I was working on my book today, and started to wonder how other people perceived the world, or their thoughts on how the world should be...
It'd be neat to see the different kinds add up. I'm counting anything, whether it be religious, futurist, nihilist, socialist, humanist... the combinations of schools of thought are limitless.

The poll I provided is pretty vague, as a result.

Voice out what you think, though... because no one thinks the same way.

Some topics to start:
-World issues (we got something on the death penalty in another thread...)
-Treatment of others
My personal philosophy:

(Nihilistic Utilitarian hybrid)
The goal: Live for a communal happiness, not personal one.

Life is nothing remotely special... everything we can see are chemical reactions. All life, as far as I am concerned, was originally a chemical process in which some carbon-based molecules began to join together. Evolution stepped in, and as of today we have all life on earth. Life is easily destroyed as fast as it can occur, so it's not something very valueable. Humans are not deities.
Easily said.

The second part...
To give things value, which there doesn't seem to be, strict moralities should be placed upon people so they are more appreciative of good things that happen to them from others.

Self-pleasure and happiness:
Do not confuse the two terms. Those who dedicate their lives to self-pleasures at the expense of others' happiness are valueless animals. Happiness is that feeling of appreciation you get when someone goes out of their way to help you, or convenience you in some way.

Do not complain. Change your situation so you can be happier.

By following strict moral ideals, one appreciates "good" more than one who faces such things all the time. As a result this person is happier.

Through great trauma comes great humility.

Actions and words:
You could insult someone. And we don't want that, do we?

All races and both genders, and all in between, should be treated the same way.

It feels good to know you're helping someone. Isn't that enough?

No need for legislature if everyone can trust each other, and everyone is trying to help society in any way possible. Your self judgment, as one of these communally conscious people, should be good enough to go by.

If you feel you have done something wrong, apologize. Do not roll in the muck to get clean. Do not wallow in your filth. Fix what is broken, and attempt to prevent it from occuring again.

Everything here is very, very vague, granted. :\

You could insult someone. And we don't want that, do we?

Insulting people is a good thing. People feel insulted when you tell them things that they know are true, but are denying to themselves or are afraid of being true. Many insults are used to deflate others' sense of self-importance. For example, when one middle-schooler calls another a "homo," that's an insult not because one has communicated an opinion of the other's sexuality, since usually both know they're obviously heterosexual. It's an insult because one is informing the other that he's not popular, which the other strives to be and tells himself he is.

I knew a high school math teachers that would almost bully his students. If you called him an idiot, he'd be offended, because he really was one. But Stephen Hawking would not be offended at this, he'd just be amused.

Another example is the famous, "I may be drunk, but tomorrrow morning I'll be sober, and you'll still be ugly." The woman was trying to fool herself that she was beautiful, but she knew alternative was really true, hence she was successfully insulted.

Insulting people, especially the self-important types, justly tears at the pretensions they build about themselves.

Oh, I agree. I did not make it clear in the description that the philosophy is very polarized: People are loved or they are hated.

When I implied insulting was bad, I was aiming at other, kind and conscious people. Other people do need to be reminded of their humanity...
Typically, I avoid insulting and go straight for telling idiots why they are idiots anyway. But insulting does a decent job in most occaisons.

Facetiousness and arrogance are not appreciated within the philosophy. At all.

Insulting people is not a good thing. Insulting people is just brutalizing them verbally rather than physically.

the "I am just telling them the truth, how they take it is their problem" is just a rationalization that makes the brutalizer feel good about what s/he does. If you have a truth to tell someone, there are better ways to do it.

If you have truth to tell, tell it to power not weakness.

Nah, Rashakil's right about the arguing. Completely right.

Back to the main topic...I think ya missed 1 more discussion point - universal law.

That in itself is amazing.

I was working on my book today

As in a published book? Not bad. Especially when ya write on this topic. Plus, I just got done editing a friend of mine's book on philosophy.

hmm, why do you group monarchism in with all those religions? It's the only one that has no religious meaning...

And you're missing Shintoism.

So I view the poll results. like 17 or so votes.. only 12 voters.

You wonder why some folks just cant get it right?

Script error? I think not. I think i saw a "hanging chad" on at least
two of them. hahaha. :cheesey:

Totally left all of the non-believers out.

Waht? no "[x] death and taxes" option?!

As in a published book? Not bad. Especially when ya write on this topic. Plus, I just got done editing a friend of mine's book on philosophy.

Well, it's a narrative. The idea is to put the message throughout the plot. It incorporates male-female dynamics, morality, I-suppose-what-you-would-call-universal-law, Nazism, Christianity, temptation, the media, utilitarianism, and the problem behind self-need (the selfish impulses we all have, as any other animal).

I could reveal more, but it's somewhat complicated. It's the manifestation of the problems I see in people, in a sort of pessismistic light, I guess. All about a society's war against everyone else, and the effects of this war, and the question on whether what the society did was right or not.

In light of the limited choices, I thought it would be fair to give everyone as many votes as needed. We don't all pertain to one ideal.

Monarchism is on the list, and should be treated as what would be modern-day conservatism, and the idea that we need a government with a strong ruler, etc. Apologies, I'm still learning about this stuff. :\