What Do I Call Myself?

As it says in my religion I follow a growing blend of philosophical ideas from Helleno-Roman philosophies. I have a few questions:

At what point can I call myself an adherent of any of the individual philosophies that influence me? If I cant really say I adhere to any, how do I describe myself without writing a paper on it?

How do you guys feel about me arbitrarily picking and choosing from various philosophical schools? Is it something that is okay, does it strike anyone in a wrong way? I dont think it would, but you never know.

At what point can I call myself an adherent of any of the individual philosophies that influence me? If I cant really say I adhere to any, how do I describe myself without writing a paper on it?

As 'a philosopher' — most people probably will not be interested in hearing more than that anyhow. Philosophy tends to be a little off-putting for a lot of people.

How do you guys feel about me arbitrarily picking and choosing from various philosophical schools? Is it something that is okay, does it strike anyone in a wrong way? I don't think it would, but you never know.

Any person will be influenced to some extent by the environment to which he/she is exposed; that is really unavoidable. It is fine to see the relationships and the consistencies between ideological lines — there are certainly plenty, some of which arise from varying degrees of 'genetic' relation and derivation between them. But where this does become problematic is when it becomes an easy 'opt-out' strategy, when you are truly just arbitrarily picking and choosing, rather than intellectually surveying (which I assume is more what you mean) — the 'listen to what you like, ignore what you don't' method, which is just self-sycophancy.

If this is not your lifetime to follow the road all the way to the mountain's top — then it is not meant to be, but certainly you are getting ready to make the ascent. You've also got, presumably, plenty of time ahead of you.

And keep studying.

PS- Skepticist and Naturalist philosophy are almost two expressions of the same thing — Skepticism lead to the development of Naturalism (which is, essentially, the philosophical aspect of modern science).

Further, Stoicism could rightly be called deistic, which was the theological mindset of many early modern Skeptics and Naturalists. The Stoic Divine is largely uninvolved with the world (something like the deist 'clockwork world'), whereas Naturalism is non-theistic in the first place, and all three stand on a similar ethical basis in the 'don't rock the boat/and calmly accept whatever happens to you/submit peacefully to fate' with Stoic ethics just going a bit further in their advocacy of living with virtue, and doing one's best to make life comfortable for yourself and others. These three are broadly overlapping — it makes sense that you are drawn to them.

Erodius wrote:

At what point can I call myself an adherent of any of the individual philosophies that influence me? If I cant really say I adhere to any, how do I describe myself without writing a paper on it?

As 'a philosopher' — most people probably will not be interested in hearing more than that anyhow. Philosophy tends to be a little off-putting for a lot of people.

Even in the intellectual world? I was hoping that the higher up I got in college it would get better.

Erodius wrote:

How do you guys feel about me arbitrarily picking and choosing from various philosophical schools? Is it something that is okay, does it strike anyone in a wrong way? I don't think it would, but you never know.

Any person will be influenced to some extent by the environment to which he/she is exposed; that is really unavoidable. It is fine to see the relationships and the consistencies between ideological lines — there are certainly plenty, some of which arise from varying degrees of 'genetic' relation and derivation between them. But where this does become problematic is when it becomes an easy 'opt-out' strategy, when you are truly just arbitrarily picking and choosing, rather than intellectually surveying (which I assume is more what you mean) — the 'listen to what you like, ignore what you don't' method, which is just self-sycophancy.

You were correct in your assumption. I didn't mean to sound as if I did the cherry picking method, but I did feel I was taking an awful lot of liberty with it. I had alway been one to look for one path and one alone. The idea of looking at many as viable was new to me.

Erodius wrote:
If this is not your lifetime to follow the road all the way to the mountain's top — then it is not meant to be, but certainly you are getting ready to make the ascent. You've also got, presumably, plenty of time ahead of you.

I hopefully have a lifetime to ponder it all, but at this point I find me climbing the mountain to be unlikely. Not impossible, just not likely. But thanks, it gave me comfort to see you say that. Maybe someday if youre right and I manage to stop being stubborn I can meet you at the top and you can tell me "told ya so" ill be looking forward to that.

Erodius wrote:And keep studying.

PS- Skepticist and Naturalist philosophy are almost two expressions of the same thing — Skepticism lead to the development of Naturalism (which is, essentially, the philosophical aspect of modern science).

Further, Stoicism could rightly be called deistic, which was the theological mindset of many early modern Skeptics and Naturalists. The Stoic Divine is largely uninvolved with the world (something like the deist 'clockwork world'), whereas Naturalism is non-theistic in the first place, and all three stand on a similar ethical basis in the 'don't rock the boat/and calmly accept whatever happens to you/submit peacefully to fate' with Stoic ethics just going a bit further in their advocacy of living with virtue, and doing one's best to make life comfortable for yourself and others. These three are broadly overlapping — it makes sense that you are drawn to them.

Thanks for the info, it makes me feel better knowing that I am at least in a ball park, even if I am trying to play three different positions lol.

Even in the intellectual world? I was hoping that the higher up I got in college it would get better.

Eh, that probably depends on where you go. Your experience in that is going to vary.

You were correct in your assumption. I didn't mean to sound as if I did the cherry picking method, but I did feel I was taking an awful lot of liberty with it. I had alway been one to look for one path and one alone. The idea of looking at many as viable was new to me.

I wouldn't say you're cherry picking — you're surveying and studying. You haven't made any commitments, nor should you until you are confident you are doing so rightfully.

There are several roads that lead up the mountain. Some go straight up, others wander and curve around, some intersect with each other, particularly toward the top, where space around the summit is limited. Some dead end. Some are well blazed and good to walk, others are rocky and full of potholes and ditches. Don't choose a road lightly or idly; learn as much as you can know about what lies on it. Then is the time to stop circling around the trailheads at the mountain's base, and head upward.*

*paraphrased from Sant Sivaya Subramuniyaswami of the SSC.

even if I am trying to play three different positions lol.

Positions that are, broadly speaking, though, simultaneously playable.