Philosophy Now Forum

I agree, my spelling is horrendis. Too dependant upon spell check and drafts.
I am on my blkbrry so I will address your point individually later

For now, I again bring us back to what is 'thought'.
When I say "thought is of the mind" in the spirit as you pose we humans have thought and we should use it as it is. I agree. What I am proposing is an 'orientation' on what thought is, on what knowledge is. I am proposing that how you view knowledge, the orientation of your thinking, can be likened to a methodology, a technology. As opposed dialectically to that 'thought' which is 'not thought' according to what is typically understood as 'thought' by that type of thinking that is oriented upon reality where thought is a tool by which we proceed into activity and weigh problems between objects. Thus, Such aphilosophy would be an orientation upon reality where 'thought' is not oriented upon solution to the object, but rather is that thot that has already come upon such solution.

lancek4 wrote:this little bit seems to sound oddly reminiscent of my essay "A philsophy to Die For".(link a few pages back)
"Without knowing" when my death willl come -- I would think the best way in the sense you guys are speaking, would be to think that it was not going to come (life as certain, death as uncertain), and then I would be completely surprised but the surprise would amount to a not knowing since i would already by dead.

The context of my words was with others who were discussing how they would like to die. Most said peacefully, in bed, surrounded by friends and family. Now I think that a nice thought but my honest feeling was that, having seen people go this way after, in general, a long period of disability, I'd prefer to go in surprise.

Dylan Thomas nearly says it for me but not quite as I'm a bit more buddhist.

Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on that sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

I don't see that aphilosophy takes one any closer to "truth."

We're using the word "truth" in different ways.

When I use the word "truth" in the context of aphilosophy, I mean reality. Reality is the real truth, eh? I believe you are using the word truth to mean "thoughts about reality." I'm referring to reality, you are referring to abstractions.

Thoughts are reality too of course. But in the context of a human life there is a big difference between directing our attention at reality, and directing our attention and intelligence at abstractions.

Which is more the "truth" about you personally? Your living human body? Or your name? Should we look at you the living person, or at your photograph? Which is a richer source of truth?

aPhilosophy concerns itself with the relationship between reality and the abstract symbols we use to reference reality.

The actual practice of aphilosophy (not the theory) brings us closer to a fundamental truth about our human lives. We spend most of our life not focusing on reality, but focusing on abstractions we have created to reference reality.

This is why we're psychologically hungry. It's why we're always trying to get somewhere other than where we are. It's why we're steadily destroying the planet we depend on. Psychologically, we're always moving through time in to the past or future, searching for what's lacking in our here and now.

Why isn't here and now enough?

It's because we're usually looking at mental photographs of reality, instead of reality itself.

Reality has what we need, but abstractions do not.

My view is that aphilosophy, as Typist described it (and this is only as I understand what he wrote), seeks to experience without "tainting" the experience with thought.

It's a choice of what to experience in a given moment. Reality? Or abstractions?

Look at the living person, or the dead photograph?

It's that simple really.

So what sets us apart? I think it is our minds.

You assume that mind = thought.

Using our minds and our reason, we can change the world to suit ourselves.

Yes, and we changing the world so that we will no longer have a place in it. Thousand of nuclear weapons are standing by waiting to erase civilization during the next major conflict, which history teaches us is inevitable.

So clearly there is something wrong with the way we are using our minds.

And no, switching from this ideology to that ideology isn't going to fix it, as we've already tried a zillion different ideologies, and here we still are, staring extinction in the face.

If you feel that minds are so important, here's a suggestion that will lend credibility to your proposal.

Find the on/off button, and learn how to operate it. On any other device this would be Day 1 Lesson 1, would it not?

But since we won't be developing stronger muscles and keener senses in the exercise, I'm having some trouble seeing the benefit.

You're having trouble seeing the benefit of aphilosophy because.....

You aren't doing aphilosophy, you're doing philosophy.

You can think about aphilosophy and analyze aphilosophy every day for the rest of your life, and you'll still be right where you are now in terms of understanding it.

Typist wrote:... I'm referring to reality, you are referring to abstractions.

Then how can you be 'referring' to it?

Thoughts are reality too of course. But in the context of a human life there is a big difference between directing our attention at reality, and directing our attention and intelligence at abstractions.

Thoughts come from 'reality'. You are talking about the relationship between thoughts and thinking but then you've never answered any questions nor defined what you understand by these two words. You just assume that all understand what they say.

aPhilosophy concerns itself with the relationship between reality and the abstract symbols we use to reference reality.

You make an assumption that we can? But 'aphilososophy' can spare itself the effort as in philosophy we already have semiotics and phenomenology for this thanks. Take it to the 'new age' boards.

The actual practice of aphilosophy (not the theory) brings us closer to a fundamental truth about our human lives. We spend most of our life not focusing on reality, but focusing on abstractions we have created to reference reality.

Will you ever get around to saying what these actual practices are?

This is why we're psychologically hungry. It's why we're always trying to get somewhere other than where we are. It's why we're steadily destroying the planet we depend on. Psychologically, we're always moving through time in to the past or future, searching for what's lacking in our here and now.

Pop-psychology, pop-metaphysics and pop-politics.

Why isn't here and now enough?

Because we are self-conscious.

It's because we're usually looking at mental photographs of reality, instead of reality itself.

If you are not 'looking' at your reality with this 'aphilosophy' what are you doing?

Reality has what we need, but abstractions do not.

What do you mean by 'abstractions'?

It's a choice of what to experience in a given moment. Reality? Or abstractions?

Look at the living person, or the dead photograph?

It's that simple really.

Apparently not. But I think I understand what you waffle about and can provide others an achievable way of doing it and a reasonable explanation for it. Can you with your 'aphilosophy'?

How to experience a given moment.

Typist wrote:You aren't doing aphilosophy, you're doing philosophy.

How would you know this as by your own words you have not studied or read any philosophy?

I am not sure where the discursive gymnastics came from of Novatka.

Thank you Typist for reentering the colliseum.

while I somewhat agree with Typist's aphilosophy, the kinda 'principle' of it, I on the other hand would not advocate an aphilosophical practice in the manner he speaks of - for the reasons that AUK points out. A methdological aphilosohy would be an oxymoron as I am attempting to display it; a practice of aphilosophy would be nonsequiter. To assert a practice of aphilosophy would be another assertion of the attainable, knowable object, whereas I tend to argue aphilosophy as having already attained the object.

Arising_uk wrote:

lancek4 wrote:this little bit seems to sound oddly reminiscent of my essay "A philsophy to Die For".(link a few pages back)
"Without knowing" when my death willl come -- I would think the best way in the sense you guys are speaking, would be to think that it was not going to come (life as certain, death as uncertain), and then I would be completely surprised but the surprise would amount to a not knowing since i would already by dead.

The context of my words was with others who were discussing how they would like to die. Most said peacefully, in bed, surrounded by friends and family. Now I think that a nice thought but my honest feeling was that, having seen people go this way after, in general, a long period of disability, I'd prefer to go in surprise.

Dylan Thomas nearly says it for me but not quite as I'm a bit more buddhist.

Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on that sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

ahh yes great poem. How might it be to die in the comfort of philosophy? Might we go as gracefully as, say, Sartre who comes upon the existential dilemma and "Revolts". Would this rage against death be seen as quite philosophical? Indeed, it seems the most impractical and least methdological if one were to go quietly - and that even with one's' tounge firmly planted in his cheek ?

Ahh.. How quiet does one go into that night in the comfort of philosophy - if they did not listen to Tomas's overt plea? How might this quiet be? A silence of not wishing to make his surviving friends hurt or offended? A grubling complaint that life was unforfilled? A dishonest nod to Tomas for the sake of the dying's survivors benefit? How might we go on and on philosophically till the end ... It is indeed Neverending.

Typist wrote:

I don't see that aphilosophy takes one any closer to "truth."

We're using the word "truth" in different ways.

When I use the word "truth" in the context of aphilosophy, I mean reality. Reality is the real truth, eh? I believe you are using the word truth to mean "thoughts about reality." I'm referring to reality, you are referring to abstractions.

Thoughts are reality too of course. But in the context of a human life there is a big difference between directing our attention at reality, and directing our attention and intelligence at abstractions.

Which is more the "truth" about you personally? Your living human body? Or your name? Should we look at you the living person, or at your photograph? Which is a richer source of truth?

aPhilosophy concerns itself with the relationship between reality and the abstract symbols we use to reference reality.

The actual practice of aphilosophy (not the theory) brings us closer to a fundamental truth about our human lives. We spend most of our life not focusing on reality, but focusing on abstractions we have created to reference reality.

This is why we're psychologically hungry. It's why we're always trying to get somewhere other than where we are. It's why we're steadily destroying the planet we depend on. Psychologically, we're always moving through time in to the past or future, searching for what's lacking in our here and now.

Why isn't here and now enough?

It's because we're usually looking at mental photographs of reality, instead of reality itself.

Reality has what we need, but abstractions do not.

My view is that aphilosophy, as Typist described it (and this is only as I understand what he wrote), seeks to experience without "tainting" the experience with thought.

It's a choice of what to experience in a given moment. Reality? Or abstractions?

Look at the living person, or the dead photograph?

It's that simple really.

Then all-in-all, I disagree that aphilosphy is particularly helpful. "Reality" can be pretty unforthcoming with information about itself. What does the inside of this planet look like, what's it made of? What will you do, dig and look, dig and look? It took a great deal of abstraction and thought to discover plate tectonics, the crust, the mantle and the core. What's inside the rock on which you've just stubbed your toe? Could there be something of value in there? Perhaps its a geode, or perhaps even something richer. Your "experience" tells you not much at all, really, except you hurt your toe and are pissed at the rock.

Photographs less revealing? Perhaps, but what about other kinds of imaging, like x-rays and MRI. They tell us more, and in much more detail, about a living human then simply "experiencing" him.

Learning about another person, really learning about another person, is a long, involved, questioning, often-insightful and sometimes not-insightful process, meaning we learn by both positive (we guessed rightly) or negative (oops, but I learned). Those things themselves must be abstracted and stored away, or each moment you are dealing with a whole new person, and everything to learn again.

Then all-in-all, I disagree that aphilosphy is particularly helpful.

Because playing the role of debunker is your bottom line. You do it with theism, without really knowing much about that experience. And now you're doing it with aphilosophy too. You don't want to try it and learn about it, you just want to have conclusions about it.

Reason works like this. We conduct the experiment first, gather some data, and then maybe develop some theories, which are tested, and THEN maybe we come to some conclusions. You want to skip over the investigation part, and dive right in to conclusions.

Again my friend, you don't know much of anything about aphilosophy, because what you're doing here is philosophy. In your defense, this is a very common error in procedure.

You're treating aphilosophy as if it were just one more ideology to be analyzed with thought. But aphilosophy specifically declares itself to be outside of that paradigm. Put simply, "aphilosophy" has an "a" at the beginning, because it's NOT philosophy, but the opposite of philosophy.

As I've said repeatedly, the conceptual part of aphilosophy is just a word circus to entertain the curious. If aphilosophy were just one more pile of concepts, it would have no reason for being. You can safely do the great debunker dance on aphilosophy concepts without damaging anything important.

aPhilosophy concepts are like a street sign that point the way to town. The idea is to actually go on to town, not stand in front of the street sign arguing with it.

evangelicalhumanist wrote: Then all-in-all, I disagree that aphilosphy is particularly helpful. "Reality" can be pretty unforthcoming with information about itself. What does the inside of this planet look like, what's it made of? What will you do, dig and look, dig and look?

I submit that these questions constitute the 'methodological philsophy' i indicate by my essay on aphilosophy. They are questions oriented toward discovering the object. Such effort is always in correspondence with a particular method, not an absolute method: the method does not reveal a Truth, but only the truth of the method. The Truth of the method always indicates a value of truth: a 'truth-value': an ethics.
And I am not saying that such methods are not interesting and possibly useful, but i am indicating that it is philosophical only as a colloquialism. Such as I might have a "philsophy of brushing my teeth".

i guess I should back up and offer a question: What is philsophy?

It took a great deal of abstraction and thought to discover plate tectonics, the crust, the mantle and the core. What's inside the rock on which you've just stubbed your toe? Could there be something of value in there? Perhaps its a geode, or perhaps even something richer. Your "experience" tells you not much at all, really, except you hurt your toe and are pissed at the rock.
These things sound more like geography or physical sciences. Sure, careers such a 'philsophy of geography' may exist, but it applies itself to method, to activity, to a particular agenda.

again: What Is philosophy?

Photographs less revealing? Perhaps, but what about other kinds of imaging, like x-rays and MRI. They tell us more, and in much more detail, about a living human then simply "experiencing" him.

Learning about another person, really learning about another person, is a long, involved, questioning, often-insightful and sometimes not-insightful process, meaning we learn by both positive (we guessed rightly) or negative (oops, but I learned). Those things themselves must be abstracted and stored away, or each moment you are dealing with a whole new person, and everything to learn again.

My position so far as to what aphilsophy may be, by implication of what philsophy may be:

The typical motion of 'philsophy' is like you represent in your examples here. This is fine. But when we move into areas such as ontology, or, what is Reality, what is Being? the (attributed: rational) movement of philsophy in this former method cannot be applied with validity. What happens is we end up arguing an ethical construct of Being, which is then ideology or religion or belief. Such methodological philsophy applied to these more 'significantly illusive' questions merely beg the question of thier answers. Traditional methodological philsophers will not see this because thier identity, thier Being is invested in the Truth of the method, and so will not admit the impropriety of the method: the method supplies their 'justified True belief'. such a method will not disclaim its own methodology, because to do so, kills itself. The method cannot be questioned because it supplies the justification for the activity of the so-called philsopher, as philsophy is promoting a particular ethical world and often a means to make a living.

This situation is 'offensive' to the methodological philosopher, is founded in denial, which further shows 'philsophy's' justifying movemement.

Typist wrote:
Because playing the role of debunker is your bottom line. you seem likewise to be playing bebunker to thier debunking.

You do it with theism, without really knowing much about that experience. And now you're doing it with aphilosophy too. You don't want to try it and learn about it, you just want to have conclusions about it.

Reason works like this. We conduct the experiment first, gather some data, and then maybe develop some theories, which are tested, and THEN maybe we come to some conclusions. You want to skip over the investigation part, and dive right in to conclusions.

Again my friend, you don't know much of anything about aphilosophy, because what you're doing here is philosophy. In your defense, this is a very common error in procedure. I agree with the meaning here.

You're treating aphilosophy as if it were just one more ideology to be analyzed with thought. But aphilosophy specifically declares itself to be outside of that paradigm. Put simply, "aphilosophy" has an "a" at the beginning, because it's NOT philosophy, but the opposite of philosophy. yes, but in advocating a practice of aphilsophy it becomes prone to being seen as promoting an ideology.

As I've said repeatedly, the conceptual part of aphilosophy is just a word circus to entertain the curious. maybe you should look at "The Concept of Irony" by Soren Kierkegaard. If aphilosophy were just one more pile of concepts, it would have no reason for being. You can safely do the great debunker dance on aphilosophy concepts without damaging anything important. i would attrubute this more to the means of aphilsophy, where the phenomenon is coming into existence through the concept, instead of attempting the concept to conform to the phenomenon

aPhilosophy concepts are like a street sign that point the way to town. The idea is to actually go on to town, not stand in front of the street sign arguing with it.

I like this. I set out running but I take my time.

I was just reviewing this thread. I get a feeling that Typist was/is attempting to assert somesort of 'zen' type of way of experiencing and knowing reality, the point to which many have had a field day playing with, since Typist seems to be promoting an ideology yet saying he is not (kinda sound like the atheists, huh?).
(Most) everone already knows of some meditational type way of coming to some peace in ones life or some grand reality; everyone has encountered the 'new age' kind of path in thier experience. Whether anyone has actually practiced such a 'zen' kind of thing and come to some new way of understanding, I must leave to the individual.
Such 'spiritual experiences' I refer to Rudolf Otto.

Here is the link to my essay on aphilsophy again: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62621120/A-Philosophy.

I think this thread is getting somewhere, maybe. Anyways its a good discussion.
So far as to "death", perhaps 'no thought' could be considered a 'death' to what we understand as 'thought'.

Typist wrote:... And now you're doing it with aphilosophy too. You don't want to try it and learn about it, you just want to have conclusions about it.

We'd love to learn about it numbnuts! Care to explain?

Reason works like this. We conduct the experiment first, gather some data, and then maybe develop some theories, which are tested, and THEN maybe we come to some conclusions. You want to skip over the investigation part, and dive right in to conclusions.

No it doesn't idiot! We notice regularities, we gather data, we come to a conclusion or we make a theory, to test it we make conclusion that has a test that if it fails the theory is wrong, we test, if it does not fail then we still have a theory.

Again my friend, you don't know much of anything about aphilosophy, because what you're doing here is philosophy. In your defense, this is a very common error in procedure.

There is fuck all to know about 'aphilosophy' because you cannot even state what it is! Its just your method of dealing with your stupidity about philosophy.

You're treating aphilosophy as if it were just one more ideology to be analyzed with thought. But aphilosophy specifically declares itself to be outside of that paradigm. Put simply, "aphilosophy" has an "a" at the beginning, because it's NOT philosophy, but the opposite of philosophy.

But since you have proclaimed that you've not studied philosophy nor read those that philosophers call the philosophers, you are stating that you don't know what you are talking about?

As I've said repeatedly, the conceptual part of aphilosophy is just a word circus to entertain the curious. If aphilosophy were just one more pile of concepts, it would have no reason for being. You can safely do the great debunker dance on aphilosophy concepts without damaging anything important.

As you say, 'aphilosophy' has no reason for being, so why are you still here?

aPhilosophy concepts are like a street sign that point the way to town. The idea is to actually go on to town, not stand in front of the street sign arguing with it.

You are an idiot! If there was no sign how would you know where the town was!