My answer to that is "OK, if you aren't worried about your mind being colonised by other people's - and other pressure groups'- ideas of what life is all about".
To start with, I think that there are three fundamental differences in attitudes on which we all need to consider where we stand.
In question 1, option A is like the implication (maybe more for entertainment value than anything else) of the Television series "Who do you Think you Are?". Various (hopefully) well-known identities search for an ancestor who had the same characteristics as the person has today. More extreme examples are found in Astrology (you are what the planets and stars at the time of your birth say you are), or other accidents of birth (maybe born in poverty, or to a wealthy or noble family, or born to parents of a certain race, religion or nationality). More insidiously, you could become defined by other people's looking for easy classification of their fellow human beings (like maybe bearded leftie, private school toff, floozie, old maid).
Option B takes that the view that each of us is thrown into this world, and we ought to make the best of it in the time before our death. We should aim to transcend easy labels and classifications, and not be bound by other people's ideas. Part of what we are thrown into is getting on with other people. As to what is meant by "making the best of it", we need to look for a system of values; this is something addressed in the Value section of PLOVER.
Very different to this view is the idea in some religions that our earthly existence is only a prelude (some say a test period, a sort of 'triage') for the much longer life after death. If we follow the rules (which many would claim are set by ancient tradition and priestly oligarchies) we will get a better or worse deal in the next world.
Option B is very much along the lines of most versions of the philosophy of Existentialism.
In question 2, option A appreciates that the only tools we have in communicating with other people is language (which may include visual aids, non-verbal sounds and body language). As we need to gain some consensus about what a situation that we commonly experience means, reality has to be defined by words. Simple words are rarely enough, so we have come to rely on complex patterns of thought to get enough of a handle on the situation. The problem is that language is a very fuzzy thing and its relation to meaning often unreliable. It is frequently hi-jacked by vested interests, such as advertisers, politicians and social media zealots.
Option B takes the view that what is most important in life is the actions we - and others - take, and their results. In deciding on actions we should give higher priority to previous experience and experimentation than just relying on logical arguments. This view ties in with the philosophy of Pragmatism.
In question 3, option A is what we naturally assume, but looking at recent neuro-science it may be that this is untrue. However if we then switch to option B, how do we maintain a society where anyone offending others can simply plead "my brain made me do it"?
We could continue to stick with option B if we say that if an offender knows what the repercussions of offending are, their brain processes should take this into account. Each human will have some "warning lights" instilled into their brain by parents and other contacts. However these are often fuzzy or incomplete. With option B, it is difficult to maintain the concept of "personal responsibility", which many people would regard as desirable thing in societies.
It might be convenient to take option A ""as if"" we have free will, even though we suspect that it isn't correct scientifically. As If is itself a theme in philosophy.
My own preference is not to subscribe to any one philosophical school, but to pick and choose the best parts from those that are offered. I am definitely not comfortable with all-embracing systems which claim to cover the whole of human existence; I would put Hegel and Marx in such a category.
For general reading about philosophy, I have created highlights of the following books.
The Philosophy Files and The Philosophy Gym by Stephen Law - these are written very much for beginners, including teenage school children.
The Philosophy Book published by Dorling Kinnerley is a light historical run through the ideas of some of the western world's great philosophers.
The Great Philosophers is a transcript of a series of BBC TV programmes where Brian Magee interviews a series of experts. Each chapter addresses one or more western philosophers with a particular theme. My highlights include links to the YouTube videos of the original programmes.
Philosophy in Practice by Adam Morton examines some of the -isms in Philosophy in regards to their practicality in ordinary life.
For a light-hearted strip catoon introduction, A good one is Philosophy for Beginners by Richard Osborne. You can read this one on line.
Richard Osborne has written a follow up in the same style: Introducing Eastern Philosophy - written for westerners, of course. You have to buy (it was US$12.95) or borrow this one.
Finally, an odd-ball collection of contributed philosophical thoughts is I Am Therefore I Think by Alexander George.
| Philosophy | Language | Ontology | Value | Evolution | Religion |
| Back to Philosophy A (narrow) page | Back to PLOVER index page | Back to Re-think home | Back to www.tagg.org website |
Some of these links may be under construction – or re-construction.
This version updated on 22nd