Which school of thought are you?

I’m taking a hepe class. That’s for healthy living, not hepatitis. It talks about different philosophies of thought. Which one are you?

Hedonism-all about the pleasure principle. You seek bodily gratification in all it’s forms.

Existentialism- Everyone has their own truth. Truth changes for each person. What is true for one may not be true for someone else. What is true for you binds you, but nobody else.

Immaterialism- the mind or spirit is not matter, it is immaterial. Matter is impure, inferior, not ultimately real (the body).

Cartesian dualism- whereas the mind and spirit constitute one reality, the body is something totally apart from the mind. Both somewhat work against eachother.

ascetism- A belief in denying the body for the purpose of freeing the spirit. Sometimes accompanied with gross withdrawal from society and full-fledged skipping into poverty.

materialism- a person is his body. There is no separation between the spirit and the body. Reality ascribed to scientific factuality. Behavior is basically a stimulus response action, and nothing more.

Absolutism (I’m making this one up)- there are ultimate and undeniable truths that apply to everyone. All truth is the same and unchanging.

Okay, get your answer before you read on.

I would say most of you said you were an absolutist so to speak. I would contend however that most of us that are religious actually are more existentialist thinkers, since certain doctrines and prophets teach that the spirit works in different ways for different people. Since there is no one way to get an answer from God, people can get many different types of communications and we would probably accept most of those (non radical of course) as being legitimate. Therefore, there really isn’t an absolute truth, since an absolute truth would be the same for everyone, Which our doctrine teaches dissonantly that there is and isn’t, since that truth can be communicated in a multitude of ways. What say you?
Tagged , , , ,

5 thoughts on “Which school of thought are you?

  1. paulmhutchings says:

    First – Great assumption. I would classify myself as an absolutist.2nd – I would say that your classification of religious folk as “existentialists” is flawed. An absolute truth is that God lives. Another is that Jesus is the Christ. Another is that the worth of souls is great in the sight of God. The fact that God uses different methods to communicate and confirm some of these truths to His children does not change the “personal meaning” or “interpretation” of the “absolute” truths that we believe in. I’m in sales. I use different techniques with different people because I know that some forms of communication work better with some than others. This is logical for me to do – why would it not be logical for God to do? As far as the “dissonance” in our doctrine is concerned… I don’t see it. Our doctrine teaches that the Holy Ghost will be felt and heard in different ways. Our doctrine teaches that God answers prayers in different ways. Where is the dissonance my friend?

  2. Magicman says:

    You said you believe in absolute truths. You don’t know absolute truths. If the definition of absolute is 100% certainty, then you contradict the definition by saying you believe in it, rather than you know it. And you can’t know it. You have faith in it. Unless you’ve seen god or seen an angel, or dead people, and they’ve personally told you about god, then you don’t know. You have faith that what you’ve been taught is the way things are, and you have faith that the experiences you’ve had are in fact God’s communication. There is nothing wrong with that. But it makes you an existentialist, because you believe you’re an LDS absolutist. A muslim believes he is an absolutist Muslim. Realities are different for different people. And until we know for certain, that will always be the case. Your analogy of god communicating differently or using different sales techniques is a fallacy of false analogy. It’s missing the point of my blog: God can communicate differently just as you would. What’s wrong with that? Nothing. My point is that you have faith that what you’ve been taught are ways he will communicate, and you believe in it because you have faith in the teachings you’ve received. Faith is the key word. Because you believe in a reality you’ve been taught, however real that is to you, it’s only real to you. It may not be real to someone of a different faith. You believing that there are absolute truths is your right, but until you can prove them, it means to some degree however slight, you don’t know for certain. And that, my friend, makes you an existentialist.

  3. Magicman says:

    I would add, in my opinion only. And I respectfully acknowledge your disagreement.

  4. paulmhutchings says:

    What if… in the end… after it’s all said and done…the truths that I “believe” in.. turn out, after all, to be absolute truths. Would I then be considered an absolutist or would you still classify me as an existentialist?If it turns out – the things that I consider to be absolutes are false – I would accept your classification of being an existentialist. However, in my opinion, until you can prove to me that these truths are false – I cannot be correctly be placed in the category you have placed me in. What say you? PS – We are probably disagreeing on semantics here. If your definition of an absolute truth is that it can be proved by the ways of the world – then I would have to admit – I believe in entities, ideas, principles, that can’t be proved. However, I would also have to ask you to concede that just because I can’t prove them does not make them potential absolute truths.

  5. Magicman says:

    Very true. And we must say that we both are entitled to our own opinions. I’m not saying your or my beliefs are wrong or false or anything like that. My whole thing is I just want to make the point that there is a gap that’s being bridged by faith, and I get that that’s the whole point of Christianity: There needs to be faith. After this life, when we all truly know what the whole plan is like, we will all recognize that, in fact, there are some absolute truths. I do feel however, that even though there are absolute truths, people believing in them makes them existentialists. I know that’s kind of an interesting concept, because I’m basically saying nobody can really be an absolutist. You can consider yourself an absolutist, but in doing so you become an existentialist because you are believing in a reality that may be different for someone else, because someone else has different beliefs. It’s like if I eat an apple, the truth is I’m eating an apple. But what if I call it an orange? What if I believe it’s an orange, because that’s what I’ve been taught. It doesn’t change the absoluteness that the fruit is an apple. But I believe, my reality is, that it is an orange. So my reality is different than someone else’s. I may eventually discover I’m wrong, but I am still an existentialist. It doesn’t make you or them or anyone wrong. That’s not the point of my inquiry. I’m not talking about a right or wrong way, I just want to consider a different light on something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: