Now that philosophy has, rightfully, gotten away from the religion forums...I want to ask how different it is from religion.
All religions have a philosophy behind them. Both are widely criticised as being a waste of time. :yh_giggle
How would one describe the differences between philosophy and religion?
Philosophy and Religion
Philosophy and Religion
Interesting.
I would think that there is a clear seperation (in our culture anyway) between philosophy and religion. The main one being that in religion truth is usually defined by some particular religious creed, or book. For instance in Christianity it is the bible that is regarded as the fundamental source of truth as handed down by God, and this is also the case in Islam (the Koran) and Judaism (the Torah). Everything that exists outside the teachings put forth in these doctrines is considered at best a nusciance and at worst heresy. The obvious example nowadays are in the ideas of the religious fundamentialsts of all 3 religions who brook no argument with any teaching that they consider contradictory to the "Truths" contained within their own sacred scriptures. However, this is not just an extremist veiw but is fundamental to the teachings of all relgions, as in you are basically not at liberty to question the word of God as defined in sacred texts, it is one sense the whole basis of religion.
Eastern religions are somewhat different than the 3 big monothestic ones that I just mentioned. And by their nature all themselves to be more speculative in nature and more open to question (though again there is a need for some level of absolutism in such religions)
However, in philosophy there is no self-evident truth other than that which can be obtained by speculation on both the physical world and human experience of that world, so western philiosopy would be more akin to science (though also very different I must also stress).
Where religion and philosphy are similar is in their human-centered approach to understanding reality, in religion it is defined by divine revelation, while in philiosphy it is based on the belief that human beings can purely through speculation come to an intrinsic understanding of reality, and also perhaps the metaphysical world.
As someone who is scientifically trained I would say that philosohy is hugely valid and important as it can provide a human and rational intpretation of what is going on, as this is not actually the primary aim of the scientific method, which is more involved whith the "how" and not the "why", which from a purely scientific standpoint is an entirely human concern and may not have any deeper meaning that that whih we give it.
What I mean by that is that it may not be either possible or even relevant that human beings understand the full nature of reality and the universe as in some ways it might be somewhat of a conceit on our part that the whole things exists so that we could understand it, or that the "why" question is basically irrelevant.
I would also say that in general science and particularly physics in the 20th century has progressed at a much faster rate than philosphers have really been able to deal with (which is why Wittegstein once famously said that the whole of philiosohy had been reduced to an analysis of language). I think that may be pessimisstic, and that over time philosophy will deal in some way with many of the issues raised by such ideas as general relativity, a finite universe, quantum mechanics, sum over history interpretations of the universe, the nature of time, and all the rest. Perhaps if there is the achievement of a coherent unified theory of physics this will enable philosophers to have a more concrete and graspable way of tackling some of the more difficult issues that have been raised by scientific discovery in the 20th century, then again perhaps we may discover that such things are impossible. For the time being everything remains uncertain (as usual).
I would think that there is a clear seperation (in our culture anyway) between philosophy and religion. The main one being that in religion truth is usually defined by some particular religious creed, or book. For instance in Christianity it is the bible that is regarded as the fundamental source of truth as handed down by God, and this is also the case in Islam (the Koran) and Judaism (the Torah). Everything that exists outside the teachings put forth in these doctrines is considered at best a nusciance and at worst heresy. The obvious example nowadays are in the ideas of the religious fundamentialsts of all 3 religions who brook no argument with any teaching that they consider contradictory to the "Truths" contained within their own sacred scriptures. However, this is not just an extremist veiw but is fundamental to the teachings of all relgions, as in you are basically not at liberty to question the word of God as defined in sacred texts, it is one sense the whole basis of religion.
Eastern religions are somewhat different than the 3 big monothestic ones that I just mentioned. And by their nature all themselves to be more speculative in nature and more open to question (though again there is a need for some level of absolutism in such religions)
However, in philosophy there is no self-evident truth other than that which can be obtained by speculation on both the physical world and human experience of that world, so western philiosopy would be more akin to science (though also very different I must also stress).
Where religion and philosphy are similar is in their human-centered approach to understanding reality, in religion it is defined by divine revelation, while in philiosphy it is based on the belief that human beings can purely through speculation come to an intrinsic understanding of reality, and also perhaps the metaphysical world.
As someone who is scientifically trained I would say that philosohy is hugely valid and important as it can provide a human and rational intpretation of what is going on, as this is not actually the primary aim of the scientific method, which is more involved whith the "how" and not the "why", which from a purely scientific standpoint is an entirely human concern and may not have any deeper meaning that that whih we give it.
What I mean by that is that it may not be either possible or even relevant that human beings understand the full nature of reality and the universe as in some ways it might be somewhat of a conceit on our part that the whole things exists so that we could understand it, or that the "why" question is basically irrelevant.
I would also say that in general science and particularly physics in the 20th century has progressed at a much faster rate than philosphers have really been able to deal with (which is why Wittegstein once famously said that the whole of philiosohy had been reduced to an analysis of language). I think that may be pessimisstic, and that over time philosophy will deal in some way with many of the issues raised by such ideas as general relativity, a finite universe, quantum mechanics, sum over history interpretations of the universe, the nature of time, and all the rest. Perhaps if there is the achievement of a coherent unified theory of physics this will enable philosophers to have a more concrete and graspable way of tackling some of the more difficult issues that have been raised by scientific discovery in the 20th century, then again perhaps we may discover that such things are impossible. For the time being everything remains uncertain (as usual).
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Philosophy and Religion
koan wrote: Now that philosophy has, rightfully, gotten away from the religion forums...I want to ask how different it is from religion.
All religions have a philosophy behind them. Both are widely criticised as being a waste of time. :yh_giggle
How would one describe the differences between philosophy and religion?
I would say that religion has two sources of truth--revelation and reason. I would say that philosophy has only one source of truth and that is reason.
All religions have a philosophy behind them. Both are widely criticised as being a waste of time. :yh_giggle
How would one describe the differences between philosophy and religion?
I would say that religion has two sources of truth--revelation and reason. I would say that philosophy has only one source of truth and that is reason.
Philosophy and Religion
coberst wrote: I would say that religion has two sources of truth--revelation and reason. I would say that philosophy has only one source of truth and that is reason.
where does the inspired thought come from then? I don't think it is reasonable to say that all the great ideas come from sitting and thinking. They sometimes come in dreams. Once in a while a great thinker says "AHA!" and often they are called fools until they explain the great epiphany.
In fact, sometimes they were executed for their great aha. Thank goodness that doesn't happen anymore. Or does it?
where does the inspired thought come from then? I don't think it is reasonable to say that all the great ideas come from sitting and thinking. They sometimes come in dreams. Once in a while a great thinker says "AHA!" and often they are called fools until they explain the great epiphany.
In fact, sometimes they were executed for their great aha. Thank goodness that doesn't happen anymore. Or does it?
Philosophy and Religion
koan wrote: where does the inspired thought come from then? I don't think it is reasonable to say that all the great ideas come from sitting and thinking. They sometimes come in dreams. Once in a while a great thinker says "AHA!" and often they are called fools until they explain the great epiphany.
In fact, sometimes they were executed for their great aha. Thank goodness that doesn't happen anymore. Or does it?
Again interesting and also true. I actually think that science has a lot in common with art (and philosophy) in terms of inspiration for truly revolutionary ideas, which seem to come from some part of the human intellect that is buried somewhere in the subconcious. Though the in sience of course you have to follow that part up with results and a load of tedious experiments to make sure what you have thought up has concrete and measurable validity in the phsyical sense.
Interesting thread I think.
In fact, sometimes they were executed for their great aha. Thank goodness that doesn't happen anymore. Or does it?
Again interesting and also true. I actually think that science has a lot in common with art (and philosophy) in terms of inspiration for truly revolutionary ideas, which seem to come from some part of the human intellect that is buried somewhere in the subconcious. Though the in sience of course you have to follow that part up with results and a load of tedious experiments to make sure what you have thought up has concrete and measurable validity in the phsyical sense.
Interesting thread I think.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Philosophy and Religion
I think that inspired thought is called understanding.
I think that understanding is the creation of meaning it is a far step beyond knowing. We reach understanding only rarely because it is a long struggle and our culture leads us only to seek the bumper sticker solution.
Understanding is the tipping point when intellect and emotion reach a critical point and the eureka moment happens. The moment when water becomes ice the moment that we create new meaning for ourself by our unique way for ordering our knowledge.
I suspect most people seldom if ever experience the moment of understanding but if they did they would seek it out more than what they do.
I think that understanding is the creation of meaning it is a far step beyond knowing. We reach understanding only rarely because it is a long struggle and our culture leads us only to seek the bumper sticker solution.
Understanding is the tipping point when intellect and emotion reach a critical point and the eureka moment happens. The moment when water becomes ice the moment that we create new meaning for ourself by our unique way for ordering our knowledge.
I suspect most people seldom if ever experience the moment of understanding but if they did they would seek it out more than what they do.
Philosophy and Religion
coberst wrote: I think that inspired thought is called understanding.
I think that understanding is the creation of meaning it is a far step beyond knowing. We reach understanding only rarely because it is a long struggle and our culture leads us only to seek the bumper sticker solution.
Understanding is the tipping point when intellect and emotion reach a critical point and the eureka moment happens. The moment when water becomes ice the moment that we create new meaning for ourself by our unique way for ordering our knowledge.
I suspect most people seldom if ever experience the moment of understanding but if they did they would seek it out more than what they do.
Understanding is the result, not the process.
Philosophy and religion both seek a way to bring order, meaning and understanding to the unknown. In Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers by S.E. Frost Jr. the top questions all philosophers have attempted to answer go as follows #1 The Nature of the Universe #2 Man's Place In the Universe #3 What Is Good and What Is Evil? #4 The Nature of God #5 Fate vs Free Will
These are religious issues.
I disagree with your last statement. People have moments of understanding all the time, just not about things you'd deem important. Normally they call it "hindsight" but it is the same feeling nonetheless.
I think that understanding is the creation of meaning it is a far step beyond knowing. We reach understanding only rarely because it is a long struggle and our culture leads us only to seek the bumper sticker solution.
Understanding is the tipping point when intellect and emotion reach a critical point and the eureka moment happens. The moment when water becomes ice the moment that we create new meaning for ourself by our unique way for ordering our knowledge.
I suspect most people seldom if ever experience the moment of understanding but if they did they would seek it out more than what they do.
Understanding is the result, not the process.
Philosophy and religion both seek a way to bring order, meaning and understanding to the unknown. In Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers by S.E. Frost Jr. the top questions all philosophers have attempted to answer go as follows #1 The Nature of the Universe #2 Man's Place In the Universe #3 What Is Good and What Is Evil? #4 The Nature of God #5 Fate vs Free Will
These are religious issues.
I disagree with your last statement. People have moments of understanding all the time, just not about things you'd deem important. Normally they call it "hindsight" but it is the same feeling nonetheless.
Philosophy and Religion
koan wrote:
How would one describe the differences between philosophy and religion?
One is religiously philosophical .. and the other just philosophical..
The second I guess being less committed than the former ..The philosopher having no 'need' to believe in what he thinks
How would one describe the differences between philosophy and religion?
One is religiously philosophical .. and the other just philosophical..
The second I guess being less committed than the former ..The philosopher having no 'need' to believe in what he thinks
Philosophy and Religion
Gygz wrote: One is religiously philosophical .. and the other just philosophical..
The second I guess being less committed than the former ..The philosopher having no 'need' to believe in what he thinks
Hmmm. Socrates was willing to die for what he believed.
The second I guess being less committed than the former ..The philosopher having no 'need' to believe in what he thinks
Hmmm. Socrates was willing to die for what he believed.
Philosophy and Religion
koan wrote:
In fact, sometimes they were executed for their great aha. Thank goodness that doesn't happen anymore. Or does it?
Nowadays, rather than physical execution they can suffer intelectual execution where they're consigned to the ranks of the "loonies" and ignored. Both science and philosophy are getting quite good at that.
galbally wrote: However, in philosophy there is no self-evident truth other than that which can be obtained by speculation on both the physical world and human experience of that world, so western philiosopy would be more akin to science (though also very different I must also stress).
What of the underlying axioms on which modern philosophies are built?
Remove all axioms and you're reduced to "I think therefore I am" and can get no further.
Unless you accept some things as self evident then you have no "facts" to work on.
In fact, sometimes they were executed for their great aha. Thank goodness that doesn't happen anymore. Or does it?
Nowadays, rather than physical execution they can suffer intelectual execution where they're consigned to the ranks of the "loonies" and ignored. Both science and philosophy are getting quite good at that.
galbally wrote: However, in philosophy there is no self-evident truth other than that which can be obtained by speculation on both the physical world and human experience of that world, so western philiosopy would be more akin to science (though also very different I must also stress).
What of the underlying axioms on which modern philosophies are built?
Remove all axioms and you're reduced to "I think therefore I am" and can get no further.
Unless you accept some things as self evident then you have no "facts" to work on.
Philosophy and Religion
koan wrote: Hmmm. Socrates was willing to die for what he believed.
"Remember, no human condition is ever permanent. Then you will not be overjoyed in good fortune nor too scornful in misfortune." Socrates
Being entirly right being one ..Good point..
"Remember, no human condition is ever permanent. Then you will not be overjoyed in good fortune nor too scornful in misfortune." Socrates
Being entirly right being one ..Good point..
Philosophy and Religion
Bryn Mawr wrote: Nowadays, rather than physical execution they can suffer intellectual execution where they're consigned to the ranks of the "loonies" and ignored.
I see you've been to BrawlHall.com ..
Seriously though I think consigning thinkers to the margins is nothing new..
I see you've been to BrawlHall.com ..
Seriously though I think consigning thinkers to the margins is nothing new..
Philosophy and Religion
Gygz wrote: I see you've been to BrawlHall.com ..
Seriously though I think consigning thinkers to the margins is nothing new..
Better than killing them - but definitely not new
Seriously though I think consigning thinkers to the margins is nothing new..
Better than killing them - but definitely not new
Philosophy and Religion
Bryn Mawr wrote: Better than killing them - but definitely not new
Lets hope no one gets the clever idea to come up with some new punishment.
If it's thought of by someone who's not a thinker you can bet it would belong as a Dr. Evil plan in an Austin Powers movie.
Lets hope no one gets the clever idea to come up with some new punishment.
If it's thought of by someone who's not a thinker you can bet it would belong as a Dr. Evil plan in an Austin Powers movie.
Philosophy and Religion
koan wrote:
If it's thought of by someone who's not a thinker
Hmmm...
... yes, terrible accidents of the mouth can happen that way ..
If it's thought of by someone who's not a thinker
Hmmm...
... yes, terrible accidents of the mouth can happen that way ..Philosophy and Religion
Gygz wrote: Hmmm... ... yes, terrible accidents of the mouth can happen that way ..
it takes a lot of effort to think like a nonthinker, you try it sometime!
one can also be
pleasantly sad
animated in silence and
if a hypochondriac
have a healthy illness.
... yes, terrible accidents of the mouth can happen that way ..it takes a lot of effort to think like a nonthinker, you try it sometime!
one can also be
pleasantly sad
animated in silence and
if a hypochondriac
have a healthy illness.
Philosophy and Religion
koan wrote: it takes a lot of effort to think like a nonthinker, you try it sometime!
Rather like playing a violin like a non-violinist ,..The results are not worth the effort and likely to annoy everyone.
'Pleasantly sad' is nothing more than an interesting turn of phrase which takes no account of any measure of happiness. If the feeling is pleasant, if not welcomed, then the person could surely not be described as being 'sad' ..
This sounds like a phrase coming out of the Worthy tatters of the bohemian barefoot barons who's pretentious posturing is only for show. Melancholia has always been a fashionable accessory, but not an honest one ..
Rather like playing a violin like a non-violinist ,..The results are not worth the effort and likely to annoy everyone.
'Pleasantly sad' is nothing more than an interesting turn of phrase which takes no account of any measure of happiness. If the feeling is pleasant, if not welcomed, then the person could surely not be described as being 'sad' ..
This sounds like a phrase coming out of the Worthy tatters of the bohemian barefoot barons who's pretentious posturing is only for show. Melancholia has always been a fashionable accessory, but not an honest one ..
Philosophy and Religion
Gygz wrote: Rather like playing a violin like a non-violinist ,..The results are not worth the effort and likely to annoy everyone.
It can be quite educational - letting you see how some of the irrational attitudes we constantly see around us have come into being.
For the less scrupulous amongst us it can also teach you how to manipulate people who are too lazy to think for themselves.
It can be quite educational - letting you see how some of the irrational attitudes we constantly see around us have come into being.
For the less scrupulous amongst us it can also teach you how to manipulate people who are too lazy to think for themselves.