Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on September 05, 2017, 06:17:40 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Probably the oldest existing philosophy in the world is an atheist philosophy. It is the Samkhya which is said to have originated in India during the Indus Valley period (about 2500 BCE) well before the Vedic period (1700 BCE).
According to this philosophy there are two basic realities...Purusha (Consciousness/Self) and Prakriti (Nature). Purusha is trapped in Prakriti or Consciousness is trapped in Nature....and seeks to become free (Mukt).
Nature has its own realities which are ...Mahat (Intelligence) , Ahamkar (Ego) and Manas (Mind). There is a hierarchy with Intelligence being above Ego and the mind. The Ego controls the mind. The Mind in turn controls the brain and the means of knowledge (Jnana Indriyas) or the senses and the means of action (karma indryas) such as hands, legs, mouth, excretory organs.
Nature works independently on its own while Consciousness gently guides its working in such a way that it can become free. Some schools of Samkhya think of the Purusha (Self) as individual beings. Some schools think of them as parts of a single common Purusha. In this philosophy there is no God even though it is not materialistic.
Subsequent teachers like Mahavira and Buddha basically followed the Samkhya school.
For information.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
So lets list the tenets of the atheist philosophy:
1. A lack of belief in gods
2. er
-
There is no such thing as atheist philosophy.
There is no such thing as atheist train spotting, or atheist stamp collecting, or, well you get the point.
-
Perhaps he means a philosophy which excludes the notion of a god.
-
So lets list the tenets of the atheist philosophy:
1. A lack of belief in gods
2. er
Logic dodging!
Why? because point 1 can include people who believe there are no Gods.
If it is a credible position it would be in people who had never heard of God or gods.
-
Logic dodging!
Why? because point 1 can include people who believe there are no Gods.
If it is a credible position it would be in people who had never heard of God or gods.
Atheism simply means not believing a god exists.
If someone believes a god does not exist, then of course they are in that group as well.
-
Atheism simply means not believing a god exists.
If someone believes a god does not exist, then of course they are in that group as well.
Atheist philosophy is a philosophy that is not based on a belief in a God. Samkhya is one, Jainism and Buddhism are offshoots. They all are spiritual philosophies nonetheless.
-
Atheist philosophy is a philosophy that is not based on a belief in a God. Samkhya is one, Jainism and Buddhism are offshoots. They all are spiritual philosophies nonetheless.
So going down that rabbit hole means there are an infinite number of atheist philosophies.
preferring VW Beetles is therefore an atheist philosophy as no god is involved.
-
Atheists don't have a philosophy, you either believe or you don't believe, imo.
-
Atheists don't have a philosophy, you either believe of you don't believe, imo.
*Pedant Alert*
Not quite correct. I'm sure many atheists have a philosophy - it's just not an atheist philosophy.
-
The atheist condition can be due to having absolutely no conception of God or gods, this is tricky because a sense of something greater is often given as evidence of the divine.
Or it can be that there is no evidence/grounds which unfortunately is itself a philosophy.
Or it is a choice to act as if there are no gods which ,to be rational has to be philosophically grounded. Or it is a conviction that there are no gods.
-
........ this is tricky because a sense of something greater is often given as evidence of the divine
Don't understand what you mean there.
-
The atheist condition can be due to having absolutely no conception of God or gods, this is tricky because a sense of something greater is often given as evidence of the divine.
Or it can be that there is no evidence/grounds which unfortunately is itself a philosophy.
Or it is a choice to act as if there are no gods which ,to be rational has to be philosophically grounded. Or it is a conviction that there are no gods.
It is just the none belief in a god.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It's really simple to understand.
-
So going down that rabbit hole means there are an infinite number of atheist philosophies.
preferring VW Beetles is therefore an atheist philosophy as no god is involved.
But as any theist might tell you without the creation there would be no VW Beetles.
-
Atheists don't have a philosophy, you either believe of you don't believe, imo.
When I talk of an Atheist philosophy I don't mean a philosophy common to all atheists. I am referring to philosophies that are basically atheistic ie. without any God.
-
When I talk of an Atheist philosophy I don't mean a philosophy common to all atheists. I am referring to philosophies that are basically atheistic ie. without any God.
Strictly true but so broad as to be useless, surely.
-
It is just the none belief in a god.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It's really simple to understand.
It's as meaningful and as logically conclusive as Richard Dawkins posing in front of a full length mirror singing ''i'm simply the best''
-
It's as meaningful and as logically conclusive as Richard Dawkins posing in front of a full length mirror singing ''i'm simply the best''
Which in turn is as meaningful and logically conclusive as Aled Joes posing in front of a full length mirror singing "I'm Walking in the Air".
WTF are they putting in your water?
-
Talking about philosophies without any God becomes an empty phrase, as others have said. For example, the philosophy of mathematics, as far as I can see, contains no reference to God, but it seems odd to describe it as an atheist philosophy. I suppose haute cuisine is pretty atheistic as well. And train-spotting, the horror, the horror.
-
I am guessing he wanted to give us some information on a Hindu philosophy related to metaphysics that does not include a god.
-
I am guessing he wanted to give us some information on a Hindu philosophy related to metaphysics that does not include a god.
Yes....that's right. There are many ancient spiritual philosophies that don't include a God. Samkhya is one, Jainism and Buddhism are others. Taoism is another.
I am not talking of materialistic philosophies here.
-
There is no such thing as atheist philosophy.
There is no such thing as atheist train spotting, or atheist stamp collecting, or, well you get the point.
Any philosophy without gods is an atheist philosophy.
-
Strictly true but so broad as to be useless, surely.
No.
For historical reasons, the distinction between atheist philosophies and thesis philosophies is useful. If nothing else, it tells us whether the proponents of the philosophy have started out by making a huge unwarranted assumption.
-
There is no such thing as atheist philosophy.
There is no such thing as atheist train spotting, or atheist stamp collecting, or, well you get the point.
I think a better term is non theist philosophy - in other words a philosophy not based on the notion of a deity.
-
I think a better term is non theist philosophy - in other words a philosophy not based on the notion of a deity.
What's the difference between a non-theist and an atheist philosophy?
If we call something a theist philosophy, I don't think anyone is assuming that the philosophy is shared by all theists?
What's your reasoning behind Samkhya falling into the non-theist philosophy category and not the atheist philosophy category?
-
What's the difference between a non-theist and an atheist philosophy?
A non theist philosophy would not require god, but would be silent of whether or not god exists. There are tons of them, from Kant's categorical imperative to the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, to the humanist Golden Rule to virtue ethics. None of these require god, but none preclude god necessarily.
An atheist philosophy would be one that requires the non existence of god - I can't think of any.
If we call something a theist philosophy, I don't think anyone is assuming that the philosophy is shared by all theists?
I agree and I never said it did. However a theist philosophy must be predicated on the assumption of the existence of a god or gods - and each theist philosophy may be based on assumption of existence of different gods.
What's your reasoning behind Samkhya falling into the non-theist philosophy category and not the atheist philosophy category?
See above - because the philosophy does not require god, but makes no assumption that god doesn't exist. And of course because there is no category of 'atheist philosophy'.
-
I think a better term is non theist philosophy - in other words a philosophy not based on the notion of a deity.
Actually thinking about it further I think there is a better term:
Philosophy
There is no need to qualify it - to feel the need to qualify a philosophy because it isn't religious or theistic is to give a biased impression somehow that philosophy is about religion or deities.
-
A non theist philosophy would not require god, but would be silent of whether or not god exists. There are tons of them, from Kant's categorical imperative to the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, to the humanist Golden Rule to virtue ethics. None of these require god, but none preclude god necessarily.
An atheist philosophy would be one that requires the non existence of god - I can't think of any.
No, the atheist position is a lack of belief in gods and within that group are atheists who will make the claim that gods do not exist.
A philosophy on metaphysics or the nature and purpose of the universe that does not include gods as being part of that explanation can therefore be called an atheist philosophy because the basis of theism is the belief that god is part of the explanation for the nature and purpose of the universe. You can call it non-theist if you prefer but it makes sense to call it an atheist philosophy or a non-theist philosophy.
-
Actually thinking about it further I think there is a better term:
Philosophy
There is no need to qualify it - to feel the need to qualify a philosophy because it isn't religious or theistic is to give a biased impression somehow that philosophy is about religion or deities.
That doesn't make sense or rather you are wrong. Philosophies cover lots of different ideas so to narrow down the scope in describing this philosophy to be about the nature and purpose of the universe without involving gods as part of the explanation is valid. Clearly people do have a need to qualify philosophies, otherwise people would not qualify them in books and articles. That you don't want to qualify them is just your personal preference.
Sriram's opening sentence was "Probably the oldest existing philosophy in the world is an atheist philosophy".
Therefore it's pointless to say that "Probably the oldest existing philosophy in the world is a philosophy."
-
Clearly there are atheist philosophies, just as there are theist ones, but I am unaware of a philosophy of atheism.
-
Clearly there are atheist philosophies, just as there are theist ones, but I am unaware of a philosophy of atheism.
Then how is the position justified?
-
Clearly there are atheist philosophies, just as there are theist ones, but I am unaware of a philosophy of atheism.
I am unaware of a philosophy of atheism but there could be one. Possibly theism is about a belief in an intended overarching purpose and meaning to existence . Do some atheists believe in an overarching purpose to existence but it does not include gods, or does a lack of belief in gods include a lack of belief in some intended purpose because there is no belief in anything that could have an intention?
If posters know of any atheists who do believe in an *intended purpose to existence - anyone got any links?
* ETA intended
-
I'm not sure about purpose, but there are certainly atheists who argue that consciousness is part of the universe, so that there is both matter and mind. Prime example is Thomas Nagel, in his recent book 'Mind and Cosmos'. You would think that if you accept mind as a basic element, then mind would have intentions, but I will have to check Nagel. Of course, not all atheists are materialists or physicalists.
I think Nagel says that there may be a 'teleological principle' in the universe; well, I am no wiser, as I don't really know what means.
-
That doesn't make sense or rather you are wrong. Philosophies cover lots of different ideas so to narrow down the scope in describing this philosophy to be about the nature and purpose of the universe without involving gods as part of the explanation is valid. Clearly people do have a need to qualify philosophies, otherwise people would not qualify them in books and articles. That you don't want to qualify them is just your personal preference.
Sriram's opening sentence was "Probably the oldest existing philosophy in the world is an atheist philosophy".
Therefore it's pointless to say that "Probably the oldest existing philosophy in the world is a philosophy."
But the notion of qualifying philosophies is on the basis of what they are, not what they aren't.
So we talk about Western philosophy, Middle Eastern philosophy, Buddhist philosophy etc but we don't describe Western philosophy as non-Eastern philosophy or even a-Eastern philosophy. To do so would imply that philosophy is really something associated with the East and therefore anything not from the East needed to be qualified.
Regarding Siriam's original quote, it would simply be rephrased as:
"Probably the oldest existing philosophy in the world was not a theist philosophy"
-
An atheist philosophy would be one that requires the non existence of god - I can't think of any.
No I disagree. That would be an antitheistic philosophy.
-
But the notion of qualifying philosophies is on the basis of what they are, not what they aren't.
So we talk about Western philosophy, Middle Eastern philosophy, Buddhist philosophy etc but we don't describe Western philosophy as non-Eastern philosophy or even a-Eastern philosophy. To do so would imply that philosophy is really something associated with the East and therefore anything not from the East needed to be qualified.
Regarding Siriam's original quote, it would simply be rephrased as:
"Probably the oldest existing philosophy in the world was not a theist philosophy"
If someone described a metaphysical philosophy that requires a lack of belief in gods as an atheist philosophy, I would understand the point being made and it sounds perfectly acceptable to describe it that way. Like I said, it comes down to a personal preference - you clearly prefer non-theist - whereas I did not mind if the philosophy was described as atheist or non-theist - as I was more interested in reading the explanation of the philosophy.