It is not a question here of chewing concepts but of digesting them. I'm afraid you have a digestive problem with the concepts of metaphysical, psychological and epistemological. Why do you think I defend a psychological concept of agnosticism? Let's see if you can answer or avoid the answer. — David Mo

Like I said, I'm not arguing about your particular position, but about your statement that: "In the academic world it is understood that an atheist is one who denies that god exists and an agnostic is one who neither denies nor affirms. The theist asserts that god exists."

But keep fighting the windmills, Don Quixote.

I second Dingo. Bravo.

The only words you quote from Kenny are these: — David Mo

Those are not the only words I quoted from the entry. I really really cannot chew your food for you. You're just going to have to figure it out on your own at this point.

Uh-oh, all-caps, so you know he must be right. :joke:

I don't think Anthony Kenny is a philosopher very representative of today's academic world. Anyway, his concept of agnosticism seems similar to the one I use: neither theism nor atheism, abstention. — David Mo

1. He's the person quoted in a peer-reviewed article by an actual academic published in a well-respected philosophical encyclopedia through a verified academic institution... so... not sure on which basis you dismiss him so easily.
2. I directly quoted to you the part that explained the epistemological difference. If you can't understand that, plus my explanation, plus Dingo's, plus Pfhorrest's.... I guess maybe you just don't want to understand it.

To be clear, I don't really care which definitions you personally want to use. I think it's fine to use terms in any idiosyncratic way one pleases as long as sufficient clarification is present as to what one means. However, you're the one who claimed:

"In the academic world it is understood that an atheist is one who denies that god exists and an agnostic is one who neither denies nor affirms. The theist asserts that god exists.
It seems simple enough and clear enough."

A simplistic and one-sided representation of a very nuanced field with many differentiated uses of the same or similar words for very precise purposes.....

Anywho, I've proven that it's not so "simple" and that the "academic world" is not, in fact, of one, homogeneous mind about the matter. There's really no room left to debate, so I'm going to rest my case from here on out.

Sorry, but you're just not reading carefully:

"No doubt both senses of “agnosticism”, the psychological and the epistemological, will continue to be used both inside and outside of philosophy. Hopefully, context will help to disambiguate. In the remainder of this entry, however, the term “agnosticism” will be used in its epistemological sense. This makes a huge difference to the issue of justification. Consider, for example, this passage written by the agnostic, Anthony Kenny (1983: 84–85):

I do not myself know of any argument for the existence of God which I find convincing; in all of them I think I can find flaws. Equally, I do not know of any argument against the existence of God which is totally convincing; in the arguments I know against the existence of God I can equally find flaws. So that my own position on the existence of God is agnostic.

It is one thing to ask whether Kenny’s inability to find arguments that convince him of God’s existence or non-existence justifies him personally in suspending judgment about the existence of God. It is quite another to ask whether this inability (or anything else) would justify his believing that no one (or at least no one who is sufficiently intelligent and well-informed) has a justified belief about God’s existence.

If agnosticism (in one sense of the word) is the position that neither theism nor atheism is known, then it might be useful to use the term “gnosticism” to refer to the contradictory of that position, that is, to the position that either theism or atheism is known. That view would, of course, come in two flavors: theistic gnosticism—the view that theism is known (and hence atheism is not)—and atheistic gnosticism—the view that atheism is known (and hence theism is not)."

And since you were the one to claim that in academia atheist/agnostic/theist are used merely in what the SEP calls the "psychological" sense, you are wrong.

According to the author of the text, agnosticism is opposed to atheism and theism on epistemological grounds: lack of evidence. That is the meaning I give to the word. I don't know where you see the problem.

Theism: affirmation that god exists.
Atheism: denial that god exists.
Agnosticism: lack of evidence, then refrain of judgment.

By the way, the article has the defect of stopping at philosophically irrelevant and picturesque uses. To devote a few lines to skeptical religion, frankly... — David Mo

Well, as much as I'm sure you have more knowledge on the matter than the SEP :lol: .....you're still just not reading carefully.

Perhaps a little background info would help: The difference between the positions rests on the philosophical definition of knowledge, JTB, justfied true belief.

The terms a/theist merely denote belief. A/gnosticism denotes to which extent you believe these positions to be justified.

So, the theist says "I believe in such and such God," but his a/gnosticism will determine whether he admits it is just faith-based belief or claims his belief is founded on rational justification.

A/gnosticism is therefore not an expression of belief or lack thereof per se. It is an expression of the conditions of JTB. Two different things.

:clap: :wink:

I approve. Happy Reading!

I want to revise my statement earlier in this thread re: a/theism in babies. I was thinking about it, and I decided that the entire analogy is nonsensical. Asking whether a baby is a/theistic is about as useful as asking whether a cat or a chair is a/theistic--as in, not at all useful.

Cats, chairs, and babies are not the sort of entities that can think about the basic concepts necessary for such positions. These are just categories for which they lack the prerequisite skills.

Or, put another way, it's about as useful as asking whether a cat/baby/chair is Republican, patriotic, or a Shakespeare fan.

Same for agnosticism — David Mo

Why don't you reread that section over again more carefully. The article clearly explains why agnosticism is NOT just a version of theism/atheism, but strictly speaking in a different kind of epistemological category. That is to say, you can be any combination of gnostic/agnostic and theist/atheist.

Anyone who is legitimately offended by this (as in, it's not feigned for some political end) is borderline mentally ill. Women are actual individuals, with their own agency, desires, and thoughts! The TRUE objectification of women occurs when you only see them as nothing more than a singular representation of some wider political group ("women"). You reduce women to some homogenous mass, destroying all individuality. — dukkha

Recognizing that women are being treated as a homogenous group is not the same as treating them as a homogenous group.

A logic to which you yourself must adhere, or else you would not be able to recognize the supposed homogenous treatment by either pornographers OR political activists.

the academic world it is understood that an atheist is one who denies that god exists and an agnostic is one who neither denies nor affirms. The theist asserts that god exists — David Mo

Except that in academia it's really not that simple:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAgno

All babies are atheist until indoctrinated into religion"

2. Religion is a childish belief which one grows out of? — IvoryBlackBishop

Babies don't believe in tooth fairies or Santa either.

See the value of context? I have one to read specific to what we were talking about. However there is a queue, you're right about that. Context is king. — Pantagruel

Marx is not specific to a conversation about the Marxism in late Sartre? Who knew!

Again, I only need to read one. — Pantagruel

As soon as my finish my current book on Marx the Critique of Dialectal Reason will be a perfect fit. I — Pantagruel

Okie dokie.

Will you have read the two books by the time I finish the one do you think? — Pantagruel

At this rate, by the time you finish them, I'll be dead.

Everything you said I addressed in the comment that you quoted. It's a reasonable first step. — Pantagruel

The next step is to actually do your homework. I'll probably be around somewhere once you have and we can take up this conversation again.

Happy Reading!

Actually, I've read Being and Nothingness a great many times (which I mentioned and again you contradict), plus Psychology of the Imagination, Transcendence of the Ego, Emotions, Search for a Method, and his biography of Jean Genet (all of which are in my library). Based on that, and a overview of the later work plus a few different critical articles, yes, I'm prepared to formulate a preliminary thesis.

Keep it coming. — Pantagruel

But you haven't read the later works. And you're somehow not willing to accept that these contradict even a segment of your own ideology. So neither with your homework nor with your psychology are you prepared for this conversation.

Let me get this straight... You think a valid thesis is based on skimming one book and having only the initial reading done for another book?

Well, when you've actually finished reading them, let me know. You seem to have a very incomplete understanding of what it means to be a Marxist, or what that entails for autonomy.

Bullshit.

I will go into more detail later. — Frank Apisa

Don't bother if you're going to be vulgar :brow:

It is a preposterous presumption to suppose that a new born baby is an atheist….just as it would be an absurdity to suppose a new born is a theist. Newborns are blank slates as far as “gods” are concerned…each a tabula rasa — Frank Apisa

So I guess they're also not not doctors or the president or cat lovers?

A tabula rasa is by definition atheist. Absence of a belief in God is the same as not believing in God until indoctrination occurs.

So the agnostic too is a form of atheist, because s/he is without a belief in God. She just is not a "positive atheist" who asserts the definitive absence of God.

Clearly this has particular interchange has been a waste of time. — Pantagruel

You got a new book. I thought you said that such reading was reward enough?

So frankly, if you haven't completely read either then you really don't have the contextual depth to do more than point out that Sartre's later work has a more social dimension than his earlier.

As to your response, from what I can see, it appears "close enough" for me to work with comfortably, mutatis mutandis. — Pantagruel

Interesting how you see yourself as exempt from your own strictures.... :chin:

I don't think Sartre would agree with that kind of behavior either!

This certainly reconciles completely with my own understanding of his earlier position, moving in a new direction — Pantagruel

Not if you're sticking to your freedom under torture theory.

The reading itself has been quite rewarding enough! — Pantagruel

Which remains incomplete.
I'm afraid that if you are looking for Sartre to confirm the exact beliefs you've expressed and attributed to him here... you will not find it as rewarding. Spoiler alert: Sartre becomes a Marxist.

which I actually read — Pantagruel

Would you like an award or something for that? Or just a standing ovation? Maybe some cookies?

You have a very selective idea about how to read, which is becoming increasingly evident. Moreover, it is not at all unusual for to consider later and earlier philosophies on their own merit — Pantagruel

The latter half of that statement is the obviously more selective way to read. Reading Sartre as a person who evolved and therefore changed his theory and on that basis giving the most consideration to his most mature work is the obviously more holistic approach.

To paraphrase another great thinker, Ghandi: when asked which of his writings to go with as they changed dramatically over his lifetime, he said to go with whatever he had most recently written. Logically, most writers would agree with that, or else they would not have written that which they have most recently written.

Frankly, I have skimmed the Critique and it is evident to me this represents an evolution of his thought into a more expansive, political gloss, not necessarily a contradiction of his early views on personal freedom (which stand on their own merit regardless). In any case, as mentioned, I'll definitely be reading the Critique, and thank you. How did you enjoy it? — Pantagruel

It's an evolution which blatantly contradicts the way you are trying to present Sartre.

Already told you.

that even under coercion we are technically free to choose. Pretty much sums it up, I can't really say more about that. — Pantagruel

Which Sartre denied...

Now I'm really confused. It was the exact example that we have been discussing? — Pantagruel

Here:

We have already shown that even the red-hot pincers
of the torturer do not exempt us from being free. — Pantagruel

And here:

Per Sartre, even under torture, the victim determines the exact moment at which he chooses to submit to the torture.... — Pantagruel

People choose to endure something because and when it is meaningful to do so. And when people do, historically, it often is meaningful. — Pantagruel

You keep in saying people "endure" torture, but it's not clear what that even means or who has done so? Can you be more specific?

but I'm starting now, and the preface sure seems consistent with the views I've cited" — Pantagruel

Keep reading. Or just flip to the requisite page.

No matter what you or Sartre might say about human freedom under ideal circumstances, the torture victim from our example is clearly exempt in Sartre's later theory, since "basic needs" of a "practical organism" are obviously not only not met, but also perverted.

. I ascribe to this view of radical freedom, because I know it to be true in my own life. Moreover, what is most interesting, once you have tried and learned that you possess this ability, it gets continually easier to make "radically new" choices. And this can definitely be a great power to have. — Pantagruel

Well, Sartre evolved and refined his thinking eventually, and I suspect so will you :wink:

Sartre views our freedom as essentially unlimited. To the point that he characterizes "vertigo" as the sensation, not that we are going to fall off a high place, but the fear that we might throw ourselves off.... — Pantagruel

"Later, especially in Critique of Dialectical Reason, Sartre shifts to the view that humans are only free if their basic needs as practical organisms are met (p. 327)."

https://www.iep.utm.edu/sartre-p/#H3

We have already shown that even the red-hot pincers
of the torturer do not exempt us from being free. — Pantagruel

I think that's an exaggeration. Clearly the torturer has already, de facto, limited our choices and thus our freedom.

If at point A you have 100 choices, and point B only 2, then your freedom has been limited.

Sartre views our freedom as essentially unlimited. To the point that he characterizes "vertigo" as the sensation, not that we are going to fall off a high place, but the fear that we might throw ourselves off.... — Pantagruel

Early Sartre. He got smarter later on.

Actually, I think I read recently that psychologists agree with that idea about vertigo. It's a survival mechanism to stop you from actually doing it or getting too close to the edge.

I would acknowledge it. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Keep telling yourself that.

I got that you cannot follow a logic trail and cannot refute it. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

It's clear from the way you've interacted with pretty much everyone on this thread, that you just can't stand people making valid points against your own. Some "highest judge."

Per Sartre, even under torture, the victim determines the exact moment at which he chooses to submit to the torture.... — Pantagruel

Mayhaps, but even Satre would recognize that the torturer has exerted higher authority by whittling down all the multitude of your usual choices to two.