Top 10 Philosophical Ideas
1. The introspection
Introspection is one of the most basic needs to try to understand who you are and where you are in the world. It should be necessary for all to explain themselves satisfactorily a) why they believe what they believe b) that they are quite likely to be wrong in their conclusions. In addition, the ability to examine your internal process from an uncooperative point of view is very useful to create a complete idea of your own identity.
2. Sense of internal pluralism.
The mental landscape of the human mind is not unique; it can be described as a discussion through an inconsistent body of contradictory views. I dare say that most people do not realize that they have more than an internal voice, especially because it is much easier to go along with a more vocal conclusion at a given time. Just realizing the fact that you have, so to speak, an angel on one shoulder and a demon on the other, helps you to give you an idea of your identity.
Just to clarify, I’m not talking about listening to sounds. I mean that there are different parts in the psychological makeup of the person, otherwise it does not make much sense in the language “to discuss with the self” or the concept of doubt. The non-contained perspective I mentioned above basically means that part of you is aware when you argue with yourself and can observe the process.
To have all this meaning, every adult must have a logical and satisfactory explanation of why he can say that an outside world outside his internal world is in the first place. Without doing so, opinions on the outside world do not seem futile, so they are a fundamental basis for building everything else.
4. The inner illusion.
We humans tend to trust our introspection more than anyone, because we do not have direct means to control the latter. What this really means is that we tend to evaluate our own actions based on our core internal motivations, and others based on the results of their actions. The ultimate effect of this can be devastating, because thinking in this way prevents us from appreciating the inner motives of anyone else.
To give a rickety example, if you slip, for example, on a wet surface, think to himself “It was not my fault I slipped, the circumstances were stunning and unfavorable,” but the person who observes the incident can simply think, “Stand, that guy is really clumsy” This into a confrontation situation, you end up with some potential more bloody conflicts; People just realize their own justifiable reasons for aggression or misunderstanding or simply do not care about those on the other side.
This leads to rhetoric such as “We are just trying to defend against an external threat (your internal introspection), originally instigated by these evil people because they are a group of “The results of this kind of thinking can be seen in every genocide that ever resolved our human race, to observe only the consequences makes it much easier to label someone as evil. This method of thinking is epidemiological to the human being, but at least you must have a mental warning sign in your head when you realize you are doing something like this.
Another example to illustrate this point; you lend your car to a friend, who ends up by mistake. He’ll tell you how sorry they are and how they did not do it seriously, but you’ll still be angry, because you’re wrecking my car. If the situation is reversed, you will be warned that you do not want it, but the person who lent your car may get angry, perhaps more because of your “evils”, and I wonder why I can not repent a bit, because you really do not want to do it. The reason is simply that his interpretation has to do with his motives, but his perspective is only based on the consequences. You have basically two completely different perspectives in that given exchange. It sounds very familiar when it happens, right?
Once meditation begins and achieves the possible fallacy of unwillingness to underestimate others, he quickly finds himself with the possibility that whatever he thinks and thinks he can be completely wrong, or less is not at all thought previously. This usually leads to a healthier perspective on their own views or a full existential crisis.
One of my friends once said that you can not allow yourself to be an adult before dealing with the idea of existentialism, and I completely agree. We humans have an amazing ability to ignore the abyss that falls under the thin layer of ourselves, and this can lead us to the work of pure ignorance. What I mean by this is that you do not even think for a moment the possibility of not having absolute facts in something, or worse, you get scared with the concept of it and avoid the problem, you tend to stick to it.
Things that claim to be absolute facts. This is nothing more than sticking your head in the sand until something unpleasant has gone, and it is very likely that they will bite your ass if you do it. The Nietzschean version has been advertised to some extent, without giving enough space for other thinkers. My personal favorite is the Norwegian philosopher Peter Vesel named Zapfee, whose “Christ Activity” summarizes the concept of existentialism in a little more “in good health” essay so that Nietzsche’s work.
Epicurus was a rather amazing Greek philosopher who, through pure logic, managed to reach such basic conclusions that the science took nearly 2,200 years to explain that it was true. The basic idea of Epicurus can be encapsulated by Tetrapharmakon: Do not fear God, do not be afraid of death, what good is easy to get and pain is easier than to endure.
Especially in the existential fear of death that we, as humans, tend to share, the idea is very simple: when you are alive, you are alive, so thinking of your death is premature and useless, and when you are dead you tend to Be very busy until you are told. A great deal of Epicureanism can be seen as a leader of the above-mentioned existentialism, which, once again, dates back more than 2,000 years Philosophical Ideas.
Epicurus was influential in the period of the Roman Empire, but the Catholic Church did an excellent job of making almost everyone forget or wholly understand the school of thought, because in some respects it was at odds with certain principles of Catholic doctrine (especially the inherent relativity in Epicureanism did not really work with any belief system Dogmatty accurately).
8. Logical fallacies.
Especially in a democratic society, one must always have a critical mind with regard to statements made by someone who promotes a particular solution or opinion. Logical illusions, both formal and informal, are used today as well as in ancient Greece or Rome, where they were first encoded. Just revealing the post-concept argument or understanding the concept of probandi will give you a better insight into the rationality of the opinions and discussions of others.
This is very simple with external opinions and opinions, but the really hard part is applying the exact same strict standards to your thinking. This is part of the meditation that was first mentioned. Being able to do it properly means that you realize that you are taking an easy and non-intellectual way of arguing, and prefer not to decide to do so. Philosophical Ideas
9. Guillotine Hume.
Whether it be for lack of use or ability, the distinction between normative and descriptive data is something that people usually do not do correctly. This is the origin of many very awful arguments because people confuse what they should be and what it really is. This is important, because to say that “this is the situation, it would be better if so” means that it has the basic motivation to assess the current situation and how you will do the proposal we do better. . This will also be able to understand the reason behind how to take opinions for the first time, which requires self-understanding of oneself at the level that many people really can not bother concerned.
Jeremy Bentham, at least for me, was one of the greatest thinkers who ever lived. His concept of utilitarianism offers a powerful argumentative argument about how to evaluate and formulate normative data: simply maximizing utility (that is, as much as possible for as many people as possible).
This idea is based on the modern economy in its entirety, a way to respond to the dilemma posed by the Hull Guillotine. However, it must be understood that increased utility does not necessarily mean “more money”, otherwise it will be difficult to understand how the world works. In some way, the utilitarian precursor, once again, was Epicurus.
I Hope You Get Good Information About Top 10 Philosophical Ideas, Please Share and Comment Below Your Thought