Not least bcause even any discussion towards an agreement on terms seems impossible, never mind reasonable argument. — tim wood
Yes. :clap:I think philosophy should bend over backwards to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Poor argument is its own best censor. — Pantagruel
You do not see a difference in the overall quality of discussions in the different sub-forums?You could say the same thing about discussions elsewhere on the forum, with the same justification. — SophistiCat
That is called "Platonic dialectics", where agreement on terms is not forthcoming. it might just be, that this type of philosophy is the heart and soul of the philosophy of religion. It is an acknowledgement of certain circumstances in the real world, where the prospect of working together from agreed upon principles, is not a reality. — Metaphysician Undercover
How so? Or perhaps if made a little clearer, that would suffice as answer.If I may say, you would be denying Philosophy itself by ignoring the first cause axiom's. — 3017amen
Lots of different ways, some better, some worse.For instance, you would have no criteria to argue the domain's of epistemology, ontology, ethics, metaphysics and so forth. In other words, how/why does one argue the nature of those existing things(?). — 3017amen
I did. A recent thread itself "inspired" by a sequence of threads. The idea was an appeal for an attempt to establish even just by consensus some sort of base ground of understanding upon which reasonable argument could move. Didn't happen. And a disappointment, though in hindsight not a great surprise. So I ask you: when a topic seems both impervious and impenetrable to even basic structuring, does that topic seem to you susceptible to any philosophic approach?( Why not take that disdain [and energy] you have against Religion and do a specific thread on it instead?) — 3017amen
How so? If you look at all the philosophical disciplines, God rears its head as part of the analysis. It is used as a typical antithesis or contrasting form of discourse. I didn't put it in there and neither did you; it's what we read in the aforementioned domain's, right? — 3017amen
On beginning a discussion in philosophy of religion.3. I missed that thread you're alluding to, please share... . — 3017amen
Indeed He does! But in ways that are by no means easily evident, intuitive, obvious, or well understood. And ultimately just these are worth laying out and laying bare for a scrutiny that can lead to a better understanding of the whole subject matter. But is it to be war or discourse? For too many of us, it's war. And that alone, it seems to me, is worth confronting. — tim wood
Bingo! In my reading - so far as it goes - that's exactly how it works. The idea is, in the west at least, the movement was from a Pagan view of nature as imperfect and not allowing of a quantitative science, to a view of nature as created by God and thereby perfect, and thereby a subject for a quantitative science. Nor is the notion of "belief" incidental or accidental. The failure of Pagan science augured the failure of Pagan culture. And the argument proceeds that the first writers and thinkers of the early Christian church understood this in their own way, but very well. And so the creed is not, "There exists..," but instead, "We believe...". Making questions as to the existence of God irrelevant, belief being not a cheap form of affirmation as true, but rather for the efficacy of the idea.No, it would only require belief in god not gods actual existence. — DingoJones
So according to you, none of what you said just there should be considered philosophy. That should all be moved to the lounge? Its just some superficial drivel not worthy of a real philosopher?
Lol, youre a strange dude. Throwing out some philosophy about a subject in a thread you made about how un-philosophical the subject is. — DingoJones
but to get a good man to do evil it takes religion. — DingoJones
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.