aphilosophy

[chaz wyman]

..
Interesting point: how do you know that 'you', your 'subjectness' came first and then the terms and definitions?
But ok. An odd thing about you Chaz: we seem to come together on so many points. I'm trying to understand where the discrepancy lay.
Perhaps I am a Platonist (haha). But so far as labels, I think no matter what label was put upon me I think I would partially agree and not agree.

I cannot understand how you could say that atheism is not a belief. In the sense of labels as you point out.

I think this has been done to death.
ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF. To make it so is the invalidate its essence. Its essence is a reflexion of negation. By suggesting that I believe a thing, you have to define that thing. A non existent thing does not admit to definition. It is an absence. There is no god and there is no content to that fact, just void.

I leave you with Theodore Adorno, who in his book Negative Dialectics, said many thing, but one of the most telling for this argument was "Every affirmation involves a negation." Or as Spinoza put it omnis determinato est negatio.. In making a label you negate all else that pertains to the person. If I had witnessed a thing whilst on my motorbike it would be reported as "a biker witnessed ....". It negates me being a philosopher, a person even. I refused to be labelled - I am more than the sum of my labels.
When the label is a negative one there is nothing left. Just a question begging about which or what god is rejected.

you say: your subject, your self, exists apriori to the labels about it/you. Are they innate? "Intimate"? You suggest that there is a dualism: subject - label. Then you say that a label negates all else that pertains to the person. In your examples, you point to particular labels having a potantial to negate one another (which has been argued philsophically). So you are particularizing.
What is this 'self', this person/subject of your self?
Are you not likewise negating this 'self' in the conflation of labels ?
It may be that I can say Im a person, and then argue that it negates me being 'a biker witnessed', but this is just dilectical; it seems you are arguing differently, that there is a person upon which labels are placed, which then deny the person, as if really there is no person there. Did you not say that the person aprirori labels? And are you not subsequently submitting that the labels negate each other?

As to a True Reality: is not this condition that you argue considered by you a True Reality? If it were not, why would you argue it? Is not the condition of axiomic negation of labels being proposed here as a True Reality?

If you are going to insist that atheism involves me in a belief, then I am telling you that I am no atheist. If that means that you want to call me a theist - then I deny that too. You can chew on that as much as you like.

munch..munch...munch....
Ok mmmm good. We seem to concur on this point. But it also seems to me there is an inconsitency in you argument as to above and below.

You seem to withhold the subject as an essential thing, then propose that labels exist in an essential condition which tend toward negation.

I'm glad you spotted my use of the word "essence". I was employing your language to get you to take notice. I was being ironic.
I don't think the idea of essence is very useful, and I'm not sure why you use it.
I only have my reality. Try as I might I cannot make it conform to everyone else's and its fun arguing the toss.
A label applied to me is for another person. It does not complete me, it only negates me. It can only exist as a temporary marker for others to draw distinctions between me and the object of their interest. But using it to impose their beliefs , negative or otherwise on me, has nothing to do with me. I'm not trying to pretend I do not believe anything at all. But I reject , where I can, a faith-beleif which demands that I trim my perception to accommodate that belief as I see so many Theists doing. I prefer to attempt to build knowledge by observing, interpreting and reasoning. I emphasise inductive processes of though, whilst the theist deduces God in everything he sees. This does not constitute my atheism but this approach leads me to reject the concept of gods by which I am labeled as an atheist. In the absence of theists that label wold not exist. Thus existing by virtue of the 'other', it is fully constituted by the other and plays no part in my construction - is it thus contentless.

I still have no idea what you mean by true reality.
We all have our own subjective reality. Sometimes we agree and are arrogant enough to assume that an agreement constitutes an objective truth. We may contribute to the construction of that reality, and I it seems clear to me that the means by which we construct; the methods we choose; and the positions we take will affect more or less the veracity and utility of the reality we construct and the correspondence that we experience with others to build understanding of reliable objects of perception. But more is not better. 3.2 billion Moslems can be wrong, as can people who buy MacDonalds; Christians and Jews included. Knowledge that is reliable is universally applicable.
I do not propose any dogma, and its pointless you trying to play that game.



all the while this negating element (labels) likewise negate the subject, as if the essential condition of the labels negate the essential condition of the subject. So are you proposing a type of theistic dogma here, the essential Gods called "the subject" and "the labels", respectively. And that the God "Labels" is more powerful than "Subject"?

[chaz wyman]

Did you miss my question accidentally on purpose?
What is "True Reality"?

...and indeed, "True Reality" is always put off to another sphere, if you will; the point then is "what is the route by which we propose to come to a True Reality"? What is the method? Or, what is that method that has, in the Sartre-ian way of choice, as its past and future, a True Reality?

oh, and yess, I have already agreed that atheism is a short-term strategy to confront theistic ethical inconsitencies.

I asked you to say what is 'true reality' and you respond - "it is always put off". Is that a definition, or are you obfuscating again?

Please state what you mean by the phrase as I do not think "always put off" is an exhaustive description.

[lancek4]

I'm glad you spotted my use of the word "essence". I was employing your language to get you to take notice. I was being ironic.

touche.(sp?) thank you.
I don't think the idea of essence is very useful, and I'm not sure why you use it.
I only have my reality. Try as I might I cannot make it conform to everyone else's and its fun arguing the toss.
A label applied to me is for another person. It does not complete me, it only negates me. It can only exist as a temporary marker for others to draw distinctions between me and the object of their interest. But using it to impose their beliefs , negative or otherwise on me, has nothing to do with me. I'm not trying to pretend I do not believe anything at all. But I reject , where I can, a faith-beleif which demands that I trim my perception to accommodate that belief as I see so many Theists doing. I prefer to attempt to build knowledge by observing, interpreting and reasoning. I emphasise inductive processes of though, whilst the theist deduces God in everything he sees. This does not constitute my atheism but this approach leads me to reject the concept of gods by which I am labeled as an atheist. In the absence of theists that label wold not exist. Thus existing by virtue of the 'other', it is fully constituted by the other and plays no part in my construction - is it thus contentless. thank you for a good proposal of 'contentlesness'.

I still have no idea what you mean by true reality.
We all have our own subjective reality. Sometimes we agree and are arrogant enough to assume that an agreement constitutes an objective truth. We may contribute to the construction of that reality, and I it seems clear to me that the means by which we construct; the methods we choose; and the positions we take will affect more or less the veracity and utility of the reality we construct and the correspondence that we experience with others to build understanding of reliable objects of perception. But more is not better. 3.2 billion Moslems can be wrong, as can people who buy MacDonalds; Christians and Jews included. Knowledge that is reliable is universally applicable.
I do not propose any dogma, and its pointless you trying to play that game.



yes. ok. good . let me munch some more. Yes and I like you point out the struggle. A True Reality may be the problem between the Subject and Object: the struggle. How might we approach This? Can we come upon the Subject between us, humans in general? One of my ongoing maxims is that the Subject is not admitted, it is not allowed, indeed is denied, into what i dialectically propose as conventional philsophical discourse - this last as a limited arena for discussion. Thus, the proposition of aphilsophy.

[Mark Question]

You are gaily using the word 'belief' which as (at least) two distinct meanings. You are satisfying yourself that there is something wrong here by moving from one meaning of belief to the other.

who is this gaily "you" satisfying himself? what you mean: "word 'belief' which as (at least) two distinct meanings"?

People tend to switch from knowledge to belief without stopping to think that these words are intended to convey different meanings.
I know I am sitting in front of a Mac computer. I could just have easily said that I believe I am sitting in front of a Mac. What is the difference? There may well be reasonable doubt in a rational person when the word belief is used.

philosophically speaking also knowledge is more than just knowledge? what is knowledge? you know..its knowledge!
could atheist and theist both say: i have strong reasons to believe that i am sitting in front of a Mac computer? do theists also feel they have strong reasons to believe something about god?

Part of what leads me to atheism is that I have a stronger criterion for knowledge than the average theist; I do not choose to believe things - ever if possible.

choosing knowledge is your stronger criterion to choose knowledge? ok. maybe theists have stronger faith to their stonger faith? ok?
if belief in god is belief in god then maybe both atheist and theist have as strong reasons? theist have it if he have it and atheist dont have it if he dont have it? in other words: belief in god is not knowledge(justified true belief?) in god?

[chaz wyman]

You are gaily using the word 'belief' which as (at least) two distinct meanings. You are satisfying yourself that there is something wrong here by moving from one meaning of belief to the other.

who is this gaily "you" satisfying himself? what you mean: "word 'belief' which as (at least) two distinct meanings"?

Odd to ask such a question, when all you had to do was read on to find out the answer.
It is you who is being gay (since you ask). But then gay is also a word with different meanings too.

People tend to switch from knowledge to belief without stopping to think that these words are intended to convey different meanings.
I know I am sitting in front of a Mac computer. I could just have easily said that I believe I am sitting in front of a Mac. What is the difference? There may well be reasonable doubt in a rational person when the word belief is used.

philosophically speaking also knowledge is more than just knowledge? what is knowledge? you know..its knowledge!
could atheist and theist both say: i have strong reasons to believe that i am sitting in front of a Mac computer? do theists also feel they have strong reasons to believe something about god?

Do you believe you are missing the point, or do you know it?

Part of what leads me to atheism is that I have a stronger criterion for knowledge than the average theist; I do not choose to believe things - ever if possible.

choosing knowledge is your stronger criterion to choose knowledge? ok. maybe theists have stronger faith to their stonger faith? ok?
No, I have not told you how I choose knowledge. But if you want to follow the more interesting discussion I am enjoying with Lance4k, then you will find it there.

if belief in god is belief in god then maybe both atheist and theist have as strong reasons?

I have no specific reasons as an atheist. I have strong reasons as a rationalist. Atheism is a lack of belief as I have mentioned before.

theist have it if he have it and atheist dont have it if he dont have it?

This is the best example of complete gibberish this week so far. Well done! I have no idea what you are ranting about.
You might like to use some grammar and substitute a meaningful word for your use if "it".


in other words: belief in god is not knowledge(justified true belief?) in god?

Not in my case, no. But then you know that at least. For a theist the answer may be different, you'd have to ask one.

[chaz wyman]

I'm glad you spotted my use of the word "essence". I was employing your language to get you to take notice. I was being ironic.

touche.(sp?) thank you.
I don't think the idea of essence is very useful, and I'm not sure why you use it.
I only have my reality. Try as I might I cannot make it conform to everyone else's and its fun arguing the toss.
A label applied to me is for another person. It does not complete me, it only negates me. It can only exist as a temporary marker for others to draw distinctions between me and the object of their interest. But using it to impose their beliefs , negative or otherwise on me, has nothing to do with me. I'm not trying to pretend I do not believe anything at all. But I reject , where I can, a faith-beleif which demands that I trim my perception to accommodate that belief as I see so many Theists doing. I prefer to attempt to build knowledge by observing, interpreting and reasoning. I emphasise inductive processes of though, whilst the theist deduces God in everything he sees. This does not constitute my atheism but this approach leads me to reject the concept of gods by which I am labeled as an atheist. In the absence of theists that label wold not exist. Thus existing by virtue of the 'other', it is fully constituted by the other and plays no part in my construction - is it thus contentless. thank you for a good proposal of 'contentlesness'.

I still have no idea what you mean by true reality.
We all have our own subjective reality. Sometimes we agree and are arrogant enough to assume that an agreement constitutes an objective truth. We may contribute to the construction of that reality, and I it seems clear to me that the means by which we construct; the methods we choose; and the positions we take will affect more or less the veracity and utility of the reality we construct and the correspondence that we experience with others to build understanding of reliable objects of perception. But more is not better. 3.2 billion Moslems can be wrong, as can people who buy MacDonalds; Christians and Jews included. Knowledge that is reliable is universally applicable.
I do not propose any dogma, and its pointless you trying to play that game.



yes. ok. good . let me munch some more. Yes and I like you point out the struggle. A True Reality may be the problem between the Subject and Object: the struggle. How might we approach This? Can we come upon the Subject between us, humans in general? One of my ongoing maxims is that the Subject is not admitted, it is not allowed, indeed is denied, into what i dialectically propose as conventional philsophical discourse - this last as a limited arena for discussion. Thus, the proposition of aphilsophy.

Yes, the subject is always denied. There is great irony here when all we really have is the subject. But you have to have a keen eye to see who is denying the subject; whose subject is being denied; and what is that subject being replaced with. I think it is fair to say that for most of human history, there has been a small group of elites that have denied the subjects, by imposing on their subjects (excuse the pun; in a political sense of subject), the elite version of what they have liked to call objective truth. This truth is usually nothing more that a dustbin load of subjective crap that has received agreement from others of their ilk about the "TRUE" nature of reality, god, the heavens and the devil too. This pure truth has been pedalled dogmatically, and anyone who has tried to ask questions has found often that such a course was a burning matter (literally). One thinks of Bruno and Gallieo.
But I do not think that the struggle results, or can result in anything we can fairly call true reality except in the most banal scientific realm such as things fall down. Even that is fraught with difficulties. Difficulties that Newton warned against; Fingo non hypothesis. But how many times have you heard that "gravity causes things to fall.". Surely this is a mistake? Things fall and this phenomonon we call gravity. Gravity is not a cause, but an attribution we use to describe the fact that things tend to aggregate.
Its not much. Science does not speak to the human condition in any meaningful sense. What it does provide is an oasis of certainty. There is nothing more real that a speeding bullet. It does not matter if you are a Hindi, a Jew, or a Muslim: the bullet follows the trajectory through the body of any religionist or atheist, and the world keeps turning despite what the priests used to say.
How did I get here??? I'm rambling.
So we are all trapped inside our own subjective reality.

[evangelicalhumanist]

philosophically speaking also knowledge is more than just knowledge? what is knowledge? you know..its knowledge!
could atheist and theist both say: i have strong reasons to believe that i am sitting in front of a Mac computer? do theists also feel they have strong reasons to believe something about god?

You might consider a brief visit to somewhere that explains "epistemology" in some depth. I would suggest, for example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the subject. It's really quite good and fairly complete. It begins:

"Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How are we to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one's own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry. This article will provide a systematic overview of the problems that the questions above raise and focus in some depth on issues relating to the structure and the limits of knowledge and justification."

Really, well worth the read...

[Arising_uk]

...
How did I get here??? I'm rambling.

And more human it makes you chaz.

So we are all trapped inside our own subjective reality.

How could 'we' know this?

When I die the universe dies with me, so suck on that you bastards! Or, "Watch out! Or I'll kill myself and then you'll all be in trouble!"

[chaz wyman]

...
How did I get here??? I'm rambling.

And more human it makes you chaz.

So we are all trapped inside our own subjective reality.

How could 'we' know this?

It's called an educated guess.
1) I am trapped inside my subjective reality.
2) I think other people are like me.
3) We are all trapped inside our own subjective realities.

Sometimes we agree that the version of our universe, or part of it is the same as other's. This is when we think its okay to be objective.


When I die the universe dies with me, so suck on that you bastards! Or, "Watch out! Or I'll kill myself and then you'll all be in trouble!"

GO on then!!!! I dare you! No, I double dare you!

[lancek4]

.EV: I would suggest, for example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the subject.

According to Stanford: Knowledge is justified True Belief. Knowledge requires truth. it is interesting it does not say "Knowledge is true"
'justification' is also interesting to me: because knowledge requires belief, "a third element is required" :justification.
I have not yet read the whole entry, we should move to the Epistemology forum if we are going more fully discuss it, but heres what comes to mind concerning aphilsophy:

Knowledge appears for reality in a polemic: true and false. These are axiomic; they are proposed as essential elements of Reality. There cannot be a 'true' false. I believe it is this type of system that Chaz draws upon when he describes that which has "no content" ( I could be wrong).

From here, given that this condition of knowledge exists, then, I might propose that it is true (the condition): there are absolute true and false. And against this true sheme, there is a 'false' scheme.

Yet, the maxim of this former scheme is that "it is True": it represents as well as contains all the potential for a True Reality. In other words: that 'corrspondent' scheme' which may be false, is and must be absolutely false. It is through this maxim of reality, of truth, that relegates the false (philsophy opposed to aphilsophy) as the 'negative', which is infinitly regressive; the content of this false only has a content of truth in as much as the regression is 'stopped' at some point - yet this would then be a 'false truth'.

The Stanford idea of 'justification' (in my limited and admittedly brief reading) is based within this limitation such as it reduces its meaning to an ethical "obligation".

With the dialectic 'aphilsophy', I propose that what with reference to the 'Truth' is absolutly 'False', is not infinitely regressive, but is rather a negative that in its re-addressing the former 'true' scheme, is redundant. It is the 'reflection' of the 'true scheme', not that which upholds the 'truth-value' of the scheme, but that which is reassserted in, so to speak, 'false-value'.
This so called 'false-value' may represent the Subject, in that within the True Scheme, that is, using the definitions gained by the scheme that grants the route for truth always argues the Object, denies the Subject.
This orientation could account for the often heard definition of the Subject, which come out of using the 'True Scheme' in the search for the Subject, as a 'point of nil between objects'.

Likewise, this idea could account for what Chaz has offfered a few posts back: it seems he proposes a 'priveiledged' space for the Subject, by which the terms we use to discern reality are merely labels.
And indeed, this might give us purchase through which we could then speak of the element of 'justification' in an interesting way.
- and maybe not be so trapped as knowledge seems to want to inform us.

[lancek4]

It is also quite interesting that the "subject is always denied" is ironic, and that it is a "burning matter".

[lancek4]

[quote="Arising_uk]How could 'we' know this?

Knowledge refering to two ideas; belief also.

Is there: the knowledge, as science, labels and such, and then, the knowledge as in "I", the subject, knows?

[Mark Question]

"Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief.
Really, well worth the read...

thanks. i might read it some day if you people cant talk to me without it.
and epistemology seems to give us hundreds of new books and papers every year?
knowledge seems to have very wide propositional interpretations and definitions, about many forms and types of knowledge? practical, personal, procedural, explicit, tacit, embodied, a priori,..
but is there always word "belief" hidden in rational propositional definitions of "knowledge"?

Do you believe you are missing the point, or do you know it?

do you believe you are atheist, do you know it? is rational(propositional) knowing "justified believing"?

I have no specific reasons as an atheist. I have strong reasons as a rationalist. Atheism is a lack of belief as I have mentioned before.

"Atheism is a lack of belief " is not a specific reason?

[Arising_uk]

Sometimes we agree that the version of our universe, or part of it is the same as other's. This is when we think its okay to be objective.

Yarr! Arrgh! Language be a mighty powerful thing.

GO on then!!!! I dare you! No, I double dare you!

Since it will be ending one day and I don't think it'll be coming back, I'll be awaiting to the end methinks.

Although this reminds me, and I don't know why, but I was once seriously asked "How would you like to die?", my reply "In complete bloody surprise!"

[chaz wyman]

Sometimes we agree that the version of our universe, or part of it is the same as other's. This is when we think its okay to be objective.

Yarr! Arrgh! Language be a mighty powerful thing.

GO on then!!!! I dare you! No, I double dare you!

Since it will be ending one day and I don't think it'll be coming back, I'll be awaiting to the end methinks.

Although this reminds me, and I don't know why, but I was once seriously asked "How would you like to die?", my reply "In complete bloody surprise!"

I think a better answer is without knowing. No good going with a nasty shock!