Lavignism

Lavignism is the philosophy of doing what you want. Based on the inspiring message of Avril Lavigne, you don't have the obligation to be who you are, that's a gift you give to yourself. 

Now, going a bit deeper, what is "being yourself"? According to scripture, it's when you dress how you want to dress, look how you wanna look, do what you wanna do, and think what you wanna think. Essentially, being yourself is doing whatever the fuck you want. It means being real, being genuine, and being human, but above all, it means doing what you want to do with your silly little life, time, and body. I know, it's not that revolutionary. At least not at first sight.

That being said, why is the philosophy so simple, and yet no other movement has defined itself that way?

For about a month, I've tried to find a movement/moral/philosophy defined by doing what you want. I've analyzed some of them, trying to find the elements of Lavignism in other cultures, other times, and other religions.

The first philosophy people compare Lavignism to is Hedonism, in part because it's a popular philosophy and because they have the wrong idea about Lavignism. Lavignism is not about constant pleasure, it's about honoring wants. And sometimes what you want is not pleasurable. Sometimes you want to go to the gym every day in order to get a strong body, is this pleasurable? No.

One other common philosophy suggested is Taoism. Although some modern Taoists define it very similarly to Lavignism, the traditional belief defines Taoism as following the Tao, the Tao being the flow of the Universe, the flow of the Universe being an instinct, love, the easier path, pleasure, and a thousand other concepts. In a general way, Taoism could encompass Lavignism, but as the traditional Taoists say, "the Tao must not be defined", and since I am trying to define the Tao, Lavignism is not, in fact, Taoism.

Epicureanism is a similar one as well. It is defined by hedonism in the long term. Contrary to hedonism (which considers the pleasure of the present and no consideration to consequences), epicureanism seeks pleasure in the long term, with a long and heathy life. "What is the action that will bring me the most pleasure long term?" is how you can define it. But Lavignism has no focus on pleasure, so Epicureanism is yet again, similar but not exact. Doing what you want can be hedonist or epicureanist or the complete opposite of pleasure since pleasure is not taken into account in Lavignism.

Now, Stoicism. First of all, no one seems to find Lavignism similar to Stoicism. But I do, and not because Stoicism means "do what you wish". 

Stoicism is defined as controlling what you can and ignoring what you can't control. And Lavignism looks at that and says: I choose to use what I can control by doing what I want. The two philosophies are not the same but Lavignism is nothing without Stoicism.

In the depths of Wikipedia, I've found some other philosophies that are similar to Lavignism. Satanism was one of them. Satanism (the movement that was revived in the '60s) is defined as individualistic and non-conformist, it's rejecting a colorless existence. Pageantry, costumes, and having fun are all aspects of it, and "following your ego's desires" is too. And although Lavignism is inherently non-conformist, not conforming is not a rule. You can be a Lavignist and a law-abiding citizen simultaneously, although I'd assume that's rare. Most people are incredibly different from one another and Lavignism would take people to interesting extremes. Satanism on the other hand is connected to the religious and the hegemonic, specifically in a non-conforming way. I don't think Lavignism has any interest in being specifically non-conformist, as sometimes people want conformist things.

Essentially, many philosophies are connected to Lavignism in some way, but none use "doing what you want" as the main axis. I've tried to create more than one axis for a long time, "doing what you want except when it hurts people", which didn't work, considering that people feel hurt by non-conformity all the time. I tried to define the second axis as "not doing illegal things", but then I realized that there are no revolutionaries and philosophers without breaking a few laws, written or unwritten. Long story short, I have not found the second axis yet, and I believe you have to explore Lavignism by only doing what you want first and finding a limit second. 

If Lavignism is ever used for genocide, bigotry, wars, or affecting the livelihood of human beings not interested in hurting anyone else, Lavignism does not claim you, and you are distorting the original definition for your own sick and disgusting agenda.

I feel like more phylosophies should have said that in their original text, it would have saved people a lot of time.