The Latin (axio + arche) means Value/Principle & Ruling/Primary. The article says It's “a novel view that pictures the creative power . . . . as a non-personal force that creates the best world . . . but not for us.” {my bold} Also, “Axiarchists argue that only a non-causal force or principle can ultimately explain why things exist”. As an abstract, impersonal, natural, acausal creative principle it seems quite similar to Lao Tse's Tao. Yet, in terms of the value-based “path” or “flow” of the universe, it may be analogous to an algorithm-crunching computer program. — Gnomon
If there is any tradition that is really marked by its consistent and thoroughgoing atheism in the sense that matters, it is the Chinese philosophical tradition. This is true of all three of the main classical traditions, Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. The clearest and most paradigmatic anti-God resource in the Chinese tradition is the conception of Dao, as the term comes to be developed in what are later known as “philosophical Daoist” texts such as the Laozi (Daodejing) and the Zhuangzi. For as I have insisted already, though Dao has sometimes been depicted as some kind of vague or partial equivalent of the idea of God, it is better described as the most extreme possible antithesis of that idea. Indeed, classical Daoist thought can very well be described as one long polemic against the idea of purpose—the idea of conscious design, of intentional valuation as a source of existence, of deliberate creation, of control, of God.
The basic idea of the Daoists was to enable people to realize that, since human life is really only a small part of a larger process of nature, the only human actions which ultimately make sense are those which are in accord with the flow of Nature — Gnomon
My guess is that this boils down to just another ethical system based upon humility, kindness, acceptance and such. — Hanover
Much thanks for this and the podcast interview (I'll listen later)! :up:For an alternate atheistic take on Taoism , especially the thinking of Zhuangzi, I highly recommend the recently published book by Brook Ziporyn, one of the top translators of ancient Chinese texts. It is called ‘Experiments in Mystical Atheism: Godless Epiphanies from Daoism to Spinoza and Beyond‘. — Joshs
From the dao (Laozi-Zhuangzi) to logos (Heraclitus) to swirling atoms in void (Democritus-Epicurus-Lucretius) to natura naturans (Spinoza) to the absurd (Zapffe-Camus) to the real (Nishida-Nishitani / C. Rosset) ... to the (modern) pandeus¹ is, so far, the least irrational as well as most scientific evidence-compatible (or soundest) speculative path I have found to reflectively explore nature (i.e. surface of the real with which (we) natural beings are inescapably entangled – ergo embodied – and that fundamentally encompasses – enables-constrains – whatever is knowable (by us) including reason itself). YMMV — 180 Proof
I don't think so. For us, 'this world, this life' (i.e. nature red in tooth & claw) is "sacred" insofar as existing is tragicomic – the power to de/create "meaningful" lives (relationships).Does atheism entail that the category of 'the sacred' is meaningless? — Wayfarer
Atheism, as I understand it, denotes (at minimum) lack of belief in any literal "transcendent referents" such as supernatural entities (or ideas) like god/s, angels/demons, miracles, curses, spells, heaven/hell, reincarnation, nirvana, etc.Does it entail that the 'mokṣa' of Hinduism or the 'Nirvāṇa' of Buddhism have no transcendent referent?
My guess is that this boils down to just another ethical system based upon humility, kindness, acceptance and such. If that's the case, let's stop being so vague and just enumerate the things I need to do in 10 simple commands. I've been following these taoist threads a bit, and I'd rather someone just speak in prose and not poems and lay it out. — Hanover
For as I have insisted already, though Dao has sometimes been depicted as some kind of vague or partial equivalent of the idea of God, it is better described as the most extreme possible antithesis of that idea.
The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.
Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!
Blunt the sharpness,
Untangle the knot,
Soften the glare,
Merge with dust.
Oh, hidden deep but ever present!
I do not know from whence it comes.
It is the forefather of the gods. — Tao Te Ching - Verse 4
Humans are indeed “special” in the sense that they categorize events from a selfish perspective. — Gnomon
But one label, Axiarchism, I had never heard of. The Latin (axio + arche) means Value/Principle & Ruling/Primary. The article says It's “a novel view that pictures the creative power . . . . as a non-personal force that creates the best world . . . but not for us.” {my bold} Also, “Axiarchists argue that only a non-causal force or principle can ultimately explain why things exist”. As an abstract, impersonal, natural, acausal creative principle it seems quite similar to Lao Tse's Tao. Yet, in terms of the value-based “path” or “flow” of the universe, it may be analogous to an algorithm-crunching computer program. And as a general creative causal natural force, it sounds somewhat like my own notion of EnFormAction*1. The article goes on to say : “this view resonates most of all with the Chinese philosophical religion of Daoism”. Or, the Axiarche might be like Hindu Brahman, simply non-specific impersonal ultimate Reality.
The key difference from traditional Creator/creation models, is that this one may help to explain the Problem of Evil : why bad things happen to good people. — Gnomon
God is just one of the 10,000 things — T Clark
For as I have insisted already, though Dao has sometimes been depicted as some kind of vague or partial equivalent of the idea of God, it is better described as the most extreme possible antithesis of that idea.
I have Ziporyn's translation of the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi) and I like it. I certainly don't put myself up against him as an expert, but I understand the place of god in Taoism differently. Taoism isn't atheistic in the sense we normally mean it. It doesn't deny god's existence, it just (mostly) doesn't address it. It's non-theistic not anti-theistic. — T Clark
Objectivity in the metaphysical sense is an unwarranted absolutizing or sedimentation of half of a two-step process. The philosophical worldview of objectivism is read off from an aspect of this process and made into a doctrine about metaphysics, when in fact it’s just one of many tools in the hands of a hungry animal. So even though it may be the case that, to the extent that we are admitting reasoning at all, the monotheist God can be disproved, there will always be Tertullian, that fascinatingly volatile and wickedly histrionic Church Father, who blurted out the unsurpassable final word on this issue way back in the early third century: I believe because it is absurd, said Tertullian. And no amount of reasoning will be of any use in convincing someone who has declined to accept the ultimate authority of reason.
It is no use saying, “Look, Tertullian, you’re already using reason, you tacitly admit it, so how can you exempt this one issue from application of the same standard you use when you cross the street?” Why must he have only one standard? Should he do it because it’s reasonable? But he’s already shown he’s willing to eschew reason when he feels like it. If we think of beliefs as tools, this sort of move becomes unremarkable: why should I have only one tool that I use on every kind of material? A hammer
for pounding nails, a nail-clipper for clipping nails—for not all nails are the same.
We call all things “things,” but not all things are the same or require the same type of treatment. The illegitimate step lies in assuming that there must be a single standard applied at all times, for all types of situations, regarding every type of subject matter. Why assume that there is any unity of this kind applying to the world, that all existence must form one single system with a single set of laws and rules applying to all of it? That too is part of the circular assumption of the sole universal authority of Reason—an assumption that, I would argue, ironically has deep roots precisely in the idea of God.
The Tao does not replace god, it comes before it. God is just one of the 10,000 things - the multiplicity of phenomena in our world brought into being by the Tao. — T Clark
The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.
Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things! — Tao Te Ching - Verse 4
My guess is that this boils down to just another ethical system based upon humility, kindness, acceptance and such. If that's the case, let's stop being so vague and just enumerate the things I need to do in 10 simple commands. I've been following these taoist threads a bit, and I'd rather someone just speak in prose and not poems and lay it out. — Hanover
Be creedless; that is, be intelligent enough to make adaptations without dependence upon some formula.
Be self-reliant; that is, be not dependent upon supernatural agency for intellectual support or moral guidance.
Be critical; that is, question assumptions and seek certitude scientifically.
Be tolerant; that is, be open-minded and hold conclusions tentatively.
Be active; that is, live today and grow by exercising his capacities.
Be efficient; that is, accomplish the most with the least effort.
Be versatile; that is, vary his interests to attain a variety of interesting thoughts.
Be cooperative; that is, find some of his satisfactions in social activities.
Be appreciative; that is, make the present enjoyable by his attitude.
Be idealistic; that is, create and live by ideals which he finds inspiring. — Wiki - Archie J. Bahm
My personal non-religious philosophical worldview has some aspects in common with ancient Chinese Taoism : the Way of Nature. But I just came across another name for a similar concept. In Philosophy Now magazine (12/24 ; 01/25) the cover title is The Return of God. It presents articles on various attitudes toward the god concept; including Atheism and Agnosticism. — Gnomon
One doesn’t have to subscribe to any religious belief to see the falsehood of this, whether you believe in God or not. As a matter of definition, God is not a thing or a phenomenon. In terms of philosophy of religion, the ‘uncreated’ is a term that may be used, and the uncreated is not one or any number of things. — Wayfarer
Natural axiarchism offers a way to avoid human-centred morality. The axiarchic creative principle seems nothing like human beings, and does not even care about their lives and values.
And from the cosmic perspective, everything is the best. From our limited perspective, however, things can be good or evil. Specifically, human acts are good when getting closer to the creative principle, but evil when far from it. — The Best Possible World, But Not For Us, Issue 165, Philosophy Now
Axiarchism (from Greek axia {ἀξία, a-ksi-a} 'value' and arche {ἀρχή < (verb) ἄρχω} 'rule') is a metaphysical position that everything that exists, including the universe itself, exists for a good purpose. The word was coined by Canadian philosopher John Leslie.[1][2] — Wiki - Axiarchism
Just so, instead of being human-targeted as many theistic ethical systems are, natural axiarchism chooses the way of nature as its ideal.
This view resonates most of all with the Chinese philosophical religion of Daoism. ‘The Dao’ means ‘the way of nature’, and in Daoism human values are totally grounded in natural forces and processes.
Daoism advocates following a simple orderly life, living in unity with society, and respecting and preserving the diversity of life forms. Living in harmony with nature is Daoism’s fundamental principle. In this way, natural axiarchism can be seen as a metaphysical grounding for Daoist morality. — Philosophy Now
In the early years of the religion’s formation, Daoism quickly integrated several aspects of Chinese cosmology that were not obviously an initial part of the religion. The most prominent of these were the concepts of yin and yang. Daoism’s ability to syncretize with its surrounding context continued throughout the tradition’s history. When Buddhism entered China, Daoism absorbed many elements still seen today, elements such as the presence of altars to the bodhisattva Guanyin in many Daoist temples.
Since Daoism did not travel in the same manner as, and lacked the popularity of, Buddhism, its numbers in America have grown relatively slowly. Today, it is estimated there are around 30,000 Daoist practitioners living in the United States. Now that American Daoists are becoming a larger part of the religious landscape, this openness to change is shaping the religion in distinct ways and presenting unique issues. [...]
Currently, American Daoism in the 21st century is undergoing a phase of self-definition as it grapples with issues of interfaith interaction, decentralization, and the contrasting practices of converts and immigrants. Some scholars have suggested that a specific form of “American Daoism” will not form; rather, the great diversity of practice within America will result in “American Daoisms.”
Ziporyn’s claim is that what monotheisms and the atheisms of the ‘three horsemen’ (Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris) have in common is belief in a single purpose behind existence. For theists that purpose is God and the laws of morality he intends, and for Dawkins et al it is the sole authority of reason. Ziporyn argues that Daoism believes in no ultimate purpose, intention, principle, morality. — Joshs
God and gods are not the same thing. — punos
The first gods were the pure whole numbers which emanated from zero (the Source). The very first numbers to emanate were the twin 1s (-1, +1), represented by Janus, who is the namesake for January, the first month of the year. — punos
We call all things “things,” but not all things are the same or require the same type of treatment.
The illegitimate step lies in assuming that there must be a single standard applied at all times, for all types of situations, regarding every type of subject matter.
Why assume that there is any unity of this kind applying to the world, that all existence must form one single system with a single set of laws and rules applying to all of it? That too is part of the circular assumption of the sole universal authority of Reason—an assumption that, I would argue, ironically has deep roots precisely in the idea of God.
Ziporyn argues that Daoism believes in no ultimate purpose, intention, principle, morality. — Joshs
Nature is ultimate, the principle of initiating is ultimate, and the principle of perfecting is ultimate. And the intelligent person is also ultimate. Four kinds of ultimate, then, exist, and the intelligent man is one of them.
Man devotes himself to satisfying his desires, fulfilling his purposes, realizing his ideals, or achieving his goals. But goals are derived from aims. And all aiming is Nature's aiming, and is Nature's way of being itself. — TTC trans. by Archie J. Bahm
Are you saying that the god of monotheistic religions is fundamentally different from the gods of multi-theistic ones? I don't see that. My, perhaps idiosyncratic, understanding is that, in Taoism, the Tao comes before God or the gods, whichever you like. — T Clark
I didn't understand your mathematical interpretation of ultimate reality the last time we discussed it and I don't understand it now. — T Clark
I suppose the ancient oriental philosophies & religions were originally Naturalist, in the sense that most aboriginal (uncivilized) societies lived like animals at the mercy of their natural environment : Animism. But eventually, they became civilized, and developed technologies to give them power over nature. So, they pridefully began to make a conscious distinction between human Culture and non-human Nature. Hence, humans began to "transcend" their animal dependency, and to think of themselves as little gods. No longer needing to follow the Way (Tao) of Nature.Again, non-theistic. But is it atheist, in the contemporary sense? That's the question I want to pose. — Wayfarer
Well, what would you say is the difference between a God and a god? — punos
You see, even though we agree, you may not think so because words or names for you are static, while for me they are fluid. That is our difference. Whatever word you or i use makes no difference. I mean, even the Tao suggests that we see beyond the names of things down to their essence. — punos
Each culture or religion contains a piece of the ultimate puzzle to some degree, and the art is in recognizing which pieces go together and how. — punos
Natural axiarchism offers a way to avoid human-centred morality. The axiarchic creative principle seems nothing like human beings, and does not even care about their lives and values. And from the cosmic perspective, everything is the best.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.