/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>religious believes

Isn't it 'religious beliefs'?

>>1605

Yes, I made a typo.

I used beliefs in the other ones though iirc

>>1594

>we have related topics at our boards

Do we, though?

Philosophy is primarily a methodology. It leaves largely open the premises with which it works, and - ideally - has no bias towards the conclusions it reaches. Presuppositions of notions like justice, goodness or even truth might be common, but they are neither necessary nor paradigmatic.

Religion (generally speaking) on the other hand requires a very specific notion of truth (manifest in belief) and in addition comes pre-packaged with a slew of premises that need not be accounted for (else they might be labelled heretics). That is why scholastic philosophers discussed the nature of angels, since they were forced to accept their factuality, and why religiously inclined philosophers always end up defining "god" in such a way as to make it an abstract concept of reason as opposed to a religiously laden symbol.

No hostility meant, though. I'm sure there are quite a few browsers of this thread who are highly engaged with religion and it's questions. I'd nonetheless be interested on your stance on this, but either way a nice day to you as well.

>>1621

>Philosophy is primarily a methodology.

It really depends on the school of philosophy/philosopher you refer to.

Existentialism is more than a methodology, it defines various aspects of life.

The ancient Academia, or let's better say Stoicism may have been only a methodology but in fact in order to be a Stoic you had to follow a set of virtues and behave in a way that made the whole school at least a semi religion. Comparable to Buddhism in a sense.

Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism are also examples of philosophies that merged with local religions and became so (semi-) religions eventually.

Then there is people like Nietzsche of course. Scratch that, no one is llike Nietzsche. However there were still philosophers that actively tried to make there school of thought to a religion, or even more.

Nietzsche even openly made his Thus spoke Zarathustra in the style of the bible.

>f premises that need not be accounted for (else they might be labelled heretics)

Why should they care to be labelled as a heretic by someone who doesn't hold the truth (as they presumably found out)

>and why religiously inclined philosophers always end up defining "god" in such a way as to make it an abstract concept of reason as opposed to a religiously laden symbol.

I don't even know of religious philosophers that make God an abstract concept, sure they exist though. Probanly plenty of them.

Anyway if you believe in the God of the bible you know that he is actual persons and therefore more than a concept.

> Presuppositions of notions like justice, goodness or even truth might be common, but they are neither necessary nor paradigmatic.

Any philosophy that does not occupy itself with justice, goodness or truth is a waste of time.

>>1623

>It really depends on the school of philosophy/philosopher you refer to.

That's why I said "primarily". Though I concede that some are a lot more ambitious in a pragmatic/lifestyle/mentality sense. Calling that level of devotion "religious" feels like a bit of a stretch even so.

Nietzsche is a good example, though he too strived to communicate notions and ideas by utilising a specific methodology. It is not "revelation" in the sense of the bible, no matter how stylistically similar Thus Spoke Zarathustra is.

>Why should they care to be labelled as a heretic by someone who doesn't hold the truth

Fear of death or severe punishment, primarily. Just check medieval theology disputes. You simply needed to speculate in a specific direction a little too far and you were potentially doomed.

>if you believe in the God of the bible you know that he is actual persons and therefore more than a concept

Actual persons as specifically defined to suit god and only god. A personalised god, if you will. It's more than a concept because it is considered to exist independently of the perception of the concept, but it's still only a concept because that's the only way to grasp a notion of this kind.

>Any philosophy that does not occupy itself with justice, goodness or truth is a waste of time.

I was referring specifically to presuppositions that are not further justified or even attempted to be argued for. You can presuppose justice, but in addition to clarifying what that means you should at least be able to reasonably argue for why it is presupposed. And the mere possibility that you might find reasonable arguments against its presupposition is a sign of enhanced reflection on primary matters in philosophy.

Greetings /philosophy/

We at /christ/ have noticed that you kindly accepted our offer and put a link to us.

We want to reciprocate. Unfortunately our BO does not know how to link correctly to another board. Could you explain it please :3

Thank you very much!

>>1752

sure, copy the following to the board announcement bar:

Check out our friends at: <kek href="https://8ch.net/philosophy/">/philosophy/ - Philosophy</a>

replace "kek" with "a"

>>1780

Thanks a lot. I said it to our BO.

Hello there! I'm from /christ/ too.

How many are you here, roughly?

BUMP FAG REPORTING IN