03-28-2006, 04:06 AM | #261 | |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
Quote:
__________________
We are not things. Last edited by Earniel : 03-28-2006 at 04:07 AM. |
|
03-28-2006, 04:53 AM | #262 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 3,514
|
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 ... Last edited by Butterbeer : 03-28-2006 at 05:02 AM. |
03-28-2006, 05:40 AM | #263 | |
Andúril the White
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Your thoughts
Posts: 672
|
Quote:
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*
__________________
Nothing can stop me now cause I just don't care. |
|
03-28-2006, 06:13 AM | #264 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 3,514
|
Quote:
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 Last edited by Butterbeer : 03-28-2006 at 06:46 AM. |
|
03-28-2006, 07:01 AM | #265 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 3,514
|
(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 Last edited by Butterbeer : 03-28-2006 at 07:07 AM. |
03-28-2006, 07:15 AM | #266 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 3,514
|
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- Quote:
Ironically true. funny old game philosophy ... eh what Rian? Last edited by Butterbeer : 03-28-2006 at 07:46 AM. |
|
03-28-2006, 09:44 AM | #267 | |
Andúril the White
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Your thoughts
Posts: 672
|
Quote:
__________________
Nothing can stop me now cause I just don't care. |
|
03-28-2006, 10:00 AM | #268 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 3,514
|
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 |
03-28-2006, 10:43 AM | #269 | |
Andúril the White
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Your thoughts
Posts: 672
|
Quote:
__________________
Nothing can stop me now cause I just don't care. Last edited by Rev. Justin Timberlake : 03-28-2006 at 10:45 AM. |
|
03-28-2006, 12:03 PM | #270 |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
You do realize this is beginning to sound like a Monty Python sketch, don't you.
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
03-28-2006, 12:13 PM | #271 |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
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.
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
03-28-2006, 01:25 PM | #272 | ||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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: Quote:
Post #198: Quote:
Post #191: Quote:
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
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 03-28-2006 at 01:45 PM. |
||||||
03-28-2006, 01:55 PM | #273 |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
IMV-if you have NO religion, you still can have a philosophical outlook and your own definitions of things, concepts, etc.
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
03-28-2006, 03:16 PM | #274 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
I agree.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
03-28-2006, 03:26 PM | #275 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 3,514
|
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! Quote:
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 Last edited by Butterbeer : 03-28-2006 at 03:54 PM. |
|
03-28-2006, 04:16 PM | #276 | |||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
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"? Quote:
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.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
03-28-2006, 04:40 PM | #277 | ||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
||
03-28-2006, 04:50 PM | #278 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
*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. ???
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
03-28-2006, 04:50 PM | #279 |
Andúril the White
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Your thoughts
Posts: 672
|
Hey cool, that's me.
__________________
Nothing can stop me now cause I just don't care. |
03-28-2006, 04:53 PM | #280 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
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.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Star Wars Philosophy | Lief Erikson | The Star Wars Saga | 38 | 03-03-2014 04:48 PM |
Philosophy | Noble Elf Lord | General Messages | 150 | 01-25-2011 09:43 PM |
The Philosophy of Age | durinsbane2244 | Writer's Workshop | 11 | 10-07-2006 12:10 PM |
Political philosophy | Gilthalion | General Messages | 210 | 06-19-2006 08:22 PM |
Not ncessarily boring...Philosophy and basis of Christianity | Finrod Felagund | General Messages | 21 | 02-04-2003 11:46 PM |