3

I would like to ask for a possible classification of the following philosophical positions:

  • Everything is a simple result of natural occurances and as such lacks any objective value. Even if a god existed and created us with a purpose in mind, that would still not give meaning to our lives. What gives meaning to the purpose for which our creator created us? (Think the Rick and Morty episode where Rick creates a small universe in order for the life forms in it to power his car).

  • Humans are just very good biological learning machines. Our values and ethics are a result of natural selection and are passed into the next generation in part because of genes and in part because of parents driving and assisting their childrens' association process when young. Morals are relative and non-objective and just widely widespread.

  • All human actions are driven by personal satisfaction (even "altruists", are altruists because in the end they gain more personal satisfaction by acting altruistically compared to the alternatives, mothers gain personal satisfaction by caring for their babies etc.)

  • There is no inherit meaning in living but attempting to find and/or give meaning to our lives is a widespread cultural characteristic not necessarily inherit to us as a species. Therefore, a human can live happily by acknowledging that their lives has no meaning, that is, if they don't value life having an objective meaning.

closed as off-topic by Joseph Weissman Dec 12 '15 at 14:54

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions that push a personal philosophy with no question beyond "am I right" or "what do you think" are off-topic here as this is not a blog. It's ok to express unique opinions, but you must have an actual, answerable question to go with them." – Joseph Weissman
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    This seems pretty "localized" :) --Is there any chance we could reframe this to ask what philosophy some specific idea might belong to? – Joseph Weissman Dec 12 '15 at 14:55
  • 3
    I vote for reopen. The question asks for a philosophical classification which covers a series of philosophical views. The question does not ask whether the stated views are right or wrong. To me the question is neither opinion based nor pushing a personal view. In addition, the question seems very interesting because it possibly prompts different answers. – Jo Wehler Dec 12 '15 at 15:04
  • 2
    A broad term which covers your different views is naturalist. Naturalism is the view: "Everything can be explained by a natural mechanism, miracles do not happen." Of course a naturalist knows: At each point of time there are more questions than we can answer. Some questions have to be left open. Your naturalist position represents the following views concerning - religion: atheism - ethics: denial of objective ethical values, favoring a sociobiology approach - orientation: favouring explanations from science like the theory of evolution. - The poor layout is due to closing the question. – Jo Wehler Dec 12 '15 at 15:04
  • 2
    @JosephWeissman this is indeed localized but I don't see why it's against the rules. The OP definitely does not push a personal philosophy, just asks for a classification of his views. This can be objectively answered and as such the reason for closing seems a bit unreasonable. – Veritas Dec 12 '15 at 15:23
  • 1
    My issues are mainly with the headline (which is not very specific or expressive) and the fact that even in the body I'm not really seeing any really specific question -- there's only one question-mark, and the question that's associated with appears rhetorical. – Joseph Weissman Dec 12 '15 at 15:29
1

The philosophical position closest to your world view is called Existentialism. From wikipedia:

In the view of the existentialist, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.

The idea of the world be absurd and meaningless was captured in their absurdist attitude:

The notion of the Absurd contains the idea that there is no meaning in the world beyond what meaning we give it. This meaninglessness also encompasses the amorality or "unfairness" of the world. This contrasts with the notion that "bad things don't happen to good people"; to the world, metaphorically speaking, there is no such thing as a good person or a bad person; what happens happens, and it may just as well happen to a "good" person as to a "bad" person.

The key element for existentialists was authenticity: One should strive to be authentic and create their own meaning in life, as opposed to just following or copying others, or doing things for the sake of appearances. So objective meaning doesn't really matter (and shouldn't).

Most Existentialists were atheists (Sartre, Camus,...), but they could be christian as well, like Kierkegaard famously was.

Your world view is also similar in a way to Nietzsche's Nihilism.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.