aphilosophy

[chaz wyman]

After bill's repost, I had to go back and look at what Typist might be saying, in that I might regret that I may have based my critique of Typist based upon what others have said of his argument.
so I noticed this previous post from pg one of this thread.

I too have read J Krishnamurti and I remember being particularly amused how how says the same thing over and over but with different examples.

I think my essay and subsequent discussions with Chaz in this thread, say as much as Typist is implying.

My disagreement with Typist as I understand him, is that I tend away from the more "Zen" type assertions that his aphilsophical propostions seem to be moving toward. I feel there is a next step in argument once the 'substance' of aphilsophy is realized, as through the method of Krishnamurti.

We cannot stop as religious type "just be one with the universe" proposition. There Is more. If we must stop at aphilsophy then what is the point of proposing an aphilosophy? And it cannot be something absolutly personal -- can it?

I think I understand what Typist is trying to say, but, I agree: Typist, please present us with a more complete exegesis of your position on aphilsophy. Or tell us where one might read something of yours.

I think it is apposite to remind us that it was not Typist who started this thread. I quote Evangelical Humanist"

Typist (of a certain notoriety on this forum) has been repeatedly asked to talk directly to his concept of "aphilosophy," and even to start his own thread on the subject. He declines (for reasons unknown) to do so.

I seem to recall that typist was trying to make some bizarre claim that atheists have per se beliefs so invented a-philosophy - initialy an idea without content to trap atheists into revealing a unique thinag about themesleves that would reveal atheism to be a system of thought. Typist has benefited from others telling him what it is not to the point that it has grown some accretion. For me it remains incoherent and meangless. Lace's version is somewhat different, though I have suggested that what he is conceiving might be better called by another name.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Great post Chaz.



.

[Typist]

Bill,

Do you read every book in the bookstore?

Do you read every article in the newspaper?

Do you stop and listen to everything every person on the street has to say?

Do you read every post on this forum? Or do you, GASP!, disrespectfully ignore some of them.

The ignore function plays a useful constructive function. It helps readers manage their own reading experience, just like links and scroll bars do. This is especially helpful in forums where the mods have an "anybody can join and say anything" policy.

I would agree that telling folks we are ignoring them is probably not very helpful, and plead guilty to having done that myself. I'm willing to accept your judgment on that score.

And no, I've not undergone any big transformation. I've been studying aphilosophy for 40 years. Which is why I will now put the rest of this increasingly silly thread on ignore.

Oops, I did it again!

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


GOD DAMMIT!


Typist you were doing soooooooo well until; Which is why I will now put the rest of this increasingly silly thread on ignore.



THAT is so fucked-up!


Don't ignore me or the rest of the members on this thread DURING a philosophical discussion!



Typist, I have been so impressed with you of late.


I have heard your response to the ignore argument and I think you have a foot when you state;

Do you read every book in the bookstore?

Do you read every article in the newspaper?

Do you stop and listen to everything every person on the street has to say?

Do you read every post on this forum? Or do you, GASP!, disrespectfully ignore some of them.


It's not totally logical or representative of the actual ignore function but you do have a valid position.




I again applaud you Typist - but unfortunately you cannot hear me.


You have begun to ignore this thread.





Chaz, I give you extra props for not using the ignore function.






.

[lancek4]

So are you saying that you believe Typists aphilosophy was a trope? A ploy? This would suggest a type of deviousness that is disappointing and yet somehow interesting.
It may explain why he has avoided further comment. But I think something else might be going on.

It may be this 'silent goings on' that I attempt to give voice to in my essay, that I feel, as of yet, I have not come accross in argument.

[lancek4]

...And on the other hand, I just thought about it -- he was attempting to show you that your (chaz) 'atheism', that you submit has no content with regards to 'theism', indeed has content.
I agree with him on this point. His tactic was sound but his strategy was off. Thus my comment above.

[blackbox]

...And on the other hand, I just thought about it -- he was attempting to show you that your (chaz) 'atheism', that you submit has no content with regards to 'theism', indeed has content.
I agree with him on this point. His tactic was sound but his strategy was off. Thus my comment above.

Theists believe in a god or gods. That is a belief and it is propositional. Theists doubtlessly hold other beliefs, but in terms of whether they are theists or not, those beliefs are irrelevant. Their belief in a god or gods, and only this belief, defines them as theists. And yes, it has content.

An atheist is a person who lacks belief in a god or gods. That lack, that disbelief, does not assert any proposition. Disbelief is contentless. Atheists, no doubt, also have all sorts of beliefs. But whatever they are, those beliefs do not define them as atheists. As far as defining a person as atheist, they are irrelevant. There is only ONE thing that is necessary and sufficient for a person to be an atheist, and this one thing, because it is a lack of belief, is contentless.

[chaz wyman]

...And on the other hand, I just thought about it -- he was attempting to show you that your (chaz) 'atheism', that you submit has no content with regards to 'theism', indeed has content.
I agree with him on this point. His tactic was sound but his strategy was off. Thus my comment above.

My atheism has no content. Please explain.

[chaz wyman]

...And on the other hand, I just thought about it -- he was attempting to show you that your (chaz) 'atheism', that you submit has no content with regards to 'theism', indeed has content.
I agree with him on this point. His tactic was sound but his strategy was off. Thus my comment above.

Theists believe in a god or gods. That is a belief and it is propositional. Theists doubtlessly hold other beliefs, but in terms of whether they are theists or not, those beliefs are irrelevant. Their belief in a god or gods, and only this belief, defines them as theists. And yes, it has content.

An atheist is a person who lacks belief in a god or gods. That lack, that disbelief, does not assert any proposition. Disbelief is contentless. Atheists, no doubt, also have all sorts of beliefs. But whatever they are, those beliefs do not define them as atheists. As far as defining a person as atheist, they are irrelevant. There is only ONE thing that is necessary and sufficient for a person to be an atheist, and this one thing, because it is a lack of belief, is contentless.

Concisely spoken
Well put

[Mark Question]

Disbelief is contentless.

nice rhetoric. Dishonesty is contentless?

[evangelicalhumanist]

Theists believe in a god or gods. That is a belief and it is propositional. Theists doubtlessly hold other beliefs, but in terms of whether they are theists or not, those beliefs are irrelevant. Their belief in a god or gods, and only this belief, defines them as theists. And yes, it has content.

An atheist is a person who lacks belief in a god or gods. That lack, that disbelief, does not assert any proposition. Disbelief is contentless. Atheists, no doubt, also have all sorts of beliefs. But whatever they are, those beliefs do not define them as atheists. As far as defining a person as atheist, they are irrelevant. There is only ONE thing that is necessary and sufficient for a person to be an atheist, and this one thing, because it is a lack of belief, is contentless.

An excellent post! Kudos to you for saying something so well that I've been trying so hard to say, and have never managed to do so well!

[evangelicalhumanist]

Disbelief is contentless.

nice rhetoric. Dishonesty is contentless?

Invalid comparison. Unless you can find a valid way to compare "belief" and "honesty," comparing the negation of either is unenlightening. And since I see belief as referring to content (a statement, an idea, the existence of something) and its truth, while I see honesty as a state or quality, they don't compare easily.

[blackbox]

Disbelief is contentless.

nice rhetoric. Dishonesty is contentless?

Mark, it is a simple fact that I don't believe a god or god exists. Since the definition of an atheist is someone who lacks that particular belief, I am, by definition, an atheist. I don't happen to insist that "no god exists", but that doesn't change the simple fact that I don't hold a belief in a god or gods.

If you insist that this disbelief of mine has content, it should be an easy matter for you to say what that content is. Please give it a go, as I might then be able to understand what you're getting at. If that's difficult, say, because you don't know me, then how about some examples of the type of content it might be?

[lancek4]

My atheism has no content. Please explain

You were describing how Typist's 'aphilsophy' may have come about: as a kind of ploy, or dialogic tactic to get you to admit some content of atheism, where you typically deny this. Isnt this correct?
You an I have been through this athiesm crap, and I would leave it at stalemate for now.
I was suggesting merely "your argument" about atheism.

[lancek4]

.

An atheist is a person who lacks belief in a god or gods. That lack, that disbelief, does not assert any proposition. Disbelief is contentless. Atheists, no doubt, also have all sorts of beliefs. But whatever they are, those beliefs do not define them as atheists. As far as defining a person as atheist, they are irrelevant. There is only ONE thing that is necessary and sufficient for a person to be an atheist, and this one thing, because it is a lack of belief, is contentless.

I brought up this argument of atheism as an example and now BOOM, everyone has got something to say about atheism.

The point was that Typist came up with the idea of 'aphilsophy' in order to try to get Chaz or someone in a discussion about atheism to see that atheism and theism both have contents, and that to argue that atheism is an essential category, describing a true and essential reality, asserts that there must be some essential object by which atheism gains its creedence: and to argue essential things is to argue an existence of a "God" figure, a religious type dogma, or at least a proposition that cannot be argued with: in that it marks the True.

Then Chaz says above that 'aphilsophy', now, has grown as a sort of topic or position out of Typist's coining the term for use in the argument against essential atheism.

I am not discussing whether atheism is true or false here.

It is from the conicidence of my writting an essay having to do with what could be an 'aphilsophy' and then rejoining this forum after some months away and finding a thread called 'aphilsophy', that I thought it interesting and beneficial to offer my essay for consideration of the matter.

In this, I believe that what I have put forth in my discussions with Chaz in this thread has a silimar quality of addressing the 'contentless' of the proposed 'atheism' as 'aphilsophy' does to 'philsophy'. By this suggesting a content of the 'aphilsophy' -- which we have yet to discuss.