Philosophy

[Spock]

Flying Spaghetti Monster being published
From United Press International
March 27, 2006 2:42 PM EST
PHOENIX, Mar 27, 2006 (UPI via COMTEX) -- Pastafarianism is hitting the big time with a book on the Flying Spaghetti Monster ready to take its place in U.S. bookstores next to the Bible.

Bobby Henderson, who recently moved from Oregon to Arizona, created the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster last year during the height of arguments before the Kansas Board of Education over whether intelligent design should be taught as an alternative theory to evolution in schools.

The gospel includes the explanation that the Flying Spaghetti Monster made a few mistakes during the creation of the universe because he imbibed a bit much from heaven's beer volcano. And instead of amen, adherents say r'amen -- after the noodle dish.

"I wrote the letter (to the Kansas school board) for my own amusement as much as anything. And it totally snowballed. Some people say I'm going to hell," he told USA Today.

The gospels come out Tuesday in paperback.

[Butterbeer]

...ahem ... yes thank-you spock!

... but perhaps this isn't the place for any - any ID stuff .... and the rasta- pasta really should be in the teacup ...

hah! ... out-spocks Spock!


*hopes he is in a good mood ...*

[Lief Erikson]

Butterbeer, I'm not ignoring anyone's definition when they offer it. I asked Lotesse how she defined truth and I asked Brownjenkins the same question, and then I discussed those views some. I'm trying to understand what other people think and why, and also to argue it when I disagree. To understand what people think, I need to use language that I understand. That is why I often assume my own definition of truth when asking questions. Please do use your definition of truth (after explaining it) if you please, when asking questions. I'm only using my definition of truth because it makes it easier for me to understand what other people are saying. I'm very interested in other people's views, including yours.

And how do you define truth?

I fear I am getting you angry, though, because of my behavior. If that is so, do you think it's best if we don't debate on this thread? I don't mean to offend you.

[Lotesse]

What is the topic of philosophical debate, here; has it bcome "What is Truth?" Because if that is the topic of debate, here, it is getting a little ridiculous. We've all defined what we believe truth to be, versus perception and reality, and the semantics have ben picked apart endlessly, and now Theology is creeping in - wait a minute, haven't we already discussed "What is Truth?" To have a purely logical and reasonable discussion about the nature of truth and reality without, I repeat without introducing religious belief into the conversation, well wouldn't that be nice. Religious belief will have a tremendous, irrefutable, immutable effect on the believers' ability to or style of discussing Truth, and the idea of Truth. I think this is what Butterbeer is trying to tell you, Lief. To truly engage in a purely secular, logical philosophical discussion, one must check their religious beliefs at the door, and try to think "outside the box," as it were. For one as passionate about their religious beliefs as you are, I can see how this poses a great hindrance when attempting a philosophical conversation.

We were starting a conversation about Nihilism, a topic Bombadillo opened up yesterday. Nihilism and Nietsche, before this long-ass diatribe about truth and reality got going. You ought to check out Beyond Good And Evil, Lief; you might really enjoy this classic work of Modern Philosophy! It's an excellentr book. Don't worry, it is not a religion, not religious text like the Koran or the Bible. It's philosophy. Different kettle of fish!

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

...... the topic of debate, here, it is getting a little ridiculous.

Indeed!

Originally Posted by Lotesse

...... To truly engage in a purely secular, logical philosophical discussion, one must check their religious beliefs at the door, and try to think "outside the box," as it were.

Good luck on that one.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

we decide then Lief, our thoughts, our perceptions, our theories, our very philosophy on the basis of ...


a Dictionary ???

Many times, humans define their words based on a dictionary, though. But that's not always necessary to do. If you want to define truth differently, that's fine. As Lotesse points out, everyone has been relating their definitions of truth, not just me. I don't mean to stifle you or anyone.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

yes - religion and beleif will always be to a degree entwined- but unless you are so feeble in your own thoughts here that there is an overriding need to just at the first opportunity turn to religious doctrine

It was the only way I felt I could respond to Brownjenkins. It was the answer to his question, my natural response to his claim. It was religious, but the only other option for me was ignoring him or offering to move to the Theology thread (which I did).

What I wrote was not an "overriding need" to turn this into a religious conversation. Remember that I immediately offered to move my conversation with him into the Theology thread. What I said was simply the natural response.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

I for one wish to stay here and discuss philosophy as we were here in the philosophy thread.

Not an unreasonable request really

If it's a philosophy without any ability to mention religion when necessary, a large chunk of philosophy is being cut out.

Originally Posted by World English Dictionary

phi·los·o·phy n
1. the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom
2. a particular system of thought or doctrine
3. a set of basic principles or concepts underlying a particular sphere of knowledge
4. a precept, or set of precepts, beliefs, principles, or aims, underlying somebody’s practice or conduct
5. restraint, resignation, or calmness and rationality in a person’s behavior or response to events
6. the branch of learning that includes the liberal arts and sciences and excludes medicine, law, and theology (archaic)

All the first four of these definitions of philosophy are related to religion.

I'm not trying to turn this into a religious discussion. I'm only talking about religion when necessary, for I realize that there are other topics for discussion of religion. However, religion is part of philosophy. Cutting it completely out of this thread is cutting out part of philosophy.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

To truly engage in a purely secular, logical philosophical discussion, one must check their religious beliefs at the door, and try to think "outside the box," as it were. For one as passionate about their religious beliefs as you are, I can see how this poses a great hindrance when attempting a philosophical conversation.

I understand that to hold a purely secular conversation, I would for sure have to leave my religious beliefs at the door. The trouble is that philosophy isn't entirely secular. So if I leave my religious beliefs at the door, I'll be dropping part of what philosophy is. "Truth, existence, reality, causality and freedom" all clearly are philosophical and religious subjects together. Philosophy blends with religion. To remove religion is to remove important aspects of philosophy.

By the way, thank-you for the kind tone of your post. I'm getting rather wound up here, emotions a bit stirred, but that was helpful. Reading a book titled "Beyond Good and Evil" probably wouldn't be the best prescription for me right now though.

Discussing nihilism would also be fun. I think I'm just going to sink through the floor of the room I'm sitting in for a few minutes though and lurk. I'm feeling too on edge. Spock was very, very correct to try to head me off in the start; I did indeed get stirred. Oh, and Spock, I really am very interested in hearing whether this thread is going to be completely secularized or not.

Bye bye for a little while, all . And no hard feelings toward any. (Goes and sinks into the floor to have a pity party)

~Lief

[Butterbeer]

I am not angry Lief - what on earth gave you that idea ... though i thought the venting thread stuff was - let us say risque at best


Lief:

So we seem all agreed that absolute truth exists if it is defined as the state of reality

forgive me Lief - but this statement is just evidently not true (and no going now into the nature of, nor meaning of, truth neither!!! )


Forgive me also but as an ex philosopher ( first class honours with modern history ) - this is not a philosophy debate - this is a free-for all jumble of odd fragments of ideas - the debate was not about truth - but by bringing in this concept - and this i found shoddy purely in terms of debate - attempting to define this concept as an agreed empiricism here, when clearly no such formal agreement had been made -
it makes the whole debate pointless and debased.

Jeesh, this is very freaky. I'm wondering now if all the debates I've had on this subject throughout all my time on Entmoot have been caused solely by different definitions of the word "truth".

That's a horrific thought. I may have wasted tens of hours on a misunderstanding of semantics .

this could be an eye-opening experience Lief. Have an honest think about it.
But not the semantics part- the insistence in fitting every debate or thought into a certain truth regardless- have a think on that.

Even the great Christian thinkers can do this without in any way making them any the less devout.

You have Lief a keen brain, an ability to use it and an ability to use words creatively and well - you can be a very good writer when on song - but do not stifle your mind, Lief nor your soul either - you do not need in any way to go against your beleifs to open out your mind to thought and to examining the beauty of the world and mankind and, importantly to ideas.

What i hope i am saying clearly is nothing to do with your beleifs or your right to them - nothing at all - but do not hide your keen brain away from exploring ideas and concepts of truth - for we are all human and if ultimately we are to go to God - then we will all still do so from having been humans here on earth and having made our own conceptions of truth, language and logic ( -heh - A J Ayer- now theres a book to read - actually i think the book is language truth and logic but anyway... )


God gave you intelligence to use it, not to bottle it up into a glass bottle and put up on the mantelpeice (next to the stuffed gaffer's head - where IS he???)

I hope none of that Lief is offensive- for it is not meant to be: but try and debate the philosophy - even just as an exercise in the fun and rough and tumble of debate itself if need be, leave the actual theology to the other threads!

Very best, BB

(mind you i see you have posted above since i started this- and i ain't read your above post yet... - so ... )

[Lotesse]

O.K., now that those two long posts by Lief & Butterbeer are out of the way - and BTW Butterbeer, that was a really nice post you just wrote, I liked that, very cool - now can we please focus on conversing on a philosophical question of debate, and leave the religion out of it? (Remember, we were starting a talk on nihilism and Nietsche)Lief, this means you, O.K.? You already graciously let us know that you would. It's not a subject of ebate in and of itself. There's no need to do a loooooooooong loooooooong page of explaining why you think philosophy is devoid without religion, or how offended you are or are not with Butterbeer, or BB with Lief, etcetera etcetera and so on and so on. Jesus christ!!! I KNOW, I know that it is possible for people here to engage in an intelligent, logical, non-emotional, cool minded, non-religious, purely philosophical talk. I have seen it happen, I know it is not a wishful thinking idea. It happens when we keep religion out of it.

PLEASE - No more personal stuff or religion stuff in the philosophy thread!! I beg of you!! It will be a great thread if we can JUST keep it on topic, and the topic is PHILOSOPHY, not religious philosophy, not religion, not personal mooter beef, and surely not ten page explanations (this means you, dear Lief! )as to why Philosophy should include theology when there are a million threads extant in this forum in which to discuss theology, and philosophical ideas within the bounds of religion and theology.


Religion is not a part of philosophy; philosophy encourages free thought and religion is dogmatic. There are philosophies that are part of religions, but Philosophy itself, the study, is not religious.
Too bad there's not a smilie for frustrated to the max, because if there were, I'd have about ten in a row right now.

[Butterbeer]

man, Lief!! - and honestly- i do not mean this in a bad way!

but boy you can be pig-headed!

you quote this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by World English Dictionary
phi·los·o·phy n
1. the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom
2. a particular system of thought or doctrine
3. a set of basic principles or concepts underlying a particular sphere of knowledge
4. a precept, or set of precepts, beliefs, principles, or aims, underlying somebody’s practice or conduct
5. restraint, resignation, or calmness and rationality in a person’s behavior or response to events
6. the branch of learning that includes the liberal arts and sciences and excludes medicine, law, and theology (archaic)

and then completely disregard your own evidential statement!

The point this definition of philosophy rather appears to be pointing out is that it is an independent look at concepts of truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom etc etc - as a branch of learning that ...

... excludes Theology!

All these things can and some would say should (philosophers certainly) be examined and looked at without recourse to a god or to a central universal truth.

This is indeed why there is a discipline called philosophy and another subject called Theology.

All the first four of these definitions of philosophy are related to religion.

no they are not - Not, that is, in Philosophical terms- and that is the stumbling block here seemingly.

If you as an individual base your whole central philosophy around religion then of course they will to you overlap.

But the reason i say you are not a philosopher, lief- it is not having a go at you my friend - not at all - but because unless you can debate philosophically examining ideas (any ideas) and concepts (any concepts) logically or from the view point of thinking about the very act of thinking and by doing so excluding a central theological and religious doctrine ... it is NOT philosophy!

Best, BB

any old ways - i have had enough here just now!

[Butterbeer]

ooops! sorry Lotsy - I didne' see ya post there- was already whirring away before that went up - busy doin' the looooooooooooooooong postie thing!

[Lotesse]

That's cool! I appreciated everything you had to say, anyway; I just hope to someday soon be back in a conversation here with yourself & others about some philosophy, you know? Not semantics, not religion. Philosophy! Branches & ideas and thinkers of philosophy; what nihilism means, what Locke was onto, or Hobbes, or Kant, or Heidegger, or - or Plato, or Socrates, or Aristotle, or - or Spinoza, or - Nietsche, you know? Philosophy!! Now that we've defined the word, and all.

[Nurvingiel]

I'm impressed at the philosophical knowledge expressed in this thread, semantics aside. But hey, we are all on the same page now right?

So, what is nihilism? It's a great word anyway.

I wonder if people go into philosophy and find their own approach to the world is actually [famous dead guy]'s philosophy. Ever happened to you Butterbeer or Lotesse? (You guys seem to have studied philosophy.)

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I wonder if people go into philosophy and find their own approach to the world is actually [famous dead guy]'s philosophy. Ever happened to you Butterbeer or Lotesse? (You guys seem to have studied philosophy.)

Yeah, especially when I was in college, completely obsesed with and immersed in my philosophy & logic classes. I was trying to figure out who's philosophy I identified with most, but try as I might, I found that I don't precisely adhere to or completely "agree with" or fully accept any one complete philosophical concept, from any one of the great thinkers. To be so would be contrary to the very nature of exploring philosophy, anyway. I carry bits and chunks and pieces of this thinker & that philosopher, this writer and that rebel, but to ascribe one's own ideology completely to just one thinker would kind of be beside the point. I love what all of them have to say, each in his or her own right. To identify too completely with only one philosopher's ideology would start, in and of itself, to be like being a "follower," and who follows? *hint, hint* Not me, definitely not me.

[Lief Erikson]

I'll make this brief: Sorry for being such a melodramatic nut-case, everyone .

[Rían]

Speaking of trying to get back to Nietsche and nihilism, I'll repeat my question to Lotesse (which prob. got buried since it was quite a few pages ago) :

Lotesse, what does that quote from Nietsche mean to you, in your own words? I'm asking you, specifically, because you quoted it, but I'd like to hear anyone's comments on it

And an even more important question - has anyone but me seen Monty Python's "Philosophers' Soccer game"?

[Lotesse]

I'm not going to engage in any conversation with you, Rian, no offense,

Edited by Mod-content

PM the person if you have something of this nature or put them on your "ignore" list

[Rían]

ooookay!

[Mercutio]

Has anyone here read The Clash of Orthodoxies by Robert P. George?

[Lotesse]

Law, Religion and Morality in Crisis? No, haven't read it, have no desire to, either.

Not philosophy.

Note the words Law, Religion, and Morality in the title, never mind the term "Clash of Orthodoxies". He's a Christian, using Natural Law and traditional Catholic tenets as a basis from which to denigrate the secular orthodoxy as a whole.I do believe a discussion on his book would be best suited to the Theological Opinions thread, wouldn't you say?

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/...er-george.html

[Mercutio]

I was merely reminded of this particular book by the discussion of natural law and drawing distinct lines between philosophy/truth/reason/theology, and the arguments different groups of people put out. (Particularly those about why faith cannot be grounded in reason and how only the non-religious have the true arguments since they are based on reason and "unhindered").

Law, Religion and Morality in Crisis? No, haven't read it, have no desire to, either.

Ok.

Not philosophy.

I beg to differ. Natural law is philosophy.

Note the words Law, Religion, and Morality in the title, never mind the term "Clash of Orthodoxies". He's a Christian, using Natural Law and traditional Catholic tenets as a basis from which to denigrate the secular orthodoxy as a whole.

"Denigrates"? But you haven't read the book...

I do believe a discussion on his book would be best suited to the Theological Opinions thread, wouldn't you say?

Perhaps.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues...ver-george.html

Yes. Great journal.
The text does cover the response of Dr. Dever.