In looking for a philosophy that is based on the natural world and has little or nothing to do with humans and how to live life. Idk if that makes sense. Maybe metaphysics or something, or a kind of naturalistic spirituality.
Basically i want to become one with the rocks and sky.
This is probably the closest thing, by natural world I mean like nature on earth, but also metaphysical ideas related to that would be interesting. Can you recommend any original animist texts
I already know about existentialism, I'm trying to get in a different mindset "separate from human thought" is how I would describe it, similar to Buddhism but with emphasis on ideas about nature and Gaia
What I mean is a philosophy that has little to do with common human dilemmas or even questions about perception and focuses on Gaia and the natural world of earth, something like animism but hopefully a bit more logical
>looking for a philosophy that is based on the natural world and has little or nothing to do with humans and how to live life
No such thing exists. All philosophy is about how to live one's life.
The closest you will find is Taoism. Then I would say check out Stoicism.
The ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight.
If you're going to keep reducing things though, I'll b done tho m8. When you reach the point where you're asking what 'is' means you're not bein' productive ya ken?
But you must understand that all natural philosophies lead to the question of how to live one's life. For if we did not need to know how to live, why would we study nature?
This is called Socratic dialogue. Your sentiment explains why he was imprisoned and sentenced to death.
So if philosophy is the love of wisdom, and wisdom is the ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight, then philosophy can be said to be:
- the love of knowing how to properly think and act.
This would be out of line what what OP is looking for; he wants a philosophy which has little or nothing to do with humans and how to live life. Which brings me to my first point: no such thing exists.
I don't know quite what you are asking for but you might find the following books interesting
>Tao Te Ching
>Zen Flesh, Zen Bones
>The Perennial Philosophy (Huxley, A)
>any number of writings on mystical traditions within various different religions
but like I said, I'm not sure what it is you are asking for exactly
It's literally what it means, friend =)
There is no need to be upset =)
You didn't provide any actual information. Someone asked you to break down a concept and you just gave them more words of equal capacity to be broken down, thus providing even more confusion.
the point is that it is impossible for humans to do philosophy outside of the human perspective - whatever terms you want to use to describe anything pertain only, and only, to your - human - perspective. you can always try to reduce the concepts you use to describe something, but you'll eventually get back into epistemology: the logic of - human - knowledge.
>what is philosophy 101
You make a gentleman's agreement to operate on colloquial definitions for any terms that have one, and if you must utilize any jargon-esque terms that need explicitly defined you do so in terms of those other commonly held meanings of other words. Don't be needlessly reductionist about linguistics - it's just annoying and utterly unfruitful.
Because it was employed in regard to things that were not understood or talked about at the time, since that was when philosophy was *actually* beginning as a somewhat serious endeavor.
If you don't know what people mean by words nowadays you can fucking google it. You can gauge whether or not they're using something colloquially or not by the context they're employing it in.
I disagree. I think the words they used were just as much defined for them as they are for us. The power of Socratic dialogue is to get on the same page, because even if we both look up a word in the dictionary we may have our own spin on it. Socratic dialogue establishes a foundation to work from. As you can see from my own posts in this thread, using the person's own definitions we came to an understanding of what philosophy is, and if it is applicable to OP's request.
Even Voltaire, 2,000 years later, stated "If you wish to converse with me, first define your terms."
>I think the words they used were just as much defined for them as they are for us
They *definitively* weren't. Half of ancient Greek vocabulary came about over the course of the pre-Socratic and post-Socratic decades - many of them were used almost as buzzwords, such as 'piety'.
This might interest you OP
"Third Window, A Natural Life beyond Newton and Darwin"
>Thus far, the dominant paradigms through which modern scientists have viewed nature have been structured primarily around Newtonian and Darwinian approaches. As theoretical ecologist Robert E. Ulanowicz observes in his new work, A Third Window, neither of these models is sufficient for explaining how real change—in the form of creative advance or emergence—takes place in nature.
>The metaphysical foundations laid by these great thinkers centuries ago are ill suited to sustain today's search for a comprehensive description of complex living systems. Ecosystem dynamics, for example, violate each and every one of the Newtonian presuppositions. Hence, Ulanowicz offers his titular "third window"—a new way of understanding evolution and other natural processes beyond the common mechanistic or materialistic philosophies of nature. Drawing on the writings of Walter Elsasser, Karl Popper, Gregory Bateson, Robert Rosen, and Alfred North Whitehead, as well as his own experience as a theoretical ecologist, Ulanowicz offers a new set of axioms for how nature behaves. Chance and disarray in natural processes are shown to be necessary conditions for real change. Randomness is shown to contribute richness and autonomy to the natural world.
>The metaphysical implications of these new axioms will lend A Third Window a wide appeal not only among scientists, but also among philosophers, theologians, and general readers who follow the science and religion dialogue. Ulanowicz's fresh perspective adds a new voice to the discussion.