What’s good for you is good as long as it doesn’t harm others. That’s my take on it.
I’m finding this site to be absolutely addicting.
Here’s some more on the Cynics and Diogenes.
Try Discordianism. It’s life affirming and, better yet, funny!
Naah dude thats putting a meaningless limit on it.
Keep it simple
“Whats good for Me is good” period.
Dont limit yourself because you feel you have this unnecessary obligation to help society.
When I die, I’m leaving the planet on my own, while the living “party” with your sacrifices. Pshhh, that wont happen for me.
Again I guess I need to stress the fact I’m a physicalist, so I live as such. I die alone, so shouldnt my pleasure be my top priority, and others second?
Well thats what I think. People are nothing more than just bodies. I eat animals for my pleasure. I use humans for my pleasure. If they cause me displeasure, they are disposed of. Not worrying about the confines of some type of after life judgement or sht like that.
Yea my philosophy is the sht son 
You’re single, right?
Actually I just got into a new relationship for almost 2 weeks
Hedonism all day errday
My want to help society is due to the fact that society is made up of individuals that are just as important as me, if not more-so.
You sound like a solipsist to me, but hey I’m not expert, I just browse things on the internet like everyone else.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/
“Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that “I am the only mind which exists,” or “My mental states are the only mental states.” However, the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust might truly come to believe in either of these propositions without thereby being a solipsist. Solipsism is therefore more properly regarded as the doctrine that, in principle, “existence” means for me my existence and that of my mental states. Existence is everything that I experience — physical objects, other people, events and processes — anything that would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the space and time in which I coexist with others and is necessarily construed by me as part of the content of myconsciousness. For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In short, the true solipsist understands the word “pain,” for example, to mean “my pain.” He cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric one.”
"No great philosopher has espoused solipsism. As a theory, if indeed it can be termed such, it is clearly very far removed from common sense. In view of this, it might reasonably be asked why the problem of solipsism should receive any philosophical attention. There are two answers to this question. First, while no great philosopher has explicitly espoused solipsism, this can be attributed to the inconsistency of much philosophical reasoning. Many philosophers have failed to accept the logical consequences of their own most fundamental commitments and preconceptions. The foundations of solipsism lie at the heart of the view that the individual gets his own psychological concepts (thinking, willing, perceiving, and so forth.) from “his own cases,” that is by abstraction from “inner experience.”
Which in turn reminds me of Ayn Rand.
I briefly looked at some stuff on physicalism, so let me ask you a question related to it.
Do you believe that everything is physical? That there is nothing else but the physical?
The only way your philosophy will survive any personal setbacks that require you to lean on others is a total lack of self-awareness. And if you have no self-awareness, then you can’t determine what is good for yourself.
So good luck with that.
As someone who has wasted some time with philosophy I suggest: Hume->Early Wittgenstein->Russell->Back to math.
The honest answer to your question is no… Anyway, I’d like to plug my favorite favorite philosophical book-freedom from the known- by Jiddu Krishnamuri. You can read the book book for free online here http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/freedom-from-the-known/1968-00-00-jiddu-krishnamurti-freedom-from-the-known-chapter-1
My personal favorite chapter from the book is here
http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-text.php?tid=48&chid=56793&w=love
It’s funny, this guy had many famous students like Bruce Lee, and if you listen to the students interviews, you can see where they’re getting their philosophies from.
“Normally we thrive on blaming others, which is a form of self-pity.”
"In trying to conform to the ideology, you suppress yourself - whereas what is actually true is not the ideology but what you are. If you try to study yourself according to another you will always remain a secondhand human being."
Couldn’t agree more.
This is blowing my mind honestly.
Although I am kinda questioning your intent for linking the same page four times. 
As a 3s player, therein remains the ever-so-philosophical conundrum that has been left unanswered
To guess, or not to guess
Well, to interpret your question as: “What is the magic bullet to enlightenment?”, there is none.
Lots of philosophies, religions and ideologies have enriched peoples lives. However, to measure “betterment” is pretty difficult. I mean, there are plenty of people willing to tell you that discovering Jesus was the best thing ever, and their lives are much better and fulfilling because of it, just as there are plenty of people who are willing to tell you religion is slavery.
I would say you’d be hard pressed to find a non theoretical philosophy. I mean, its kind of hard to prove or disprove things like being a butterfly tripping on LSD in the dream of an intergalactic space whale. Of course, there are plenty of “adequate” philosophies like “Try to minimize suffering in the world” and “eating nutritious meals and exercising daily will make you live longer” which quite obviously would have a pretty desirable result.
Other than that, my guess is that growth as a human being depends on curiosity, observation and reflection.
Or,
The answer is Zen Buddhism. You never see THOSE guys going around starting wars and nailing people to sticks.
Whoops. Okay, i think this link will work better http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-text.php?tid=48&chid=56793&w=love
That, my friend, is my favorite chapter of the book.
@Kromo I don’t view Buddhists as any better than other religious believers honestly.
Didn’t ask for a magic bullet for enlightenment either. If I wanted a magic bullet I would just stick to a set of rules like most everyone else, but that isn’t what I’m looking for.
I will agree with your interpretation of adequacy being minimizing suffering in the world, as I don’t believe all suffering can be diminished.
Confucianism introduced me pretty nicely to the concept of optimization being more attainable than perfection I will admit, but it’s earliest stages along with Taoism were essentially philosophical instead of religious. K’ung Tzu and Lao Tzu’s ideas were hijacked and perverted like most profound thinkers in history.
@intangiBLZ It’s no big man, thanks for giving the link you intended. 
I’d read it now, but I’ve already read the first two.
Fuck it I’ll do it anyway.
Edit: I actually didn’t like that chapter it all. It confused the hell out of me and on a small level disturbed me. It challenged my beliefs, which is of course a good thing, but it also didn’t supplement them with anything I would consider productive.
It didn’t mature me emotionally or intellectually. I felt like I was in a gloomy ethical purgatory.
I may be misinterpreting what you’re saying but, what I will say is that companionship is good for me but when it is lost I just simply replace the object with another. Yes I get it, my words are full of deceit, WHO CARES!
Solipsism isnt what I hold to but its kinda how I think but not really my philosophy, Because I do know that there are other minds, emotions etc. etc. Only difference is, that in light of death, MY pleasure should be my top priority, others are merely tools for it. Is it wrong to think like this? No, you can think how you wanna think, would this type of thinking cause distaste in other individuals? Of course, cuz individuals like to keep thinking they are something special or have some type of worth so this view will offend em, but eh it’s worked for me. I jus keep my intentions hidden from ppl in the real world.
And yes I believe there is only the physical. My genetics + environmental upbringing = Me. To say otherwise is complete hogwash. This whole “soul” crap goes in line with the god fallacy. Reality is, there is only the physical.
Read Levinas’ and Kants’ writings on Ethics if you want to learn how to stop being a dick to other people.
Read Marcel on Hope if you wanna quit being emo.
Watch Touch
Kant was a dick.
Fuck him, and the Plane of Ideals he wrote in on.
Blue ball comes slow. Sent from my fists, using 'AdoukenTalk.
Also, do you a youtube search on Alain de Botton. He has a book called “Consolation of Philosophy” in which he writes about the philosophers and their takes on different aspects of life, which he then turned into a series of videos. For instance, he has a section on Seneca talking about anger, Montaigne on Self-Esteem, Socrates on Self-Confidence, Epicurus on Happiness, etc… He also has a video out called “Status Anxiety” which was posted in its entirety (in parts) on youtube.
Again, though, big plug for a guy named Epictetus. His influence is still felt today, even though he was born 2000 years ago as a slave who claimed to be neither divine (well I guess you could say he did, but only in the way that we are all connected to God), nor above the rest. His sayings, and his handbook are still read to this day by a large base. James Stockdale, for instance, read Epictetus almost religiously while he was in a Vietnamese prison and claims it helped him get through his ordeal.