What is your philosophy/politics/religion and why?

Very good @Swensson . As usual you are indeed a very accomplished and good philosopher.

Although I have never heard ethics described by anyone else as relating to a consensus, you are right that in a professional sense as in professional ethics it does come down to a consensus among your peer group. Those of us who are subject to professional ethics must certainly agree.

 

The more I study and consider Philosophy, the more I realize that I must suspend judgment on more and more issues, and live with skepticism instead. Democritus (460-370 BC) first touched upon this, but Pyrrho (360-270 BC) was more emphatic, although Sextus Empiricus (160-210 AD) gets more credit for it than he probably deserves.

 

A near death experiencer was shown a profoundly encouraging version of the economy in the year 2185.....

https://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/howard-storm.html#a04

 

I have no formal training in general philosophy, I'm a hobby philosopher at best.

This gets a bit tricky, I don't think that ethics comes from consensus, but I think consensus is our best bet at getting at what ethics really are. In some sense, I think ethics are human, and so if you get a large unbiased sample of humans, you'll at least get the general gist of ethics. It is then a happy coincidence that democracy also happens to be the least abusable form of government.

I think we should look with skepticism at skepticism too. There are many who confess skepticism but who in practice sneak in angles of fanaticism. That's not to say the fundamentals of skepticism are wrong, we just shouldn't accept things just because it has the label "skepticism" on it.

 

A blend of:
Nihilism: nothing matters
Hedonism: be selfish and have fun
Altruism: help others selflessly

 

Empiricism is a mild form of skepticism which at least accepts the human senses as Empirically correct.

 

That doesn't seem right to me. Scepticism is the stance of being sceptical, doubting, not trusting things. Empiricism is the idea that we can trust our senses. They seem to me largely unrelated and if anything at odds.

Science uses both, not because they're the same thing, but by balancing one with the other. Well, that's not really true, empiricism wins out every time in science, but there are areas which empiricism don't address, and that's where science defaults to scepticism. Also, empiricism has the problem that it can be misinterpreted, at which point scepticism can draw the line.

 

There is currently so much science that is pure myth that it is hard to say science is Empirical.

 

If it's failing to be empirical, then in why do you refer to it as science?

 

Modern Empiricism works for me.

 

So many people have been brainwashed by what is called "science" that we call it science even though by and large it is not.

 

Atheist/Independent…..because I think for myself.

 

Funny.

Atheist is not thinking for yourself. It is not thinking at all.

Agnostic would be thinking.

 

I see....so after 8 years of Catholic school indoctrination and then reading science books which made me question what I had been taught I became Atheist because I did not think...yeah, that makes sense (SIC).

 

Well, in this case, you were the one slipping that equivocation in. Doesn't that make you one of the brainwashers?

 

Hm, maybe. I find modern empiricism to have problems. Less problems than most other absolute ideas, true, but I don't know that that's enough. It's not that empiricism is a bad idea, it's that it's relatively easy to mess it up without knowing.

 

Pragmatism...because no matter how crappy or weird things may appear they generally get obscured within moments by the ebb and flow of everyday life, so take it on the chin and move on with living. Life's fun so live it and don't make prisons of your supposed worries.