Atheist opinion polls in America

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by -1- »

The only fanatic in our midst is taking over the extreme middle ground and claiming it for god.

If atheists are shallow, then fanatic theists are extremists. There is NO middle ground. Only a battle ground.

The observer looks at his own navel as he sits in his hovel and writes his own novel... without any vowel.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Fooloso4 »

DM:
Not only do I share many of Wittgenstein's ideas ...

I never gave much thought to Wittgenstein's philosophy, but because of him I decided to learn more about it. It took only 5 minutes of preliminary research to learn that his philosophy is mystical and therefore way beyond the grasp of many in this forum.

I intend to read much more and have already ordered some books. It's interesting stuff.
Is your assumption that you share many of Wittgenstein’s ideas based on your 5 minutes of preliminary research? I have read most of Wittgenstein and wrote my dissertation on him. I assure you he did not share many of your ideas.
Wittgenstein was known to storm out his classroom when students failed to grasp what he was saying or asked questions about what, to him, was self-evident.

In the same spirit of disgust, I will take leave from you.
Besides the obvious intellectual differences, the difference is that he was able to and did articulate and back his claims up. You simply say stuff and refuse to provide support.
Yeah, well, I thought it was appropriate since it was he who brought up Wittgenstein to suggest that a "ground" is not necessary for rational thought.
I brought up Wittgenstein because he clearly denies a "ground" is not necessary for rational thought. He is not alone. It is a common theme of contemporary philosophy.
Funny thing is, I have 9 translations of the Tao Te Ching on my computer, have read many more, and he's quoting it to me? The Tao is the ground he so vehemently denies.
I brought up the Daodejing in response to your claim about language and unity. It specifically denies that claim.

Greta:
Is the Tao the middle ground? I know very little about it but my impression is that it's an atheist philosophy rather than a theistic concept. Or is it perhaps more a matter of labels and "tribal" conceptual affiliations? Isn't acceptance of the Tao ultimately akin to deism?
There are various interpretations of the term and the texts of Taoism. Whether the texts are intentionally polysemic is an open question. Most scholars regard the text is a compilation which appears in somewhat different forms in different periods with multiple hands playing a part.. Some conflate the Dao and God and both terms are elastic enough to make them seem as if they are the same by those who are motivated to see it that way despite the fact that the classic text of Taoism explicitly warns against such conceptualization and labeling. I do not think that it is akin to deism. The Tao is not a supreme being.

-- Updated June 5th, 2017, 9:47 pm to add the following --

Consideration of the movement of a way involves three questions - from whence, to whence, and through or along which. Those who follow a mystical understanding may believe that the first two questions can be answered but others regard these as beyond us and the various statements regarding them as imaginative and speculative. Putting aside questions we may not be able to answer we can focus on the path or way of nature and attempt to live in accord with or do what is natural, to identify the way of man. This is the ‘de’ of the Dao - de - jing.

All of this might be considered way off topic, but I think it can serve as a corrective to those who see things simplistically in terms of theism versus atheism, with agnosticism as being undecided or uncommitted.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Dark Matter »

Greta wrote:Is the Tao the middle ground? I know very little about it but my impression is that it's an atheist philosophy rather than a theistic concept. Or is it perhaps more a matter of labels and "tribal" conceptual affiliations? Isn't acceptance of the Tao ultimately akin to deism?
One of the hard copy translations I have is titled The Middle Way.

Taoism is difficult to classify. Some people call Taoism pantheistic, but I've never heard of it being referred to as deistic although it's in the realm of possibility. One translation I read was translated by Christian monks who believed the word "God" could be substituted for "Tao."

Be that as it may, the Yin/Yang symbol for Taoism illustrates the very Principle I was talking about. Knowing this, I trust you can understand why I was taken aback by F4 quoting from the Tao Te Ching. Why quote from something whose symbol is the very thing you're denying?

-- Updated June 6th, 2017, 12:07 am to add the following --

25. THE CREATIVE PRINCIPLE OF TAO

The creative principle unifies
the inner and external worlds.
It does not depend on time or space,
is ever still and yet in motion;
thereby it creates all things,
and is therefore called
'the creative and the absolute';
its ebb and its flow extend to infinity.

We describe the Tao as being great;
we describe the universe as great;
nature too, we describe as great,
and man himself is great.

Man's laws should follow natural laws,
just as nature gives rise to physical laws,
whilst following from universal law,
which follows the Tao.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Sy Borg »

Fooloso4 wrote:
... I have 9 translations of the Tao Te Ching on my computer, have read many more, and he's quoting it to me? The Tao is the ground he so vehemently denies.
I brought up the Daodejing in response to your claim about language and unity. It specifically denies that claim. ...

Greta:
Is the Tao the middle ground? I know very little about it but my impression is that it's an atheist philosophy rather than a theistic concept. Or is it perhaps more a matter of labels and "tribal" conceptual affiliations? Isn't acceptance of the Tao ultimately akin to deism?
There are various interpretations of the term and the texts of Taoism. Whether the texts are intentionally polysemic is an open question. Most scholars regard the text is a compilation which appears in somewhat different forms in different periods with multiple hands playing a part.. Some conflate the Dao and God and both terms are elastic enough to make them seem as if they are the same by those who are motivated to see it that way despite the fact that the classic text of Taoism explicitly warns against such conceptualization and labeling. I do not think that it is akin to deism. The Tao is not a supreme being.

Consideration of the movement of a way involves three questions - from whence, to whence, and through or along which. Those who follow a mystical understanding may believe that the first two questions can be answered but others regard these as beyond us and the various statements regarding them as imaginative and speculative. Putting aside questions we may not be able to answer we can focus on the path or way of nature and attempt to live in accord with or do what is natural, to identify the way of man. This is the ‘de’ of the Dao - de - jing.

All of this might be considered way off topic, but I think it can serve as a corrective to those who see things simplistically in terms of theism versus atheism, with agnosticism as being undecided or uncommitted.
Dark Matter wrote:One of the hard copy translations I have is titled The Middle Way.

Taoism is difficult to classify. Some people call Taoism pantheistic, but I've never heard of it being referred to as deistic although it's in the realm of possibility. One translation I read was translated by Christian monks who believed the word "God" could be substituted for "Tao."

Be that as it may, the Yin/Yang symbol for Taoism illustrates the very Principle I was talking about. Knowing this, I trust you can understand why I was taken aback by F4 quoting from the Tao Te Ching. Why quote from something whose symbol is the very thing you're denying?
Thanks for the info, gents. Despite the disagreements (deliberate polysemy, as mentioned?) what I note is that each of you have obviously found aspects of the Tao to be especially compelling. What is it about the Tao that attracted you over some other equivalent materials?

In my "for dummies"-esque search, I find this, which rings a bell as something that's generally agreed and uncontroversial regarding the Tao:
... the core of Taoism is the Tao, which is often seen as beyond description. However, it is referred to as the origin of the universe and the basis of all by believers.
For theists, any such thing would clearly be God, with claims of ineffability also being claimed for "Yahweh" in ancient times. For atheists, that description fits the universe itself, since they will tend to see it as a self-causal evolving entity.

The descriptions always seem like having it both ways - more or less positing something whose description (or failure to describe) is thoroughly godlike, but the texts explicitly claim the Tao not to be a deity. I've heard the Tao described as a path, a direction through life. Again, the flavour seems more theistic than secular, which tends to figure that different people are suited to different paths. Some say the Tao is nothingness, which is again what some theists claim for God. Then again, the Tao as both God and not-God would suit the general yin-yang theme :)

Still, from Abrahamics, to atheists, to Buddhists to new agers - we all agree that reality is very big and very complicated, beyond our comprehension and to a fair extent we are at its mercy. The differences come when we consider the effable parts of the world and how to best traverse them - basically just transmission of cultural knowledge down the generations, stemming from ancient Greece, the Tao, Buddhism, Abrahamic traditions, and so forth.

But in the end it's personal, isn't it? Some people can live on nuts for a long time while others will not metabolise them as effectively, while some others are allergic. Similarly, it strikes me that there are fundamental differences between humans in the kinds of "soul food" they find nourishing, and this can change during the course of a life, I suppose, as our populations of bioflora can change. Some of the things Sagan much inspire me, while many aspects of the Abrahamic religions annoy me. For others it's the exact opposite. Who am I to say that Carl Sagan's wisdom should resonate with them? Then again, I enjoy peanuts and they may be allergic. The political sphere is the only one where I see an issue with these kinds of schisms, with differing preferences and degrees of knowledge and understanding.

-- Updated 06 Jun 2017, 00:04 to add the following --

Despite some quibbles, the basic tenets of Taoism do resonate, although that may be because it's all basically good common sense http://taorestore.org/taoism-explained/. In that sense Terry Pratchett's The Thief of Time comes to mind, where he wickedly and amusingly trivialises the Tao's (and other traditions') tendency towards practical commonsense with The Way of Mrs Cosmopolite wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/The_Way_of_Mr ... osmopilite :)
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Dark Matter »

Greta wrote: Thanks for the info, gents. Despite the disagreements (deliberate polysemy, as mentioned?) what I note is that each of you have obviously found aspects of the Tao to be especially compelling. What is it about the Tao that attracted you over some other equivalent materials?
The question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
The descriptions always seem like having it both ways - more or less positing something whose description (or failure to describe) is thoroughly godlike, but the texts explicitly claim the Tao not to be a deity.
And how many times have said God is not a being?
Some say the Tao is nothingness, which is again what some theists claim for God. Then again, the Tao as both God and not-God would suit the general yin-yang theme :)
Perhaps, but in any case it is the unifying Principle that transcends yet includes multiplicity.
Still, from Abrahamics, to atheists, to Buddhists to new agers - we all agree that reality is very big and very complicated, beyond our comprehension and to a fair extent we are at its mercy. The differences come when we consider the effable parts of the world and how to best traverse them - basically just transmission of cultural knowledge down the generations, stemming from ancient Greece, the Tao, Buddhism, Abrahamic traditions, and so forth.
Not necessarily. Divine simplicity implies a simplicity that's beyond comprehension

Here's the problem as I see it: "Mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality. Mind is unifying of all divergencies, but in the very absence of such divergencies, mind finds no basis upon which to attempt to formulate understanding concepts." (UB, emphasis mine)

Understanding concepts evolve in a dialectic manner: from the bottom up (secularism) and from the top down (religion).
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Eduk »

The dichotomy between the observer and the observed, if realized, presupposes and implies a unifying principle that transcends and yet includes both.
For 'In him we live and move and have our being';
When you say observer and observed I assume you are talking about out conscious subjective experience of an objective reality? I may be wrong here, so please correct?

There seems a difference, to my mind, in saying that consciousness inexplicably arising from objective reality to form a subjective opinion of itself therefore proves a unifying principle that transcends and includes both. And saying we live and move and have our being of God. The bible quote doesn't follow from your quote, it doesn't talk about subjective and objective experience and doesn't provide evidence for its own truth, it is just a statement.

The Bible quote is the unifying principle that you presuppose? but it does not itself lead to the presupposition.

So in short.
1. Unknown does not mean there must be anything.
2. Subjectivity and objectivity don't need to have a unifying principle. Subjectivity could be a special case of objectivity. I'm not saying it is by the way, I'm just saying it's unknown.
3. Even if you reasoned that there was a unifying principle, what is the unifying principle? Why is God the unifying principle? How does the undefined and unknown become defined and known?
4. What evidence is there that we have our being from God? Why is God the unifying principle?
5. If we did have our being of God the next obvious question is what does God have his being of? It's not enough to just say God is magic and doesn't need being, otherwise you can say the same of us.

-- Updated June 6th, 2017, 4:49 am to add the following --

6. I forgot the main thing I wanted to ask. Let's assume that you are 100% right. There is a unifying principle, that principle is God. Now the question is ok which God and why? Plus what conclusions do I draw from this knowledge. What actions should I logically take? In effect how does this knowledge effect my life?
Unknown means unknown.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Judaka »

Gertie
Values give shape to our desires, preferences, self-image and they give us dignity, achievement, kinship, status and so on; this is one reason why I think rational beings cannot exist without values, certainly rational thought cannot exist without some order to values that allows us to answer questions like the prison example I gave. Values are necessarily relative in what they give us, not only that some values must be superior to others but that behaviours, characteristics and so on are also superior to others.

Can you clarify by what you mean as superior here? What makes some values superior to others? Those that ''lead to happier and more productive people''? If so, I'd say my term ''quality of life'' means much the same thing.
(To clarify my ambiguous terminology
Relative Value/Values viewed relatively are potentially or necessarily comparative.
Relational Values are values/events that are experienced differently based on your position in a dichotomy eg. obligation, duty, charity, empathy, lecturing, courtship. So it can potentially or necessarily be advantageous for one at the expense of another.
Value Hierarchy refers to a view of what values are important/preferred versus which are not in although potentially general and not necessarily stated.)

What I am saying here is that values can revolve around differences and promote one side of a dichotomy as being good/desirable/flattering and the other as being bad/undesirable/unbecoming and this includes other values, physical characteristics and behaviours. Something like intelligence or beauty is necessarily relative because being intelligent requires superior intellect and even though all humans are intelligent relative to dogs that has no bearing on whether a human being is intelligent in the way we use the word. If society values high marks at school then this is necessarily relative because "high" means superior, if society valued good athletes this would be necessarily relative because good athletes need to be superior to other athletes not just good by some objective standard.

Values can also be VIEWED relatively, for example If society were to value philosophers over non-philosophers then this would become a relative value and there are consequences to a value being relative or independent. I believe that relative values have inherent advantages in that they allow for actions and behaviours that depend upon that superiority, to preach it and to use it socially and politically. The prison example shows that some decisions require that values be viewed in comparison to each other, "what is MOST important?" and this is required to make decisions and have views on certain topics. Relative values are important because they help us understand things, evaluate things and advance ourselves. A relative value is functionally different from an inherent worth value but you probably understand all this.

So relative values are important but there are psychological and practical disadvantages for those unable or unwilling to conform with a mutually agreed upon value hierarchy. This is apparent in values surrounding beauty or social skills in the West, where the moral weight of the value causes grief and hostility between peoples. We cannot control that people view values relatively and even when it comes to physical values they are measured relatively such as with weight, size, wealth, beauty, intelligence, strength and so on.

This seems like a contradiction? Won't individual interests inevitably have to be compromised? How do you reconcile this, in such an inter-dependent society?

I personally think we need some grounding ideas of Right and Wrong to cohere around as a basis for group living, and history suggests we'll always come up with something. My view is that we choose that something carefully, based on an understanding of how we work, and the sort of society we'd like to live in.
I have a disdain for ideologies that seek to establish value hierarchies partly due to the nature of relational and relative values and as I talked about previously but namely because people should not work towards ideals. I view values as means to an end and not ends in themselves but I don't think any one set of values will be advantageous for everyone. People think differently and have different circumstances and values should be tailored for their experience and as a society we should aim to promote positive outcomes irrespective of method. I think we can agree in a communal sense that certain outcomes are beneficial for all and these can include; safety, equal opportunity, freedom, liberty, economic wealth, protection for vulnerable members of society, improved education, healthcare, roads etc. Similarly there are certain outcomes beneficial for individuals like high self-esteem, low stress, low anxiety, self-confidence, happiness, success in their endeavours and the like and one might hope that through research we can identify values and behaviours that help us attain these aforementioned outcomes and promote belief and practice in them. There are many reasons for me why this view is flawed and relational and relative values are just one example. Values need to be tailored for the individual, we should be focusing on what values are used for rather than what results they produce (although both are important) because no value hierarchy will offer equally to all. Individual interests will be compromised but every individual should pursue individual interest - altruism, value worship and group mentality are all toxic and destructive in my view. I have already spoken about how compromise shall take place.
Nothing should transcend personal interest; groups, values, politics for which empirical benefit is transcended by something else - that's where the danger starts. Compromises will have to be made as laws/regulations/rules will affect many individuals and I define empirical benefit as including emotional and psychological benefit so when it comes to deciding between e.g closure for victims vs rehabilitation, I think that all we can do is try to address situations so that all parties can have as close to what it is they desire while also trying to solve those problems independently. For example finding ways of offering closure to victims that do not conflict with the shorter sentences that increase likelihood of rehabilitation and reduce recidivism.
To expand on that, I think that compromise is not a rational middle ground but basically the middle ground that we can agree upon. If I take my value in liberty and one takes their value of censorship and we split it half-way, the result is not the most rational and it might not even make sense but if neither will acquiesce their position then nothing else can be done about it. All we can do is try to solve problems in a way that the most people can accept and so in my view that means finding solutions to problems that avoid the point of contention. We get as much of what people want and limit what people don't want wherever possible and where that isn't possible a culture war will occur and eventually one side will win. None of this costs the individual their ability to pursue their own advancement and there is no paradox. It is more paradoxical to believe that everyone can have what they want by finding out the best answers when there will never be anything that is the best option for everyone.

The law does need to be perfected and there should still be social consequences for unpopular behaviour but the way something is thought of by the individual should be decided by the individual.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Fooloso4 »

Greta:
What is it about the Tao that attracted you over some other equivalent materials?
I am more attracted to the Zhuangzi than to the Daodejing. It is baffling and funny. It is populated by creatures who each see things from their own perspective - those whose lifetime is but a day and those that live hundreds of years, those that live below the surface of the water and those that soar through the skies, those that are miniscule and those that are enormous. And then there are the stories of transformation from thing to another. All of this informs a notion of self-transformation.

With regard to the Daodejing In am attracted to the notion of “extreme tenuousness”. It eschews all forms of absolutism. It is a form of skepticism - an acknowledgement of our ignorance, that we are but one of Zhuangzi’s creatures.

I am also attracted to the concept of wu-wei. What this means is illustrated by Zhuangzi’s story of the butcher Ding, a story which is introduced as an example of how to care for life. Through prolonged effort he has learned to move without effort and does not need to sharpen his knife because he does not hack but can see and guides his knife along the spaces between the joints of the oxen. In addition to his physical skills that no longer require conscious effort or deliberation, there is the ability to identify the natural divisions between things and to act in accordance with them rather than forcing one’s way.

I think it is illuminating to look at the Way in light of the question of stasis and flux, the fixed and changing, permanence and impermanence. On my reading the Dao is thoroughly and completely naturalistic. The understanding of it is guided by heaven and earth, the movement of the stars and movement of the seasons. They are unchanging in their changing, that is, their movement follows an unchanging pattern. Man holds no special place. Man is out of place to the extent that he no longer acts in accord with natural as he did in the mythological golden age. He has displaced himself both in terms of his conceptual constructs and his physical constructs.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by -1- »

Fooloso4 wrote: I think it is illuminating to look at the Way in light of the question of stasis and flux, the fixed and changing, permanence and impermanence. On my reading the Dao is thoroughly and completely naturalistic. The understanding of it is guided by heaven and earth, the movement of the stars and movement of the seasons. They are unchanging in their changing, that is, their movement follows an unchanging pattern. Man holds no special place. Man is out of place to the extent that he no longer acts in accord with natural as he did in the mythological golden age. He has displaced himself both in terms of his conceptual constructs and his physical constructs.
I think there is only one wisdom, although knowledge is manifold and ever-expanding. Wisdom is limited. Everyone acquires the same wisdom if they live long enough. Some like to read about other's wisdom, or learn from it, or else to seek and find justification for their own ideas.

We are all humans who have come off the same evolutionary tree, and our travel through life to gain wisdom is rather similar to each other's.

The Ding and Dao of Tao is depicted in the same way by ancient Greek philosophers, by Jesus, by Montezuma, by Thor, by the Niebelungenlieder, by Rasputin and his Russian folk tales, by Thomas Mann, by Ngambele Undeglanda, by the great Manido... there is nothing ever new under the sun.

There will be new stuff when the new macroevolutonary step steps on mankind... still hasn't happened. We are still the hunger-gatherers on the African Savannah in our value judgements and in our behavioural codes.

My favourite philosophers are Winnie-the-Pooh, Huckleberry Finn, and Edie Brickell. They were just as smart and insightful as any Socrates, Aritstotle, or Kant or Heidegger that there is out there.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Fooloso4 »

-1-

My favourite philosophers are Winnie-the-Pooh, Huckleberry Finn, and Edie Brickell. They were just as smart and insightful as any Socrates, Aritstotle, or Kant or Heidegger that there is out there.

Perhaps we can agree that Edie Brickell sings better then the lot of them.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Fanman »

DM,
Fanman, if you ever wanted proof, or at least a strong indication that atheism tends to be shallow and superficial, this is it:
Firstly, I think its vague and rather insulting to refer to others as being "shallow and superficial." Furthermore, it seems like a fallacy to label an entire group of people as being anything based upon what they believe or do not believe other than what their title/preference implies. With statements such as this, you only give your detractors good reason to criticise what you say. The only thing you can say about atheism for sure, is that atheists don't believe that God exists, and there's nothing wrong with that. You have to bear in mind that you are defining people and people differentiate in many ways and have many layers/levels of contemplation. An educated person such as yourself should recognise this and not be making blanket value judgements/statements. How would you argue philosophically for such a statement?
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Eduk »

In my opinion even the group of all shallow people (imagine it were possible to quantify) would still not be a group I would dismiss as shallow. Better to say they are currently shallow and many are likely underachieving and capable of much more. Of course some of them are capable of less, so there would be a group of currently shallow people will low potential for unshallowness. Even this group I would not be happy to dismiss as, for example, you could be shallow but a loving, kind, beautiful person (who knows).
Unknown means unknown.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Dark Matter »

Fanman wrote: How would you argue philosophically for such a statement?
"Men are taller than women" does not mean all men are taller than all women.

-- Updated June 6th, 2017, 5:43 pm to add the following --

How many times has it been said in this forum that that people turn to religion out of fear of death? I that okay in your book?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Sy Borg »

Fooloso4 wrote:Greta:
What is it about the Tao that attracted you over some other equivalent materials?
I am more attracted to the Zhuangzi than to the Daodejing. It is baffling and funny. It is populated by creatures who each see things from their own perspective - those whose lifetime is but a day and those that live hundreds of years, those that live below the surface of the water and those that soar through the skies, those that are miniscule and those that are enormous. And then there are the stories of transformation from thing to another. All of this informs a notion of self-transformation.

With regard to the Daodejing In am attracted to the notion of “extreme tenuousness”. It eschews all forms of absolutism. It is a form of skepticism - an acknowledgement of our ignorance, that we are but one of Zhuangzi’s creatures.
I see the attraction - a metaphysical (and metaphorical) anthropomorphised ecosystem. A little reminiscent of Jung's archetypes. How accurate Jung's are is open to question. I personally find it centering to consider archetypes and group dynamics - the dominants, the second tier, the average, the dominated wimps, and the conduits. Populations, both biological and geological, inevitably form these divisions (noting that this is just one angle) - from human society to proto-planetary discs.
Fooloso4 wrote:The understanding of it is guided by heaven and earth, the movement of the stars and movement of the seasons. They are unchanging in their changing, that is, their movement follows an unchanging pattern. Man holds no special place. Man is out of place to the extent that he no longer acts in accord with natural as he did in the mythological golden age. He has displaced himself both in terms of his conceptual constructs and his physical constructs.
Humans often either overplay or downplay their importance. We are undoubtedly the most important thing in space for as far as our eyes can see, which may only be a tiny portion of the galaxy but it does extend for trillions of kms. This is not chest beating. When the dinosaurs ruled, they were the most aware, complex and interesting things for trillions of kms. Now it's us.

Yet again, another ancient text thinking humans to be out of place in nature. I am surprised more people don't consider the relationship between humans and the rest of the biosphere and imaginal discs in a metamorphosing insect. Imaginal discs decimate all the other organs and viscera of the insect until there is only imaginal cells and mush (resources). They then construct the adult insect body parts from the mush and the result is a sexually mature adult.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Dark Matter »

With regard to the Daodejing In am attracted to the notion of “extreme tenuousness”. It eschews all forms of absolutism.
I hope no one is buying this nonsense, as the Tao itself is changelessness in the presence of change.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021