I am looking for feedback on them (how they might be incorrect, short-sighted, unhelpful, etc.).:
Naturalism - I reject anything supernatural and I reject a priori knowledge. I also mainly "use" naturalism methodologically and I do not bother with metaphysics so much. On a practical level, to me, metaphysics makes little difference. Even the ancient skeptics recognized that without any adherence to any metaphysics, we still must live our lives and speak of a world. I justify my use of naturalism through past successes (e.g. the atomic bomb, though scary, is evidence enough for me that methodological naturalism "works"). I have seen no such successes through belief in, say, a "soul" (as compared to belief in neurons, brains and their relations to mental phenomena).
Neo-Darwinism - I keep evolution in mind and allow it to inform my life. I do not buy into a lot of the claims from evolutionary psychology, but I still find it helpful to take a "selfish gene" view of humans and all other known life.
Amoralism - I do not think that there are any reasons why we MUST do anything that ha nothing to do with our desires or interests. There are people who believe that such reasons exist. However, I do not. I DO think that there are hypothetical imperatives that arise when one says "if so and so wants to catch ___ train, then so and so should arrive at the train station at ____ time." The only considerations that are worth considering to me are prudential ones. The main practical consequence to this is a lack of dogmatism and decreased judgment of others. Also, when I feel guilty, I remind myself "well, the only thing to focus on here is being effective, learning from the past, moving forward with my goals, focusing on what is up to me, being accurate about things and not allowing myself to be self-defeating."
Prudential hedonism - in a LIFESTYLE sense and not in a moral sense. I happen to be someone who cares about being happy and I do not like suffering. So, I tend to focus on increasing my own happiness and decreasing my own suffering. What I consider to be "happiness" is emotional states that someone like the philosopher Daniel Haybron would call "endorsement" (pleasure, joy, etc.), "attunement" (feeling at home in the Universe) and "engagement" (e.g. flow states). Those states of mind can be combined or enjoyed on their own. I focus on maximizing those states of mind.
Dichotomy of what is "up to me" - I do not believe anything is actually under my control, but I must make choices. I have found that it can reduce my suffering if I ask myself repeatedly "is this up to me?" (meaning, this is a choice I must make?) regarding things I face.
Mindfulness - Generally, most of the time, I find it useful to stay present, the control attention and to be non-reactive to thoughts, feelings, sensations that are not in line with what I value (my prudential hedonism, what is "up to me" and what is relevant to the task at hand).
Minimalism - I find that appreciating what I need and minimizing how much I "buy into" socially constructed "needs" helps me to increase endorsement states, attunement states and engagement states. I do not think everyone can or should be a minimalist, but it seems to come naturally to me and it seems to "work" for me.
Virtues - I think that my own version of justice, temperance, courage and wisdom can be helpful. Partly because it is a short list to keep track of, the list is a relatively decent one living in a western society and those virtues are generally helpful (though not in the extreme) as guidelines (I think). The Cyrenaics (some of them) recognized the importance of the virtues from a prudential point of view, following the guidelines of your society and generally not breaking the law so you don't suffer needlessly.
