What would you say is the goal of philosophy? — A Christian Philosophy

I don’t think there is a goal, really. But if you’re interested in a more in depth discussion on what philosophy is, I’ll point you to the link below rather than derail your thread.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8313/what-is-philosophy/p1

In a nutshell, I think philosophy is “universal phenomenological ontology” and is distinguished from general thinking by its questions— the question of all questions grounded in “What is being?”

As I explain in another video, philosophy means "love of wisdom", and wisdom means "conforming our beliefs to reality (i.e. true beliefs) and our behaviour to reality (i.e. right behaviour)". — A Christian Philosophy

I’m not sure this is what the Greeks meant. And in any case, the entire idea of “beliefs conforming to reality” is much more modern than you may realize. The initial conception of truth was a kind of uncovering, de-concealing, or disclosure in the early Greek period — not the correspondence type view we see today of a subject accurately describing an external object. The subject/object, mind/body distinction itself only begins in earnest with Descartes — not the Greeks. So if anything, your definition seems rather anachronistic.

Hello, and thank you for the feedback. Yeah - I agree that a lot of people believe in a religion because of emotions and not reason. That said, I also think the right religion can be found by reason.

Hello.

Philosophy is positing what exists and/or what is real. If we get this right, then nothing else should be confusing. — L'éléphant

Yep. Truth means correspondance to reality. Thus your definition is very similar.

On another note, I confirm that since your name corresponds to your profile pic, you are in fact positing what is real. :up:

↪Philosophim Hello. I agree that questioning definitions would be a rational and not empirical science, because we cannot test what we cannot yet define. However, I'd say philosophy is more than that. E.g. ethics seeks correct behaviour, and not merely definitions. — A Christian Philosophy

I'll add some details to my simple reply. Philosophy to me has always been about finding definitions that fit successfully within the world. What is "good"? What is "knowledge"? Such questions require philosophers to construct solutions that are also of the world. Successful philosophy becomes science. Failed philosophy is still in the process.

On the same token, science sometimes discovers things which have no definition. And thus philosophy is needed once again.

In a nutshell, I think philosophy is “universal phenomenological ontology” and is distinguished from general thinking by its questions— the question of all questions grounded in “What is being?” — Xtrix

Ontology - the science of being - is definitely part of philosophy. But other sciences traditionally fit under philosophy as well, such as Ethics - the science of (truly) right conduct.

The initial conception of truth was a kind of uncovering, de-concealing, or disclosure in the early Greek period — not the correspondence type view we see today of a subject accurately describing an external object. — Xtrix

The correspondence theory is often traced back to Aristotle’s well-known definition of truth (Metaphysics 1011b25): “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”—but virtually identical formulations can be found in Plato (Cratylus 385b2, Sophist 263b). — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The correspondence theory is often traced back to Aristotle’s well-known definition of truth (Metaphysics 1011b25): “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true” — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“Although he nowhere defines truth in terms of a thought’s likeness to a thing or fact, it is clear that such a definition would fit well into his overall philosophy of mind.”

It may be traced to Aristotle, but that’s not saying much — nearly everything has been traced to him and Plato.

Regardless, there’s simply too much to say about the idea of truth. By Plato and Aristotle, it had changed — as had phusis.

Understood. So in your view, a philosophy would be the early stage of a science, like a fetus becoming a newborn.

And in any case, the entire idea of “beliefs conforming to reality” is much more modern than you may realize. — Xtrix

Yeah, I'm sure the ancient Greeks lacked the entire idea of testing beliefs by comparing them with experience. I wonder how they engineered ships back then?
"The entire idea" ???

The correspondence theory is often traced back to Aristotle’s well-known definition of truth (Metaphysics 1011b25): “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true” — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"In the Vedas and later sutras, the meaning of the word satya (सत्य) evolves into an ethical concept about truthfulness and is considered an important virtue. It means being true and consistent with reality in one's thought, speech, and action."

(The Vedas date back to 6000 BC)

↪Philosophim Understood. So in your view, a philosophy would be the early stage of a science, like a fetus becoming a newborn. — A Christian Philosophy

That's a nice analogy that sums it up!

Science is a lot more like philosophy in that its focused on developing theories for theories sake, than on coming up with practical solutions. Its engineers that are the pragmatic problem solvers. Many engineers look down on scientists with the same kind of reasons many scientists look down on philosophy; impracticality.
(I'll leave this thread now, I feel I am getting off topic)

Yeah, I'm sure the ancient Greeks lacked the entire idea of testing beliefs by comparing them with experience. — Yohan

Strange that you'd want to pick a fight with me out of the blue because you dislike something I wrote to someone else. Oh well.

(1) I never once said that.
(2) The exact SEP quote was already given and responded to.
(3) The Vedic concept of truth, and reality, is very different from the Western conception.

Regardless, quoting Wikipedia or SEP is fine, but doesn’t negate that a word like “truth” in modern usage is not what was meant by the Greeks. The word in Greek is aletheia— and it meant something uncovered or revealed or, as Heidegger puts it, “unconcealment.” The idea that philosophy is the search for truth, with “truth” taken to mean the correspondence of “belief” with “fact,” is simply incorrect. This is anachronistic, and painting the picture of the Greeks as "primitive scientists." But if you're convinced by it, you're welcome.

Ontology - the science of being - is definitely part of philosophy. But other sciences traditionally fit under philosophy as well, such as Ethics - the science of (truly) right conduct. — A Christian Philosophy

This is what I'm trying to say. When philosophy asks "What exists" or "What's real", that encompasses all that could be asked of philosophy. In Ethics, the examination is whether morality is objective or subjective (we have morality as a matter of convenience or cooperation, for example). If objective, it exists independent of how we view it, we just need to discover it.

Folks, the ontology is the same for all inquiries of philosophy -- matter, objective reality, morality, space and time.

Hello, and thank you for the feedback. Yeah - I agree that a lot of people believe in a religion because of emotions and not reason. That said, I also think the right religion can be found by reason. — A Christian Philosophy

Perhaps. But how can we sort-out which of the many "true" religions is the "right religion" for me? In forum discussions, I've noted that Muslims (Islamists) make some quite rational & reasonable arguments for certain beliefs, such as the existence of an abstract (non-anthro-morphic) G*D. But in the final analysis (premises), they will insist that Muhammad was the last true prophet, that the Koran is the true word of G*D, and that Islam is the only "true" religion. By implication, your religion is false.

Unfortunately, reasoning is only as good as its premises. And, religious premises are seldom empirical or verifiable. Hence, as tolerant philosophers, we argue politely for our "truths", yet when all is said & done, we agree to disagree. :smile:

Premise : 1 : a statement or idea taken to be true and on which an argument or reasoning may be based.
Note --- For Christians, the veracity of the New Testament is their basic premise or axiom. Yet, for Muslims, the authenticity of the Koran is their starting point for reasoning. Belief bias is what allows some premises to "make sense" within one belief system, and to be non-sense for another.

Belief Bias :
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniesarkis/2019/05/26/emotions-overruling-logic-how-belief-bias-alters-your-decisions/?sh=22bc3e9f7c56

10 Reasons Why Islam is the True Religion :
So to prove that veracity of Islam rather than showing people subjective miracles, instead I am presenting 10 proofs/evidence found in Islam for why Islam is the true religion.
https://themuslimscomic.com/2020/12/13/10-reasons-why-islam-is-the-true-religion/

Which, if any, of the world's 10,000 religions is the true one? :
https://www.religioustolerance.org/reltrue.htm

"A great many people think they are thinking [reasoning] when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." ___William James

Indeed. Reason has long been a part of Islam and Christianity. Look at the work of apologist William Lane Craig - Christianity is a religion of reason - it's just that they're the wrong reasons... :wink:

For Christians, the veracity of the New Testament is their basic premise or axiom. — Gnomon

Just an aside - plenty of Christians I know and grew up with do not think the New Testament is the inerrant word of god and that much in it is wrong or myth. It's more that they feel (faith?) it is true, above and beyond the old books.

In Ethics, the examination is whether morality is objective or subjective (we have morality as a matter of convenience or cooperation, for example). If objective, it exists independent of how we view it, we just need to discover it. — L'éléphant

Does this view necessarily entail that ethics are Platonic and therefore we discover truth through idealism?

Does this view necessarily entail that ethics are Platonic and therefore we discover truth through idealism? — Tom Storm

Which view? I gave two examples.

I was commenting on your quote. What examples? Maybe you could just answer if this view implies Platonism or not. :wink:

I was commenting on your quote. What examples? Maybe you could just answer if this view implies Platonism or not. — Tom Storm

We can say it's objective because "goodness" is something that can be achieved, according to virtue ethics. And we can say it's platonistic because Plato was one of the advocates of virtue. But it couldn't come from an idealistic point of view because one of the qualities of goodness is that it benefits others around us. There's the others to whom we dedicate our actions.

Thanks. Ok, I see the confusion. For me if 'the good' is a discovery we can make - like Platonic theories of math, then idealism is surely what we are talking about because The Good is then a Platonic form which resides in its ideal in a special realm, outside of time and space, right? Any version of good we do on earth is simply an instantiation of the form.

Although they do seem to call this Platonic realism, so I need clarification. :wink:

Premise : 1 : a statement or idea taken to be true and on which an argument or reasoning may be based.
Note --- For Christians, the veracity of the New Testament is their basic premise or axiom. Yet, for Muslims, the authenticity of the Koran is their starting point for reasoning. Belief bias is what allows some premises to "make sense" within one belief system, and to be non-sense for another. — Gnomon

Good explanation, indeed. This is how religion works. I like how you described that New Testament or Quran are their "starting point of reasoning."
So they always start with a (false?) premise that God does exist and then, whatever it goes successively.

Although they do seem to call this Platonic realism, so I need clarification. — Tom Storm

It's not platonic realism. The platonic view has a very specific definition of "truth", which as you have already mentioned, is a form. Virtue ethics is practical ethics. It's within the realm of humans. Objective morality proponents aren't talking about platonic realism.

This is indeed the modern meaning of "science", i.e. 17th century and onwards. But the word was used before in a broader sense. E.g. Aristotle used it as any topic that pertains to truth. — A Christian Philosophy

I think this might be worth mentioning in your video, that you are using the broader meaning. It helps to avoid unnecessary criticism.

When philosophy asks "What exists" or "What's real", that encompasses all that could be asked of philosophy. [...] If objective, it [morality] exists independent of how we view it, we just need to discover it. — L'éléphant

Agreed. Since values drive our behaviours, then any values that exist objectively will dictate how we should behave.

Maybe I'm still too hopeful and naive, but I'd say we could find the true religion in the same way we find any truths, and debunk false religions in the same way we debunk any errors:

False religions will have contradictions or will be unreasonable, e.g., fail Occam's Razor.
The true religion will have no contradictions and will be reasonable, i.e., arguments may not give certainty but at least reasonableness.

This is how religion works. I like how you described that New Testament or Quran are their "starting point of reasoning." — javi2541997

What you describe here is Theology: the search for conclusions under the starting point of some divine revelations.

A christian philosophy would be the search for truth under the starting point of reason and observations of the natural world (like any other philosophy), and then attempt to uncover the same conclusions as the christian theology. This is explained in my video Part #3 (I will not put the link because I think the moderators of the forum don't like this).

Thanks for the feedback. I thought I did, at time 1:32, but I can try to emphasize it more going forward.

Indeed, ideally, seeking truth should be for the sake of the good; i.e., we should only care about topics that will affect our lives. I think some philosophical topics fit that, but I agree that some don't.

A christian philosophy would be ... — A Christian Philosophy

"Do this in rememberance of Me."
~Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24

:point: Remember Jesus by living like Jesus (i.e. @every moment "WWJD?" :halo:)

I have always interpreted "do this ..." as Jesus' philosophy – teaching by' example – 'a way of living and dying and living again.' :fire:

However, a dozen years of Catholic school education and bible study (along with a decade (second to twelth grades) of altarboy service) and I'd never observed a single "christian" who'd come close to living as Jesus had lived. I'd realized before I'd graduated from my Jesuit-run high school that Dostoyevsky's "Grand Inquisitor" was probably right. And then early in my university career, I'd recognized a Truth I hadn't consciously known that I had known all along:

The very word 'Christianity' is a misunderstanding – at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. — The Antichrist, aphorism 39

"Christian philosophy" too, it seems, had died on that cross with the first and last Christian. :eyes:

NB: Some years later I'd come across Rabbi Hillel the Elder's distillation of Torah (which seems to have been the seed of Jesus' purported "Kingdom ministry")

Whatever you find hateful [harmful], do not do to anyone.

The ethical – Jewish – roots of Jesus' teachings were subsequently lost or buried by millennia of Christian theologians, their proselytizing merchants and the faithful/gullible. Read (e.g.) Buber, Heschel, Levinas. :fire:

"Christian philosophy" too, it seems, had died on that cross with the first and last Christian. — 180 Proof

:100: :clap:

I was trying to come up with examples of how philosophy and science would approach different topics

Law:

Philosophy would aim to understand the spirit or context of the law.

Science would stop at a literal technical interpretation of the law.

Analysing a story:

Not something science can do. It can only examine the rules of grammar, sentence structure, word definitions and so on.
Edit: I guess it could analyse how technically realistic the parts of the story are which reference scientific matters.

Maybe I'm still too hopeful and naive, but I'd say we could find the true religion in the same way we find any truths, and debunk false religions in the same way we debunk any errors:
False religions will have contradictions or will be unreasonable, e.g., fail Occam's Razor.
The true religion will have no contradictions and will be reasonable, i.e., arguments may not give certainty but at least reasonableness. — A Christian Philosophy

I too, was once "hopeful & naive". By the time I graduated from high school, I had doubts about my own fundamentalist ("back to the bible") Christian religion. Around that time, my older brother came back from California, with enthusiasm for his new-found religion. It was the Worldwide Church of God (WWCG), headed by radio & TV preacher Herbert W. Armstrong. His writings provided reasonable-sounding answers to some of my own concerns. And his son, Garner Ted Armstrong, was even more charismatic & persuasive on TV. Their "heretical" departures from the Catholic heritage were justified from the perspective that the Old Testament was the revealed Word of God, and not to be dismissed as merely a temporary Law for errant Jews.

Some of those radical unorthodoxies made sense to me, on a rational basis. For instance, I could never find any scriptural evidence for changing the clearly commanded seventh day Sabbath to the indirectly inferred first day Sunday, as the "Lord's Day" for Christians. We seemed to have inherited that Catholic tradition, based originally on papal canonical councils, and on some questionable biblical exegesis. Anyway, I observed the WWCG from a distance, and even visited their campus in California. But H.W. Armstrong made some bold prophesies about "signs of the last days". Although he was in his eighties, he emphatically asserted that he knew he would still be alive when Jesus returned in triumph. He lived well into his nineties, but eventually died, and I saw no sign of The Second Coming (forty years ago). Therefore, I took that absence of evidence as empirical demonstration of a false prophecy. I also concluded from other evidences that the WWCG was a personality cult. And it soon fell apart upon the death of the prophet.

Therefore, you could say that I discovered a negative "truth" by means of experience, instead of by rational analysis of teachings. And I "debunked" certain beliefs by Bayesian probability updates, instead of by Logical certainty. As I said before, reasoning is only as good as it's premises. And religious premises are usually un-verifiable Axioms that must be taken on Faith, because conclusive evidence is not available. Those premises may be "self-evident" to yourself, but not obvious at all to someone else. As we discover daily on this forum. Consequently, ultimate "Truth" remains an unfulfilled quest for the Holy Grail. So, I practice no formal Religion, but I do have a personal Worldview, which guides my fallible reasoning about ultimate reality. FWIW, it does have a role for a G*D-of-the-philosophers (First Cause ; Logos),

There are thousands of religious sects, and they can't all teach a single cohesive Truth. So, their internal "contradictions" tend to be dismissed as "improper" interpretation, or surrounded by spurious sophistry, or dismissed as close-enough to "reasonableness". So, I don't engage each belief system in rigorous rational analysis. Instead, I have developed my own personal non-scriptural non-religious Philosophical belief system. It's based as far as possible on empirical evidence, but also supplemented with philosophical speculation. As you said, it's not absolute Truth, but it seems "reasonable" to me. :cool:


Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation representing a state of knowledge or as quantification of a personal belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability