Philosophy of Zero

My gut reaction was yes.

But on the other hand, if you have no religion at all, is that a religion?

Now I am firmly undecided.

No.
The absence of something does not constitute something

I am reminded of the old apologetic argument that atheism is in fact a belief. The law of non contradiction quickly squashes this argument.

doktor im sorry to say but id say the absence of something does constitute something. 0 is still a number.

i think it is a philosophy if you have no philosophy (but i'm not sure if you can have no philosophy...?)
But i don't think the the religion one applies - because one thing means another doesn't mean it applies for another situation

0 is not a number the normal sense of the word. It's actually place holder.

Could you please further explain how the absence of nothing does not constitute something?

With your question, are you referring to the inexistence of philosophy or the disbelief in philosophy? In my opinion, those are two very different things.

yin and yang man

There are at least four different things going on here.

!. An implied discussion of the "nature of philosophy which literally means "love of wisdom". On this point the answer to the question is no.

2. A comparison of "lack of philosophy" with "atheism" and whether the latter constitutes another "belief". My opinion is that it does not.

3. Discussion of the concept of "zero" which has mathematical implications irrelevant to this topic.

4. An ontological discussion of the word "thing". If a "thing" has "existence" then the "absence of a thing" is contingent on the prior existence of the thing itself. The implication here is that philosophy exists but is shunned by the questioner.

Thanks fresco.

The lack of philosophy would be due to apathy. Therefore, you would not have a lack of philosophy, but be an apathist.

Though the lack of something does not constitute something, you have to lack it first. This isn't the question here.

Apathist

It's a fun word to say. Among others.

More fun words please........

Oglethorpe (oh-gul-thorp), thwart...


I'll have to get back to you. I made a list... somewhere (out of sheer boredom)

I sometimes philosophize which is to say I do entertain philosophical notions, but I'm not sure that they coalesce into an unitary philosophical thing that can be present or absent. In other words, I find the issue non-sensical.

I once asked a philosophy professor "What is philosophy about?" He said philosophy is "radically critical self-consciousness". This was 35 years ago. Only in the last five years have I begun to understand that statement

I took a number of courses in philosophy three decades ago but it was not until I began to study and understand Critical Thinking that I began to understand what "radically critical self-consciousness" meant.

I consider CT to be ?'philosophy light'. CT differs from other subject matter such as mathematics and geography in that it requires, for success, that the student develop a significant change in attitude.

Anyone who has been in military service recognizes the significant attitude adjustment introduced into all recruits in the eight weeks of boot camp. During the first eight weeks of military service each recruit is introduced to the proper military attitude. During the eight weeks of basic training there is certain knowledge and skills that the recruit learns but primarily s/he undergoes a significant attitude adjustment.

I would identify the CT attitude adjustment to be a movement from naïve common sense realism to critical self-consciousness. It is necessary to free many words and concepts from the limited meaning attached by normal usage?-such a separation requires that the learner hold in abeyance the normal sort of concept associations.

The individual who has made the attitude adjustment recognizes that reality is multilayered and that one can only penetrate those layers through a critical attitude toward both the self and the world. To be critical does not mean to be negative, as is a common misunderstanding.

If we were to follow the cat and the turtle as they make their way through the forest we would observe two fundamentally different ways that a creature might make its way through life.

The turtle withdraws into its shell when it bumps into something new, and remains such until that something new disappears or remains long enough to become familiar to the turtle. The cat is conscious of almost everything within the range of its senses, and studies all it perceives until its curiosity is satisfied.

Formal education teaches by telling so that the graduate is prepared with a sufficient database to get a job. Such an education efficiently prepares one to make a living, but this efficiency is at the cost of curiosity and imagination. Such an education does not prepare an individual to become critically self-conscious.

If we wish to emulate the cat rather than the turtle we must revitalize our curiosity and imagination after formal education. That revitalized curiosity and imagination, together with self directed study prepares each of us for a fulfilling life that includes the ecstasy of understanding.

I think that radically critical self-consciousness combines the attitude adjustment of CT and combines it with the curiosity of the cat and then takes that combination to a radical level.

A good place to begin CT is: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

coberst,

Regarding your citation of Russell...

......"Russell's Paradox" has some bearing on the wording(logical form) of this thread...
"If you have no philosophy at all, is that in itself a philosophy?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/

.... But as far as "philosophy" as an implied modus vivendi goes, if you now consider yourself a "critical thinker" perhaps you should also read Ray Monk's biography of Russell which describes Russell's seduction of his (Russell's) son's wife.

Nihilism came to my mind as a possible answer to the question I posed. But I would say nihilism is not quite "no philosophy." It seems to not quite be a satisfactory answer to the question.

Side note: The Title I chose "Philosophy of Zero" is a bit misleading. I wasn't really asking about Zero and all the philosophy around that concept.

I meant to ask more along the lines of the actual question I posed in the first post: If you claim to have no philosophy, is that in itself a philosophy?

One take on nihilsim, from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with antifoundationalism."

I think if you can give a name to it, it's a philosophy.

I think everyone has a philosophy, by the fact they are conscious.

It might not be well developed, but it's there.