Whilst I may be insignificant in the bigger picture, I have had it pointed out to me that I am very significant within the many spheres to which my life leads me. I can and do affect things, and will do so willingly if I can make things better for other people.

What I do and have done affects other people, I hope well. No man is an island and all that. It's nice to be nice, but you have to keep it real and do the best you can for others as well as for yourself.

We can change things... it might take a while, and we might need others to press for change with us... but it can be done.

Eclecticism, while not perhaps a defineable 'school of thought' seems the only style that allows me to dip in and out of various schools of thought and religions - taking the best that works for me and leaving the parts that I cannot support.

For years I have defined mmyself as a humanist - rejecting purely belief-based and supposedly divinely inspired teachings.

I do not scoff at those who do find they are able to take on a whole religion in its entirety. I feel that if you are cold and you find a warm overcoat you are right to wear it. But, for me, I have yet to find the one coat that fits all my ideas.

So, eclecticism is my chosen route heavily tempered by a healthy dose of humanism and nil representation of gods and deities or any of the other 'churchianity' trappings which blur the view.

Instead, as the holy Wikipedia aptly describes Humanism:

"Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests.

In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin.

Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial."

Sounds just about right for my view of the world and way of operating within it.


.

I too cannot find his purported saying, but this site may help to explain stoicism in more detail. I for another fall basically into this spere also.

http://www.stoics.fsnet.co.uk/

Nihilism to a large degree:) ( and its not quite as negative as it appears at a glance)

Probably some combination of intellectualism and scientism.

Whether I qualify as an intellectual person is up to others to decide. However, I strongly favor parts 1 and 2 of the following definition. But I am not so strongly devoted to application of the intellect that I would accept part 3; proper consideration of the emotions is, I think, both wise and necessary.

I also cannot accept the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from pure reason, part 4a. Yes, much, but knowledge is also derived from observation, analysis, measurement, classification, and the like. Also, I have some doubt that reason is the final principle of reality; reality exists whether reason defines and describes it, or not.

1. devotion to intellectual pursuits.
2. the exercise of the intellect.
3. excessive emphasis on abstract or intellectual matters, esp. with a lack of proper consideration for emotions.
4. Philos.
a. the doctrine that knowledge is wholly or chiefly derived from pure reason.
b. the belief that reason is the final principle of reality.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0492827.html

For those reasons, I would say my intellectualism is modified or tempered with a strong overlay of scientism:

... the belief that the assumptions, methods of research, etc., of the physical and biological sciences are equally appropriate and essential to all other disciplines, including the humanities and the social sciences.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0639910.html

In other words, there is room in my life for thinking, analysis, and feeling.