Top 10 Strangest Philosophies
-->
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!
Related top 10 lists
Wow, some of these philosophies are a bit mind-boggling! Nice list!
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.
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.
You misinterpreted idealism a little, but nice otherwise. What is your philosophy of choice?
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…
The list would’ve been much better without your opinions.
Where is Zionism?
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!
“In my mind, nothing is absolute,” -Ah, didn’t you just state an absolute?
Also, check out Ayn Rand’s Objectivism
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
How about liberalism?
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!
“In my mind, nothing is absolute ….”
Isn’t that rather absolute?
Oh, yeah?
What about Robert A. Heinlein’s pantheistic multiple-personality solipsism?
Top THAT, bunky.
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.
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.”
“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.”
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).
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
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.
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”
You took the words out of my mouth.
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.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
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.
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.