In looking for a philosophy that is based on the natural world

>>38108
sam harris

he also objectively proves how you should live using science.

File: IMG_20151030_151341.jpg (355KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1200x1600px

Basically i want to become one with the rocks and sky.

>>38176
Why?

Animism.

>>38108
>desiring an existentially worthless outlook
Any kind of hard materialism as well as reductionist physicalism. I don't know why you'd ever want either/either's derivatives.

>>38176
Have u tried acid?

>>38108
Closest thing I can think of is Schopenhauer.

>>38456
This is probably the closest thing, by natural world I mean like nature on earth, but also metaphysical ideas related to that would be interesting. Can you recommend any original animist texts

>>38620
I already know about existentialism, I'm trying to get in a different mindset "separate from human thought" is how I would describe it, similar to Buddhism but with emphasis on ideas about nature and Gaia

>>38838
Have you read any of the Upanishads?

>>38838
>mindset
>separate from human thought
Am I being baited here or what? If you're not baiting, consider what you're saying before you say it, else it can come out nonsensical.

>>38931
What I mean is a philosophy that has little to do with common human dilemmas or even questions about perception and focuses on Gaia and the natural world of earth, something like animism but hopefully a bit more logical

>>39156
If you cut out the pagan bit, DCT.

>>38176
So in other words you want Zen Buddhism or any one of the numerous schools of thought that promotes oneness

goob jaab

>>39277
Not really just a philosophy that talks about nature, as in trees rocks rivers animals and things, in a primarily non scientific way

>>38108
>looking for a philosophy that is based on the natural world and has little or nothing to do with humans and how to live life

No such thing exists. All philosophy is about how to live one's life.

The closest you will find is Taoism. Then I would say check out Stoicism.

>>39512
Epistemology is about the study of knowledge for example, most aspects have nothing to do with that

>>39671

And what is knowledge? It is human's "knowing" something, in their mind.

What you are asking for is either mathematics, or science.

>>39789
No I'm not, I said earlier I want something philosophical not scientific

>>39915

What is philosophy?

>>39950
The love of wisdom.

>>40059

What is wisdom?

>>40112
The ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight.

If you're going to keep reducing things though, I'll b done tho m8. When you reach the point where you're asking what 'is' means you're not bein' productive ya ken?

>>39915

How's this?

Stoic Physics:
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi143/stoaphys.htm

But you must understand that all natural philosophies lead to the question of how to live one's life. For if we did not need to know how to live, why would we study nature?

>>40188

This is called Socratic dialogue. Your sentiment explains why he was imprisoned and sentenced to death.

So if philosophy is the love of wisdom, and wisdom is the ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight, then philosophy can be said to be:
- the love of knowing how to properly think and act.

This would be out of line what what OP is looking for; he wants a philosophy which has little or nothing to do with humans and how to live life. Which brings me to my first point: no such thing exists.

>>40188
Using generalities to describe generalities is no way.

I don't know quite what you are asking for but you might find the following books interesting

>Tao Te Ching
>The Upanishads
>Zen Flesh, Zen Bones
>The Perennial Philosophy (Huxley, A)
>any number of writings on mystical traditions within various different religions

but like I said, I'm not sure what it is you are asking for exactly

>>40059
>hurr durr
that is probably the least helpful description of philosophy which is still technically correct

>>40413
Except *all* terms are generalized. All of them. The word 'the' is cashed out in terms of other terms, and those terms cashed out in terms of other terms ad naseum.

>>40396
see
>>40568

File: 1429127632406.jpg (67KB, 393x293px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 393x293px

>>40512
It's literally what it means, friend =)
There is no need to be upset =)
=)

>>40568
You didn't provide any actual information. Someone asked you to break down a concept and you just gave them more words of equal capacity to be broken down, thus providing even more confusion.

>>40568
>>40568
You didn't provide any actual information. Someone asked you to break down a concept and you just gave them more words of equal capacity to be broken down, thus providing even more confusion.

>>40803
What is 'information'? What is 'concept'? What is 'capacity'? What is 'confusion'? What is 'actual'?

>>38173
>objectively proves how you should live using science
And he got laughed off the stage by philosophers and scientists both theistic and atheist alike.

>>39426
So like native America great spirit philosophy?

>>40855
You did it first.

File: 1419300412340.jpg (2MB, 3200x1800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3200x1800px

>>41137
>You did it first
>>39950
>>40112

>>40803
the point is that it is impossible for humans to do philosophy outside of the human perspective - whatever terms you want to use to describe anything pertain only, and only, to your - human - perspective. you can always try to reduce the concepts you use to describe something, but you'll eventually get back into epistemology: the logic of - human - knowledge.

>what is philosophy 101

>>40877
>So like native America great spirit philosophy

Yeah but preferably something that makes more sense. If there is no such thing then what are some original animistic texts

>>41191
Seriously though, this is a major problem. How do we escape the trap of endlessly defining words? It seems to break down all logic.

>>41444
You make a gentleman's agreement to operate on colloquial definitions for any terms that have one, and if you must utilize any jargon-esque terms that need explicitly defined you do so in terms of those other commonly held meanings of other words. Don't be needlessly reductionist about linguistics - it's just annoying and utterly unfruitful.

>>41444

Did you people not hear a fucking word I said? It is called Socratic dialogue. If it was so stupid, then why would the world's foremost philosopher have practiced it?

>>41618
Because it was employed in regard to things that were not understood or talked about at the time, since that was when philosophy was *actually* beginning as a somewhat serious endeavor.

If you don't know what people mean by words nowadays you can fucking google it. You can gauge whether or not they're using something colloquially or not by the context they're employing it in.

>>39156
You want a religion then?

>>41737

I disagree. I think the words they used were just as much defined for them as they are for us. The power of Socratic dialogue is to get on the same page, because even if we both look up a word in the dictionary we may have our own spin on it. Socratic dialogue establishes a foundation to work from. As you can see from my own posts in this thread, using the person's own definitions we came to an understanding of what philosophy is, and if it is applicable to OP's request.

Even Voltaire, 2,000 years later, stated "If you wish to converse with me, first define your terms."

>>42104
>I think the words they used were just as much defined for them as they are for us
They *definitively* weren't. Half of ancient Greek vocabulary came about over the course of the pre-Socratic and post-Socratic decades - many of them were used almost as buzzwords, such as 'piety'.

File: 1.jpg (183KB, 419x648px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 419x648px

This might interest you OP
"Third Window, A Natural Life beyond Newton and Darwin"

>Thus far, the dominant paradigms through which modern scientists have viewed nature have been structured primarily around Newtonian and Darwinian approaches. As theoretical ecologist Robert E. Ulanowicz observes in his new work, A Third Window, neither of these models is sufficient for explaining how real change—in the form of creative advance or emergence—takes place in nature.
>The metaphysical foundations laid by these great thinkers centuries ago are ill suited to sustain today's search for a comprehensive description of complex living systems. Ecosystem dynamics, for example, violate each and every one of the Newtonian presuppositions. Hence, Ulanowicz offers his titular "third window"—a new way of understanding evolution and other natural processes beyond the common mechanistic or materialistic philosophies of nature. Drawing on the writings of Walter Elsasser, Karl Popper, Gregory Bateson, Robert Rosen, and Alfred North Whitehead, as well as his own experience as a theoretical ecologist, Ulanowicz offers a new set of axioms for how nature behaves. Chance and disarray in natural processes are shown to be necessary conditions for real change. Randomness is shown to contribute richness and autonomy to the natural world.
>The metaphysical implications of these new axioms will lend A Third Window a wide appeal not only among scientists, but also among philosophers, theologians, and general readers who follow the science and religion dialogue. Ulanowicz's fresh perspective adds a new voice to the discussion.