Ultimate Advantageousness - how do my thoughts compare to today's philosophy?
While I have fathomed many explanations of "general existence", I am ignorant of most "modern/current" philsophies.
Often I use quotation marks and slashes to highlight points that seem definitely ambiguous - I'm not familiar with terminology that may be established.
My philoshopies:
------------
The "ultimate objective", or the "thing of most importance" while extisting, is to be advantageous - this is a statement on the premise of two concepts that I seem to "sum up everything logically":
1. "ultimate objective" - what is most fundamental to existing
2. "advantageousness" - what is successful, what happens ideally. Advantagousness is characterised by "experiencing" positive and/or negative sensations, and decided from the NET sensation at the "end of experiencing them". That's just to say, achieving more positive sensation than negative over a lifetime means being advantageous.
Following this, the question becomes: What fundamentally are sensations? Or at least, what are sensations "physically"? I've tried to "practically" pick this notion apart using logic that agree with my experiences.
Something probably clearly defined and discussed already - sensation "pathways" are dictated by biology to continue the existence of humanity, but it seems the pathways themselves don't perfectly enforce that objective.
Then, considering psychology, the reason for not being advantageous is because of "instincts" - a notion I realise does not relate much to philosophy. Regardless, it seems more important than other philosophical and psychological discussion to know what causes different sensations so we all can exploit reality to give us an advantageous result.
There's a lot more I have reckoned about psychology that mostly answer: Why do we live imperfect lives?, and Where does disadvantageousness come from? These ideas seem really important but I never see widely discussed.
------------
What do you say about this and what resources can anyone point me towards, to help me understand?
I'm quite prepared to get an earful of how wrong/ignorant I may be.
Often I use quotation marks and slashes to highlight points that seem definitely ambiguous - I'm not familiar with terminology that may be established.
My philoshopies:
------------
The "ultimate objective", or the "thing of most importance" while extisting, is to be advantageous - this is a statement on the premise of two concepts that I seem to "sum up everything logically":
1. "ultimate objective" - what is most fundamental to existing
2. "advantageousness" - what is successful, what happens ideally. Advantagousness is characterised by "experiencing" positive and/or negative sensations, and decided from the NET sensation at the "end of experiencing them". That's just to say, achieving more positive sensation than negative over a lifetime means being advantageous.
Following this, the question becomes: What fundamentally are sensations? Or at least, what are sensations "physically"? I've tried to "practically" pick this notion apart using logic that agree with my experiences.
Something probably clearly defined and discussed already - sensation "pathways" are dictated by biology to continue the existence of humanity, but it seems the pathways themselves don't perfectly enforce that objective.
Then, considering psychology, the reason for not being advantageous is because of "instincts" - a notion I realise does not relate much to philosophy. Regardless, it seems more important than other philosophical and psychological discussion to know what causes different sensations so we all can exploit reality to give us an advantageous result.
There's a lot more I have reckoned about psychology that mostly answer: Why do we live imperfect lives?, and Where does disadvantageousness come from? These ideas seem really important but I never see widely discussed.
------------
What do you say about this and what resources can anyone point me towards, to help me understand?
I'm quite prepared to get an earful of how wrong/ignorant I may be.
Comments (0)