Philosophy

Philosophical influences

My influences are diverse, but a strong theme among them is biological and materialist realism, i.e. living according to nature, rather than ideology; recognising how you are influenced/determined, and how you can influence - yourself and others. I strongly reject political correctness, though I will inevitably cuck myself sometimes. I hope to make my own coherent philosophy of life from these influences and other experiences.

• Aristotle - particularly biological metaphors of flourishing, and understanding of virtue and morality
• Stoic - along the lines of Aristotle. Their philosophy complements Aristotle with more practicality and therapeutic use
• Nietzsche - his critiques, especially in regard to nihilism and will to power are informative
• Marx - his critique of Capitalism is powerful, although he was wrong about many things. I am not a Marxist, but some may confuse me for one because I attack economic fundamentalism and individualism. I am most interested in Marx's critique of ideology.
• Existentialism - in my early days I was influenced by Existentialism as curated by Robert C. Solomon, who I owe a great deal of gratitude to. Existentialism first made philosophy relevant to me.

Philosophical recommendations

If I was to offer a practical philosophy course to others, I would suggest first the Existentialists, especially Nietzsche (via Robert C. Solomon), then the Stoics. The Existentialists are more about re-framing the mind toward a practical philosophy of life, whereas the Stoics actually provide an example of a philosophy of life, one which is quite naturalistic (if you cut out references to the Gods, which are unnecessary). In recommending the Stoics I would refer the reader to Aristotle for its deeper philosophical underpinnings.

In terms of epistemology, William James and Nietzsche are the way to go. Your idea of the truth must be practical, 'what works', not other airy-fairy notions. It should falsifiable (Popper) too and you should welcome and enjoy challenges to your beliefs but assert that challengers must make falsifiable claims. You should also be able to provide falsifiable claims/examples to back up your beliefs. If someone challenges you but is only talking out of their arse, feel free to reply with irony - this can be quite enjoyable.

For societal critique: Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Solzhenitsyn, Orwell, Huxley, Marx (on ideology only), Weber, Aristotle/Stoics. Avoid the fanciful idealism of Socrates/Plato.

You must be prepared to be completely politically incorrect if you really want to know the truth. That means you'll be labelled a racist/sexist/bigot, etc.You should treat these only as labels thrown out by the ignorant who are afraid of not conforming to herd morality.

Also, you need to create your own philosophy of life, not be a 'follower' of any of the above. They can and certainly will influence you, but you need to make a philosophy coherent to you, which can't be done just by reading other philosophers with no reference to your own context.