@mark there is not true philosophy than bible...come to lord and be saved...u still have time...
We are talking about RATIONAL philosophy ... not about religious absurdities from some outdated story books only used by the intellectually less developed who have yet to learn how to think in rational terms ...
There are several schools, quite often conflicting each other. Yet you really have to start with the Ancient Greeks. But even they have different schools. I lam fond of Epicurus, Heracletus and the Big 3. There is no such thing as true philosophy btw.
Oh come on, "Love me or burn in hell" (said Jesus)? Really? Do you really believe that Jesus would play it like this
"Over here! A Philosophy Forum. No Religion Allowed! "
God will get you for that...
... some serious religious scare? ahaha
At least spell it out, which of the many gods you think will be the one to find the time for it ... and add a hint of how they may decide on who, when, where and how!
I'd post one of my infamous disaster pics, but I'm trying to get 3 of these on my profile page images:
Headed towards Europe...
I do not believe in any kind of (personal) god yet my views flirt with pantheism, which is not an organised religion or maybe a religion at all. Epicurus' paradox (about the omniscient - omnipotent - benevolent God) and the rest of similar paradoxes cannot and do not apply to pantheism, since the above three qualities have nothing to do with the pantheistic "god-universe", a "god" that is not even sentient or conscious. So while I am technically not an atheist I still do not count as religious. Right?
What idea or ideas would you like to philosophize about? Personal ethics? The role of government? Education? Science? The human condition? How to promote the well being of the planet as opposed to the health of homo sapiens? Diversity: social, biological, natural? What matters?
MarK,Paradigmsearch,f_hruz!!! LOL LOL LOL!!!!!
Inevitably one is going to lead to the other!
Maybe in the process of discussing these questions, we get to see more clearly the dividing line between rationality and absurdity?
This makes sense. There tends to be more of the less insightful and lower grade, than the clearly defined, more appropriate and useful, giving raise to positive developments and substantive discoveries on a much slower scale than the production of excrement and religious BS ...
Just popped in on the last post and saw this. Was thinking the same thing.
Yup - people will insist on bringing religious beliefs into philosophical, scientific, moral, ethical etc discussions.
The only reason I opened this up was because I saw a fair few people asking if it would be possible to discuss philosophy without bringing religion into it.
So - here we are.
Different philosophies create discussions that further knowledge and understanding.
Different religions create wars and killings.
Therefore it seems quite civilized to discuss philosophy and barbaric to discuss religion. Unless you believe the end justifies the means.
My philosophy is that people fear the unknown and so seek out those who agree with their (sometimes) narrow views and understandings. This gathering offers them security and support, providing the illusion that since there are so many who believe the same thing it must therefor be true; which in turn offers the feeling that as they are "right" they have the right to force this view on others who, thinking differently than they do, are clearly wrong.
Nonetheless, it all started with fear of the unknown... that fear must still exist to some extent or there would not be the urgency and need to force more people to share that belief, thought, or idea... somewhere deep down, they still experience a mistrust for their perceived "truth" as just knowing for themselves is not fulfilling enough for contentment....
Just a thought....
huh, if I remember correctly, scientology does just that, getting people to share a nonsensical belief system, while cutting them off from rational discourse, and gobbling down large sums of money for good measure.
Or perhaps fear of another kind as well. For speculations sake, what if "Others" of great technological prowess came to this planet in the mist of times past and set themselves up as gods thus fomenting religion. A rational argument could be made for this theory some would say.
Weren't people hesitant of cars in the beginning? Telling those who first bought the earliest models to "get a horse". The fear of different, new, or unknown doesn't have to be confined by religious views.
Aliens, technology, and social "norms" can fall under this category as well.
Thank you Alastar Packer for looking beyond & finding the rationality and logic of the theory/philosophy
Do pseudoscientific notions such as feng shui and crystals count in your definition of philosophy?
I've never met a pushy feng shui practitioner... lol
But I live a pretty sheltered life, so they could be out there I guess
Is there room for logic in a philosophical discussion?
Because logically speaking - I have doubts that there can be any serious philosophical discussions that do not address, or at least recognize religion.
From Socrates to Locke, religion was included in the philosophies.
At times philosophy makes less sense than religion judging from the actions performed by philosophers of the past!
Is this where you find Filo and So recipes for Free?
How about not bashing religions or people who do not believe in a higher power. We could talk about fear of the unknown and how that effects homo sapiens. Maybe we could banter on the change that technology is having on the governments of the world. There is far too much anger over "the other" and not enough acceptance. Let us put down the daggers of fear and try to move forward into understanding.
GA "I think therefore I am" is not too religious.
I believe Descartes was not a religious philosopher, quite to the contrary, he was shunned by the pope.
Religions use fear but also disease, poverty and physical handicaps to recruit and keep followers. But thank God I’m an atheist.
Glad you were able to find an opening to declare your "non-believer" status...
But back to Descartes, I can't agree that he was not a religious philosopher. He openly claimed to be Roman Catholic. In Meditations he expressed his thoughts on the nature of religion and existence. etc. etc.
My point was not the pro's or con's of religion in philosophy - just the fact that it is difficult to discuss deep philosophy without the involvement of religious declarations or considerations
Take Mark K. for example - obviously he wants a non-religious discussion because he's bald (Allah already took his hair, Budha took his good looks, God gave him flat feet, and... and... and finally - Zeus stole his thunder)
ps. sorry, Mark, Hope you didn't mind the illustration - but since I'm fat and ugly with a Simian brow - I didn't think you would mind me calling the kettle black...
Why is that? You think philosophy always has to include irrational religious beliefs? Surely it is possible to have a reasonable philosophical discussion without resorting to majik?
And - no I don't mind you taking the piss. Although - I may be bald, but I don't blame it on majik. lol
I guess I was unclear. I was intending to make a point that philosophical thought, or discussion, almost certainly has to recognize the involvement of religious context.
It does not have to be in the context of right or wrong - true or false. Nor is it required to be recognized as a foundation of thought or action - or not.
My only point was that the very concept of philosophic thought, as an activity, (not a single philosophical tenet or statement) cannot be completely divorced from religious concepts - whatever they may be.
back to Descartes...
his "I think therefore...." declaration was relative to his understanding that he existed, that at least he was a "thing" - even if he could not be sure his senses were telling the truth when he looked in a mirror a saw that he was a man. (which is a point I think he defends very well) But even that concept was prefaced by his thoughts on the essence and birth of his existence - which he attributed to a religious explanation.
Why can they not be divorced from religious nonsense? In fact - I don't see how any serious philosophical discussion can be had with the introduction of religion.
Descartes had no option but to include irrational religious nonsense because to do so was to ask for death. But - if you read him - it is clear he believes in no such thing. Descartes is one of my favorite philosophers of that era for that reason.
Ok, I'm going back to school - to learn to write more clearly.
you just used my point to refute my point. I suppose if I stated that I am neither a proponent or opponent of religion, ( I simply don't know - and I have trouble "taking things on faith"), it might help me be less often misunderstood.
Your explanation that his writing makes it clear he did not believe in the validity of religion simply affirms my point that philosophy necessarily has to address the issue - to be complete.
You are correct to point out that in his time - it was deadly dangerous to be an outspoken non-believer, or even *gasp* a debunker. Many other early philosophers had the same problem. And not just philosophers - even Galileo's astronomy studies/findings/writings had to be verbally camouflaged.
It may well have been impossible to have a philosophical discussion without religion in Descartes' time. Which is why so much philosophy pf the time was warped.
But - we are no longer hindered in that fashion, and I don't see how it is possible to have a philosophical discussion which includes any religious input. It is - at best - superfluous and need not be addressed.
now, let' talk about the Old Testament
Here's a modern philosophical question for you, with no religion in it:
What DOES exist?
Sweet. So, how do you know if a concept or an object exists? I'm especially interested to how you know a concept exists, but objects are almost as problematical.
Objects have physical presence in reality. Concepts exists in your mind only - not in reality.
You just said objects exist if they have a physical presence.
You said those things exist in reality.
Reality is a concept.
You said concepts only exist in your mind.
So reality only exists in your mind.
Can something that only exists in your mind be said to exist at all?
What is "existence" if it has no physicality?
Furthermore, by this reasoning, objects can only have physicality in your mind.
But that cannot happen, because "mind" is a concept.
What we call "mind" exists in an object, the physical object of the brain and body.
For the mind to exist, the physical object of the brain must exist first.
So, your assertion seems to be that objects create the reality in which they exist.
That looks like paradox.
On the surface - yes.
Reality is both a concept and an object (rather a space filled with objects.) The concept of reality exists only in my (or your) mind. Physical reality is filled with objects and is independent of me. i.e - it is there whether we can conceptualize it or not.
You are calling reality space.
Space is not an object. By definition, it is the absence of object.
If there is no object, there is nothing.
So your assertion then is that things that do exist (objects) and things that do not exist (nothing) both exist.
How can nothing be said to exist?
Additionally, you say that "reality" exists only my (or your) mind.
Is the reality in my mind the same as the one in yours?
If so, do we agree on what that reality is?
If not, then which of our realities is correct?
Is there a correct reality?
What happens if neither of our realities is the right one?
You also say that "Physical reality is filled with objects and is independent of me. i.e - it is there whether we can conceptualize it or not."
Since you said, and I concede, that both something and nothing exist, then you must agree that things you cannot see and/or cannot conceptualize exist.
I hate to tell you what that means.
No - I am calling reality space filled with objects. This is not "nothing."
Conceptual reality appears to vary from person to person quite drastically, but has no effect on physical reality.
The fact that things I cannot see or conceptualize exist has no bearing on whether or not they exist.
Oh the joy and rapture that your once vanquished theist adversaries would have if they saw that last bit.
Aha! Yes, those are easier to conceive .
Well, sort of. I'm actually having fun with the binding forces at work on them as mana in my book. Fun stuff. Speaking of which, I need to get back to work.
Exactly. Can't see 'em, can't conceptualize 'em.....
Yes - finish that bloody book - I need you.
.....'Former' theist adversary comes marching in with joy and rapture!...
And quietly leaves the atheists and devil worshipers to continue their non religious philosophical discussion.
Wasn't Descartes also an advocate of the notion that animals are nothing more than machines and the sounds they make out of supposed pain are actually generated by the grinding of inner cogs and gears?
I suppose the idea, that animals from a mechanistic viewpoint lack a 'soul', also laid the foundation for French's penchant for burning animals centuries back.
Philosophers who did not include some religion in their writings were not “published” and if they lived in religious countries, and few were not, they risked punishment.
Today all this has changed. Scientists can be free thinkers and most now affirm their independence from religions.
Why would be a logical necessity to include a religion or even religious thoughts when one philosophizes? Of course it is hard to imagine eternity or an eternally changing universe since we are temporary. Hard but not impossible.
Since religion appears in the header, it would be bad SEO not to discuss it !!!
The question of where the human species belongs within the great variety among the many different forms of life on this planet, can be addressed in clearly RATIONAL terms ... why don't we try to put more focus on this?
The preoccupation of man being seen as superior to other highly evolved forms of life on earth, while having no interest in developing any meaningful communications with dolphins and whales, etc. makes our proclaimed desire for contact with higher forms of intelligence quite absurd ... especially since we let our minds endure a continuous process of nationalistic, commercial and religious mind pollution from all kinds of sources ... and do virtually nothing about it!
Why do we still endure this kind of mind abuse?
It's fairly obvious to me and a growing number globally, it only makes us quite retarded as a life form and a lot less integrated into our NATURAL support system common to all forms of life on earth.
Yeah, there's no use communicating with dolphins, they know only about amphibionism! Let's abandon stuff like commercialism and reach out to another realm, and go for something higher. Let's aim for the "highest" source, the absolute!
Now let's not be too hasty to think that dolphins have nothing important to convey to mankind; they, being supposedly the second smartest creatures on the planet, could still be trying to tell us that the Earth may be removed from its place to make way for a hyperspace bypass in the near future.
It's typical of self absorbed humans to think in such short sighted ways of alternative forms of intellect which exists all around us in nature ... it would take a lot more, in my view, for humans to make a convincing claim to having the most intelligence of all the many species on earth.
Our basic economic model is simply insane ... our inability to live in greater harmony within the confines of nature, is one of the most obvious facts of our retardation.
Watch this interview and you will have a much better understanding how close the end of our current global monetary system really is ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKprapaB … r_embedded
Franto in Toronto
Ok--since the OP asked for 'no religion,' then IMO, that is a clear "invitation" to those who wish to discuss religion to simply not participate, or leave the thread. It is foolish and counterproductive to try and force a topic off-track by deliberately bringing in the very points that were listed as not desired in the first place. There are always those who won't follow rules, it seems....
If you want to discuss, and insist on including religion, there are plenty of already extant threads for that; go play over there. For my part, I am intrigued by a philosophy-only thread, and I have no particular use for religion of any stripe.
That said, I'm proceeding with the topic at hand, and I even have a hub I posted several months back that tackles some wacky, just-for-fun philosophical speculations. I'm not putting the link as I don't want to be accused of 'self-promotion,' so you may go look it up or not, as you choose. But the title is something like, "how the universe works--talking over coffee late at night."
It's written in a humorous vein, and is intended as satire, but even at that, it is still a form of philosophical supposition and theory.
"I think, therefore I am," is a good starting point...but then...how do we know we are; that we exist? Have you seen the movie, The Matrix? Some scary sh** in there about what is real and how would you know!
Ever notice how when your told not to do something or that it isn't allowed ~ THAT is all you want to do or all you seem to think about?
Kinda funny how that works, isn't it?
I would say epic fail on adhering to the one singular rule placed upon this forum via the title.
What a bunch of rule breakers, oh my goodness!
Even the theories, philosophies, and ideas shared that DID adhere to the rule were snatched up by another rule breaker and twisted... what is this forum coming to?
I'm calling a vote - all those in favor of renaming this forum "No talking about Philosophy allowed!" say aye, maybe then the only thing people WILL want to talk about is philosophy
Some people are not even able to pick up on a simple hint and express a clear and thoughtful view on where they see REALITY to end and ABSURDITY to begin.
All concepts and ideas are confined within specific parameters.
How do YOU demonstrate your grasp of RATIONALITY?
Some people have a sense of humor, other people don't. Humor is an essential part of life and it enables an easy flow irrespective of when and where it is used. (Of course conditions apply!) However hot the topic is, a little bit of humor sprayed into the playing area has the potential to bring on positive results.
Humor, like most concepts comes in various forms and has to be properly understood in order for judgement to be passed on its quality. Absurdity does not begin with humor, neither does it kill reality. It adds flavor to both. Of course there is a time and place for humor, but when opportunity strikes, with just one option ... what else do you expect "some people" to do?
I did not mean to "interrupt" or "intrude." ... Peace!
Agree with a few posters here that it is nigh impossible to hold a discussion on philosophy completely free of religious elements. Religion had been entitled as a widely acknowledged authority, however undeserving anyone would think it may be, on almost every aspect of a believer's existence, excluding rational thinking of course. It is more appropriate to say that we heathen ones demand a better discourse on the meaning of life than what religious scripture should offer (getting through the pearly gates of heaven, fraternizing with 72 virgins in heaven, etc) by building on what the latter lacks (logical reasoning), that we want to dispense with the notion of sin and soul, both of which, even if true, doesn't seem relevant to the betterment of all life on the planet, and convince everyone else to accept the fact that they don't exist (Well, murder is one sin that obstructs any means to this end, though it doesn't seem to stop people from killing each other for their beliefs.)
In other words, yes, I believe that we are all soulless bast**ds who really should think we are better off without one. As our minds evolve, I'm sure we can come up with a few bright ideas that would lead us to the opposite of our utter demise.
How the hell can you folk discuss philosophy without coffee?
Incidently who brought some?
Religion is it's own scripted philosophical belief for those who need to be told what to believe.
Let's draw a clear division between RATIONAL philosophies which try to develop a better understanding of REALITY based on what NATURE really is and does outside of all the idealistic philosophies which impose absurd religious ideas created by delusional minds who can't produce a clear form of thought which rejects make-belief gods, angels and miracles for not having any value in providing a better grasp of reality and advancing human rationality.
Franto in Toronto
You cannot draw clear lines, those separators are always porous.
by John Sarkis 6 years ago
Can a philosopher be religious?Schopenhauer says "no." He's one of the first important European atheist thinkers and doesn't consider it feasible, because philosophers must question everything. He does claim that "faith" is one of the things which makes us humans...
by Thinkaboutit77 12 years ago
All religion and man made philosophies can not give the human heart peace about having a home in heaven immediately upon natural death. Why?Room, what say ye?Don't go off the subject, with ridicule, name calling or other nonsense. Just stick to this subject and answer the question if you can. Thank...
by Rajan Singh Jolly 8 years ago
Is religion a philosophy or a way of life?
by PrettyPanther 11 years ago
I am new here so it's possible this has been suggested before. How about a debate forum, separate from the other forums, where contentious topics can be debated? So, if people wanted to discuss, say, a philosophical topic in the Religion forum and someone jumped in and started debating,...
by Baileybear 10 years ago
NOTE: This is posted on the PHILOSOPHY forum, not the religious forum.Beliefs - I don't want to know what your beliefs are; I'm interested in why people defend their beliefs, how they get their beliefs and if any beliefs are rational?eg is 'believing' in electricity a rational belief, or is it...
by Gary R. Smith 7 years ago
What basic principles for living do religions and philosophies share in common?I would enjoy reading answers from a wide range of perspectives - Buddhism (which has been said to be a philosophy, not a religion), Christianity, Confucianism, Agnosticism, Science - or a personal worldview that is not...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|