Philosophy Now Forum

lancek4 wrote:
Perhaps this is what aphilsophy is about, if philsophy is about finding out a truth of the universe in which we humans are just examples of another object of the universe. Maybe a philsophy of aphilsophy may be about how we are situating what objects are.

And I might add, for me -- I do not engage in discussion so that I might prove others wrong. I engage so I might find out where I am wrong. I do this be asserting my truth and considering dissent with an open mind. I know what is true; so does everyone else. I want to know where I am wrong.

Perhaps this is an aphilosophical method.

If you are really reduced to asking these sorts of questions then truly you have confused a sign with an object. The sign is arbitrary and the object is actually a chimera.

If you are really reduced to asking these sorts of questions then truly you have confused a sign with an object. The sign is arbitrary and the object is actually a chimera.

At risk of appearing obtuse: what do you mean as sign? as object? a chimera?
I have not confused these things. How is a sign differentiated from something that is 'chimeric'?
Is one fixed and one implies change?
Are you saying that the object is absolutly in a state of flux in its essence of being an object, and then a sign fluxuates at its own resonnance?
What are you saying?

I would say that I am bringing into question of human relation to the universe.
Are we objects among other objects in the universe, of no special essential quality?
Is the universe constitued as such that humans cannot know what a essentially true universe is beyond what humans posit of it, and in this ability are special?
these are not mutually exclusive questions.

So, as an example: Again, I ask you to give me a definition of atheism that is sure and sound, so that I may feel as sure and confident as you about being an atheist.
How is it that I may have a problem with such a proposition? do you think I am being obstinate? Do you think that I was just created to not be able to understand for my being atheist, such that in my essential existance I am left out of such a basic and true position?
What are you saying when you say that there is no God? Are not you proposing that something beyond us (me and you in this case) has limited my ability to understand the Truth of the matter? Why would I, who so certainly and intesively has been investigating and searching for truth be ultimatly kept from it, and further taunted by it in the form of your surity? Wouldnt that be hugely ironic? How could this be?
So I appeal to your humanity to tell me so that I may know for sure, communicate to me in such a way that I may be privy to your blessed truth of atheism. In what way are you relating such sign and chimera?

blackbox wrote:What I find intriguing in debates such as this is the inability some people have of understanding or even recognising things that are so obviously the case. I think it's a bad case of confirmatory bias combined with a strong dose of motivated reasoning. They really do feel as if they are weighing things up evenly, when they are not.

the problem, as Blackbox states, is "what is obviously the case"? This statement, in the operation, the effective elemental proposition, is what is known as Ironic.
He is indicating that in one sense the statement may mean "obvious= common sense; to everyone 'this' should be obvious", and in the other, that, to the individual proposing or arguing, what the individual states is "obvious".

this is the problem between, for example, Chaz and myself, at certain points. I, and many others in this forum, see Chaz as being obstinate in his assertions, because he argues that what he is saying should be 'obvious' to everyone; that he is correct.
But, in that others see this of him, it is 'obvious' that he is limiting not only what may be true, but how we may discuss it.
Chaz cannot believe that others cannot see what to him is so obvious; I cannot understand how Chaz cannot see what is obvious to me.

thus, I recall an earlier post: let us call this argument about 'atheism' a stalemate, and lets get down to discussing this condition of the descrepant 'obviousness-es'.

So perhaps we could begin with what some may see as obvious propositions:

lancek4 is a self-righteous, arrogant fool, and
Chaz is a narrow-minded, obstinate bastard.

any others?

blackbox wrote:But surely anyone can understand that not holding the belief "she IS cheating on you!" does not necessarily mean that the person believes "she is NOT cheating on you"? And then apply that to the atheist's disbelief?

are you thinking that meanings are not necessarily two-valued logical? that you have or not have been cheated by your girlfriend? or, like your multi-valued logical brick wall-analogue, your girlfriend is maybe just a little bit pregnant?

Here, I cast round for an even simpler analogy. I don't think this wall is painted black. Now, does that require I believe it IS painted white? Of course not. The statement is ONLY concerned with one belief that is not held, it says nothing more than that.

does that require you believe it is not painted black?

blackbox wrote:We are all vulnerable to those distorting pyschological phenomena, so how can we say we are not just as biased as others?

so thats why we try to offer helping hand with those funny analoques to others? same way like we also use euphemisms like anger management when we need cool thinking?

chaz wyman wrote:

Mark Question wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: No, dishonesty is without honesty.
Atheism is without God.

"You are missing the point entirely.
Atheism has no content." gibberish?

Nope not gibberish. Your words have meaning. Its just that your comparison was not valid.

tell me why "not valid"? and what you mean about "no content"? words have no content? is atheism empty word?

blackbox wrote:

Mark Question wrote:... lack of money, not interested having heterosexual intercourse...

So a person is standing before you, lacking money. Now, you give this as if it proves there is content. Well, what is the content?

A person lacks any sexual desire. What is the content of this lack?

i dont know what you mean about "content" but do you feel any difference if i give you some money or sex?

I don't need more analogies, so please address the ones you've given in their own terms not some other analogy.

are those many atheist analogies here that awful? or is your atheism strong enough without needing any analogies?

Why can't you describe the content of my atheism? You insist it has content. Presumably this content can be described. Well, again, I challenge you to tell me the content of my disbelief. Why is this difficult for you???

do i insist it has content? do i ask too difficult questions? i challenge you to tell me more about your atheism.

lancek4 wrote:So perhaps we could begin with what some may see as obvious propositions:

lancek4 is a self-righteous, arrogant fool, and
Chaz is a narrow-minded, obstinate bastard.

any others?

Okay- it's all about perspective hey?

Seems we have a manifesto for subjectivism.

Maybe it is about subjectivism, but maybe more.
I propose breaking this subjectivist 'tradition' then; lets get down and dirty and attempt to reveal, to give voice to, that which is remaining silent in the 'subjectivism'.
Let us define terms instead of arguing over who is most correct in defining them according to some apriori definition.
Let us attempt to speak what is being withheld when we say "obviousness".

And above: describe to me what you mean when you use the term "content" in your above assertions?

And you havnt addressed any of the questions I posed to you: do you think I am being obstinate in arguing with how you situate atheism for meaning? Do you think I do not understand what you are trying to say?

what do we mean when we say 'belief'?

lancek4 wrote:Maybe it is about subjectivism, but maybe more.
I propose breaking this subjectivist 'tradition' then; lets get down and dirty and attempt to reveal, to give voice to, that which is remaining silent in the 'subjectivism'.
Let us define terms instead of arguing over who is most correct in defining them according to some apriori definition.
Let us attempt to speak what is being withheld when we say "obviousness".

And above: describe to me what you mean when you use the term "content" in your above assertions?

And you havnt addressed any of the questions I posed to you: do you think I am being obstinate in arguing with how you situate atheism for meaning? Do you think I do not understand what you are trying to say?

what do we mean when we say 'belief'?

There is one overriding truth about atheism. There would be no such thing if it were not for theism. If no one believed in God there would be no atheists. If you just let that sink in for a moment.
Atheism is a theist term. It is a reflexive term. Historically it was a term of abuse. It is only more recently that people have tended to self-identify with the term. If you can find something unique about what it is to be an atheist, then I'd be glad to discuss it. But the overriding thought I have on the matter is that is there were no theists then there is nothing that would change me except that I would no longer have a use for the terms atheist. So loosing the term atheist does not involve me in the loss of any content, just as being an atheist does not involve me in any belief.
Since, in etymological terms aphilosphy suggests a parallel meaning I can't imagine how it would have any content either.
That is why I suggested some other prefix.
It seems to me we have come full circle on this discussion.

I agree. Full circle. Can anyone suggest how we might break this stalemate? What is being withheld that is creating this ?

Typist not saying what he actually means by 'aphilosophy', nor what issues or problems its meant to address, nor what he thinks philosophy has actually failed to do?

How might we approach the 'content' of what appears to be the 'contentlessness' of aphilosophy?

Perhaps philosophhy has failed to adress what 'content' implicates in proposing 'contentless' propositions. ?

lancek4 wrote:So, as an example: Again, I ask you to give me a definition of atheism that is sure and sound, so that I may feel as sure and confident as you about being an atheist.
How is it that I may have a problem with such a proposition? do you think I am being obstinate? Do you think that I was just created to not be able to understand for my being atheist, such that in my essential existance I am left out of such a basic and true position?
What are you saying when you say that there is no God? Are not you proposing that something beyond us (me and you in this case) has limited my ability to understand the Truth of the matter? Why would I, who so certainly and intesively has been investigating and searching for truth be ultimatly kept from it, and further taunted by it in the form of your surity? Wouldnt that be hugely ironic? How could this be?
So I appeal to your humanity to tell me so that I may know for sure, communicate to me in such a way that I may be privy to your blessed truth of atheism. In what way are you relating such sign and chimera? [/color]

Well, you didn't ask me, but I'll try anyway.

It is, one supposes, possible, in an immensely large universe, that there is a planet where life evolved a system of procreation requiring 14 genders in an elaborately complex "dance of life." Now, while that might be just possible, I do not think so. I do not think so for any number of reasons, not least of which includes what I know so far about life (not nearly enough, I admit), natural selection, and science in general (again not enough). But it includes also the fact that I have never seen or imagined (until now) any such thing. And now that I have imagined it, it seems excessively unlikely.

Now, add to that the fact that I will never find out, and that whether it is true or not will have not the slightest impact on me, and I can safely now put the question aside, not really answered, just with a shrug that says, "I don't think so" and move on with my life, that content now put aside forever.

My atheism (I don't speak for others) is like that. I suppose it is just possible that a "god" (however one might define such a thing) exists. Now while it might be possible, I do not think so. And I do not think so for any number of reasons, not least of which includes what I know about the world, it's origins, and the origins of the things on it (not enough, I admit, but far from nothing, too). But it also includes the fact that I never imagined such a thing until somebody told me -- until somebody pushed it into my imagination for me. And now that I have imagined it, and looked around at the world, and try to find ways in which to apprehend such a creature, on discovering that I never have and am never likely to, I find it excessively unlikely.

Now, add to that fact that I will never find out, the additional fact that it will not have the slightest impact on me, and I can safely put the question aside. not really answered, just with a shrug that says, "I don't think so" and move on with my life, that content now put aside forever.

Now, there are those who will says that you can see evidence of God through the actions of His believers, to which I will say I see evidence of the imaginations of people, actiing on things that they imagine. And for proof, I will point out the fact that different peoples imagine their gods in quite different ways and have done throughout history. And that is all I need to know to conclude that the only god that really exists exists in the minds of others -- and not in mine. My mind is free of that content.

chaz wyman wrote:as being an atheist does not involve me in any belief.

1. do you believe you are atheist?
2. do you believe that you dont have to be afraid eternal hell after your death?
..or does your knowledge involve it in any such believes?

Mark Question wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:as being an atheist does not involve me in any belief.

1. do you believe you are atheist?
2. do you believe that you dont have to be afraid eternal hell after your death?
..or does your knowledge involve it in any such believes?

That all seems quite unnecessary.
1. Do you believe you are as tall as you are? Or are you simply that tall as a simple matter of fact?
2. Do you believe you aren't afraid of your cat? Or are you simply unafraid of your cat, as a matter of fact?

Why do you not label yourself an aLolchNessMonsterist, or an aChupacabra-ist, or an aYeti-ist, or an aSasquatchist. If you had to worry about all of the things you simply don't believe, your life would be unbearable. Well, the atheist is the same. I don't worry about Yeti or Bigfoot or Nessie -- and I don't worry about gods.