Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 83

Thread: What is philosophy?

  1. #51
    your cheapest wine Johnny's Avatar
    Type
    INTp
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Kamino
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    This icon is clearly doing it wrong...
    What's the difference? It's just soda, bro.

  2. #52
    Moderator Thoth's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    AHJ 2006
    Posts
    1,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny View Post
    What up with that?
    I'll need more to go on. What part are you asking about?

  3. #53
    your cheapest wine Johnny's Avatar
    Type
    INTp
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Kamino
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
    I'll need more to go on. What part are you asking about?
    You distinguished philosophy from spirituality in a way that peaked my interest. I'm not clear that human nature isn't mythologized also.
    What's the difference? It's just soda, bro.

  4. #54
    Moderator Thoth's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    AHJ 2006
    Posts
    1,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny View Post
    I'm not clear that human nature isn't mythologized also.
    That would be the quintessential existential question that serves as the backbone of the broader discipline of philosophy. Our perceptions form our ideals, but can we be certain our perceptions are not illusions of something else? This goes all the way back to Plato's allegory of the cave. There is no way to prove reality unless you prescribe to Descartes famous cogito, ergo sum, otherwise known as "I think, therefore I am."

    So is human nature a myth? Yes, if you follow to the prodigal child of philosophy, spiritualism. Spiritualism answers every existential question a human could have with "because, god(s)."

    Where I might surmise people with Guess Who's stance run astray is they correlate philosophy with postmodernism. Loosely speaking, philosophy and postmodernism do the same thing, deconstruct concepts, and postmodernism is certainly a philosophy, but (and this is key) all of philosophy is not postmodernism.

    Take Descartes above who is often credited for being a founder of rationalism, I'd argue he would find our modern brand of postmodernism far from rational and probably quite detestable, but both rationalism and postmodernism are philosophies.

    In the end, every -ism is a philosophy of some kind and we know they don't all get along.

  5. #55
    Senior Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,622
    Quote Originally Posted by ACow View Post
    Personally, I think @Guess Who is confused, in that he's a polemicist, not a critical thinker.

    A polemicist is critical of other positions, but being critical of positions doesn't make one a 'critical thinker'.
    When I think about it, I don't consider myself to be a critical thinker. I have a negative view of critical thinking. As I mentioned, to me critical thinking means identifying how something fails to satisfy the requirements of an ideology in order to tear that thing down and advance the ideology. Critical thinking is really Marxist critical theory, in my view.

    One definition of critical thinking I found said, "The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement." I guess this means using evidence and reason to determine objective truth. Using evidence and reason to understand how the natural world operates is called science and is not controversial. Where are we encouraged to apply critical thinking? It is not to the operation to the natural world. We are encouraged to apply critical thinking to society. If we are applying critical thinking to society, can it be separated from ideology? If it can't be separated from ideology, then I'd argue that it is not objective and really just Marxist critical theory in disguise.

    Can you give me an example of critical thinking applied to society that is independent of ideology?

    Quote Originally Posted by ACow View Post
    Indeed, there's the self-referential shield in that his own positions are perfectly shielded from criticism and attack. His ideology is not an ideology. His position and beliefs are outside the scope of either reason or critique.
    I said that I am not ideological because I consider it to be an accurate description of me. I am religious and don't consider religion to be an ideology but can understand why others could consider religion to be an ideology.

    Your description of me as a polemicist is probably accurate. I have strong opinions and critique virtually everything. However, I do listen to to counter arguments and am willing to change my views.

    Quote Originally Posted by ACow View Post
    Take human rights (and just for context, I am not a human rights based philosopher, so it feels weird defending them). Their failure to stop various evils and machinations is taken as a sign of the failure of human rights based philosophy. His philosophy's failure to stop various evils and machinations however is totally irrelevant. This is because his position isn't open to any kind of logical reflection or criticism (god and spiritualism is outside the scope of reason or logic), but also because, I presume, any empirical failing of his philosophy, i'm guessing, would just come back to the 'no true scotsman' fallacy: clearly that person wasn't REALLY spiritual.
    Ideologies are trying to save the world. Christianity is trying to save individuals. I am opposed to all ideologies because they are not trying the save individuals.The world is like a burning building with people trapped inside; we should be focused on saving as many of those individuals as we can because that it the first priority and because the building cannot be saved.

    Quote Originally Posted by ACow View Post
    What's interesting is that the same fallacy could of course be used to support human rights: of course human rights don't work if we don't REALLY all implement them, just like his own philosophy.
    Christianity is primarily focused on saving individuals, not on saving the world. I am not arguing that Christianity will do a better job of saving the world than Human Rights philosophy. I am arguing that we should give up on all ideologies because ideologies are focused on saving the world but the world is not worth saving and can't be saved whereas individual people can.

    Quote Originally Posted by ACow View Post
    And simultaneously, calls to implement christian spiritualism have not only failed to give world peace just as human rights have, but also given us many active evils, such as the general child-abuse scandals associated with various christian schools.
    All people are sinful. Christians are still sinful and subject to temptation. Christianity is a process of transforming the heart to make it less sinful over time. Individuals start with different degrees of sinfulness and will be transformed by different amounts. What is important is that individuals come to accept the need for spiritual transformation and begin the process of transformation.

    Quote Originally Posted by ACow View Post
    This of course, can not be taken as a critique of his position: as a polemicist, his philosophy is literally immune to empiricism or reason. Testing his own beliefs is not his goal or modus operandii. There is no true way to justify it, no way to discover it, no way to investigate it, no way to critique it, and no way to test it, beyond taking aim at everything else he sees as being in opposition to it.
    You are right that I have spent a lot of time arguing against a wide variety of things but little time arguing for anything. The truth is that I am arguing for God by arguing against everything that leads away from God. The main thing that leads away from God is the false idea that we should try to save the world. Hopefully, I have made my position clear here with the burning building analogy.

    I am not arguing that Christianity is better than a particular ideology at saving the world, so arguing that Christianity has failed or will fail to save the world is not a valid criticism of my position. I would agree that Christianity has failed and will fail to save the world. If you tell me Christians are sinful or that I am sinful, I'd agree with you. Christianity is about accepting that we are sinful, acknowledging that we can't save ourselves and turning to God for help.

    People don't come to Christianity through empirical evidence and logic, so I am not sure how I make a rational case for Christianity. All I can say is consider the truth of the statement that sinful actions come from the sinful desires of the human heart. Things in this world seem to be coming to a head. The time is nigh, as the saying goes.
    Last edited by Guess Who; 01-11-2019 at 06:58 PM.
    Big change is coming

  6. #56
    Senior Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,622
    Quote Originally Posted by RDF View Post
    I think that you've said you're a Christian. So what about all the other religions? And by "other religions" I mean specifically those religions not compatible with yours. Which would you consider non-Christian religions to be: "Ideologies" or "absolute truths"?

    I'm not being confrontational here, by the way. As an atheist myself, I view Christianity from the outside. So I'm just curious as to whether you would apply your same logic to a religion that you're seeing from the outside. Would you still insist that other (non-Christian) religions are "absolute truths" as well?
    No. There is one true religion, many false religions and many ways in which Christianity has been and continues to be distorted. Truth is absolute. and that which is incompatible with truth is untrue.
    Last edited by Guess Who; 01-11-2019 at 06:56 PM.
    Big change is coming

  7. #57
    Senior Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Faust View Post
    I'm sure this is just being cheeky and you don't actually believe that can ever happen.
    I am being cheeky but I do actually believe it can happen one day. Are you suggesting the God considers @Ptah unworthy of being saved?

    My confidence is based on my understanding of the human heart and the power of love.
    Last edited by Guess Who; 01-11-2019 at 06:54 PM.
    Big change is coming

  8. #58
    Senior Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Sistamatic View Post
    How do you feel about these guys?
    https://www.themonastery.org/aboutUs
    Established by a charlatan in 1962, reformed in 1997 to appear more respectable but still run by charlatans.
    Big change is coming

  9. #59
    Sysop Ptah's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,195
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    No. There is one true religion, many false religions and many ways in which Christianity has been and continues to be distorted. Truth is absolute. and that which is incompatible with truth is untrue.
    Your evidence of this being...?

  10. #60
    Moderator Thoth's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    AHJ 2006
    Posts
    1,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    When I think about it, I don't consider myself to be a critical thinker. I have a negative view of critical thinking. As I mentioned, to me critical thinking means identifying how something fails to satisfy the requirements of an ideology in order to tear that thing down and advance the ideology. Critical thinking is really Marxist critical theory, in my view.
    Insert Jackie Chan meme.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    Where are we encouraged to apply critical thinking?
    When are we not? Have you ever stopped to determine if someone is lying to you? Have you ever had to fix an appliance without directions? Have you ever had to make a decision in a rush or emergency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    It is not to the operation to the natural world.
    It is the operation of the natural world. Rain doesn't consider your feelings before it falls and a mosquito has no opinion about your closeness to god, or stance on modern politics before it takes your blood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    We are encouraged to apply critical thinking to society. If we are applying critical thinking to society, can it be separated from ideology?

    Can you give me an example of critical thinking applied to society that is independent of ideology?
    If I am about to hit a person in the street with my car, I don't consider their ideology before opting between their life and the curb my car may run on to. Objectively speaking, my car can be repaired, their life may not be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    If it can't be separated from ideology, then I'd argue that it is not objective and really just Marxist critical theory in disguise.
    The level of absurdity in this statement defies all rational thought.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •