It is apt that I breifly mention my philosophical bias. Warning this is full of generalisations and the language will make me look like a wanker.

         – Full disclosure: I am partial to existentialism. More postmodern than Nihilistic.
I could go into why I believe this, but it will not change my bias or add to this disclosure.

          – I employ skeptic attitude toward knowledge – I enjoy the mental exercise of knowledge and reason but doubt any truth in anything. I find the only resilient hypothesis cognito ergo sum and I find the idea of a subjectively conceivable, absolute objective truth absurd.
          – My unshakable Existentialism nurtures blind, immediate, epicureanism; however I also manage to employ niche-inspired stoicism (for lack of a better phrase) when it comes to ‘meaning’. I attempt to balance these in the pursuit of eudaemonia. It’s tricky.

          – My ethical structure is heavily utilitarian based, Virtue ethics are factored in and subsequently, deontological ethics, however I would posit that the former two are too far from any possible objective truth for the weight of consideration.

          – In the pursuit of Eudaimonia, I find epicurean delight in Knowledge, thought and Reason. This is the ‘aesthetic phenomena’ that justifies my existence.

(Sidenote: – On the chance, that the knowledge I gain is in fact, somewhat objective – the most logical path is the progression and application of the knowledge I regard as both Important (Stoic) and absolutely enthralling (Epicurean).

           – Subjectively, This knowledge is epitomised by Extropian Transhumanism i.e
           – “Be the change you want to see.”
           – Employed approach is proactionary not precautionary I.e. This derives from being more concerned with my-persons as a catalyst for data than that as a sacred temple that I eternally reside in.

In retrospect, this post may have been for myself more than anyone.