Top 10 Strangest Philosophies

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

Despite many believing philosophy is a “useless major” or a “waste of time,” it’s definitely a great way to boggle your mind by your own doing. It’s one thing to be confused by someone else, and a completely different feeling to confuse your own self. Who doesn’t enjoy perplexing themselves to no end, or thinking so hard your head literally hurts? Count me in.

I’m no philosopher, nor a philosophy major, but I can say in my time of reading works by some of the most famous philosophers to even some of the lesser known ones, and from browsing random books and websites, I’ve run across some extremely odd theories. Some of them make some sort of sense, while others completely go over my head. Of course, they do all make sense when looking at society and views of life during that time. As the great Cicero once said, “There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it.” Here is a list of 10 philosophies that are just pure strange.

10. Idealism


Idealist theory says that there are no foundational beliefs. Instead, our beliefs exist in a system of interconnected perceptions. With this theory, you can ultimately conclude that no one belief is more important than the next. In the end, this theory is extremely circular. If a certain belief is true because it coheres or fits with others, then what do they cohere with? Sadly, there is no answer. In the end you’re stuck in an infinite regression.

9. Innatism (Innate ideas)


Innatism states that the mind is born and already loaded with ideas as well as knowledge. This view was created in order to disprove John Locke’s idea of the human mind being a “tabula rasa” that is eventually filled throughout life with experience. The theory holds that the we already known simple mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4 and the truths about God. But, if this theory is true, why do humans have a hard time adding up larger numbers? (ie. 1359+3515) And, if we have these innate ideas, why doesn’t everyone believe in the religious truths? And how do we know we learned something? Could it be that we just remembered it?

8. Animism


The Wish Tree on Calton Hill, Scotland, viewed on Beltane Eve (April 30). A wish tree is a modern practice based on the animism practised by early pagan peoples of Europe such as the Celts and Anglo-Saxons.

Animism states that when looking at souls and spirits, the two not only exist in humans and animals, but they also exist in things such as rocks, plants, thunder, mountains, and other objects. Many argue that animism is only used in cultures where religion and society aren’t as built-upon science and math. Many critics explain that the philosophy of animism is only used to provide answers to unknown questions. I can’t believe the rock I run over on an unpaved road has a soul.

7. Logical atomism


Popularized by Bertrand Russell, the theory states that world consists of logical “facts” (aka “atoms”) that cannot be broken down any further. It also states that all truths are dependent upon a layer of atomic facts. Therefore, the theory asserts that language mirrors reality. This is just one philosophy that I don’t understand. In the end it says that the world is just made up of facts that are extremely simple and easy to comprehend.

6. Deconstructionism


Given the name by Jacques Derrida, the theory states that there is no one meaning when observing a piece of text. Instead, a text has several different meanings. The theory also states that when given a piece of literature, the reader ultimately decides what the meaning is, not the text in the book. I used to find deconstruction pretty valid, but in a sense, it does make literature meaningless. If you reduce and reduce the meaning of something so much, it in the end has no purpose. And if we always determine the meaning of something, how can anyone ever have a misunderstanding? You can just simply say no, that is my interpretation of what you said.

5. Phenomenalism


Phenomenalism states that physical objects do not exist as things in themselves but only as perceptual phenomena. Meaning, we can’t know anything is real beyond what we perceive and verify. Despite how neat it sounds, phenomenalism has its issues. What do we consider “verified?” And what about math? Math surely is real and it doesn’t require sensory perception.

4. Ethical egoism


Ethical egoism states that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. Basically, it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be morally right that it is able to maximize one’s self-interest. This means that we only act on certain morals and actions because of our own self-interest and that these actions are right. The theory would basically support that stealing money is right, as it feeds our self-interest and brings a higher reward.

3. Moral absolutism


In my mind, nothing is absolute, so moral absolutism just doesn’t work for me. The theory holds that there are absolute rights and wrongs, no matter the context of the act. This brings up one of the more popular philosophical questions; is it okay to lie for a greater good? Let’s say you tell a lie to save a life. Is that morally wrong because lying is seen as wrong? Who knows, it never ends. Then you start wondering if morals are even real. photo by Michael Guerreiro

2. Neutral monism


Neutral monism says that the mental and the physical are not two fundamentally different things. Instead, the view holds that the body and the mind are made up of the same material, which isn’t mental or physical. Only problem I see with this theory is that it is entirely mental. Is it not? The theory assumes that the mind is “real” and relies heavily on mental ability. And…do we experience outside of our minds? Perception? Sensation? Where do they fit in? photo by hyg-27

1.  Solipsism


Comic from Toothpaste for Dinner

I’d have to say that solipsism is what made me want to write this list. By dictionary definition, solipsism is a philosophical theory that states that a person can know nothing but that he/she exists, and that the self is the only existent thing. In common words, solipsism expresses that you believe you are the only real thing. Talk about extremely egocentrism. I think I’ll start a solipsism club!



  1. Not a bad list.

    About solipsism, I'm not sure what the definition is, but here's how i see it. Solipsism claims that we know nothing for sure except that something that is generating my own thoughts exists. The rest of the world may be an illusion of mine, my body might be an illusion, i might be a brain in jar, or a computer program.

    Logically speaking this is perfectly correct, you cannot be absolutely sure that the world is real, can you?

    You can't be absolutely sure about almost anything.

    However, knowing something for sure is very different than believing something. If we're talking about what i KNOW than i would be a solipsist, if we're talking about what i BELIEVE, then i wouldn't because it seems likelier to me that this world is real rather than that i exist in some other world and am imagining this one.

    Just my 2 cents.

    • exactly what i’m thinking. as far as anyone can really be concerned, nothing, even the thinks you percieve to be real, cannot be entirely certain. “I think, therefore, I am”. the only thing any of us can be entirely certain of is our own existance, but how we percieve, that’s complete mystery

  2. Haggis,

    I agree. It just seems to me solipsism starts to get into doubting existence, and that's one thing you can't doubt, as to doubt you need to exist. Solipsism is all about believing you are the only person that exists, nothing else.

    We don't KNOW the world is real, could be all an illusion. But it seems to make more sense that it does exist, like you said.

    Anyways, thanks for reading my list, glad you liked it.

    • Ash,

      in pondering about both perspectives, i agree morover with you, but that is what im talking about, perspectives, we all may have a different perspective, and it only truly matters to us, so what i believe is that, whatever perspective each human has, believes, or possibly even knows, whether you agree with any philosophy, they are all only theories, and can never be factual, a mere "invention". This is where a form of absurdism comes into context, basically, stating that life shouldnt be thought, and pondered on, it should be lived. So what i believe is that everyone has their perspective, they believe what they believe, or know (if possible), and thats it, all there is to do from then on is to continue life and have fun, for all we know, we only are privelaged enough to have one. I dont know how i delevoped this theory (cuz this is merely a theory as well, although i never said we couldnt believe in a theory), and although im only 16, it came to mind. d: ill call it MOOKIEISM :} 😛

  3. about phenomenalism:

    math isnt a physical thing, it can only be *represented* by physical things, and therefore perceived through the idea represented through those physical things…

  4. FreePalestine: I tried to stay away from philosophies that would cause a stir. I see Zionism as being more political. I don't find it weird or strange, just extreme nationalism.

    Thanks for reading!

  5. Anamism must be popular with the eco-freaks and enviromentalists wackos especialy if their get to tie little colored tags in the trees kind of like during that dumb RIO EARTH SUMMIT where they gots kids to make dozens of leaf shaped postcards to hang in the TREE OF LIFE it just gets wackier all the time SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK HYUK,HYUK,HYUK

  6. Ryan,

    Like I told FreePalestine, I tried to stay away from the political philosophies. I don't see a problem with liberalism.

    But, thanks for reading!

  7. Ethical Egoism, once explored, can be found to be bound by the Golden Rule. That is, theft is not consistent with ethical egoism because it opens the door to being stolen from.

  8. My philosophy prof in college once commented on a conversation he had with a solipsist. The solipsist explained how logical and convincing he thought this philosophy was, and he didn't understand why more people didn't adhere to it. The prof replied, "It apparently never occurred to this simple solipsist that if his philosophy is true, there is no one else to believe in it."

  9. "Ethical Egoism, once explored, can be found to be bound by the Golden Rule. That is, theft is not consistent with ethical egoism because it opens the door to being stolen from."

    I've heard this argument, but it doesn't follow. "I have a right to steal from others" does not imply "Others have a right to steal from me" unless you believe that others have the same rights as you do. But if you're starting principle is pure self-interest, you are not likely to accept any such premise.

    You might pragmatically say "If I get away with stealing from others, then others will conclude that they can probably get away with stealing from me, so I should be honest to encourage others to be honest." But that would be highly dependent on the circumstances. Are you strong enough or clever enough to prevent others from stealing from you while you get away with stealing from them?

    People who adhere to philosophies like this tend to say things like, "Honesty is for the weak" and "Superior beings like myself are above the moral standards that apply to lesser humans."

    • Actually, I'm an ethical egoist and I disagree with a lot of what you just said. The point of the philosophy is that self-interest is the most logical good because there are no moral absolutes and no higher overall meaning to life (which you seem to have an issue with, bear with me), so the individual draws his own morals based on what he values and what he finds his own personal meaning in (mine is artistic endeavors, and the desire to enjoy my life as fully as I can). A boulder in the middle of a field has no purpose until someone/something comes across it and decides to use it to create a sculpture or to rest upon or to find shelter under or to play a game of King of the Hill on or something to throw out of a catapult towards an invading army, and it serves all of those purposes simply because the individuals experiencing that boulder have given it those meanings. It rejects the idea of natural rights as reifications (abstract ideas thought of in the human mind treated as actual existing laws or physical objects, just like egoists view notions of society, religion, government, metaphysical/spiritual idealisms, and morality as a whole) and embraces the idea 'might makes right' in what I think is a logical way. You have the ability to take something that you want from someone else? If you think your actions are justified to your ends by all means do it. Do you have the ability to protect what is yours? If not, then you don't have right to it if someone decides to take it. In this way it emphasizes responsibility, because it places the entire load of any action's consequences upon the perpetrator of said action (in sharp contrast to what we've seen with the bailouts in the past few years). If you steal this will someone try to punish you, up to and possibly including killing you? Is that really worth the risk? Yes, it seems a little 'uncivilized' but most Egoists accept the mantra "shit happens" and realize their rational minds are important factors in gauging the value of every action they make, and are ready (hopefully prepared) to handle the repercussions.

      One of the biggest misconceptions made (that I also noticed you have made) is that egoists believe that their moral views and self-interest are above all others. That's semi-true in the sense that to YOU it should be held above all others, but it also stresses the understanding that to OTHERS it should definitely NOT be considered as such. This is where respect comes in- understanding that your own ego upon anyone else is no greater than anyone else's ego upon yourself (as my friend states it, "acting for yourself doesn't mean acting against everyone else"). You understand that it's in your self-interest to not steal from your friends, because you respect them and enjoy their company enough (find enough value in them as individuals) to not want to piss them off by doing so. You don't steal from work because you may value the job or the employers enough (and if you don't you at least know not to get caught doing it, but this is also a separate matter of willingly signing a contact agreeing to be paid to follow by their rules in their workplace, being fired is simply cause and effect). Very much like the Golden Rule except Egoism, like Objectivism, makes a strong point of being able to drop your values in the face of someone who doesn't respect them or you (treat an individual as he treats you, at least if it can be used as a means to a personal end- if not, disregard them because in the end they only affect you as much as you allow them to).

      The simplest way to put it would be like this: Altruism is sacrificing yourself for the sake of others, Egotism is sacrificing others for the sake of yourself, and Egoism is that happy medium where you work towards your personal happiness by whatever means make the most rational (that's the key word) sense to you. It's like haggling at an open market; you know the merchant wants your money at the highest price he can get away with and he knows you want his product at the cheapest price you can get, so you agree to something that satisfies both of you.

      And in regards to your picture- was Hitler an Egoist? Not really. He had an ideal which he convinced a large mass to follow, more power to him for it (those who followed are partly to blame for allowing him to gain such unquestioned control over their rationale). At the same time he and his followers were being controlled by Idealism, simple irrational spooks of the mind that weren't quite self-serving (Idealists always serve the ideal), and through it one person forced his will upon millions of others. In the end he paid the price.

      • AmbionCatalyst on

        I see what you mean. Egoists should, reasonably, follow a society’s laws only because they could be jailed or killed otherwise -unless they can get away with it and it’s worth the risk. And even without criminal justice, individuals could carry out revenge. However, if one is powerful enough, one could do whatever one wants with little to no consequences brought on by the actions of others. No one has this power (at least not on a large scale), but if most people in a society didn’t follow ethical egoism but instead believed in something like absolutism or altruism, well then there could exist some egoists without things falling apart. Also, what you’re suggesting sounds somewhat like utilitarianism. In general, it seems to me that utilitarianism makes the most sense for a society to follow. How else could it work if most or all people were egoists? They would have to settle on mutual agreements (assuming they held roughly the same amount of power) and cooperate to some extent. Seems like common sense….

  10. I can only urge everyone to read Ayn Rand's works. The human "moral dilemma" has been solved, logically, rationally, without contradiction. Your self-interest does not imply nor require that you violate the rights of others. In fact, your self-interest requires that you respect the rights of others. Learn it for yourself, before her books are banned (kidding . . . for now).

    • moral dilemna was solved before it was even created. Now were just webbed in all these intricate thoughts d:, fun, and useful in our society, but otherwise, still fun, but useless – _ – (possibly)

  11. funny stuff on

    hitler was one wierd guy he was brown eyes and brown hair but only gave high ranks to blonde people with blue eyes?????? is it just me or is he crazy

  12. solipsism coincides with the brain in the vat theory. They do not believe that they are the only thing in existence, but accept the fact that they do not know. And probably never will.

    Your definition of animism is very vague. How do you know what has a soul and what doesn't? Who's to say whats' what.

    I just think you need to think before you pick apart philosophies, and maybe read up on them before you do so.

  13. Ingredient 1: A brief and flawed summary of a philosophical viewpoint

    Ingredient 2: A single sentence response dismissing said viewpoint using examples specifically discussed in the literature.

    When properly combined, this mixture has been known to steal up to 5 minutes of human life.

    Id have been more stimulated reading the "Top 10 celebrity breakups"

  14. Russell's atomism (irreducible facts or atoms) seems to be much the same as Richard Dawkin's concept of memes.

    "A meme is a postulated unit or element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, and is transmitted from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. (The etymology of the term relates to the Greek word mimema for "something imitated".) Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures, Memeticists have not empirically proven the existence of discrete memes or their proposed mechanism, and memes (as distinct from ideas or cultural phenomena) do not form part of the consensus of mainstream social sciences."

  15. Perhaps it would be better to come up with your own philosophy, rather than buying into a nice pre-made package from McPhilosophers like Bertrand Russel or Ayn Rand.

    Think for yourselves.

    • thats exactly what i think :D, live your own experiences and think of your own philosophies in order to find your beilief 😀

      although i agree with you almost completely, these are meant for people without philosophical guidance, or to improve, or stimulate ones on life philosophy, to help craft it. 😛

  16. Animism is part of Shinto in which trees, rocks, mountains etc… all have a spirit or "Kami" within them. What is unique about Shinto is that it was never destroyed by conversion but survives into the 21st century in one of the most highly technological societies on Earth. It exists only in Japan. Some religions point out that it is only special trees and rocks etc… that have individual souls (like Shinto) whereas others are part of a larger "group soul" and are therefore likened to animals.

    Some philosophies take this further and explain that everything is part of a group soul. For example all cats are part of the cat oversoul. As a species evolved spiritually they begin to break away from the group soul and become more individual. Humans are very far along this path with domestic animals being on the cusp. A cat you've named as an individual can develop and individual soul but cats in general remain part of the group.

    A tree, in this branch of animism, is part of a group soul based on species but a sacred tree is given identity. A sacred tree contains its own soul or god. Out of an entire forest there may be one or two sacred trees. (Often the sacred stones, trees, rivers, etc… exist on ley-lines) In this approach the rock you run over is part of the rock oversoul, maybe specific to the area, but not possessing an individual soul like a person.

    As for desconstructionism, the truth is that language can only express shared experience. This is why analogy is so important when introducing a new concept. A phrase like "windswept moore" means more to someone who has actually BEEN on the British Moores than someone who has never left New York City. The city dweller can imagine it but has no experience by which to make it real.

    Solipsism may seem egocentric but it states that we only know for certain that we exist. Everything else MAY be an illusion. Everything and everyone else may be a misfiring of neurons in our minds since nothing exists to us except as interpreted by our sensory input and decoding. Consider the Schizophrenic. For them the voices, faces, whatever, are real. There is no separation between imaginary, psychotic or 'real'. Most of us believe in "reality by consensus", a "real" thing is real to other people as well, but when there is no distinction between a "real" voice and an "imagined" voice then there is no way to agree with others.

    Consider again a virtual reality simulator. We know we're in a game, we know we're wearing headsets, etc… but what if that information was being fed directly into the brain and not through the eye and ear. How do we define what is real in that context. Most people do not control their dreams, yet while they're dreaming everything appears real. All the Solipsism is saying is that the only thing I know for certain is that I am real. You may, or may not, be real but that doesn't mean I outright reject your reality. /The Matrix/ is a perfect example of the Solipsism argument.

  17. This list is a joke. You misrepresented 3 of the first 4 and I figured I wouldn't even continue (However I did).

    First off, Logical Atomism is, in your words, only on this list because you don't understand it. Based on this, what reason do I have to listen to any of your other descriptions of the rest of these philosophies?
    Secondly, Deconstructionism is not the same thing as Reductionism, you have here represented them both as the same thing.

    If you don't understand something, that doesn't make it strange.

    It looks as though you read a brief description of solipsism (which is, in fact, retarded) and looked up 9 more in a desperate attempt at building a complete "Top 10" list, and I repeat, did minimal to no research.

  18. This is a very interesting article and I’m glad I came across it.
    Having majored in philosophy in college, I have come across many of these ideas at one time or another, only not by those names; I’m guessing that they were renamed at a subsequent time to the respective philosophers’ proposing of the ideas. I respect your opinion, but I think that you think some of them are strange because you do not fully understand them; some others are strange because they lack necessary premises in order to make them valid. This note will be entirely too long if I give examples to every one of them and I am having some trouble typing this, so I’ll just give a few examples.
    Solipsism, as you call it, reminds me of something René Descartes wrote. He pondered how he knows if reality, as we perceive it, really exists. Like if you had a dream, let’s say, and while you are dreaming, you honestly believe that what is happening is real (as surreal as it may be in comparison to what we believe to be real in the conscious world). You only realize that it was a dream when you wake up. So how do we know that our experiences are not part of some kind of altered state of mind and are not reality? Descartes concluded that we don’t know, because we can’t prove it isn’t. Makes sense. But he knows that at least he exists, because he is able to think (not only of such things, butjust think). Does it make sense now?
    Moral absolutism sounds quite familiar with me, but not by that name. The name escapes me at the moment, but I don’t really see the point in looking it up. Some morals are absolute, I think, like it’s wrong to do bad things and good to do good things. What is considered bad or good is determined by different societies under the theory of ethical relativism (an idea which asserts that ethics are relative to different societies, but is not the converse of moral absolutism). But I digress. I think moral absolutism is perfectly fine, if you confine it within it’s bounds.
    Ethical egoism would sound monstrous if put next to a picture of Hitler, but it is not as bad as you may think. I am going on long enough with simple, but possibly complicated looking explanations, so I will use a few words in an example. Capitalism is based on moral egoism, everyone acts according to what benefits themselves and the society as a whole will flourish. It is fundamentally flawed, yes, but it’s not as bad as you’re trying to make it out to be.
    About phenomenalism, the idea sounds familiar, but I’m afraid that you do not understand it. It’s not referring to mathematical facts, as those are known as empirical facts. I wish I could elaborate further, but I’m not even sure why you don’t understand it.
    As for Bertrand Russell, I wouldn’t put much into his theories, as he tended to be oversimplistic, coming to simple conclusions based on faulty logic. Eg he avowed that God did not exist. His reason? Because he’s never heard of an argument that’s definitely proved God’s existence to him, so therefore he believes that God does not exist. How’s that?
    Animism sounds like what the early Greek philosophers believed in, when they subscribed to the Forms theory. The native Americans had a similar theory too. We come from a different line of thought regarding this, you and me. But great minds subscribed to this idea, so I wouldn’t be so quick to presume I’m right and they’re wrong, or especially poo poo it, as you did.

    • Washington Irving on

      The lack of an absolute truth is not itself an absolute truth. Unicorn’s aren’t nonexistent because there’s a law of nature that makes them so, it’s because they just don’t exist. So far we haven’t dug up an ‘Absolute truth’ from under a rock… therefore as far as we know they are just manifestations of the mind.

      • When you say there are no absolutes (or claim a “lack” of absolutes) then is your statement absolutely true? If you say no then you contradict yourself. If you say yes then you contradict yourself. So is there absolute truth or isn’t there?

        • Washington Irving on

          Firstly, and most importantly, what is a truth? How do you know that what you consider a truth also exists as such for every other individual, creature, or particle of matter throughout the universe?
          And I get really frustrated at this “the claim there is no absolute truth is an absolute truth” argument because it’s derived from a very Western either-or dualistic thinking process; the universe doesn’t work in terms of ultimatums. If you read into certain theories in quantum mechanics most of the things we consider scientific ‘absolute truths’ go out the window. I can relate it to morality as well- just because I can argue that something isn’t inherently good doesn’t mean I’m saying it’s inherently bad. I’m saying i just is and the rest is a conclusions your mind reaches based on its own perceptions.
          I can’t say my explanation is absolutely true as there’s some form of reality which exists that we all perceive and live within… but our senses and minds are not able to grasp the whole, we only know what our senses pick up what out of that our brains are able to process. That’s not nearly enough to able to say “X is an absolute.”

  19. Nice list, I see you adhere to the ever so popular strawman philosophy. I mean come on dude. I don’t agree with most of these ideas but at least provide some kind of argumentation as to why they don’t work or why they are weird that isn’t obviously fallacious. If you don’t understand something, that’s cool. There is a lot about this world I don’t understand. But don’t go around making lists and spreading ignorance and poor reasoning skills to the public. I wouldn’t make a list about the top ten strangest plants because my knowledge of vegetation is limited at best. I would highly suggest taking an introduction to philosophy class of some kind.

  20. I would have liked this article even more if you had gone into more depth on each one. More honestly though, I’m just glad I clicked on something that made me think.

  21. The main point I got from this article is that you have no idea what any of these theories are trying to say. You don’t even have a grasp of the basic concepts behind the philosophies. Go do a little research, then you can write an article like this. Either that, or you could simply admit that some things are over your head.

  22. The author of this list shows little knowledge of the exposed matter, reducing the previous philosophies to childish levels and including his personal experiences in them –rather than building an objective analysis.

  23. Philosopher John on

    Neutral monism actually makes a lot of sense. Rather than thoughts creating brain chemistry or brain chemistry creating thoughts our thoughts are just a sensory experience we have (with our sense of “thought”) that in some way represents the chemical reactions, just like our sense of smell is indirectly a sense of the molecules coming into our nose.

    If this is the case then any chemicals being processed through the mind would be perceived as thoughts or be beyond our perception but still thoughts and perhaps perceptible to other beings just as some animals can smell things that we can’t. In that way every single molecule would be a thought or at least a component of it.

    This would also make animism real, although it may be the individual molecules or clusters of molecules in the rock that have souls rather than the rock itself.

  24. Empirical mind on

    You mixed a bit of religious ideals such as animism and on the other hand “pure sciense” like neutral monism which just pretty much states that there is no supernatural phenomena. I wouldn’t really categorize these as philosophies. By what we know today with science and fact logical atomism seems to hold true in a sense. Of course it states as well that everything can be deconstructed. The thing we do not know yet is that can whole be more than its parts?

  25. interesting list, though I’m not always keen on how it’s explained… just to name one : “ethical egoism” is explained in naive terms, and that picture doesn’t present at all what it means… ethical egoism can also mean for example to love and help people around u, just so it makes you feel better ::: help others => helping yourself => loving yourself => loving others, that’s one need you might want to accomplishe above others.

  26. Greg Aitchison on

    Moral absolutism is a strange philosophy?? Seriously???

    You can honestly say that torturing babies for no reason or raping women for fun is not morally wrong in all times, places, and cultures? Or that full-scale genocide of Jews is right for some people but wrong for others? That it all just depends on one’s own subjective opinion in the end?

    Good grief… Pope Benedict XVI may very well be right: The “dictatorship of relativism” is quite possibly the most dangerous philosophy of our time.

    Also, your example of lying is often used by those with little to no understanding of moral philosophy, specifically the three determinants that make an action either good or evil: the object of the action, the circumstances, and the intention. Of course it wouldn’t be wrong to lie in order to save an innocent person’s life. Your intentions would be pure and the circumstances would have forced you into making the best moral choice.

    Please do yourself a favor and either read through or listen to Peter Kreeft’s talk, “Refutation of Moral Relativism” (can be found at PeterKreeft(DOT)com or at the links below). He helps flip the lid on all the silly nonsense that western culture constantly spits about morality just being “different strokes for different folks”:


Leave A Reply