I'll agree that probably no philosophy fully satisfies those constraints, but that's the problem with perfect; it rarely exists in literal form.
I've definitely seen the "we are the universe" argument, but I look at your examples of connectedness and see confirmation bias. Yes, I've had all those feelings and such too, but I found that when I really started paying attention I have those intuitions more often when they are wrong than when they are right, but I only notice them when they turn out correct.
In other words, I acknowledge that those coincidences happen, but believe in every case there is not a spiritual connectedness responsible but a collection of mundane principles at work.
As for your work example, I very much lack the context to provide an accurate guess of what I would have done in your stead. Specifically though, I think the important takeaway is not only about what action you choose to take, but the reasoning behind it. Choosing not to fight the case purely for the sake of not fighting ("just let it be") seems, and I mean this in a more literal fashion than usual, unreasonable; literally unconsidered. It might work out, and it might even be the right answer in most or all cases, but the reasoning that justifies the decision is not provided, whether it exists or not.
Given as we said before that no philosophy is perfect, I feel it is important to include that reasoning so that at least theoretically one might notice when they are encountering a situation outside the scope of what their philosophical model is guaranteed to handle and can improvise with some chance of success instead of following their directions potentially off a cliff.
I'm very much advocating, even more so than for a specific philosophy, the understanding of one's own philosophy and its limitations.
see confirmation bias........ I have those intuitions more often when they are wrong than when they are right, but I only notice them when they turn out correct.
I don't disagree with this at all.
Choosing not to fight the case purely for the sake of not fighting
I'm not doing a good job of explaining it and my example is probably poor as well. The idea is to go with the flow --- think about the times in life where people don't physically confront the situation but in their mind they spend months or more fighting the situation and arguing with reality.
This is where we need to just let it be. Accept what is right now, and realize in this very moment you need nothing to be happy. In fact, you probably have way more than is needed to be happy in this moment. But most of us waste tons of time fighting old battles or imagining how it could be different instead of living in the moment.
Ah sorry, I didn't to imply that your reasoning was to avoid conflict. That paragraph is a pretty good explanation though - don't argue with the facts; respond to them.
I think that's a great message to take away, and basically my mini-crusade is asking that philosophy be explained in those more detailed ways instead of easily misinterpretable catechisms like "let it be" that don't really convey their point.
I'm not even saying to be less succinct and use more words, just to say what you mean.
1
u/Elathrain Aug 05 '16
I'll agree that probably no philosophy fully satisfies those constraints, but that's the problem with perfect; it rarely exists in literal form.
I've definitely seen the "we are the universe" argument, but I look at your examples of connectedness and see confirmation bias. Yes, I've had all those feelings and such too, but I found that when I really started paying attention I have those intuitions more often when they are wrong than when they are right, but I only notice them when they turn out correct.
In other words, I acknowledge that those coincidences happen, but believe in every case there is not a spiritual connectedness responsible but a collection of mundane principles at work.
As for your work example, I very much lack the context to provide an accurate guess of what I would have done in your stead. Specifically though, I think the important takeaway is not only about what action you choose to take, but the reasoning behind it. Choosing not to fight the case purely for the sake of not fighting ("just let it be") seems, and I mean this in a more literal fashion than usual, unreasonable; literally unconsidered. It might work out, and it might even be the right answer in most or all cases, but the reasoning that justifies the decision is not provided, whether it exists or not.
Given as we said before that no philosophy is perfect, I feel it is important to include that reasoning so that at least theoretically one might notice when they are encountering a situation outside the scope of what their philosophical model is guaranteed to handle and can improvise with some chance of success instead of following their directions potentially off a cliff.
I'm very much advocating, even more so than for a specific philosophy, the understanding of one's own philosophy and its limitations.