I haven’t given this much thought, but I would pressume it to be ignorance in its purest form. However I am curious as to what other people would think of when they bring the theoretical concept of anti-philosophy in their minds.
Is there such a thing as anti-philosophy?
If so, what do you think it is?
being set in one’s ways, even though one knows they are crooked… [ chosen ignorance ]
The idea of anti-philosophy is self-refuting.
Basically, you are saying you don’t believe in philosophy, which is clearly a philosophy.
Of course, relativists wouldn’t agree with me, actually they would AND they wouldn’t at the same time in the same respect…LOL sorry just had to add that.
…but that could be anyone… Does not everyone have a “set way” they choose to live by? Does not everyone have a philosophy?
The reason I brought this up was to refute the idea that for all things, there are opposites…this is as someone would say, for all things that are good, there is an equally opposite bad.
Could it be that to be anti-philosophical is to have no way of living at all? Would that then constitute being dead? If the concept of anti-philosophy is non-existent, then does that not prove that not all things have opposites?
Hi Sagesound.
Antiphilosophy is basically a philosophy (ironic, isn’t it?) which has given up any attempt to find rational basis on philosophical subjects. Antiphilosophy has also been categorized under radical philosophy, where one’s own ideas lead the individual, instead of the individual leading ideas.
By using the word anti you are denotating “against”–“against philosophy”, so of course, there is an opposite of philosophy. In actuality, if you were to look at it from that perspective, wouldn’t most philosophical concepts be --anti-- each other?
But your connotation suggests something else. Antiphilosophy can basically be someone living life without contemplating on knowledge, truth, values, politics, religion, etc Radical philosophy would also be antiphilosophy, since radicalism implies negativity. In 98% of cases, philosophy is not meant to bring about negative radicalism.
Opposites as a notion only materialises when a “line” is drawn. Then things on opposite sides of the lines are opposites. For example it may seems meaningless to ask what is the opposite of the colour red, unless we define the notion of complementarity. Then the opposite of red is green. So what is this reference concept you have in mind, perhaps unconsciously, when you use the term “anti-philosophy”, if you want to think of “anti-philosophy” as the “opposite” to philosophy?
Is it rationality as this defining reference line? If so then anti-philosophy is a philosophy that is irrational, ie not based on reasons, and depends on things such as feelings, mysticism, and logic, consistency or non-contradiction are irrelevant notions therein.
I would say that someone who is completely “anti-philosophy” is a complete relativist that thinks there is no such thing as accountability.
I have to agree with She[size=59]TM[/size]. The most un-philosophical position, the most counter-thoughtful “idea” is willful ignorance - one has plenty of evidence that one’s notions are horseshit but one still clings to them, whether out of “faith” or some misguided ideal of “stubbornness.”
Ade - would you please define “accountability?” I’ve seen nothing to make me think there’s any “objective” truth, and so I don’t seek to impose my standards on others (except pragmatically, e.g. no murdering allowed - otherwise we could not have any kind of stable society), and resent it when others impose their non-pragmatic standards on me.
I’m a strong believer in the Socratic method, and that man has a built in sense of right and wrong.
When that sense is not perverted by relativism, man is supposed to feel a gnawing guilt when he does something wrong.
People trick their brains into forgetting about this built by repeatedly telling themselves that everything is relative.
I would be willing to delve deeper to show you why I think this way if you don’t find it sufficient.
i for one think religion is the anti philosophy. not teology mind you
…an interesting notion there Zeno…
Please do.
I don’t see where the sense of gnawing guilt you describe is supposed to come from. I don’t feel bad when I screw up or harm people because I’m supposed to, I feel bad because I take responsibility for my actions. Not all of my actions which some would say harm people actually harm them, and so I don’t feel bad over those actions. If I should, then by whose authority and why am I mistaken?
Yes, it’s called Ayn Rand.
But isn’t religion built on some form of philosophy, or a group of philosophies? Or is it anti-philosophy because there are people in religious groups who fight against peoples with different philosophies?
I do not think there is such a thing as “anti-philosophy,” being against something for a reason is still in my opwn opinion a philosophy, or a belief.
There is a difference between ‘a’ philosophy and philosophy ‘itself’. Maybe what you meant to ask was, “what is anti-the-philosophy-of-____?” – and then you forgot to fill in the blank (which philosophy)…
As we all know, the term philosophy literally translates to the love of wisdom. Taken like this, when you ask what is against-philosophy, I’d have to answer: idiocy. Dormant or murdered reason. If you love and respect wisdom, you’re more apt to love life. If you love and respect life, you’re more apt to prosper. To reject or go against this root of the large tree of philosophic thought, that has managed to grow over the ages, is to summon death. Sometimes it’s not evens one’s choice to reject it, they haven’t the capability.
A well-spoken perspective on the topic! I thank you for your input, which once more helps to define anti-philosophy as a state of ignorance.
Would you all just go to the top of the page and tell me who is that at the far left?
THAT is anti-philosophy.
I think you were right to begin with. Ignorance and dogma are anti-philosophy.
“For once I don’t want to know too much. Wisdom sets limits to knowledge too.”- Nietzsche