aphilosophy

[lancek4]

I re-refer to my essay for anyone who wants to read it.
Here is a link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62621120/A-Philosophy

So now im gonna get back to what may be aphilosophy, and address Chaz here, finally:

BTW: Chaz this is just the type of feedback I like: an appeal to clarify terms.
But I would ask if you have read the essay or just looked for a problematic statement. Next I would ask if you understand what Im saying, then if you agree or disagree with what Im saying.


CHAZ: What do you mean by ' Death is understood within as ‘unethical’ arena; death is anti
-human, it works against the efforts of what it is to be human: death is evil."?
A:if you have read the essay - I have attempted to distinguish between what I see as two different types of philosophy: methodological or technical, which I suggest is a defective philsophy, based in the certainty of death and the uncertainty of life;

Okay - you may well be familiar with the term strawman. You seemed to have devised a chimera - a philosophy that does just not exist, in order to satisfy the twin pillars of your argument. I don't know any branch of philosophy that I recognise with this description. No one is basing their philosophical position on the certainty of death etc...


and philosophy proper which teaches one how to die, for life is certain, death uncertain. I have implicated that ethics lay in the former form and that this ethics is an ethics of managing against death: death as the "anti-ethical" arena which informs the methodoloigcal form of our "ethical", which is to conclude that we manage against the certainty of death because it exists as the epitome of evil -- because life is uncertain, managing is what "makes good" of life: a truth-value.

Much of philosophy is based on the search for how to live the good life, and there are various branches that are more or less concerned with that, but once again I don't recognise your categories.


I implicate aphilosophy ironically from both orientations upon philsophy. If one is oriented in the philsophy of methodology, the philosphy that asserts a proper way to manage against the certainty of death, then 'aphosophy' could appear as its anthithesis: just observe without thinking. But it could also be that this former philsophy is not philsophy but 'aphilosophy. If one sees methodological philosophy as mere technology, then philsophy becomes the proper term of itself, and the technology becomes 'aphilosophy'.

The a- prefix doe not imply and antithesis, that would be antiphilosphy. The a- prefix implies a lack of philosophy. Say if Typist were asexual he or she would have no interest in sex; being an aphilospher would indicate not an anti-philosphy, but an absence of it. This might involve thinking, as philosophy and thinking are not the same things. But the idea you can 'just observe without thinking', is an amusing idea but you might as well say you can live without breathing, or have ears without hearing. You can shut your eyes and not see, but breathing, thinking and hearing is not an option. I think even Typist thinks sometimes.
ahh thank you for that 'a-' - point taken, but I dont think i changes my meaning
CHAZ:And in the following paragraph who is 'we'. Would that be you and the queen?
A:"We" would be those who are involved in the investigation proposed in the essay; Me, the author, and those who are reading the essay and likewise participating in the journey of understanding.

Sounds like the Royal 'we', if you know what I mean. You seek to include others as if what you are saying is unproblematic.


CHAZ:And how do you justify this howling non sequitur? ;"To assert that something philosophical is novel is to assert the certainty of death, which then provokes the individual against it, and to promote a proper way to live."
A:I believe I just addressed that above. Do you understand that philosophy offers nothing new? or do you think it is always coming up with new ideas?


As there was once a time when there were no humans, then it is the case that because the only philosophers are human, then everything said by a philosopher was at one time NEW.
Additionally, as I do not know everything that has ever been said by philosophy, and I am not likely to have read every word of it before I die, then for me (and most mortals), there is always something that is new to me in philosophy. When I conclude that there is nothing new , then I have given up on my life, or am pretending that I know all there is to know - which is bollocks. So to pretend that there si nothing novel about the contents of philosophy is bollocks.
None of which addresses your point; in fact it is the complete converse of it, as I have indicated that death is the only time I might consider that there is nothing new in philosophy.
"To assert that something philosophical is novel is to assert the certainty of death" seems like gibberish to me. Please explain what you mean! THen you can explain what you mean by what follows it - if you can.

it follows from my premises. If death is certain, in my uncertan life I attmept to come up with philosophy to inform me how I might negotiate experiences in life that remind me of that death is certain, such as expereinces that bring fear and anger. Thus such philosophy that aims at a strategy of negotiating such uncertainty of life, is reall against death: a philosophy of death.

I see now how impenetrable faith in the object is. The probelm in this essay is that most are invested in the truth of the object.


This is odd too;"...philosophy cannot teach us how to live without denying another their right to live
–even with our best intension"
Ethics always includes and excludes; it always denies another's right to live by asserting THE proper way to live, THE proper way to manage life against the certainty of death, which is implicated at ever turn in the uncertain life. It implicates the prioritized group who is correct, and the powerful group that will make all others come into thier group and agree with thier proper truth.

No idea what you are trying to get at here![/quote]

Nope - sorry but this is simply not true. Please state a philosophical scheme that does this and we can discuss what you mean.
No one is saying that the 'proper way to live manages against the certainty of death except the religious, unless you mean something else by it.
every time I assert a truth I am asserting a truth-value: an ethics that proposes that someone else is wrong.
I wonder if there is anyone who really understands what philsophy Has been aiming at.

Do you now? If you do, do you agree or disagree?
Anyone else have a take on what aphilosophy may be? [/quote]

I think you need to back up your claims about philosophy with the mention of specific philosophies, or specific philosophers.
I no expert in philosophy but I have studied quite a few; Plato , Aristotle, Epicurus, Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume, Darwin, Newton, Galileo, Russell - to be able to blag my way, but I simply do not recognise your understanding of what philosophy is.[/quote]
Tell me how you are not oriented upon the truth of the object? or, do you know what this means? What is ethics? have you come to understand what this means?

[lancek4]

but thank you all - this is exactly the type of critque I need.
more! more!

[chaz wyman]

I re-refer to my essay for anyone who wants to read it.
Here is a link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62621120/A-Philosophy

So now im gonna get back to what may be aphilosophy, and address Chaz here, finally:

BTW: Chaz this is just the type of feedback I like: an appeal to clarify terms.
But I would ask if you have read the essay or just looked for a problematic statement. Next I would ask if you understand what Im saying, then if you agree or disagree with what Im saying.


CHAZ: What do you mean by ' Death is understood within as ‘unethical’ arena; death is anti
-human, it works against the efforts of what it is to be human: death is evil."?
A:if you have read the essay - I have attempted to distinguish between what I see as two different types of philosophy: methodological or technical, which I suggest is a defective philsophy, based in the certainty of death and the uncertainty of life;

Okay - you may well be familiar with the term strawman. You seemed to have devised a chimera - a philosophy that does just not exist, in order to satisfy the twin pillars of your argument. I don't know any branch of philosophy that I recognise with this description. No one is basing their philosophical position on the certainty of death etc...


and philosophy proper which teaches one how to die, for life is certain, death uncertain. I have implicated that ethics lay in the former form and that this ethics is an ethics of managing against death: death as the "anti-ethical" arena which informs the methodoloigcal form of our "ethical", which is to conclude that we manage against the certainty of death because it exists as the epitome of evil -- because life is uncertain, managing is what "makes good" of life: a truth-value.

Much of philosophy is based on the search for how to live the good life, and there are various branches that are more or less concerned with that, but once again I don't recognise your categories.


I implicate aphilosophy ironically from both orientations upon philsophy. If one is oriented in the philsophy of methodology, the philosphy that asserts a proper way to manage against the certainty of death, then 'aphosophy' could appear as its anthithesis: just observe without thinking. But it could also be that this former philsophy is not philsophy but 'aphilosophy. If one sees methodological philosophy as mere technology, then philsophy becomes the proper term of itself, and the technology becomes 'aphilosophy'.

The a- prefix doe not imply and antithesis, that would be antiphilosphy. The a- prefix implies a lack of philosophy. Say if Typist were asexual he or she would have no interest in sex; being an aphilospher would indicate not an anti-philosphy, but an absence of it. This might involve thinking, as philosophy and thinking are not the same things. But the idea you can 'just observe without thinking', is an amusing idea but you might as well say you can live without breathing, or have ears without hearing. You can shut your eyes and not see, but breathing, thinking and hearing is not an option. I think even Typist thinks sometimes.
ahh thank you for that 'a-' - point taken, but I dont think i changes my meaning
CHAZ:And in the following paragraph who is 'we'. Would that be you and the queen?
A:"We" would be those who are involved in the investigation proposed in the essay; Me, the author, and those who are reading the essay and likewise participating in the journey of understanding.

Sounds like the Royal 'we', if you know what I mean. You seek to include others as if what you are saying is unproblematic.


CHAZ:And how do you justify this howling non sequitur? ;"To assert that something philosophical is novel is to assert the certainty of death, which then provokes the individual against it, and to promote a proper way to live."
A:I believe I just addressed that above. Do you understand that philosophy offers nothing new? or do you think it is always coming up with new ideas?


As there was once a time when there were no humans, then it is the case that because the only philosophers are human, then everything said by a philosopher was at one time NEW.
Additionally, as I do not know everything that has ever been said by philosophy, and I am not likely to have read every word of it before I die, then for me (and most mortals), there is always something that is new to me in philosophy. When I conclude that there is nothing new , then I have given up on my life, or am pretending that I know all there is to know - which is bollocks. So to pretend that there si nothing novel about the contents of philosophy is bollocks.
None of which addresses your point; in fact it is the complete converse of it, as I have indicated that death is the only time I might consider that there is nothing new in philosophy.
"To assert that something philosophical is novel is to assert the certainty of death" seems like gibberish to me. Please explain what you mean! THen you can explain what you mean by what follows it - if you can.

it follows from my premises. If death is certain, in my uncertan life I attmept to come up with philosophy to inform me how I might negotiate experiences in life that remind me of that death is certain, such as expereinces that bring fear and anger. Thus such philosophy that aims at a strategy of negotiating such uncertainty of life, is reall against death: a philosophy of death.

I see now how impenetrable faith in the object is. The probelm in this essay is that most are invested in the truth of the object.


This is odd too;"...philosophy cannot teach us how to live without denying another their right to live
–even with our best intension"
Ethics always includes and excludes; it always denies another's right to live by asserting THE proper way to live, THE proper way to manage life against the certainty of death, which is implicated at ever turn in the uncertain life. It implicates the prioritized group who is correct, and the powerful group that will make all others come into thier group and agree with thier proper truth.

No idea what you are trying to get at here!

Nope - sorry but this is simply not true. Please state a philosophical scheme that does this and we can discuss what you mean.
No one is saying that the 'proper way to live manages against the certainty of death except the religious, unless you mean something else by it.
every time I assert a truth I am asserting a truth-value: an ethics that proposes that someone else is wrong.
I wonder if there is anyone who really understands what philsophy Has been aiming at.

Do you now? If you do, do you agree or disagree?
Anyone else have a take on what aphilosophy may be? [/quote]

I think you need to back up your claims about philosophy with the mention of specific philosophies, or specific philosophers.
I no expert in philosophy but I have studied quite a few; Plato , Aristotle, Epicurus, Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume, Darwin, Newton, Galileo, Russell - to be able to blag my way, but I simply do not recognise your understanding of what philosophy is.[/quote]
Tell me how you are not oriented upon the truth of the object? or, do you know what this means? What is ethics? have you come to understand what this means?[/quote]

You are not really dealing with my claim that you are arguing against a species of philosophy which does not exist.

[Typist]

I posted this in another thread in response to a question. For tidiness sake, it seems it should be here as well...

A summary of my perspective.

Just as we can explore thought via the disciplines of philosophy, we can also explore outside of thought via the disciplines of "aphilosophy", ie. simple exercises which reduce the rate of thought.

This "aphilosophy" is the mirror image of philosophy. aPhilosophy is to philosophy as day is to night, male is to female, something is to nothing etc. Philosophy and aphilosophy each explore half the human experience, together they make up the whole.

aPhilosophy can be explored by philosophy only to the extent that it is seen that aphilosophy can't be explored by philosophy. The point of the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy is to undermine and display the irrelevance of the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy.

What very often happens, and what I was rebelling against on other forums is that for many, the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy is worshiped, instead of being seen for what it is, mostly a distraction.

If you reply to this post with a "Yes, but..." this will be evidence that you haven't yet seen the irrelevance of the intellectual part of aphilosophy, and still think you can get to aphilosophy through philosophy.

This is extremely normal, and I am encouraging you in this classic error by continuing to type about aphilosophy. This mistake of mine, and my premature exasperation, are my bad.

If you are interested in aphilosophy find a way, your way, to take a break from typing and thinking. Everything else is just a way to put that exploration off.

If you discover you aren't interested in aphilosophy, then your attention is better directed at regular philosophy, which obviously contains many interesting areas that can be explored, debated, analyzed, thought about etc..

[chaz wyman]

I posted this in another thread in response to a question. For tidiness sake, it seems it should be here as well...

A summary of my perspective; bullshit , waffle, rubbish. drivel. Incoherent contradiction.
.

[melonkali]

I posted this in another thread in response to a question. For tidiness sake, it seems it should be here as well...

A summary of my perspective.

Just as we can explore thought via the disciplines of philosophy, we can also explore outside of thought via the disciplines of "aphilosophy", ie. simple exercises which reduce the rate of thought.

This "aphilosophy" is the mirror image of philosophy. aPhilosophy is to philosophy as day is to night, male is to female, something is to nothing etc. Philosophy and aphilosophy each explore half the human experience, together they make up the whole.

aPhilosophy can be explored by philosophy only to the extent that it is seen that aphilosophy can't be explored by philosophy. The point of the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy is to undermine and display the irrelevance of the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy.

What very often happens, and what I was rebelling against on other forums is that for many, the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy is worshiped, instead of being seen for what it is, mostly a distraction.

If you reply to this post with a "Yes, but..." this will be evidence that you haven't yet seen the irrelevance of the intellectual part of aphilosophy, and still think you can get to aphilosophy through philosophy.

This is extremely normal, and I am encouraging you in this classic error by continuing to type about aphilosophy. This mistake of mine, and my premature exasperation, are my bad.

If you are interested in aphilosophy find a way, your way, to take a break from typing and thinking. Everything else is just a way to put that exploration off.

If you discover you aren't interested in aphilosophy, then your attention is better directed at regular philosophy, which obviously contains many interesting areas that can be explored, debated, analyzed, thought about etc..

Typist, if I understand you correctly, I think this is a relevant topic for most people, if they're honest with themselves.

Aesthetic/affective/spiritual experiences are certainly an important part of living for me. Although I often find it difficult to reduce these experiences to definitive thoughts or words, they are not lost to me. Like most normal people, I'm able to recall many of these experiences as they seemed at the time -- aesthetically, affectively, spiritually -- although I still may not able to clearly define them by thoughts or words.

Not only are many of these experiences not lost to memory, they often affect the way I live and perceive the world I live in. I may find myself feeling and acting differently in situations, not because of rational decision or thought, but because my inner spirit or inner feelings are changing, evolving.

Isn't this true with most people? Aren't most of us at some time strongly affected by emotions, feelings, "ineffable experiences" which we are not able to reduce to simple thoughts? It's my experience and observation that this is a wondrous and critical part of the human experience, the inspiration behind many of the great works of music and art which enrich our lives.

Clearly there's been some controversy in this thread, but I really don't understand why. What's the problem?

rebecca

[lancek4]

CHAZ: What do you mean by ' Death is understood within as ‘unethical’ arena; death is anti
-human, it works against the efforts of what it is to be human: death is evil."?
A:if you have read the essay - I have attempted to distinguish between what I see as two different types of philosophy: methodological or technical, which I suggest is a defective philsophy, based in the certainty of death and the uncertainty of life;

Okay - you may well be familiar with the term strawman. You seemed to have devised a chimera - a philosophy that does just not exist, in order to satisfy the twin pillars of your argument. I don't know any branch of philosophy that I recognise with this description. No one is basing their philosophical position on the certainty of death etc...

I believe you are not following the essay, but are taking individual items and questioning them out of the context that is the whole argument. I propose that a philosophy which merely is a method by which we may come to a proper course of action, such as "the philosophy of brushing my teeth", is similar to a "technology of thinking", as if we can analyze a situation a come to a proper method of acting/behaving. In this way such philosophy is a technology and asserts/promotes and ethics implicitly.
I propose that philsophy is not about such things, that such philsophy is a "misunderstanding", ala Lacan. Such methodological philosophy "mistakes" the object for the symbol, and comes to develop, or attempt to develop, a "true and proper way" to understand and proceed into life.

and philosophy proper which teaches one how to die, for life is certain, death uncertain. I have implicated that ethics lay in the former form and that this ethics is an ethics of managing against death: death as the "anti-ethical" arena which informs the methodoloigcal form of our "ethical", which is to conclude that we manage against the certainty of death because it exists as the epitome of evil -- because life is uncertain, managing is what "makes good" of life: a truth-value.

Much of philosophy is based on the search for how to live the good life, and there are various branches that are more or less concerned with that, but once again I don't recognise your categories.

the various "branches" of philsophy of which you speak, I propose, are all "methodological/technical". They all are based upon a presumption that we can find the true and proper way of comeing upon life and thus how to behave or properly understand what or how the universe 'should' be, through using the 'technology' of philsophy. Hence, these type of philsophy see the various "big" name philsophers as saying 'new' or 'novel' things, as if they are comeing to a better understanding of the universe, as if "now" we have come upon the more proper way of seeing the universe.
I propose that all (or most) of these big name philsophers have been saying the same thing, but are confined by the limits of thier time and that moment's ability in language to convey that same thing, which is existence. Thus, philosophy, not methodological philosophy, does not say anything new, but is repeating the same thing in different terms of thier time.

Sounds like the Royal 'we', if you know what I mean. You seek to include others as if what you are saying is unproblematic.

I know what yoou mean, and you may have a point, but I am assuming that those who read the essay are investing themselves in what it may mean, thus I speak as if "we" are coming along in the argument.

As there was once a time when there were no humans, then it is the case that because the only philosophers are human, then everything said by a philosopher was at one time NEW.
Additionally, as I do not know everything that has ever been said by philosophy, and I am not likely to have read every word of it before I die, then for me (and most mortals), there is always something that is new to me in philosophy. When I conclude that there is nothing new , then I have given up on my life, or am pretending that I know all there is to know - which is bollocks. So to pretend that there si nothing novel about the contents of philosophy is bollocks.
None of which addresses your point; in fact it is the complete converse of it, as I have indicated that death is the only time I might consider that there is nothing new in philosophy.
"To assert that something philosophical is novel is to assert the certainty of death" seems like gibberish to me. Please explain what you mean! THen you can explain what you mean by what follows it - if you can.

Here you are conflating history, reality and philosophy in one moment. I am refering to philosophy. By your comment here you are confirming to me that what you understand as 'philsophy' is actually 'methodological philosophy'. The reason you would associate 'nothing new' with the moment of death, is because your methodology, your philosophy for living sees death as certain, and conversely philsophy to you must be that which counters the certainty to death, which is the managing of the uncertainty of life through philosophy.
In my essay, I am indicating exactly the motion of what you are expressing in your above rebut paragraph.

I think you need to back up your claims about philosophy with the mention of specific philosophies, or specific philosophers.
I no expert in philosophy but I have studied quite a few; Plato , Aristotle, Epicurus, Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume, Darwin, Newton, Galileo, Russell - to be able to blag my way, but I simply do not recognise your understanding of what philosophy is.

[/quote]
I too have not read everyone, but Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume -- these all are saying the same thing but in the terms of thier moment (not Russel - he is definately a methodological philsopher, probably The methodolgical, and Maslowe, as psychology had by then taken over the overtly technological end of philsophy), but also cought in the paradigm of religious and cultural progress that was debunked with existentialism and post-modernism. But this extends to argument further, for I would have to explain how they all could be expressing the same thing in different terms for thier time, yet themselves be caught in an notion of progress that seems to deny what I propose...

[lancek4]

TYPIST:

A summary of my perspective.

Just as we can explore thought via the disciplines of philosophy, we can also explore outside of thought via the disciplines of "aphilosophy", ie. simple exercises which reduce the rate of thought.

This "aphilosophy" is the mirror image of philosophy. aPhilosophy is to philosophy as day is to night, male is to female, something is to nothing etc. Philosophy and aphilosophy each explore half the human experience, together they make up the whole.

aPhilosophy can be explored by philosophy only to the extent that it is seen that aphilosophy can't be explored by philosophy. The point of the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy is to undermine and display the irrelevance of the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy.

What very often happens, and what I was rebelling against on other forums is that for many, the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy is worshiped, instead of being seen for what it is, mostly a distraction.

If you reply to this post with a "Yes, but..." this will be evidence that you haven't yet seen the irrelevance of the intellectual part of aphilosophy, and still think you can get to aphilosophy through philosophy.

This is extremely normal, and I am encouraging you in this classic error by continuing to type about aphilosophy. This mistake of mine, and my premature exasperation, are my bad.

If you are interested in aphilosophy find a way, your way, to take a break from typing and thinking. Everything else is just a way to put that exploration off.

If you discover you aren't interested in aphilosophy, then your attention is better directed at regular philosophy, which obviously contains many interesting areas that can be explored, debated, analyzed, thought about etc..

Typist, I think we are speaking of the same type of thing, but that you are being a bit too 'technical'.
I have a problem with having an idea that is somehow beyond the idea. I do know what you are getting at, and it does tend toward a religious or spiritual type.
I have to question this, Because I know what you are saying. But in this you are suggesting that there is something that 'thought' is separate from. By this, if i understand you correctly, you are placing 'aphilosophy' as a 'not analyzing', or 'not being critical', or something like that -- denoting that philosophy is directly 'thinking'.

I think I understand.

But as soon as you situate such 'aphilosophy' and describe it as you have, I cannot but associate it with spiritual or religious things. And as soon as you speak to me of "what might be beyond thought" as if it can be expressed somehow, not only are you dictating to me that reality should exist in such and such a way, but you are asserting, in the religiousness of it, an ethical way of how the universe may be. You are suggesting that human beings have this "whole experience'' of which philsophy is just a part: thinking, analizing etc... And then there is some 'other' part of experience where one can 'commune' somehow with some 'other' part of existence that is not thinking and such, such that I may be inspired from.... what? A universal energy? God?

Do you see how futile it is to assert such a method of universal perception?
In that you speak in such a way, automatically you create 'good and evil', so to speak, you promote that there is some "grand energy" or some spiritual center, or something that everyone has access to. In that I understand what you are saying, i cannot condone that such a reality exists -- except as a part of thinking, as a part of analyzing and processing, of philosophizing that 'aphilosophy' you propose somehow is avoiding.

I know what you mean. But if such a thing is real, it cannot be spoken about without denying the very thing that is proposed.
So, if there is such a thing that is beyond thought, it cannot be asserted or spoken about, and thus the probelm is to find a way to speak about it without arousing such suspicions.

[lancek4]

Typist, if I understand you correctly, I think this is a relevant topic for most people, if they're honest with themselves.

Aesthetic/affective/spiritual experiences are certainly an important part of living for me. Although I often find it difficult to reduce these experiences to definitive thoughts or words, they are not lost to me. Like most normal people, I'm able to recall many of these experiences as they seemed at the time -- aesthetically, affectively, spiritually -- although I still may not able to clearly define them by thoughts or words.

Not only are many of these experiences not lost to memory, they often affect the way I live and perceive the world I live in. I may find myself feeling and acting differently in situations, not because of rational decision or thought, but because my inner spirit or inner feelings are changing, evolving.

Isn't this true with most people? Aren't most of us at some time strongly affected by emotions, feelings, "ineffable experiences" which we are not able to reduce to simple thoughts? It's my experience and observation that this is a wondrous and critical part of the human experience, the inspiration behind many of the great works of music and art which enrich our lives.

Clearly there's been some controversy in this thread, but I really don't understand why. What's the problem?

rebecca

I believe Rudolf Otto said it well in his "Idea of the Holy". Though his exploration involves much, I center in on one statement early in the book.
What he terms a "numinous" experience, which is a spiritual experience or of the ineffable or irrational, has no content in itself, but rather the content is constructed before and after the experience to 'make sense' of the experience. Such making sense is always and totally determined by the 'rational' mind.
I assert: there is no experience that is beyond thought, thought encompasses all human experience. If there is such an experience then it means nothing in itself, since once one begins to talk about it, the experience has lost its quality and has become totally of thought.
At best, such experience is exactly human being without thinking, which is not necessarily human but merely life being.
Such investment into investigating such experiences merely beg the question of thought, and get nowhere except asserting a particular type of reality, a particular type of reality. But this is all thinking, a making sense. A 'making' of 'sense', which is what humans do, we do not 'sense' only, like taste or touch, we 'make' sense: this is all it is to be human. Any more beggs the question of how I might be able to know of it.
what we have to come to terms with is: is this making sense 'special'? does it have 'universal' significance, or only the significance we give it? and if it only has the significance we give it, how can anything be 'true'?
I ask then: what is faith? and, what is belief?

[lancek4]

Chaz - I see you are quite insightful and it is great because the dialectic between my essay and yoour comments completes the whole motion. You are so stubborn in your atheistic objectivist faith, you cannot help but say the most beautifully polemical things, which is great. One could not hope to fake such a position. Though, at times, I cannot help but think that you are just being obstinate - but somehow I think you are not. So halarious.

[chaz wyman]

Chaz - I see you are quite insightful and it is great because the dialectic between my essay and yoour comments completes the whole motion. You are so stubborn in your atheistic objectivist faith, you cannot help but say the most beautifully polemical things, which is great. One could not hope to fake such a position. Though, at times, I cannot help but think that you are just being obstinate - but somehow I think you are not. So halarious.

The word you are groping for is Hilarious.
But you don't know me at all if you think I am an objectivist.
It is true I am an atheist, but that aspect of my personality doe not involve me in any belief. But far from being an objectivist, I am much closer to being an idealist or subjectivist. But what you are witnessing is skepticism, and so mundane but clearly quite penetrating objections to your ideas.
It is with this method I am so easily able to critique your assumptions of truth, which are little more than unsubstantiated ramblings of your own imagination.
Further, this current response of yours simply demonstrates your inability to deal with simple and obvious objections to your ideas.
So why not address my objections rather than make pompous pseudo-compliments which are in fact thinly veiled insults?

[chaz wyman]

Good Morning Lace: please follow the purple It's all getting a bit too colourful !

CHAZ: What do you mean by ' Death is understood within as ‘unethical’ arena; death is anti
-human, it works against the efforts of what it is to be human: death is evil."?
A:if you have read the essay - I have attempted to distinguish between what I see as two different types of philosophy: methodological or technical, which I suggest is a defective philsophy, based in the certainty of death and the uncertainty of life;

Okay - you may well be familiar with the term strawman. You seemed to have devised a chimera - a philosophy that does just not exist, in order to satisfy the twin pillars of your argument. I don't know any branch of philosophy that I recognise with this description. No one is basing their philosophical position on the certainty of death etc...

I believe you are not following the essay, but are taking individual items and questioning them out of the context that is the whole argument.



THis is priceless. Rather then deal with ,my objections you blame me for being stupid. There really is not any overall argument. But if there were it would be completely appropriate to unpack it by examining the elements which are used to build it up. How would you do it? Would you counter it with another grandiose statement not supported with evidence of coherent arguments?
I think the real irony here, is that I am probably the only person on this forum that has read your essay.
If you think I'm wrong then offer me examples of where the philosophy you describe actually exists! The reason you do not, is because my objection is correct and no such philosophy is out there - it is a chimera of your own imagination.
I now suspect that this attack on philosophy is sour grapes. Because you are ignorant of philosophy due to a limited education you attack the entire edifice of the work of centuries.

I propose that a philosophy which merely is a method by which we may come to a proper course of action, such as "the philosophy of brushing my teeth", is similar to a "technology of thinking", as if we can analyze a situation a come to a proper method of acting/behaving. In this way such philosophy is a technology and asserts/promotes and ethics implicitly.
I propose that philsophy is not about such things, that such philsophy is a "misunderstanding", ala Lacan. Such methodological philosophy "mistakes" the object for the symbol, and comes to develop, or attempt to develop, a "true and proper way" to understand and proceed into life.

This is sometimes the case. But this does not relate directly to what you have said previously.

and philosophy proper which teaches one how to die, for life is certain, death uncertain.

This is the prime-cut of bullshit; unsubstantiated

I have implicated that ethics lay in the former form and that this ethics is an ethics of managing against death: death as the "anti-ethical" arena which informs the methodoloigcal form of our "ethical", which is to conclude that we manage against the certainty of death because it exists as the epitome of evil -- because life is uncertain, managing is what "makes good" of life: a truth-value.

Much of philosophy is based on the search for how to live the good life, and there are various branches that are more or less concerned with that, but once again I don't recognise your categories.

the various "branches" of philsophy of which you speak, I propose, are all "methodological/technical". They all are based upon a presumption that we can find the true and proper way of comeing upon life and thus how to behave or properly understand

Sometimes this is the case with a minority of philosophers, but you are actually describing religion. Philosophy is more characterised by finding out different ways to ask questions, and to look at problems in different ways. This is why Marx found it so frustrating and insisted that we need to stop commenting on society "we need to change it". So this is one of the reason why I thin you have misconceived philosophy. It spiritual founder demanded that the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing. It religion that insits on a 'proper way' to live.


what or how the universe 'should' be, through using the 'technology' of philsophy. Hence, these type of philsophy see the various "big" name philsophers as saying 'new' or 'novel' things, as if they are comeing to a better understanding of the universe, as if "now" we have come upon the more proper way of seeing the universe.
I propose that all (or most) of these big name philsophers have been saying the same thing, but are confined by the limits of thier time and that moment's ability in language to convey that same thing, which is existence. Thus, philosophy, not methodological philosophy, does not say anything new, but is repeating the same thing in different terms of thier time.

Ignorance is bliss; it give you such wings to fully understand everything so clearly.

Sounds like the Royal 'we', if you know what I mean. You seek to include others as if what you are saying is unproblematic.

I know what yoou mean, and you may have a point, but I am assuming that those who read the essay are investing themselves in what it may mean, thus I speak as if "we" are coming along in the argument.

As there was once a time when there were no humans, then it is the case that because the only philosophers are human, then everything said by a philosopher was at one time NEW.
Additionally, as I do not know everything that has ever been said by philosophy, and I am not likely to have read every word of it before I die, then for me (and most mortals), there is always something that is new to me in philosophy. When I conclude that there is nothing new , then I have given up on my life, or am pretending that I know all there is to know - which is bollocks. So to pretend that there si nothing novel about the contents of philosophy is bollocks.
None of which addresses your point; in fact it is the complete converse of it, as I have indicated that death is the only time I might consider that there is nothing new in philosophy.
"To assert that something philosophical is novel is to assert the certainty of death" seems like gibberish to me. Please explain what you mean! THen you can explain what you mean by what follows it - if you can.

Here you are conflating history, reality and philosophy in one moment. I am refering to philosophy.

Philosophy incorporates its own history, and I might point out that by declaring falsely that philosophy is nothing new, you are making an historical point. If I counter with one, and I am an historian btw, you don't get to chastise me. - Your reference to reality is not supported in any sense.
Now, if you claim you are talking about philosophy you had better know what you are talking about, and it seems clear enough to me that your caricature of it is highly personal and not based on very much education. If it is then I regret the way you have been taught it. Perhaps this is a sign of the times?

By your comment here you are confirming to me that what you understand as 'philsophy' is actually 'methodological philosophy'. The reason you would associate 'nothing new' with the moment of death, is because your methodology, your philosophy for living sees death as certain, and conversely philsophy to you must be that which counters the certainty to death, which is the managing of the uncertainty of life through philosophy.
In my essay, I am indicating exactly the motion of what you are expressing in your above rebut paragraph.

Would you consider your self an Emo or a Goth?

I think you need to back up your claims about philosophy with the mention of specific philosophies, or specific philosophers.
I no expert in philosophy but I have studied quite a few; Plato , Aristotle, Epicurus, Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume, Darwin, Newton, Galileo, Russell - to be able to blag my way, but I simply do not recognise your understanding of what philosophy is.

I too have not read everyone, but Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume -- these all are saying the same thing

How utterly gauche of you. You forget I am an historian and understand the poverty of historicism - You would do well to read Popper's book of the same title.
If you really think they are all saying the same thing then you are truly ignorant. Some of them address the same points, and ask the same questions. But if all you see is the same sea of words then you are not really reading and understanding, you are just reading a cloud.

but in the terms of thier moment (not Russel - he is definately a methodological philsopher, probably The methodolgical, and Maslowe, as psychology had by then taken over the overtly technological end of philsophy), but also cought in the paradigm of religious and cultural progress that was debunked with existentialism and post-modernism. But this extends to argument further, for I would have to explain how they all could be expressing the same thing in different terms for thier time, yet themselves be caught in an notion of progress that seems to deny what I propose...

So existentialism was new then?

[/quote]

[Typist]

Clearly there's been some controversy in this thread, but I really don't understand why. What's the problem?

The subject of this thread, and almost all threads dominated by men, is the male ego. Here's a translation, with the phony intellectualism fantasy cover story removed.

TYPIST: Me big ape!
CHAZ: Me bigger ape!
ARISING: You both baby apes!
EH: I big ape too!!!
TYPIST: I beat my chest, VERY LOUD!
EH: You are a mere theist ape, smaller than atheist ape!
CHAZ: I am great debunker ape!
ARISING: NO! ME GREAT DEBUNKER APE!
TYPIST: ME, ME!
EH: I believe I have no beliefs about apes, which is why I believe I am biggest ape.

[chaz wyman]

Clearly there's been some controversy in this thread, but I really don't understand why. What's the problem?

The subject of this thread, and almost all threads dominated by men, is the male ego. Here's a translation, with the phony intellectualism fantasy cover story removed.

TYPIST: Me big ape!
CHAZ: Me bigger ape!
ARISING: You both baby apes!
EH: I big ape too!!!
TYPIST: I beat my chest, VERY LOUD!
EH: You are a mere theist ape, smaller than atheist ape!
CHAZ: I am great debunker ape!
ARISING: NO! ME GREAT DEBUNKER APE!
TYPIST: ME, ME!
EH: I believe I have no beliefs about apes, which is why I believe I am biggest ape.

If this is a problem then all you have to do is to stop sniping cheap comments, and go back to ignoring me.

It is interesting, that this very morning I turned the last page of the original "Planet of the Apes".
I'd suggest you read it, but I'm not sure you would get much out of it.

[Typist]

If this is a problem then all you have to do is to stop sniping cheap comments, and go back to ignoring me.

Please take responsibility for your own reading experience. There's no need for me to manage it for you.