0
   

Philosophy of Zero

 
 
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2006 09:11 pm
If you have no philosophy at all, is that in itself a philosophy?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,290 • Replies: 40
No top replies

 
Greyfan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 06:14 am
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.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 10:57 am
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.
0 Replies
 
RoyalesThaRula
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 03:19 pm
doktor im sorry to say but id say the absence of something does constitute something. 0 is still a number.
0 Replies
 
Mandso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 01:50 am
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 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 02:20 am
RoyalesThaRula wrote:
doktor im sorry to say but id say the absence of something does constitute something. 0 is still a number.
0 is not a number the normal sense of the word. It's actually place holder.
0 Replies
 
crayon851
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 07:44 am
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.
0 Replies
 
RoyalesThaRula
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 03:20 pm
yin and yang man
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 05:20 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2006 11:43 pm
Thanks fresco.
0 Replies
 
Armageddon
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 11:32 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 12:49 am
Apathist

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Armageddon
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 01:04 am
It's a fun word to say. Among others.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 02:02 am
More fun words please........
0 Replies
 
Armageddon
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 09:23 am
Oglethorpe (oh-gul-thorp), thwart...


I'll have to get back to you. I made a list... somewhere (out of sheer boredom)
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 08:06 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 04:34 pm
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 12:41 am
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.
0 Replies
 
extra medium
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 01:58 am
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."
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 07:33 am
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.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Philosophy of Zero
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 10:52:36