Philosophy

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

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

If I remember correctly a very depressing philosophy where nothing has purpose, worth or meaning.

[Butterbeer]

Rian - i was very suprised the philosophy footie team went into a standard 4-4-2 formation ... very orthodox for that attacking line up - rather lacking in height in defence too i think ...

could you imagine being the manager of that lot?

... and the half time team talk???

Commentator: " and here at the impressive ideaology dome, there's a full crowd eagerly awaiting the second half .... it 2-1 to the philosophers , but Theology had a late penalty cry ignored ... the theology players are back out on the pitch .... but we are still awaiting the re-emergence of the philisophers ....

...


...


... there appears to be shouting coming from the home team's dressing room ... something about existential oranges .... yes ..Plato is unhappy that his tea isn't milky enough - and that statment was rather like a a red rag to a bull to Kant (who is pulling Hobbe's hair out) since it is blatantly at odds with his treatsie on Determinism and the perfect cuppa ...

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The trouble is that philosophy isn't entirely secular.

Agreed. Theology is a branch of philosophy; a segment of philosophical study.

To have a philosophy thread sans theistic philosophy is one thing. To say that theistic philosophy is not philosophy is another, and incorrect.

Gah! I really didn't want to participate. *exits quietly*

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Rev. Justin Timberlake

Agreed. Theology is a branch of philosophy; a segment of philosophical study.

To have a philosophy thread sans theistic philosophy is one thing. To say that theistic philosophy is not philosophy is another, and incorrect.

Gah! I really didn't want to participate. *exits quietly*

One can debate their viewpoints or thoughts without quoting scripture: if we do not have an open mind to debating it is no longer in any real sense a philosophical discussion merely a shouting match of pre-set views.

Theology is a seperate branch that this thread is not concerned with.

As Spock clearly states Anduril there already exists a theology thread.

Lief is indeed correct about the inter-connectedness - but we just ask him to keep his points (not change them!!) but keep them in context of a philosophical debate- and not to attempt to hoodwink fellow debators by single handedly deciding on a concept of truth as a basis for this debate and pretending we have all agreed to it - when any cursory read of the thread will show clearly that no agreement on the nature nor defintion of truth has been agreed.

in my experience in a philosohpical debate such cheap debating tricks will never slip through- and only cause anger amongst debators... now i am sure Lief did not mean it like that - it was probably just a bit -er - footloose ...

... i wonder what the Gaffer thinks about it all ??

best all, BB

[Butterbeer]

(a) Definition of philosophy

- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_philosophy )

The definition of philosophy is famously a difficult matter, and indeed many definitions of philosophy begin by stating that it is famously difficult.

Nonetheless, a review of standard reference works suggests that there is a broad agreement among the philosophers who write these reference works, as to what the definition actually is. This article lists the main points of agreement.

1. Philosophy is difficult to define.

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (OCP) says that most interesting definitions of philosophy are controversial. Philosophy: The Basics (PTB) says it is "notoriously difficult". Mastering Philosophy MP says there is "no straightforward definition".

Method:
The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy (PDP) says the method of philosophy is rational enquiry, or enquiry guided by the canons of rationality.

OCP says it is explicitly rationally critical thinking 'of a more or less systematic kind'.

The Collins English Dictionary (CED) mentions the use of 'rational argument'.

Modern Thomistic Philosophy (MTP) says 'natural light of reason'. PTB says that the most distinctive feature of philosophy is its use of logical argument. There is some agreement, therefore, that the philosophical method is rational, systematic and critical, or characterised by logical argument.

Intrinsic Character:
Philosophy is distinct from empirical science and religion.

The Penguin Encyclopedia (PE) says that philosophy differs from science in that its questions cannot be answered empirically, i.e. by observation or experiment, and from religion, in that its purpose is entirely intellectual, and allows no place for faith or revelation.

MTP says:

philosophy does not try to answer questions by appeal to revelation, myth or religious knowledge of any kind, but uses reason, "without reference to sensible observation and experiments".

............... ................ .................. ................. ....... .....

this is straight from the reference - no clever editing or anything- because for one thing there is just no need- if we just wanna talk about stuff fine- if we want to debate philosophy, then it needs to be structured- and as an agreed principle the world over- we muddy the waters by bringing in religion - that is why theology is a seprate thread and field.

best all, BB

[Butterbeer]

btw -out of fairness to Lief - here's a link he may like more- it is from a christian theological position- but from my perspective please note that last point

3)



http://www.leithart.com/archives/001529.php

but please also note that philosophically these are not agreed - as we note from the fact the author would like all philosophy departments shut down!!

best, BB



edit*** edit ***


Nurv-

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

Nietzsche would argue that Lief is a nihilist.
Ironically true.

funny old game philosophy ... eh what Rian?

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

The Penguin Encyclopedia (PE) says that philosophy differs from science in that its questions cannot be answered empirically, i.e. by observation or experiment, and from religion, in that its purpose is entirely intellectual, and allows no place for faith or revelation.

That seems to be vaguely referencing an archaic form of theology, and not contemporary systematic theologies. But anyway.

[Butterbeer]

well, ok ... how many more references and examples would satisfy you???

name your figure ...

besdies i disagree - archaic theology?? All the definitions agree, btw, in general ... it is a subject purposefully and specifically outside of religious doctrine.

and anyway is this a

contemporary systematic theologies thread??



best, BB

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

and anyway is this a

contemporary systematic theologies thread??



best, BB

I'm not saying what this is, nor what it should be. But hey, I concede that theistic philosophy isn't philosophy.

[Spock]

You do realize this is beginning to sound like a Monty Python sketch, don't you.

[brownjenkins]

I think the main point in separating philosophy from religion has to do with the basis that everything is open to discussion and debate. Religions of all kinds contain a lot of philosophy. You just have to avoid the idea of using them as "proofs".

For example, you could have a philosophical discussion on: "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you." discussing how it does or does not apply to the real world.

You could also have a religious discussion giving examples of the many faiths that hold this principle to be true for one reason or another. However, it ceases to be purly philosophical because the "proof" depends upon faith in the particular religion. Then the conversation inevitably turns to whether or not a particular faith is justified and the original idea gets lost in the mix.

Basically, pure philosophy is discussing ideas on their own merit.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

One can debate their viewpoints or thoughts without
quoting scripture:

I disagree. There was no way I could respond to Brownjenkins without getting into the religious issue in my response. It is because this debate refuses to allow certain viewpoints and thoughts that I can't stay in it. I couldn't be dishonest to what I think, and that's what I'd have to be if I gave him any answer other than the religious one.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

and not to attempt to hoodwink fellow debators by single handedly deciding on a concept of truth as a basis for this debate and pretending we have all agreed to it

I never said that anyone agreed with my definition of truth except me.

We were discussing absolute truth. We were going to discuss whether truth was absolute or relative. To do that, we had to define truth. People defined it in different ways, and based on those definitions, were saying that it was not absolute. That was fine with me. I agree with them that by those definitions of truth, truth is not absolute. But everyone except Spock was saying that the state of reality was absolute. My own personal definition of truth is "the state of reality." Therefore all I did toward the end of that semantics discussion was point out that if one accepted my definition of truth, we would be agreed that truth is absolute.

That's all that happened! See my post #227- there I said that "the state of reality" is how I'm defining truth, and asked brownjenkins how he is defining it. I never said anywhere that everyone had accepted my definition of truth.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

- when any cursory read of the thread will show clearly that no agreement on the nature nor defintion of truth has been agreed.

And I never said that one had been agreed on. I guess though that you didn't read my post #227.

I'll give you some more quotes from my posts to prove to you that I am innocent of malicious thought or deed!

From my post #203:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There are opinions about the state of reality and there is reality itself, and that reality is absolute. To me this sentence is the same as: There are beliefs about truth and there is the truth itself, and that truth is absolute.

I said there, "To me". I never said "to everyone," and neither did I pretend that everyone agreed with this definition.

Post #198:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I guess any disagreement we have (and this goes for Lotesse and Rohirrim too) largely just comes from different definitions of the word truth.

I said myself here that we have different definitions of truth. Nowhere was I saying we were all agreed on my definition of truth.

Post #191:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

To me a critically important meaning of truth is "the state of reality".

Again, I here qualified my statement with a "to me."

I didn't say "to me" every time I said "truth is the state of reality." Sometimes I was just assuming people knew it was my definition I was going by when I talked about truth (just as everyone else was going by their definitions when talking) but I never claimed everyone was accepting my definition.

I hope this clears away misunderstandings on the matter!

Now on to the issue of philosophy definition.

Butterbeer, I wish you'd posted your evidence that philosophy and religion are different in the beginning, rather than just telling me that your views on the difference are accepted worldwide! Because saying they're accepted worldwide is an unsupported claim, but evidence like Penguin Dictionary is much more solid. I would have accepted what you were saying much more readily if you'd given me evidence . But now I do accept what you're saying!

I can see that you're right that religion and philosophy are defined differently, philosophy based solely upon reason and religion based on faith and revelation, as well as reason. So there is an important difference between the two I'm glad you've made clear .

The ancient Greeks tied religion and philosophy together. People like Socrates, major philosophers, and the writers of the Bhagavad-Gita, couldn't help but bind philosophy and religion together. Indian culture often has trouble splitting the two. I have the same trouble too, myself.

For me, religion and philosophy are so thoroughly blended that they are impossible to extract from one another. Therefore I will just have to leave the thread, and that's the way it goes. The issues are just too thoroughly tangled together, for me .

See you all around!

~Lief

[Spock]

IMV-if you have NO religion, you still can have a philosophical outlook and your own definitions of things, concepts, etc.

[Lief Erikson]

I agree.

[Butterbeer]

me too.

see - harmless this philosophy ain't it?

and that applies both ways round too, as i am sure we all agree?


The thing Lief - is not to change or deny your thoughts and beleifs at all - just to allow the logical route of any hypothetical argument to it's conclusion merely based on the validity of the argument, and with nothing else hindering this.

I hope you can still enjoy the cut and thrust of it- the wonderful exploration of ideas and yes - beleifs! But you just have to have a detachment in terms of the philosophy of it - just think that it is a hypothetical examination or an exercise in say - logic gates!!


or ... turn the debate to something like volition? Someone mentioned aesthetics? ... that'd be a good one!

I disagree. There was no way I could respond to Brownjenkins without getting into the religious issue in my response. It is because this debate refuses to allow certain viewpoints and thoughts that I can't stay in it. I couldn't be dishonest to what I think, and that's what I'd have to be if I gave him any answer other than the religious one.

ok - let's look at this one then - firstly the debate here refuses no idea! -that is rather the point - but here is the crux of it - which came first the chicken or the egg? ... why can you not "respond to Brownjenkins without getting into the religious issue in my response" but cannot discuss the response in terms of how this explains the principals behind your belief (as and where of course it is in context)??



that is to say stay with the debate in your own terms - but using your ideas AS the debate ..not muddying or curtailing the debate by quoting exisitng answers as THE PROOF??

That there is the whole gig - i can see no reason why you cannot join in and enjoy it too

give us here the reasoning behind the ideas, not a quoted proof of exisiting ideas!!

there is no philosophical debate if we debate from a position of these are the answers - and the why of the answers is simply becuse that is the way it is and alsways will be.

Yoy know?

best, BB

[Nurvingiel]

Lief is not a true nihilist. I looked it up.

I would argue that true nihilism would be very hard to support. Something exists. We may not understand reality (by which I mean the thing/s that exist/s), but something does exist. If nothing existed the idea that nothing existed wouldn't exist.

I mean, if nothing existed we wouldn't even be having this conversation right? So isn't it kind of a moot point?

Is nihilism like a bad short story - at the end it says, "And then he woke up"?

Originally Posted by Spock

You do realize this is beginning to sound like a Monty Python sketch, don't you.

Monty Python explains many phisolophical truths.

For example, in Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail, after defeating the rabbit with the Holy Hand Grenade, Arthur and his knights are facing certain death from a monster within the caves.

But then the animator suffers a fatal heart attack, making the monster no longer reality. And Arthur and his knights are saved.

Later, they are forced to eat Sir Robin's minstrels (and there was much rejoicing). If they had not been starving in Mercia, they never would have eaten those people, even though they are always very annoying.

They were forced to cannibalise members of their group in order to survive, but perhaps in a desperate attempt not to go insane they look at the one positive aspect, that they don't have to listen to the mistrels' annoying singing any more.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Lief is not a true nihilist. I looked it up.

I would argue that true nihilism would be very hard to support. Something exists. We may not understand reality (by which I mean the thing/s that exist/s), but something does exist. If nothing existed the idea that nothing existed wouldn't exist.

I mean, if nothing existed we wouldn't even be having this conversation right? So isn't it kind of a moot point?

I've never heard that nihilism means that nothing exists. Maybe you got that from the discussion of the root word? Anyway, I've never heard that. I think the most common definition would be the #3 one, Existential Nihilism:

from Nurvi's article

3. Existential Nihilism

While nihilism is often discussed in terms of extreme skepticism and relativism, for most of the 20th century it has been associated with the belief that life is meaningless. Existential nihilism begins with the notion that the world is without meaning or purpose. Given this circumstance, existence itself--all action, suffering, and feeling--is ultimately senseless and empty.

[Nurvingiel]

*rereads article*

Heh. I kind of misunderstood the article. When it says, "A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy" I inferred that this meant a true nihilist would believe that there is nothing.

But still, I think true nihilism would be hard to support, because nihilism is an idea that one would agree with or not (believe, if you will). So a true nihilist wouldn't really believe in nihilism. ???

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Hey cool, that's me.

[Nurvingiel]

Your rock RJT. Personally I think nihilism sounds a bit depressing, but to each his own.

I personally think people like to belong to something greater than themselves like a sports team, supporting a political party or sports team, a school or university or etc.

I guess you could be nihilistic and do the above though.

Except I think wanting to belong to something applies to ideas and philosophies as well. I think that's one reason religions are popular.

I am not trying to start a religious discussion, I'm just using it as an example.