aphilosophy

[Arising_uk]

...

I'm not quite so sure that aphilosophy is or ever will become a "belief system". For one thing, doing so would destroy it; it would come into conflict with its fundamental notions. ...

What fundamental notions Bran?

...
It's rather Zen in its approach to philosophy and the activities of mind. ...

How? And what is Zen's approach to 'philosophy' given its an Eastern philosophy? Is this what you mean?

I have a friend, Theoretika the Unicorn, who serves as an advisor on matters of philosophy and religion. She has long ago told me that the animal community rather pities mankind because of its infection with codified language and thought. ...

Your friend is pretty much barking.

It is a prison of the mind, she says. What is essential is best communicated by the eyes, the face, the movement and actions of the body. I write these words, these scratches in the dirt, and my mind functions by use of these words, but I think I get the drift of her message. ...

Its an assumption that has been made in philosophy, but how does she explain thoughts? What does she think a thought is?

Its not what is "essential", its that these things are also part of communication and 'language' can be mistaken as only what is "essential" or "there" in communication, is my opinion.

... Animals are here and now people, but humans live so much more in the past and future. And we are less accepting of our own existences than animals are; we insist upon meaning and understanding our place in the whole of things--which of course is why we make gods to begin with.

Or that they made the best explanation of how things worked at the time.

Animals have no "here and now" in the sense that we have.

I'm a right stout Taoist and distant patron of Buddhist philosophy, but I'm not ready for either atheism or aphilosophy. I do believe (note that term) that the gods we know are all man-made, but only because the divine is quite too inhumanly vast and transcendent for us to comprehend, or if we could comprehend, to feel any affection for. We are like blind men describing the elephant. One man speaks for science, another for religion, and yet another for the poet and artist. We feel of it and identify it in our own various terminologies; then we argue over words. Theoretika is right, you know.

Not if she thinks animals 'pity' us and have a 'community' she's not.

[Arising_uk]

... It is rather the natural tendency of humans to seek affiliation in their beliefs, to find others who have similar beliefs and to build upon those similarities in order to strengthen the bonds of affiliation. But I do not doubt for an instant that atheism is a belief system. ...

You might as well say theres a belief system about chess and there are chessists and achessists? As this definition of a 'belief system' seems so wide as to be meaningless?

[Arising_uk]

...This doesn't require that ALL atheists have identical beliefs; all Christians and Pagans and Muslims certainly do not have identical beliefs--although this is one of the common atheist misattributions. ...

But they do all have an identical belief? They all believe in 'god/s', if by Pagan you mean those who are Deists that is, and the former and latter have the belief in an identical 'god'.

[evangelicalhumanist]

It's not a formal belief system with any one person or high council establishing what atheists should believe. It is rather the natural tendency of humans to seek affiliation in their beliefs, to find others who have similar beliefs and to build upon those similarities in order to strengthen the bonds of affiliation.

Well said, well said. You are now my official speech writer on this topic, and I hereby now delegate all future correspondence on this matter to you.

Oh, for goodness sake, think just a little.

Every person who believes that aspartame is a poison will avoid using aspartame -- their shared belief leads to shared behaviour. But the opposite is not true. Every person who does not believe that aspartame therefore uses it. Whether they do or not is, therefore, based upon some other consideration having nothing whatever to do with "belief" about the poisonous quality of the product.

The same is true of belief in gods. Those who believe in gods that have certain characteristics and requirements tend to behave in accord. Those who do not believe in gods do not order their lives based on that non-belief, they order their lives based on all of the other considerations and aspects of life that they themselves perceive and understand.

And let me give you a little hint: atheist "meetings" (and humanist ones, too) are the sparsest things you'll ever attend. The notion that they are seeking each other for shared community is just about total rubbish.

[evangelicalhumanist]

I'm getting the impression that aphilosophers pursue wonder and awe in the manner that philosophers pursue wisdom and truth, the former being much more accessible if only one has the eyes to see it.

That's a reasonable way to say it. Let's explore your description a bit.

The key word in your description is "pursue". What is it exactly that is doing the pursuing? Thought. Let's watch it in action.

First, as we've discussed, thought is inherently divisive, that's it's nature. Water is wet, thought is divisive. Everything flows from this fundamental fact.

"Pursue" implies a movement through time, right? In reality, every moment is now. Thought conceptually divides the now in to past, present and future. Time is an invention of thought.

Having created the abstraction we call time, thought then begins comparing one part of this abstraction to another. Thought says, "I have X in the present, and in the future I want Y." "I', "present" and "future" are all inventions of thought. And pursuing is born.

It's indisputably true that aphilosophy writings are loaded to the rafters with pursuing. It's also true that probably everybody who becomes interested in aphilosophy is pursuing something, and the main question is "what's in it for me?" It seems true as well that the experience of pursuing is the engine that drives most exploration of aphilosophy.

But....

As we've seen, pursuing is thought. Every element of pursuing is an abstraction invented by thought. To the degree we are focused on abstractions, we aren't focused on the real world.

So ultimately, aphilosophy isn't really pursuing, but a letting go of pursuing. That is, a step out of time, in to now. A step out of abstractions, in to reality.

Pursuing awe, wonder and other nice experiences is a helpful entry way in to aphilosophy. At some point, the pursuit of these experiences becomes more an obstacle than an asset, and the pursuit has to be dropped if we wish to explore further.

------------

PS: One of the reasons I don't talk about my own experiences much is I'm wary of stirring up the experience of pursuing in the reader. Pursuing is inevitable, I accept that, but hopefully I'm not deliberately poring fuel on the fire, at least, hopefully I'm keeping it to a minimum.

It's tricky. This is the net, and the net is show business. Our job as posters is to put on some kind of a show, and this inevitably involves dangling something interesting in front of the reader's nose.

But, you hesitate to dangle too many carrots in front of the reader, when you know that sincere aphilosophy students will eventually face the job of throwing all these carrots away.

Now, let's pursue that even further, using another source. The following video seems to me to describe "aphilosophy" as it's being discussed here almost perfectly. Watch it first, and then proceed...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4zJoTRR ... e=youtu.be

If you watch that video to the end, and understand it, and agree that it is a sensible approach to human life, then I'd like you next to examine the consequences. Begin with just two questions:

How many people would very soon die of starvation or agonizing disease by giving up "knowing" for "awareness?"

How much of what it means to be human is the author asking us to throw out, and in order to achieve what, exactly?

[Typist]

I now declare myself to be a highly illogical person. If the first 24 million words I've typed on this topic didn't work, what are the chances another few will help?

Atheists don't believe in God for some reason. Whatever those reasons are, those are their beliefs.

As example...

Atheists may feel that a lack of scientific evidence is authoritative in regards to this question. This is a belief. Atheists may feel that human reason is capable of analyzing this question and coming to a useful answer. This is a belief. Atheists may feel that gods are an invention of the human mind. This is a belief. And so on...

Further, it's entirely fair to say these are faith based beliefs, as there is no hard evidence to prove any of them. All we have to do here is apply the same standard we apply to theism to atheism as well. Strongly held beliefs which can not be proven by science are faith based beliefs.

It's certainly true that all atheists don't share exactly the same world view, just as all theists don't.

But if we are going to talk about theism in general, and declare it as a whole to be a belief system, then the same applies to atheism as well.

One difference I see between theism and atheism is that while theists understand they are holding faith based beliefs, most atheists don't seem to get this, or are unwilling to admit it.

This is a hard pill to swallow because most internet forum atheists have invested heavily in a personal identity of being people of reason. Most internet atheists I've met (and I've not met them all of course) are simply too chicken to investigate this process of personal identity creation.

The reality for the more fundamentalist atheists is no different than the reality for fundamentalist theists. Reason is discarded at the first moment that it interferes with personal identities built upon emotion and faith.

There is a solution here. For theists and atheists alike.

Come down off the high horse fantasy superiority throne, accept that you are human, and enjoy your beliefs.

[Typist]

If you watch that video to the end, and understand it, and agree that it is a sensible approach to human life...

Watched half, don't agree it's sensible.

I've not given you any dogmas to slay, so you are searching YouTube for aphilosophers that you can debunk. You will find many. I apologize for not serving your needs adequately.

How many people would very soon die of starvation or agonizing disease by giving up "knowing" for "awareness?"

I agree that giving up knowing in some permanent fashion is a silly fantasy.

How much of what it means to be human is the author asking us to throw out, and in order to achieve what, exactly?

Best I can tell from a short viewing, the author is asking you to join them in their fantasy, in order to strengthen their fantasy.

[Arising_uk]

And let me give you a little hint: atheist "meetings" (and humanist ones, too) are the sparsest things you'll ever attend. The notion that they are seeking each other for shared community is just about total rubbish.

And they're generally full of ex-theists.

[evangelicalhumanist]

I now declare myself to be a highly illogical person. If the first 24 million words I've typed on this topic didn't work, what are the chances another few will help?

Atheists don't believe in God for some reason. Whatever those reasons are, those are their beliefs.

As example...

Atheists may feel that a lack of scientific evidence is authoritative in regards to this question. This is a belief. Atheists may feel that human reason is capable of analyzing this question and coming to a useful answer. This is a belief. Atheists may feel that gods are an invention of the human mind. This is a belief. And so on...

Further, it's entirely fair to say these are faith based beliefs, as there is no hard evidence to prove any of them. All we have to do here is apply the same standard we apply to theism to atheism as well. Strongly held beliefs which can not be proven by science are faith based beliefs.

It's certainly true that all atheists don't share exactly the same world view, just as all theists don't.

But if we are going to talk about theism in general, and declare it as a whole to be a belief system, then the same applies to atheism as well.

One difference I see between theism and atheism is that while theists understand they are holding faith based beliefs, most atheists don't seem to get this, or are unwilling to admit it.

This is a hard pill to swallow because most internet forum atheists have invested heavily in a personal identity of being people of reason. Most internet atheists I've met (and I've not met them all of course) are simply too chicken to investigate this process of personal identity creation.

The reality for the more fundamentalist atheists is no different than the reality for fundamentalist theists. Reason is discarded at the first moment that it interferes with personal identities built upon emotion and faith.

There is a solution here. For theists and atheists alike.

Come down off the high horse fantasy superiority throne, accept that you are human, and enjoy your beliefs.

Then admit the following -- which you will have to do quite illogically:

• Not eating is a form of eating,
• Not breathing is a form of breathing,
• Not talking is a particular way of talking,
• Not sucking a cock is a type of cocksucking,
• Not typing is a form of keyboarding,
• Not thinking is a form of thinking (and that's gonna lead you to a hopeless logical quagmire, trust me),
• Not getting drunk is a form of getting drunk, and
• Not waking up in the morning is just one way of waking up in the morning.

And if you do not admit to all of those, then you cannot claim that not believing is a form of believing, except by doing so illogically out of deep loyalty to long-held notions that don't want to relinquish their strangle-hold on your ideology.

[chaz wyman]

I agree that atheism is a "belief system" because I have enjoyed conversations with enough atheists in enough environments and conversing about enough common topics to clearly see a pattern of commonly held beliefs that is as consistent as those of most religious groups I have known. This doesn't require that ALL atheists have identical beliefs; all Christians and Pagans and Muslims certainly do not have identical beliefs--although this is one of the common atheist misattributions. It's not a formal belief system with any one person or high council establishing what atheists should believe. It is rather the natural tendency of humans to seek affiliation in their beliefs, to find others who have similar beliefs and to build upon those similarities in order to strengthen the bonds of affiliation. But I do not doubt for an instant that atheism is a belief system.


You are committing an essentialist fallacy.

You are wrong. All you are saying is that people who are atheists believe things.
The trouble with that is that all humans believe things.
Atheists believe things. But as Adorno says, each affirmation is a negation. You are forgetting that an atheist is never JUST and Atheist, just like you are more than an essentialist.

I am an atheist. But being an atheist does not involve me in any belief as such. I believe things , and they might even be related to me being an atheist, but being an atheist does not entail any beliefs. In fact atheism defines me as a person not believing a certain thing; namely a God of some sort. It implies nothing else of necessity about me.





I'm a right stout Taoist and distant patron of Buddhist philosophy, but I'm not ready for either atheism or aphilosophy.

Surely that makes you an atheist?
The Buddha did not have a God as I understand it.

I do believe (note that term) that the gods we know are all man-made, but only because the divine is quite too inhumanly vast and transcendent for us to comprehend, or if we could comprehend, to feel any affection for. We are like blind men describing the elephant. One man speaks for science, another for religion, and yet another for the poet and artist. We feel of it and identify it in our own various terminologies; then we argue over words. Theoretika is right, you know.



Bran

[Arising_uk]

...
If you watch that video to the end, and understand it, and agree that it is a sensible approach to human life, then I'd like you next to examine the consequences. ...

Well, according to the Buddhas life the consequence is that it leads to being fat, happy and shacked-up with a younger woman.

[Typist]

EH, observe how you didn't address any specifics in my post. This is the "abandon reason the first moment it interferes with my personal identity" process I referred to. You are in scramble mode now, and any emotion you may be experiencing is a big clue worth listening to.

aPhilosophy would suggest that personal identity is just a thought that can be safely discarded. aPhilosophy would suggest personal identity is a prison we cling to because we are afraid of not being something.

But we are something. We are human.

There is really no need to be a theist, an atheist, or an aphilosopher either. Being alive and breathing is quite remarkable all on it's own.

If we believe in god, ok, we do. If we don't believe in god, ok, we don't. If we're a fat headed typoholic forum aphilosopher, ok, we are. It is what it is. Why make a big deal out of it?

[Arising_uk]

EH, observe how you didn't address any specifics in my post. ...

Fuck me! Pots and kettles I think.

[Arising_uk]

...
If we believe in god, ok, we do. If we don't believe in god, ok, we don't. If we're a fat headed typoholic forum aphilosopher, ok, we are. It is what it is. Why make a big deal out of it?

Because you're here upon a philosophy forum telling us what we think, that we're wrong to think and that we should stop thinking and philosophising!?

[Typist]

Fuck me!

Oh, I really don't think so. You could ask EH I guess, but he's married so that might be rude. I really don't know what to tell you. Fuck yourself? Maybe that'll work?