What would you say is the goal of philosophy? — A Christian Philosophy
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
Yep. Truth means correspondance to reality. Thus your definition is very similar.Philosophy is positing what exists and/or what is real. If we get this right, then nothing else should be confusing. — L'éléphant
↪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
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.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
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
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?And in any case, the entire idea of “beliefs conforming to reality” is much more modern than you may realize. — 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” — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
↪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
Yeah, I'm sure the ancient Greeks lacked the entire idea of testing beliefs by comparing them with experience. — Yohan
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.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
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.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
For Christians, the veracity of the New Testament is their basic premise or axiom. — Gnomon
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
Which view? I gave two examples.Does this view necessarily entail that ethics are Platonic and therefore we discover truth through idealism? — 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.I was commenting on your quote. What examples? Maybe you could just answer if this view implies Platonism or not. — Tom Storm
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
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.Although they do seem to call this Platonic realism, so I need clarification. — Tom Storm
I think this might be worth mentioning in your video, that you are using the broader meaning. It helps to avoid unnecessary criticism.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
Agreed. Since values drive our behaviours, then any values that exist objectively will dictate how we should behave.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
What you describe here is Theology: the search for conclusions under the starting point of some divine revelations.This is how religion works. I like how you described that New Testament or Quran are their "starting point of reasoning." — javi2541997
"Do this in rememberance of Me."A christian philosophy would be ... — A Christian Philosophy
"Christian philosophy" too, it seems, had died on that cross with the first and last Christian. :eyes:The very word 'Christianity' is a misunderstanding – at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. — The Antichrist, aphorism 39
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:Whatever you find hateful [harmful], do not do to anyone.
"Christian philosophy" too, it seems, had died on that cross with the first and last Christian. — 180 Proof
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.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
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.