| Author |
Message |
Scott T. Jensen
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
"David" <david@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Scott T. Jensen <stj@charter.net> wrote:
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
Anyone know of such a label?
After posting my original post and replying to david56's reply, I
retired to bed and laid awake wondering what could be the label.
I've done this before and come up with different labels. Tonight,
I thought, "Well, such individuals would say we're just animals.
Hmmm. What about 'animalist'?" I got up, used dictionary.com,
and there it was.
Ah! You mean like Rudyard Kipling, A. A. Milne, and David
Shepherd?
|
Sorry, I don't follow you. Please explain.
Scott Jensen
--
Got a business question, problem, or dream?
Discuss it with the professionals that hang out at...
misc.business.consulting, misc.business.marketing.moderated
misc.business.moderated, and misc.entrepreneurs.moderated
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Scott T. Jensen
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
"Michael DeBusk" <m_debusk@despammed.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Scott T. Jensen <stj@charter.net> wrote:
What do you then call someone who knows they're just
an animal and that when they die, that's it?
I'd want to know how they know.
|
I think they would state simply that all verifiable facts support such a
view and no verifiable facts contradicts such a view.
| Quote: | Belief-wise, though, as opposed to knowledge-wise:
|
Probably along the same lines that they know there isn't a Santa Claus. To
them, it isn't a matter of belief but simply an acceptance of facts.
Scott Jensen
--
Got a business question, problem, or dream?
Discuss it with the professionals that hang out at...
misc.business.consulting, misc.business.marketing.moderated
misc.business.moderated, and misc.entrepreneurs.moderated |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott T. Jensen
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
"John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Scott T. Jensen wrote:
Atheists are ones that believe there's no god(s), but may believe
there's a life after death, reincarnation, cosmic existence, or such.
Agnostics are ones that don't know if there is or isn't a life after
death, that it is unobtainable information, and are not taking a
stand either way.
What do you then call someone who knows they're just an animal
and that when they die, that's it? I'm looking for a formal term for
such a person and one separate from the above two.
I've posted the above to talk.philosophy.misc newsgroup and they
didn't know of a label for such an individual. They whipped up a
couple, but that was their own inventions.
Anyone know of such a label?
I think 'Humanist' is the nearest. There are problems in that the term
'humanism' is employed in different ways by different people. But the
formal organisation most commonly going under the title 'Humanist
Society' is based around the idea that religions and / or concepts of
afterlife are not relevant issues to our understanding of ourselves and
don't offer solutions to our problems.
|
This sounds more like an agnostic.
| Quote: | But there's a complication in that Humanism isn't a narrowly defined
dogma. You might follow a religion but still be a humanist. 'Secularist'
is also pretty close to the idea.
|
I view a secularism as a political stance that wants church and state to be
kept separate. It doesn't seem to make any clear statement about gods
and/or an afterlife.
| Quote: | Of course, in your own eyes (and in mine) you are best defined as a
'realist' but only those who share your views would agree that is the
perfect term.
|
Yes, I've used that before in discussions. However, as far as established
English goes, realist is more along the lines of pragmatist when it comes to
established definitions. That and it tends to get religious people upset as
being then classified as being unrealistic. Something I think they are, but
that's not what I'm seeking. Not a way to make people upset but an
established label for such a person.
| Quote: | But even if you find a term, the chances are it will always be so
misunderstood that you'll have to explain it. You say "I am an XXXXX"
and people will invariably ask "But what exactly do you mean by that?"
much as they do now if you say "I am an atheist" and they respond "So
you don't believe in God? What about the human soul? What about the
afterlife" and you have to explain the whole thing. Much as "I am a
Christian" only covers a small part of what a person might believe -
there are so many sects that you have to deliver a short speech to
explain precisely what your version Christianity includes and excludes.
I'm not even sure exactly what the Archbishop of Canterbury believes.
All I know for sure is that he doesn't believe exactly what his
predecessor believed and he doesn't believe exactly what his successor
will believe.
So even if you find your term, I don't think you'll be any better off
than you are now.
|
How about "animalist"? I thought up that word last night and found its
definition in dictionaries to be rather good. As for explaining what it
means, I'm not concerned about that. I'm just interested in knowing the
appropriate label for such a person.
| Quote: | Oh, and you'll probably be aware that there moves to adopt the term
'bright' as a noun to signify what you want. If you think you mat be a
bright (as opposed to just being bright) try http://www.the-brights.net/
I personally detest the term.
|
I'd put this is the same category as "realist" in the way it is pretty much
designed to make religious people upset at being put down and how it isn't
an established definition of the word.
Scott Jensen
--
Got a business question, problem, or dream?
Discuss it with the professionals that hang out at...
misc.business.consulting, misc.business.marketing.moderated
misc.business.moderated, and misc.entrepreneurs.moderated
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott T. Jensen
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
"Matthew Huntbach" <mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | John Dean (john-dean@frag.lineone.net) wrote:
Scott T. Jensen wrote:
Atheists are ones that believe there's no god(s), but may believe
there's a life after death, reincarnation, cosmic existence, or such.
...
What do you then call someone who knows they're just an animal
and that when they die, that's it? I'm looking for a formal term for
such a person and one separate from the above two.
I think 'Humanist' is the nearest. There are problems in that the term
'humanism' is employed in different ways by different people. But the
formal organisation most commonly going under the title 'Humanist
Society' is based around the idea that religions and / or concepts of
afterlife are not relevant issues to our understanding of ourselves and
don't offer solutions to our problems. But there's a complication in
that Humanism isn't a narrowly defined dogma.
I am rather puzzled by Scott's question, since I would have thought that
most people who don't believe in a god or gods also don't believe in
other supernatural phenomena such as the concept of an afterlife.
|
No, there are a lot of religious beliefs that hold there isn't a god(s) but
still an afterlife. Reincarnation being probably the most popular
world-wide.
| Quote: | So I would have thought "atheist" to be the term he wants, with the
need for a special term for those people who believe in an afterlife
but not in a god or gods to be developed should the need ever arise.
|
I'm looking for established label for such a person. Atheist only deals
with the issue of god(s) and not also afterlife.
Scott Jensen
--
Got a business question, problem, or dream?
Discuss it with the professionals that hang out at...
misc.business.consulting, misc.business.marketing.moderated
misc.business.moderated, and misc.entrepreneurs.moderated |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
In article <10ft2u5lqfup34f@corp.supernews.com>, Scott T. Jensen
<stj@charter.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "David" <david@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote:
Scott T. Jensen <stj@charter.net> wrote:
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
Anyone know of such a label?
After posting my original post and replying to david56's reply, I
retired to bed and laid awake wondering what could be the label.
I've done this before and come up with different labels.
Tonight, I thought, "Well, such individuals would say we're just
animals. Hmmm. What about 'animalist'?" I got up, used
dictionary.com, and there it was.
Ah! You mean like Rudyard Kipling, A. A. Milne, and David Shepherd?
Sorry, I don't follow you. Please explain.
|
Chambers:
<I>n</I> <B>animalist</B> a person who practises or believes in
animalism; a person who paints, carves, or writes stories about,
animals.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/colour/5m-0.htm
Magenta Magic
Mouth of Nabu
Left Hand in Perdition |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott T. Jensen
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
"raymond o'hara" <reoh@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
Anyone know of such a label?
Freethinker.
|
The dictionaries I've looked at wouldn't rule out that such a freethinker
could come to his own conclusion that there is god(s) and/or an afterlife.
All they need to be to still be a freethinker is that they come to such a
conclusion on their own.
Scott Jensen
--
Got a business question, problem, or dream?
Discuss it with the professionals that hang out at...
misc.business.consulting, misc.business.marketing.moderated
misc.business.moderated, and misc.entrepreneurs.moderated |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott T. Jensen
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
"David" <david@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Scott T. Jensen <stj@charter.net> wrote:
"David" <david@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote:
Scott T. Jensen <stj@charter.net> wrote:
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
Anyone know of such a label?
After posting my original post and replying to david56's reply, I
retired to bed and laid awake wondering what could be the label.
I've done this before and come up with different labels.
Tonight, I thought, "Well, such individuals would say we're just
animals. Hmmm. What about 'animalist'?" I got up, used
dictionary.com, and there it was.
Ah! You mean like Rudyard Kipling, A. A. Milne, and David
Shepherd?
Sorry, I don't follow you. Please explain.
Chambers:
I>n</I> <B>animalist</B> a person who practises or believes in
animalism; a person who paints, carves, or writes stories about,
animals.
|
Ah. Now I get you. I was looking at the other definitions of that word.
Scott Jensen
--
Got a business question, problem, or dream?
Discuss it with the professionals that hang out at...
misc.business.consulting, misc.business.marketing.moderated
misc.business.moderated, and misc.entrepreneurs.moderated |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote...
| Quote: | "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-nospam@totally-official.com> wrote:
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote...
Anyone know of such a label?
After posting my original post and replying to david56's reply, I
retired to bed and laid awake wondering what could be the label.
I've done this before and come up with different labels. Tonight,
I thought, "Well, such individuals would say we're just animals.
Hmmm. What about 'animalist'?"
I got up, used dictionary.com, and there it was.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=animalist
Sorry for the bother, folks.
Animalism is not an entirely suitable term, because it encompasses
the belief that animals have spirits which need to be appeased by
worship and sacrifice. This doesn't sit well with the concept that
death is the end.
In the dictionary entries at the above link, none of them state your
definition of animalism. Nor does my hardcover edition of the Collins
English Dictionary.
|
You really need an encyclopaedia for this type of detail. Here's an
extract from _Britannica_'s entry for Primitive Religions:
"Animals were thought to be manlike, to have souls, or to be
equipped with magical powers. Animalism thus expresses itself in various
conceptions of how animals are regarded as guardian spirits and “alter
egos,” of the facile and frequent interchangeability between human and
animal forms, and also of a theriomorphically (animal-formed) envisioned
higher being—one who changes between human and animal forms and unifies
them. Higher, often theriomorphic, beings are gods who rule over the
animals, the hunters, and the hunting territory, or spirits in the
bushland and with the animals."
There's more on this from the same source if you're interested.
Matti |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill McCray
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 04:22:29 -0500, "Scott T. Jensen"
<stj@charter.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "david56" <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote:
FWIW, I don't like "atheist" as it seems to imply that I am
failing or refusing to believe in God.
I view it as simply not believing that there is a god(s).
|
Do you not see a difference between "not believing that there is a god
or gods" and "believing that there is no god or gods"?
Bill
Swap first and last parts of username and ISP for address. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill McCray
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:04:24 GMT, Michael DeBusk
<m_debusk@despammed.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 03:15:56 -0500, Scott T. Jensen <stj@charter.net> wrote:
What do you then call someone who knows they're just an animal and
that when they die, that's it?
I'd want to know how they know.
|
I want to know how anyone can know that there is a god or that there
is no god. There seem to be plenty of people who know that one or the
other is the true situation.
Here I'm using "know" in the sense of "believe strongly". For
example, I know that our sun is a ball of hydrogen slowly converting
that hydrogen into helium through atomic fusion. I haven't actually
investigated that, but I have no doubt that it is true.
Bill
Swap first and last parts of username and ISP for address. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raymond o'hara
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:13 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10ft4g7pau4ie95@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | "raymond o'hara" <reoh@comcast.net> wrote:
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
Anyone know of such a label?
Freethinker.
The dictionaries I've looked at wouldn't rule out that such a freethinker
could come to his own conclusion that there is god(s) and/or an afterlife.
All they need to be to still be a freethinker is that they come to such a
conclusion on their own.
|
Religion is groupthink, freethinking is generally condidered the opposite
of that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:49 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
| Quote: | John Dean (john-dean@frag.lineone.net) wrote:
Scott T. Jensen wrote:
...
What do you then call someone who knows they're just an animal and
that when they die, that's it? I'm looking for a formal term for
such a person and one separate from the above two.
The use of "humanism" to mean "atheism" is an expropriation of a term
which had/has an accepted meaning.
|
Then you should hunt down the people who do that and chastise them
| Quote: |
You might follow a
religion but still be a humanist. 'Secularist' is also pretty close
to the idea.
Again, this has an accepted meaning which is different from the one
you want
to give it.
|
I don't want to give it any meaning. I suggest it as something close to
what Scott is looking for.
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:04 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
Scott T. Jensen wrote:
| Quote: | "John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
Scott T. Jensen wrote:
Atheists are ones that believe there's no god(s), but may believe
there's a life after death, reincarnation, cosmic existence, or
such.
But there's a complication in that Humanism isn't a narrowly defined
dogma. You might follow a religion but still be a humanist.
'Secularist' is also pretty close to the idea.
I view a secularism as a political stance that wants church and state
to be kept separate. It doesn't seem to make any clear statement
about gods and/or an afterlife.
|
That's because you know what 'secular' means but you may not be aware of
the particular use of 'secularism' (part of the general problem I
mentioned in my post of having to define every single-word term because
people have different ideas. If we take the OED definition:
"secularism: The doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard
to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of
all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state. a. As
the name of a definitely professed system of belief, promulgated by G.
J. Holyoake (1817-1906). b. In wider sense, as denoting a mode of
thought more or less implicitly held and acted upon."
You can read a little more about Holyoake and the Secular Society at
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Rsecular.htm
and, of course, he is googleable.
| Quote: |
Of course, in your own eyes (and in mine) you are best defined as a
'realist' but only those who share your views would agree that is the
perfect term.
Yes, I've used that before in discussions. However, as far as
established English goes, realist is more along the lines of
pragmatist when it comes to established definitions.
|
And here we are again. 'pragmatists' has come to have a generally
understood meaning relating to practicality. But for philosophical
purposes, OED confirms:
" a. Philos. The doctrine that the whole 'meaning' of a conception
expresses itself in practical consequences, either in the shape of
conduct to be recommended, or of experiences to be expected, if the
conception be true (W. James); or, the method of testing the value of
any assertion that claims to be true, by its consequences, i.e. by its
practical bearing upon human interests and purposes (F. C. S. Schiller).
Also, the philosophical method of inquiry of C. S. Peirce;"
but also:
"b. Politics. Theory that advocates dealing with social and political
problems primarily by practical methods adapted to the existing
circumstances, rather than by methods which have been conformed to some
ideology.
| Quote: |
But even if you find a term, the chances are it will always be so
misunderstood that you'll have to explain it. You say "I am an XXXXX"
and people will invariably ask "But what exactly do you mean by
that?"
snip
So even if you find your term, I don't think you'll be any better off
than you are now.
How about "animalist"? I thought up that word last night and found
its definition in dictionaries to be rather good. As for explaining
what it means, I'm not concerned about that. I'm just interested in
knowing the appropriate label for such a person.
|
You'll have to fight to get it commonly accepted since OED alrready has
(this is the *full* entry for animalist less cites):
"1. One who takes the 'animal' side of a discussion.
2. One who holds the doctrine of animalism; a sensualist.
3. The same as animalculist.
4. An artist who makes figures of animals; an animal-painter
or -sculptor; also, a writer of stories of animals.
Hence name="1"anima"listic a., of or pertaining to animalism."
and animalism is:
"1. The exercise of the animal faculties; a. in an honourable sense:
Animal activity, physical exercise and enjoyment;b. in depreciation:
Mere animal enjoyment, sensuality.
2. The doctrine which views men as mere animals.
3. An embodiment of the mere animal propensities; a wholly sensual
being. rare."
Animalism '2' is kinda close, but has a derogatary slant, I think.
| Quote: |
Oh, and you'll probably be aware that there moves to adopt the term
'bright' as a noun to signify what you want. If you think you mat be
a bright (as opposed to just being bright) try
http://www.the-brights.net/ I personally detest the term.
I'd put this is the same category as "realist" in the way it is
pretty much designed to make religious people upset at being put down
and how it isn't an established definition of the word.
|
If there a word with a established definition for what you want, we'd
have turned it up here by now. If you insist on having a single-word
term, you're going to have to carve it out of the granite of the world's
indifference. Which is what Dawkins and his chums are trying.
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:19 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
"Bill McCray" <McCrayBill@SpringMind.com> wrote...
| Quote: | "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
"david56" <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote:
FWIW, I don't like "atheist" as it seems to imply that I am
failing or refusing to believe in God.
I view it as simply not believing that there is a god(s).
Do you not see a difference between "not believing that there is a god
or gods" and "believing that there is no god or gods"?
|
Can you explain the difference, in respect of a person to whom the
concept of god(s) has occurred?
I can see the difference if you replace "believing" with "knowing".
Matti |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:50 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Wed, 21 Jul 2004 03:15:56 -0500 "Scott T.
Jensen" <stj@charter.net> posted:
| Quote: | Atheists are ones that believe there's no god(s), but may believe there's a
life after death, reincarnation, cosmic existence, or such.
|
It never occurred to me that an atheist might believe in these other
things.
| Quote: |
Agnostics are ones that don't know if there is or isn't a life after death,
that it is unobtainable information, and are not taking a stand either way.
|
I probably wouldn't have been prompted to comment on this paragraph if
the first hadn't been here too. I never heard that agnosticism was
centered around life after death. I thought your words applied except
that "God" or "gods" would fit in where you have "life after death",
and instead of that phrase, or, although I hadn't thought of it
before, maybe in addition to it.
I thought the subject of agnosticism was the same as that of atheism,
God.
| Quote: | What do you then call someone who knows they're just an animal and that when
they die, that's it?
|
Who says? Haven't you ever heard of doggie heaven?
| Quote: | I'm looking for a formal term for such a person and
one separate from the above two.
I've posted the above to talk.philosophy.misc newsgroup and they didn't know
of a label for such an individual. They whipped up a couple, but that was
their own inventions.
Anyone know of such a label?
|
Like I said, I thought atheist covered everything, although I believe
you that it doesn't.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in