Philosophy Now Forum

Typist wrote:We are priceless morons! We have no value!

Typist, I appreciate the comment in the context in which I find it. The preceding dialogue was very much unworthy of a forum with pretensions to "philosophy."

But I don't think it necessary to paint all with the same brush. That I may struggle with understanding my existence as I begin the downward slide of this wonderful life. That I may not always arrive at "the right" answers, that I might not even get the questions right, hardly makes me a moron, I think.

As to "priceless," I would agree with you. There is no price that one might put upon a human person with justification, because to do so makes that person property. Every human is an actor in his own right. (Of course, as a humanist you expected me to say that, didn't you?)

But then, alas, what I've just said is about philosophy, isn't it, and you are an aPhilosopher. How shall we ever understand one another?

"All the world is a stage and we, merely actors. "

I think often we forget what 'actors' implies. We are merely 'acting' the script and saying the lines we were given.

lancek4 wrote:"All the world is a stage and we, merely actors. "

I think often we forget what 'actors' implies. We are merely 'acting' the script and saying the lines we were given.

Two little quibbles, Lance. I did not mean the word "actor" in the sense you are using it. I meant it in it's most basic sense, as one that takes action, that does things. We are not, in my view, "acting the script." That would be contrary to my philosophy of free will, as I am most determinedly opposed to Determinism.

Second, the passage you (mis)quote is one of my favourites, from As You Like It. I can cite it (along with a lot of other Shakespeare) from memory. This one is usually referred to as "the seven ages of man."

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the canon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

evangelicalhumanist wrote:

lancek4 wrote:"All the world is a stage and we, merely actors. "

I think often we forget what 'actors' implies. We are merely 'acting' the script and saying the lines we were given.

Two little quibbles, Lance. I did not mean the word "actor" in the sense you are using it. I meant it in it's most basic sense, as one that takes action, that does things. We are not, in my view, "acting the script." That would be contrary to my philosophy of free will, as I am most determinedly opposed to Determinism.

Second, the passage you (mis)quote is one of my favourites, from As You Like It. I can cite it (along with a lot of other Shakespeare) from memory. This one is usually referred to as "the seven ages of man."

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the canon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

ah yes; my fault. misquote. Yet I think you would agree that 'players' meant the same as 'actors' in this context. But my meaning still applies.
Yes we 'act', but it is only in the effort to assert and hold onto what is a concpt of 'free will' that excludes the possibility of being 'actors/players upon the state of life" as I have presented it.

Indeed, the actor assumes his role, acts, if you will, as if his whole being is that character. He acts as if he were that character, and I might add that a good actor often 'forgets' he is indeed acting, such that his role becomes his moment, as if the actor is indeed experiencing the motion of the play.

Since you brought up determinism, maybe i do subscribe to this idea, but I must ask concerning 'choice'.
From where do you gain your ability to choose? I what way do have have an ultimate ability to choose freely?
Or is it that you are given a set of conditions to choose from. How have you arrived at this moment?
Are you able then to choose a choice that has not been presented therein?
If you have a choice to go left or right, and these are the only choices you have -- say there is a wall in front of you -- can you choose to go forward?
If there is ethics in play, can you choose against your own ethics, your own morality?
Is not the choices that are presented to you and then sorted out, determined by your ability to come upon that situation?
How could you have chosen not to have come upon this situation?
For example: take your computer and throw it accross the room right now. Have you done that?
Why have you not done that? did you make the choice not to do that? Why? What series of choices have lead to you making this particular choice? What conditions existed prior to your choice that likewise informed you ability to not choose to throw your computer?

You disagree that it is because you are determined in your choices by what you view as reality?

I challenge you do believe something with all your heart something that you are vehemently opposed to.
Did you choose to believe what you believe? Did you weigh up the pros and cons of murder and then decide not to be a murderer?
Believe, right now, that if you cut off your finger that you will inherit a million dollars.
Believe, right now, make the choice to believe, that Hitler is you savior. and/or that you should kill every one who does not have the same skin color as you. (please nevermind the nazi/neo-nazi conflation).

Perhaps you are a very good player on the stage of life.

You know what -
I think I better liked the version that I was first let to which suggested 'aphilsophy' was a ploy of Typist by which he was trying to get Chaz to admit something about atheism, more than the Zzzzzzzzzzzeennnn Oooooooohhhhmmm aphilosophy Typist developed subsequently. The former is much more interesting, intreguying and stimulating for discussion.

deleted

Dear friends,

I am watching this thread since long.

No doubt, this thread has manifested some interested thoughts but still the verdict is not clear. I am feeling that the definition of aphilosophy is yet to be established in clear terms.

Typist is saying that not doing philosophy is aphilosophy while others are asking how to philosophize it.

Although I am not fully agree with typist but I think that I understand what typist is saying. I will try to put that in my words.

His ideology is very much influenced or similar to Zen Buddhism. Buddhism is the only school of thought which lays too much stress on the process and yet, rejects it; because it does not believe in absolute truth like Vedanta. It believes in demigods and spiritual realms but not in any form of eternal God, the creator; so it falls in the category of unorthodox religion. There is no clear-cut ultimate destination in the Buddhism that’s why it has to rely on the process to achieve the enlightenment. This is to say that; instead of postulating a final goal, it holds that one has to distinguish himself from the process (state of flux). This is the state of detachment and when it reaches at its peak; it is enlightenment.

But it is not as simple as it looks. I have to repeat this sentence that it is not as simple as it looks because this is the very point where we confuse ourselves.

Buddhism sees this whole labyrinth of universe as a circle. One has to travel the full circle and reach at the very point from where the journey started to understand this. Only then, the circle tends to move instead of the traveler. Then he, even being in the circle, is able to hold himself stable while the circle is moving through him. Thus, the stream of flux is no more able to affect him. Now, when the traveler looks at the circle, then aphilosophy happens as now he just watching not thinking so he does not have to philosophize. Actually, this is a question of metaphysics not philosophy. Metaphysics does not come under the jurisdiction of philosophy, but metaphysics covers philosophy for sure.

So in a sense, typist is right that aphilosophy is not philosophy, thus it cannot be philosophized, but it cannot be said that it is just opposite of philosophy. I think it would be proper to hold that it is beyond philosophy as one has to cross the entire spread of philosophy to be an aphilosopher.

The phrases like “be here now”, “just be there” or “live the moment” are misleading; just because that these notions indicates the starting point and as well as the finish line; and generally, without understanding the whole process, we mistaken starting point with the destination. The notion of “Just be there” means; have a complete round of the circle first, then “just be there”. The compliance of” just being there” cannot be fulfilled, unless and until, “going out there” does not happen prior to it. If it was so verbatim, then each and every animal (excluding humans) would have been enlightened because they always “live the moment”. These phrases were used by Zen scholars to express the state of detachment. But, we must keep the fact in the mind that Zionism is not merely thinking. It is a lifestyle and a very strict and difficult one so it entirely subjected to experience. It is said that in extreme cases, they used to mediate as much as 16 hours in a day.

There cannot be any phenomenon which we can call “athought”. It is impossible and out of the question. Meditation or no meditation, it is just unachievable. Even enlightenment is not competent enough for athought. All we can do is to reach such a state where we can reveal that; we are not just our physical body; and we are not just our brain; and we are not just our mind and thoughts; and even excluding all these three; something still remains as a remainder.

Our mind is eternal as it is a part of eternity. There is no escape from it. We can neutralize the effect of mind on the remainder but cannot stop it from thinking for even for a moment.

It is not that difficult to realize. An hour is enough for that. All we have to do is sit quietly, close our eyes and just look at what is going in the mind. Do not try to think but just look if anything is there. Keep looking and looking for some time; and when, the whole of mind concentrates itself into looking; then try to stop looking and see what happens. Your mind will answer you that what is the meaning of” live the moment”. The basic problem is that we want instant answers written somewhere or told by anyone, but it is a matter of experience, not just being informed about it. If mere information was enough then, just by reading the phrase “just be there” was quite enough to enable all of us to be Buddha. We spend hours, days, weeks, months and even years to know what the minds of others say; but not ready to know what our mind have to say as we consider it the wastage of time.

Let me put it in this way.

A father has two sons. When they become 10 years old, the father brings them a football and a book about the football. One chooses the book while the other goes for the boll. Another 10 years passed. In the meantime, former has read all the literature about the game. He knows each and everything; like history, great players, strategies, etc. but the second one is only interested in playing with his friends in the backyard. So, we have two entirely different kinds of personalities. We have a person who can discuss, give speeches and even write books about the game but he is not even able to kick the ball properly; while the second one do not know anything else but how to play with the ball on the ground.

Now, I want to ask a very simple question and that is; who has the knowledge of football.
The question will answer all by itself if put slight differently and that is; who is able to play football.

It is neither spirituality nor theism. I am in total agreement with the atheism that there is absolutely no need to have faith in God or any likewise entity but, at least, we should have faith in our mind because we all know that it is for real. What is the harm in giving it a chance? I think it deserves one.

In the last 30-40 years, a new breed of spiritual gurus has been covered the horizon, especially from India. I think that Deepak Chorpa is most recognized one. I have read two of his books but I am sorry to say that all his knowledge is borrowed not earned and the case is more or less same for others also. This is the reason their language confuse. I have gone through his book “life after death” two times but fail to understand that what he wants to say. It is not conclusive but he tries to claim mutely that he knows everything. When anyone knows something, the others can easily feel the authority in the words. The necessity of hiding behind the words arises only when one try to cover his incompetency. We have converted metaphysics almost into a fantasy where all types of imaginations are allowed. In India there are about 50 TV channels which are running 24/ 7 and hosted by spiritual gurus. I do not know much about other countries but this is ridiculous. Metaphysics is a very serious subject as it is the mother of philosophy but we have made mockery of it.

The thoughts and style of typist remind me of Rajneesh (osho). I do not know whether he or other members heard about him or not.

with love,
sanjay

Typist wrote:

puto wrote:Well this question is quite simply answered: if you know what philosophy is, then you should know what aphilosophy is, very simple question.

Puto, welcome to the topic, and I must say, this is the best post any of us have written so far on this subject. The way you've put this is very much in keeping with the spirit of aPhilosophy, in a way my posts are not.

Yes! Very simple!

What is philosophy? What is it literally? Thought.

aPhilosophy is "a-thought".

The conceptual part of aPhilosophy is of course thought, a philosophy, subject to the same limitations of any philosophy.

However, integral to this philosophy, what makes it different, is the suggestion that the philosophy part be discarded at the earliest moment, in favor of the "a-thought" experience part.

Puto said it better!

You are somehow merching together Taoism and philosophy to form aphilosophy - a gate of no gate; or a word of no sound; a leaf of no tree; a mind of no body... etc. You might aswell give up, or drown under the pillars of new posts wanting to know what you mean... You cannot explain what has no explanation. For life must be lived and not talked about, otherwise you loose precious time and space and ultimately life itself... I agree upon the sensing theme of aphilosophy. You're on the right path...

evangelicalhumanist wrote: It is these ways, and a few others, that I "medidate," although I know I'm co-opting that word in a way most people wouldn't use it. But it works for me. Other sorts of medidation, however, are not for me. Studying the existence of a pencil for the sake of calming my thinking mind isn't for me, though it may well be for others, in exactly the same sort of way that prayer isn't for me, though it is apparently very useful for others. On the other hand, rich and detailed use of my mental faculties is very much for me. When I haven't got enough problems to resolve (I'm no longer an IT Architect, though I was for a long time), I turn automatically to difficult puzzles, to reading, to learning, to whatever engages my thinking mind because the warm purring of that thing is what I most enjoy -- though others find that sort of thing drudgery. And that's okay, too.

Meditations can be of many nature. Some meditate over religious psalms and documents, others about humanity and humanism, like you yourself claim to be a bringer of good news about humanism; than others meditate over theyr next BigMac or crunching the latest game on a laptop. If you seize to be smart about the topic and stop the urch to say something of importance, then that is aphilosophy as what I can gather from these posts...

Just say what you think not think what to say! Feel what you live not think what you should call it. Be what you are, not think how to be accepted. That is aphilosophy

Not for nothing told the greeks this parable: Gnothi seauton what I found in the movie Matrix Know yourself and free your mind.

I have a conducive exercise for all of you that might show you what aphilosophy might be like. I learned this from one of my Great-Great grandmothers. Although, she may have had mental problems. Later, because I enjoy reading books and reading about the people who wrote them, I came upon a book called Faulkner: The Making of a Modernist, and I learned he used this technique to supplement his writing skills. Go anywhere or nowhere. You can go to a public place or you can sit in the private of your own home. And once you sit, stare straight ahead and become unfocused on one point with your eyes (I stare at an indeterminate space between me and a wall), while at the same time absorbing everything around you. Do not try, just do. People may come by and wave their hands in front of your face but ignore this if at all possible and let the world seep into you. If you're doing it right the hand in front of your face will become of no concern to your vision but you will see it anyway. This is also called zoning out, going blank, spacing out, ect...But the key is not to think but absorb. Maybe, and I haven't read this entire discussion, that is what aPhilosophy is.

Sounds like observation just using your "inner eye", or in another way you take your ability of focusing away from their connection with motor-control and focus on the pure stream of "information" to your mind.

If you do nothing, you won't focus, and you'll go from what you call "absorbing" into straight sleepiness, and you won't absorb a thing. So, you must focus, so there's at least one "action" you perform in this stance.

I sometimes use this stance to shift rapidly through information in my mind as to find something.

LoPhilosophy wrote:I have a conducive exercise for all of you that might show you what aphilosophy might be like. I learned this from one of my Great-Great grandmothers. Although, she may have had mental problems. Later, because I enjoy reading books and reading about the people who wrote them, I came upon a book called Faulkner: The Making of a Modernist, and I learned he used this technique to supplement his writing skills. Go anywhere or nowhere. You can go to a public place or you can sit in the private of your own home. And once you sit, stare straight ahead and become unfocused on one point with your eyes (I stare at an indeterminate space between me and a wall), while at the same time absorbing everything around you. Do not try, just do. People may come by and wave their hands in front of your face but ignore this if at all possible and let the world seep into you. If you're doing it right the hand in front of your face will become of no concern to your vision but you will see it anyway. This is also called zoning out, going blank, spacing out, ect...But the key is not to think but absorb. Maybe, and I haven't read this entire discussion, that is what aPhilosophy is.

Does this a philosophy have content?

lancek4 wrote:

LoPhilosophy wrote:I have a conducive exercise for all of you that might show you what aphilosophy might be like. I learned this from one of my Great-Great grandmothers. Although, she may have had mental problems. Later, because I enjoy reading books and reading about the people who wrote them, I came upon a book called Faulkner: The Making of a Modernist, and I learned he used this technique to supplement his writing skills. Go anywhere or nowhere. You can go to a public place or you can sit in the private of your own home. And once you sit, stare straight ahead and become unfocused on one point with your eyes (I stare at an indeterminate space between me and a wall), while at the same time absorbing everything around you. Do not try, just do. People may come by and wave their hands in front of your face but ignore this if at all possible and let the world seep into you. If you're doing it right the hand in front of your face will become of no concern to your vision but you will see it anyway. This is also called zoning out, going blank, spacing out, ect...But the key is not to think but absorb. Maybe, and I haven't read this entire discussion, that is what aPhilosophy is.

Does this a philosophy have content?

Surprisingly none. Even the most empty rant can be usually said to have some philosophical content. There is a little psychology maybe.
So an old ancestor of dubious mental capability recommends; "zoning out", supposedly supported by Faulkner to improve his writing, and this is supposed to represent aPhilosophy.

LoPhilosophy wrote:I have a conducive exercise for all of you that might show you what aphilosophy might be like. I learned this from one of my Great-Great grandmothers. Although, she may have had mental problems. Later, because I enjoy reading books and reading about the people who wrote them, I came upon a book called Faulkner: The Making of a Modernist, and I learned he used this technique to supplement his writing skills. Go anywhere or nowhere. You can go to a public place or you can sit in the private of your own home. And once you sit, stare straight ahead and become unfocused on one point with your eyes (I stare at an indeterminate space between me and a wall), while at the same time absorbing everything around you. Do not try, just do. People may come by and wave their hands in front of your face but ignore this if at all possible and let the world seep into you. If you're doing it right the hand in front of your face will become of no concern to your vision but you will see it anyway. This is also called zoning out, going blank, spacing out, ect...But the key is not to think but absorb. Maybe, and I haven't read this entire discussion, that is what aPhilosophy is.

The person who started the thread left the Forum when he realised that aphilosophy was meaningless.