A philosophy of life is any general attitude towards, or philosophical view of, the meaning of life or of the way life should be lived. Wikipedia
A philosophy of life is an overall vision or attitude toward life and the purpose of it. Human activities are limited by time, and death. But we forget this. We fill up our time with distractions, never asking whether they are important, whether we really find them of value. First Google Query
I have read: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic && https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask I tried to see where my post could have been included in them but due to my mental challenges I have a very hard time with this format at teaching.
I have been diagnosed by professionals as being on the autism spectrum. I have plenty of other diagnoses too. I also have plenty more undiagnosed. I am trying to ask with all that I can what I think are good questions in what I think is the right place to ask them. I seem to be failing in popularity and Stack Exchange has hinted toward that point to me also.
Some people get me just fine. Some people are fascinated by my point of views. More understand me to be a genius. Then there are people who I can't seem to communicate with for some reasons. Most of those people find something like a grammar mistake, something small then tell me they have proof that everything I was trying to say was wrong. I Really feel bad for these people to be trapped in such an existence. They seem intelligent enough. They have rather nice abilities. Yet they seem to enjoy finding the smallest thing that in their eye that I'm wrong about to argue over. I sense that they just want to be right about something, about anything. But I wouldn't include that as a potent reason for communication. Why would someone choose to live life this way?
[To move on along: You can skip to the last paragraph, this is just for character building (and a stab at explaining some of my philosophy at life)]
So I've asked a handful of questions in the past few days. I keep getting upvotes and downvotes. Downvotes have taken the lead. Each of my posts at the moment are curiously at -2 each. Then each of the three posts have also been voted Closed.
To reiterate: All of my posts where closed - I don't understand why. Then people seem to not like my question - I don't understand why.
The Three Posts
- 1stWhat's the psychology behind why COVID-19 has such an effect on people
- 2ndIs my ability to soon do something that I think should have been done long ago statistical evidence this world somehow revolves around me?
- 3rdWould you say that I've developed my own personal branch of science by the ability to be functional alone?
The first & third got closed, and stating at the top of them: "This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers." I with all my ability still think they are on topic and useful in philosophical growth. Did they only read my post's title? or did they read my post too? I would think they could get it that I'm abnormal.
The first post has this too inside the Closed Box "While this question may be related to philosophy or occur in a philosophical context, the question itself doesn't seem to be about philosophy, and is therefore not a good fit for our site."
I can't understand how this relates to my post.
On my first post I wrote this: "Coming near to the conclusion, I'm conscious that this is the Philosophy Stack Exchange. I couldn't think of a better place to answer this question. Simultaneously -> I wish asking this question to include (I don't acknowledge limitations to answers) answers as a philosophical tone/style and to answer the 'meta' of the question. I can expect many types and styles of answers and I feel there are many valid answers to this question."
Also I would think my post to be related to the definition of "Philosophy at life" above.
Are these not strong enough arguments? Am I still off course? I'm not strongly motivated by death, and at the moment I have trouble seeing people's philosophy for their meaning at living. To me Humans are very silly. Smart, logicalish, but very silly.
Part of my philosophy at life is to keep pushing my consciousness/tolerance/compassion/all of these things and more, then with what I gain I put that newfound power (with all the extra gain from investing) back into growing more of it, then apply this in a loop. To gain power to experience more of life and help people along the way .I have enormous tolerance and compassion, beyond normal people. And I keep growing. People that I talk to in person acknowledge in words that there is something different about me. I've even had complete strangers tell me they believe in me. Then for people who I've been around don't argue with negative emotions with me, then 5secs later they'll make a negative emotional statement to another person. I have other experiences I could share to support this if I felt like anyone would enjoy talking with me about. Though I acknowledge that something seems to control destiny. I don't know what it is.
Could my philosophy (I know I haven't explained much of it but I've explained some positive effects of it) be worth exploring if it has such powerful function? What would be the point in studying your philosophy rather then mine if what I say is true about my philosophy and it is so powerful in allowing growth. Is life just a popularity contest (It's safe to be limited by what is popular alone?)? If so then how could there be so many problems in the world? To me that is strong potential evidence that it isn't safe. I believe that philosophy and the practice of living that philosophy should make them ENORMOUSLY STRONG. Like how I state myself being. I find it curious why I haven't met another of me.
I would think it's evident alone that I would/do bring a very potent way at looking at life. But perhaps experiencing a different way of life is not what philosophy is about?
If we neurodivergent cause more frowns then smiles, and there was no way we could change any time soon, is that ethical?
[Edit] Are there established ethical rules that state I should or not? Is there a branch of philosophy dealing with my question?