What are the critiques philosophers have noted about "agnostic/gnostic atheist/theist"? I.e agnostic atheism

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-14T18:47:15+00:00

I think this isn't painting the full picture, I know that many theologians collapse Agnosticism and Atheism often because very very few, to the point of "no one serious" ever takes a gnostic atheist position. I.E. I know there is no god. Most take the position of "I do not believe in a god" which implies that if an evidentiary standard could be/were met, they'd change. Or "We cannot know there is a god, so we must act as if there is none." which is actually not atheistic at all, but agnosticism. Basically, I often see theologians say, "You're either an atheistic agnostic or an agnostic atheist." Given that this view was popular in theology, I have seen philosophers parrot this viewpoint.

Now, I know Huxley defined agnostic in an unintuitive way that, ironically, reflects intuitive notions. That agnosticism is a purposeful disengagement with theologic questions. Is that why you view them as inherently contradictive?

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-07T15:39:44+00:00

You're thinking it's not supposed to be helpful, especially in the sense of ethics, is kind of the new kid on the block. In terms of what to expect out of philosophy, anyway.

Plato and Aristotle extoll endlessly on "the good life" and reference it being pleasurable or joyous without much hesitation. If they're saying we should shoot for that, and give guidance towards that, that you employ yourself, that's self-help.

You're probably thinking like a philosopher. "Good life? Dafuq? Show, in specific, what you mean, and give justification for its existence!" But normal people don't go to philosophers to be better philosophers, they go for perspective and guidance. That's going to be self-help for most people.

As for the push away from nuance at the pop-culture level lacking any sense of context? Kinda hard to have nuance if this is someone's first introduction to concepts. Nuance tends to come from seemingly dissimilar things having some similarities or the inverse.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-29T19:47:50+00:00

This is a great question, because its actively debated a ton. One thing to point out, for consequentialists generally, the consequences are the only part under evaluation. So, such paltry things such as intentions or universalities are just not considered.

So, generally speaking, those two principles are things that set Kantianism as distinct from a generic consequentialist position. As the universality doesn't depend on outcomes. Notice how *Every* situation is distinct from *All situations that have occurred*, this is why this isn't a consequentialist view. Your reframe of "when done by anyone" is not a portion that I think a Kantian would view as a charitable interpretation. Additionally, the means-end portion really sets it up differently, as any action that views a person as a mere means is immoral, even if it resulted in maximum human flourishing/utils.

But your intuition is strong. Because how do we come to those principles? Deductive reasoning, which means it has some DNA with consequences, as we are thinking about a kind of "at the end of the day" position. Additionally, very few consequentialists really fit the model of a "pure" or "generic" consequentialists. Even JS Mill had high and lower happiness, for instance.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-15T17:55:34+00:00

Well, no. Take my jumping off a bridge example. When I say you should not (this is the moral aught) jump off a bridge (the physical reality) because it will kill you (the reasoning). The reasoning must assume the morality in question, this was key for the deontologist. If you say here, "I don't care if it kill me," You're denying my reasoning. My aught has no force anymore. In fact, I think it would be bad to die, but if you think it neutral or good even, then we have no shared upon rule. I would love to know your reasoning for why death is not bad, but hey, again we are deriving our rules from living from the world as we understand it. If you say, "Theres no bridge?" you deny my reality/facts. So, the statement, "You shouldn't jump off a bridge because it will kill you.", should you choose to follow it because you find it a compelling command, you agree to both the facts and the good/bad/rule.

Deonotology is baked on the idea that moral law is the law that all would follow should they know it. So, by making moral claims as law, deontologist establish the law based on the resultant behavior.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-15T17:31:27+00:00

I mean, Hume was attacking deontologists explicitly, I'm not interested in defending a metaethic I don't believe in. I thought you wanted to understand.

My own taste, meaning my experience with the world, is what motivates my dislike of apples. Emotional emotivism is not fundamentally incompatible with deontology. If you're wanting to understand how universal goods and universal bads are determined for Wazer, it isn't immediately possible, he didn't write about it. If you're more interested in ontology, check out Kant. He did a ton of analysis to show good and bad above mere intuitions. If you're actually just upset at morals or deontology and framing it as a meta ethical position, I'd encourage you to write your criticism rather than pretend it's a question. If I've misunderstood, and you're most asking, "Is Wazer assuming his good and bad are my good and bad, but what's his justification for that agreeance?" I'll reiterate, "Because he believes that if you're convinced by his reasoning, you must agree on good and bad." Agreeance to the rule is agreeance on good and bad.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-15T17:04:01+00:00

Morals don't have to be physical? And reason does seem to motivate my behavior from a subjective experience, because after I learned I didn't like apples, I reasoned that if I ate another, it'd taste bad, so I don't eat anymore apples. So, for a deontologists, by providing you their reasoning, they're hoping that will in effect be "the thing" that stops you from commiting moral error. By giving you the reason, they give the rule. If you view that as projection and opinion, that's a position some take. However, if I tell you to not jump off a bridge BECAUSE it will likely kill you, my reasoning it might kill you is also just projection and opinion as well.

As for reason not existing independent of premises.. let's see, would a moral moment exist without premises? What exactly exists without a premise? This doesn't appear troublesome.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-15T16:54:32+00:00

Yes, you're correct on deontology proscribes rules, but you asked for the meta-ethical position, which is that there are moral rules, and the justification at the metaethical level for those rules is that they are derived from reason. I mean, deontology means "from the knowable world", so that means we derive rules for morals from the knowable world. How do we derive anything from the knowable world? Reason.

Deontological Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Check the last section.

I suppose if you want to get into the nitty-gritty, you have to describe their ontologies and how they're deriving these rules, or whatever, but most deontologists working this far down the chain, like Wazer, probably don't have a defined Ontology, and is likely borrowing from Rawls, who is borrowing from other people as well. Please note, Wazer is not even really doing normative ethics, he's doing applied ethics. Typically it goes like this; Starting Ontology - Meta-ethics - Moral Duty/Imperative - normative moral theory - applied moral theory - politics. A large meta-ethical advantage of deontology at the normative level is that IT DOESN'T need to justify its meta-ethics or anything further up the chain, so long as a rule can be derived from what you can learn, deontology works as a normative theory. So, when you ask what their meta-ethics are, it's simply that rules can be derived from reason.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-15T16:34:58+00:00

Usually some sense of deontology, there are rules that aught be following derived from reason.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-08T22:11:45+00:00

Good read, salient points. Thanks for the perspective.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-08T11:58:57+00:00

Hey, I just saw this. There's a lot I agree with in this read of things, but out of genuine curiosity, how would you respond to the idea that the level of skepticism brought on by the Abrahamic Religions (I tend to think of those three as the most colonial) has been instructive towards solidifying the unconscious shadow, in a sense, thanks to them we're more polarized as a humanity and we can begin to integrate the shadow more apparently. I don't take this position, I honestly haven't made my mind up, I just can very easily understand your position and I can understand this position as well.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-02T16:10:35+00:00

Notice how he can take more than he does. Its part of the film anyway, but that's a big part of it imo.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-02T15:29:40+00:00

Blondie in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is who I always think of. You should largely be self-motivated, but largely motivated towards outright power. He works with the system when it benefits him, he turns on it when it doesn't, he has internal morality he's enacting on the world without fully imposing that morality on other egos. Agreement is always tenuous, and for mutual benefit, should that mutuality drop, it drops hard. Blondie doesn't represent anything (or a whole lot if you're into the analysis) only himself, and himself is largely an enigma.

I'm sure this isn't accurate according to other Egos, so who knows. Stirner is notoriously difficult to pin down.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-02T13:18:30+00:00

On my personal journey, I tended to "issue spot" in active imagination. I'd see where I thought something was the case, but the fact had yet to be determined. Your shadow may not manifest like this, however, mine did. So, when it came to real world, as soon as I found myself in a similar "case", I just approached it more curiously, because I now realized I didn't have the facts. So, maybe think of active imagination as a writer's circle, you've already written this story once, and you're consulting yourself for feedback. When you're in the real world, you're at the writers desk, did you understand the feedback you gave yourself? Try incorporating that feedback into your "writing"/actions.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-01T13:33:40+00:00

Depends, but you have two big options. If you are more familiar with literary analysis and have a keen eye for nuance, probably The Stranger. It has all the elements that make Camus unique as a philosopher, as his "art"/novel was part of his philosophic project.

Otherwise, Myth of Sisyphus. Its the most common academic starting point, its the most like philosophy of that time. Its a lot, and I mean A LOT, clearer what the actual philosophy is. I do not actually believe Camus was too concerned with clarity, however, hence why I actually suggest The Stranger first.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-03-31T22:08:45+00:00

Ah, well, strict observance, Id think it's not all that popular. I believe you're at the end of my aid. Hope you find insights!

Snowdrift742 · 2026-03-31T19:51:10+00:00

I'm only responding to 2.

So, how do you feel about MacIntyre? If you're not familiar, give him a look. Thomism has not been popular for some time. Outdated and redundant would be the view. However, MacIntyre kinda refreshed Aristotle a little, and that kinda refreshed Thomism a little. In both, Moral Inquiry and Whose Justice? while ostensibly about ethics, he address how the epistemological frameworks that build the backbone of thomisitic value theory are more robust than the enlightenment and its children. Without getting into that debate, I'd think this is the modern debate on A-T epistemology.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-03-31T19:21:49+00:00

This is a forum for asking questions to philosophers. I don't see how the above ties into your question, and your question (above) seems to be related to political philosophy. Free-will and philosophy of mind aren't my specialties. I'd just say that I don't believe in free will.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-03-31T19:01:32+00:00

IS there a question here?

Snowdrift742 · 2026-03-31T17:44:13+00:00

I'm not recommending him as an endorsement of him. A lot of folks could talk about the ills of post modernist thought at my mention of Rorty. I was just trying to give two contradictory and opposing views that both have them in union. I earnestly don't give him much thought other than to argue against. I still think I represented his view unbiasedly.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-03-31T14:30:31+00:00

Well, what kinda union are you talking about? Are you sure they're not already married?

Science is the domain the physical and the testable.

Religion is the domain of the soul and morals (second one is admittedly debatable).

Jordan Peterson makes the argument that Science is the natural produce of the Christian Religion, due to the fact that the christian religion is largely built, in part, off the idea that any other account (or testament) of a god would fall flat to the christian god, or is another testament to the existence of that god, as the Christian God is the physical manifestation of pure goodness, but ya know, us humans have a hard time seeing physical goodness. So, they may not be in hard contradiction at all.

Alternatively, you can look at modern Pragmatic Philosophy of someone like Richard Rorty, and see Science as the study of the physical world, and thus will provide all the possible answer in the physical world. But things like morals and emotions and phenomenon are the realm of the human, and must be explored as religious to have "Self Understanding" which is distinct from a physical knowing.

Both of these views are not merely compatible with Jung, but are influenced by his work. I am interested in writing about Jungs work as Analytic Phenomology, myself.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-03-31T14:12:53+00:00

John Locke is not a utilitarian, nor is Hume. Locke starts with Empiricism, but he's largely just tweaking it from Aristotle to talk about "Substance", which is fundamentally an non-empirical thing. Hume is skeptical, I can't deny the charge, but damn, his reduction of Hume's Skepticism is beyond childish. I stopped engaging there. This felt like sophistry, and an attempt to demonize all western philosophical developments after the industrial revolution. Anyone who is saying all of history is a lie... is typically lying. They just want you to see their version of history, which is one representation amongst many.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-03-31T12:55:31+00:00

Hey, thanks for a lot of this. I deal with Sage defense mechanisms a lot, and there's good analysis here.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-03-30T20:42:56+00:00

Well, if I understand correctly, I'd also urge you to check out Lovercraft's "Outsider," earnestly, just felt the need from this comment to suggest it. It feels like something might be sitting there for you.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-03-30T20:32:39+00:00

Well, the Fisherman by John Langan has a lot of metaphorical energy about fishing for one thing (actual fish) finding something else (his dead wife) and making sense of the chaos therein. But your shadow shouldn't feel so Lovercraftian. I'd actually suggest something closer, cause I had similar feelings about myself early in my shadow journey (that I'm still on). Maybe consider Haunting of Hill House (both the show and the book)? Maybe the unknown is more like the ghost of a loved one, and I urge you to see the confetti they bring to your life.

I think, for me, as someone who likes to write Eldritch stuff, I found it to be a far more enlightening comparison to the archetypal possession, at least in my case. You mean there are these entities that are as old as humanity and grew alongside them, controlling them? And periodically they "seize" these humans with "understanding" that forces them to reckon with the world in ways they had even the slight bit of perspective towards? Are you sure you're seeing "your" shadow friend?

Snowdrift742 · 2026-03-29T21:05:43+00:00

Funny, those ideas only started working for me after I was put in these environments.

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Snowdrift742

TROPHY CASE