in account things like chaos theory, which I interpret the term chaos (not the theory) to mean our own ignorance. On a moral level I would consider myself as a moral relativist, part utilitarian and part Non-cognitivist. To put it in more detail when I view ethics or the problems of good and evil, I am a moral relativist which basically means that I hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. To me there is no absolute, concrete right and wrong and all moral evaluations are subjective and relative in nature. I am also a Non-cognitivism whcih means is that ethical sentences do not express propositions and thus cannot be true or false. A noncognitivist denies the cognitivist claim that "moral judgments are capable of being objectively true, because they describe some feature of the world”. If moral statements cannot be true, and if one cannot know something that is not true, noncognitivism implies that moral knowledge is impossible.

So I’m a moral relativist and Non-cognitivist when it comes to considering moral values in a objective standing but in a practical setting I use my beliefs in utilitarianism as my basis for judging moral standards. Utilitarianism means that moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Or to put it another way the ends justify the means. In just in a normal setting I am a pragmatist and optimist and view problems and solutions on the basis of practical usefulness and view the world in a positive way. That basically sums up the general core of my beliefs I think A good book to read if your interested is "The Myth of Sisyphus" by albert camus which explains my endeavor and my point of view in life to some degree.