Why not philosphers?

08.29.06.1473

I have not heard Zacharias, but I looked him up. I found it interesting how he converted to Christianity on the hospital bed from Aetheism after an unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide by swallowing poison. Usually when a person is at the very bottom; the very end of their line, they look for a way to pull themselves up again. Given the opportunity, Ravi could have become a Muslim given the fact that there is a large population of them in India. I also thought his claim that Hinduism does not recognize the individual dignity of each person was unsubstantiated.

As for Lee Strobel, I have seen his books and noticed how he used; especially in “The Case for Christ,” the tools of apologeticism very well. (I’ll elaborate more.)

I’m glad I can help you both in understanding more about what I’ve been talking about. I hope it helps. Okay, first of all, if either of you stick around this site long enough, you’ll find that it’s really hard to define what philosophy is. However, I believe it’s safe to describe one aspect of philosophy as “asking questions and never being satisfied with the answer.” Anotherwords, it’s always asking and never affirming. Now, given that, it is the nature of the philosopher to never assume the ultimate nature of the universe, reality, and existence (at least within the realm of metaphysics. Meanwhile, you have the apologist, who rather than questioning the nature of things, belives that it is already as they believe it to be… assuming and not questioning. This leads to their purpose of affirming that assumption. The word “apologetic” itself comes from the Greek word apologia, which means in defense of, thereby making it a universal application that does not have to necessarily be applied to just religion. You could have evolutionary apologists, marxist apologists, or even Bush Administration apologists. The point is, the apologist is not a philosopher.

Apologeticism is not limited to Christianity, although most apologetists are Christian; just a reminder that I’m not making this post to bash Christianity… just explain the difference between an apologist and a philosopher. However, in Christian apologeticism, the most common tools (as I stated with Strobel I would elaborate) are:
1. Historical and Legal Evidentialism: Where empirical arguments about the supposed life, miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus are presented as probabilistic proofs.
2. Biblical Prophecy: Where that only God knows the future and the Bible prophecy of a compelling nature has been fulfilled.
3. Biblical Accuracy: Where there are issues concerned with the authorship and date of biblical books, biblical canon, and biblical inerrancy.
4. Philosophical Assertion: Where the tools used in philosophy are used to prove the existence of a deity. The tools used for argument are - -
a. Cosmological: argues that the existence of the universe demonstrates that a god exists. Various ancillary arguments from science are often offered to support the cosmological argument.
b. Teleological: argues that there is an intricate design in the world around us, and a design requires a designer.
c. Ontological: argues that the very concept of a god demands that there is an actual existent god.
d. Moral: argues that if there are any real morals, then there must be an absolute from which they are derived.
e. Transcendental: argues that all our abilities to think and reason require the existence of a god.
f. Presuppositional: arguments that show basic beliefs of theists and nontheists require a god as a necessary precondition.

Raped from Wikipedia.

Again, I hope this clarifies things and helps you both out some. Thanks for asking!

So what is Nietzsche? An apologetist atheist? Kant? Sartre? What are they? Do they not claim to ‘give’ an answer? A solution?

Philosophy may be the search for answers, but just like science is the search for answers you do get an answer. Philosophy is about asking questions, but why ask if you can’t ever know? Philosophers have many quotes in which they claim to know and many even give broad generalizations… So then why can’t Lewis or Chesterton be philosophers sometimes and apologetist at others? You would have to imply that atheism or agnosticism isn’t a belief to exclude religion philosophy right?

Off topic Ravi Zacharias is incredible, I highly recommend you at least attempt to listen to one or 2 of his podcasts. He travels all over the world and speaks at Oxford, Duke, Penn State, everywhere and His logic is worth at least giving a shot at even if it’s to build up your defense arsenal.

Just jumping in with a note - Nietzsche’s method is well-described as historical and legal evidentialism. I didn’t really know that this was a term that anyone else but I used.

He does not claim to produce an answer, but to give us the information we need to reach our own conclusion, which he takes to be self-evident. In his major theses, that is.

Kant is essentially a rationalist - he believes that the answers are arrived at by the very process of reasoning - he most certainly believes that he is providing answers. Morally, he is essentially a Platonic Christian. I cannot see him as an “apologist”.

Sartre is a joke.

whoa ease off there a bit. I meant the connotation, not defintion. I don’t care what the dicitionary says about it, unless that’s the way YOU personally see it. I want to know what sort of definition we had established for “philosopher” and “theological apologeticist”.

oh and Club29, sorry but that’s not quite the point I was trying to make. all I meant was that first we have to know what is meant by those terms, and have those serve as a basis for our arguments. I don’t intend to burst your bubble, but that’s all I was getting at.

Hmm…well if Nietzsche was using historical and legal evidentialism, would that still imply he figured his words, his path, was the correct one? If not he would only be confusing people wouldn’t he?

Yes but Kant made many illogical statements as well did he not? I’ll give a example if you’d like.

Maybe Sartre is, I haven’t done much reading on him yet, just heard some of his philosophies.

But what is your take on this faust? What do you think? Do you think there’s a line that draws between a person who philosophizes about religion and a person who discards religion? Does that make one just an apologetist and the other just a philosopher? I guess to answer this question you must first know the definition of philosophy, which is:

The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.

It doesn’t say but only if it excludes religion does it? So then an apologist can be a philosopher/apologist can he not?..

08.30.06.1476

To christianthinker & Club29:

It looks to me that the kind of answer you’re looking for has not already been provided by me. Perhaps then the answer you’re trying to find is that while the apologist speaks on one subject, the philosopher speaks on many. For example, Nietzsche made himself out to be the greatest thinker on nihilism and also on anti-nihilism. The apologist on the other hand, will never consider the possibility that he or she is wrong OR otherwise browse upon a topic that goes against what they’re preaching. You would of course never see Lee Strobel write The Case for Buddha.

Club29- Nietzsche implied, and explicitly stated that his “path” was right for him, and maybe some others. His written philosophy was his path. We now see it as a fait accompli. He did not, as he was writing it, or living it, of course. He confused people, anyway, as he still does today.

Kant wasn’t a very good rationalist. He wasn’t a very good philosopher. But rationalism is an approach to reality. It doesn’t guarantee that those who take the approach are consistent. Nothing does. It’s a matter of execution.

One of the great dividing lines in philosophy is atheism/theism. Kierkegaard, as a notable exception, managed to straddle that line, mostly because he was a master of (philosophoco-religious) psychology.

Hobbes was an apologist for English Royalism. Kant was in many ways merely an apologist for polite society. Some of Hume was apologetics for atheism. Rawls is, in many ways, an apologist for modern american (political) liberalism.

Apologetics is usually used as a derogatory word. Also, usually, to try to make it something else is disingenuous. To ascribe this characteristic to many thinkers as being that (alone) which defines their thought is often simplistic. In the case of Hobbes, for instance, it is accurate.

I do not often include theologians as philosophers. That is not to denegrate theologians - I just think the categories are useful. Many who I consider philosophers were religious men. It’s the specific subject matter that separates religious philosophers from theologians. Often, the line is blurry. I think some writers are both. None of these categories are mutually exclusive. Sometimes a specific context determines where to draw the line.

Philosophy is an activity, not a thing.

I can see clearly what you’re saying, but some of these men are more than just theologians. Lewis discusses theology, but within that theology he discusses ethics and certain paths of life. Just because they’re religiously motivated doesn’t exactly mean there wrong or only theology now right?

Sage, you’ve said that while many philosophers discuss all things and theologians or apologestist(whatever word suits best here) only focus on one topic, that doesn’t make them philosophers?

Are you saying someone like Nietzsche would admit he was wrong? He may have admitted he could be wrong, but it was either because he really didn’t know or he knew but was only pretending he didn’t in a sorta socratical form. In either case if you’re going to be a philosopher you must have a philosophy that you believe in and feel passioniate about.

But as Faust said, Nietzsche confused people, probably confused himself, so since he really didn’t have a direct answer so to speak, does this make him a real philosopher? Isn’t the goal to finally reach a conclusion? Isn’t that a philosphers goal? Once they reach some sort of answers they can’t be philosophers anymore? Just because they don’t write a book on certain area’s they’re unsure about, because obviously they don’t have the answer, they can’t be philosophers?

I guess before I get off the point on to what makes someone a philosopher again, which I think I gave the definition of if we can go by that term.

But basically, If I don’t ever say “I could very well be wrong” just because I’m not making logical sense and I don’t have a good answer, I’m a philosopher. But once I reach a conclusion for myself, even though I may have crap loads of evidence, I’m not a philosopher anymore?

If this is true, and it very well may be. But then we’re still left right back to questioning…and always believing or fearing we’re wrong. Is that how you want to live?.. I don’t believe you live that way sage, I believe you have some belief on the matter. Even sycth or w/e being agnostic, is still taking a stand for a belief, he’s not neutral. You’d have to be sure you don’t know forsure, wouldnt’ that be a contradiction?

Club - I consider Lewis, for instance, a theologian, but I am not prepared to fight to the death in defense of that view. We need not split hairs. And right and wrong doesn’t define the categories - more often, the categories define right and wrong. I understand why Aquinas is considered a philosopher. It is, in the end, of greater concern to librarians than to readers of books, at least outside any other context. That’s the thing - it depends upon the context. Surely Lewis is a philosopher and not a fiction writer, a theologian and not a biographer. A trivial example, but I think you and I are on the same page, anyway.

I don’t think Nietzsche confused himself, but it is well to note that N did not view temporary confusion as a bad thing, but perhaps constructive toward some purposes. Better to say that indeterministic states of mind may be fruitful - or necessary within some philosophical issues. Confusion might be almost the right term, depending upon what is exactly meant by that (in philosophy, we usually distinguish two kinds of confusion). He was truly a philosopher, though. Answers are easy to come by - good questions are more difficult. It is not necessarily true that every philospher esteems answers over questions. For instance, it could be said that the province of philosophy is to formulate good questions, and that the province of both science and religion is to answer them.

hmmm, now why would that be? maybe because Christianity seemed to be more reasonable to him? no, that can’t be it. then what is it? gosh, this is a toughie.

sorry for the sattire (yet again), but you get my point (I hope). God bless.

08.31.06.1481

To christianthinker & Club29:

I hope faust was able to help divert the both of you from any misunderstandings you have had of my explainations and his. It was a pleasure to assist you both in a greater understanding between the difference of a philosopher and a apologist.

So then the bible is philosophy, Christ was a philosopher?

And the ones who defend his beliefs are just apologetist?

this is correct right?

If this is all correct, than many of you aren’t philosophers either, it’s nothing new, just old news happening to new people.

Club - by some definitions, and some that I take to be perfectly legitimate deifintions, Jesus can be counted as a philosopher. The Bible has been a great influence on many philosophers - even as an atheist, I read it - have read all of it (not at one sitting).

Personally, I do not think that Jesus was a very good philosopher, but that is a different matter. I don’t think a lot of Bigtime Famous Philosophers were very good. The comparisons between Jesus and Socrates are well-known, and well-taken I think. Neither was a top-flight philosopher, I think, but both were extremely influential in that field, for good reason, and so can claim greatness. Again, I think that slicing this up too finely is more fun than philosophy.

But philosophy should be fun, once in a while.

If you don’t mind me asking, what philosophies of Jesus do you not think we’re good?

I hope you weren’t saying this just because you know saying Jesus had great morals and was a great philosopher would possibly trap you. But that doesn’t seem like something you’d do. So like I said I’d like to hear why.

No, Club - I’m not afraid of philosophy. I think his morality was horrid. “Turn the other cheek” is indefensible. “Let he who is without sin caste…” is a travesty of logic. But he was, like Nietzsche (to an extent) a revaluer of values. He tried to transform the relationship to the priestly cast into a relationship to God. Not many listened, nor do they today. But that isn’t his fault.

If I did think Jesus moral teachings were good ones, that would not trap me in any way I can see. Perhaps you could elaborate that point.

Anyway, morality that has as its basis a mere appeal to authority has many prblems. Jesus actually did make an improvement in that he gave something of a psychological basis to the morality of the Jews. But it was not enough, in itself, to make any real sense, to me. The “casting stones” story is of this kind - he uses a simple logic and some simple psychology to reinforce the simple authority of God - that was his best trick.

Turn the other cheek isn’t as exact of a moral as you might think it should be used for. I don’t think that means go defenseless, many times God has helped men ‘defeat’ people. But I think during arguments over nothing it is best to turn the other cheek is it not? If someone tries to start something, turn the other cheek, don’t engage, but still protect yourself.

Can you elaborate a bit more on the casting stones story? I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

I’m not sure I want to debate individual moral points, Club. I thought yours was a purely “informational” request. It is difficult to get very far debating single moral prescriptions, for any morality worth discussing is a system.

I mean the woman accused of adultery, that was to be stoned to death, and that Jesus rescued. Don’t I remember this from Sunday School? I cannot actually tell you where this occurs in the Bible. I must have read it, but I do most of my reading in the OT. This is the same logic that would have us remove Bill Clinton from office for getting a blowjob - assuming that his accusers were blameless. The fact is that a rule is a rule, and the moral purity of those enforcing it is a matter separate from the actual enforcement. So, the “psychological” logic works, but, strictly speaking, there is no particular logical cinsistency in Jesus’ prescription here. If the rule is God’s, then the instrument of the enforcement of that rule should hardly matter.

09.03.06.1495

I think if you wanted to label the Bible it would have to be a book of philosophy of ethics and morality, not simply philosophy in general. According to C.S. Lewis, Christ was not a philosopher or a “great teacher” at that… he had to either be a madman, a liar, or God (the trilemma).

Apologists defend the assumed divinity of Christ, not his teachings of moral and ethical value.

But it’s still philosophy? Lol, Philosophy of morals and ethics…isn’t that philosophy? You just used the word philosophy.

I’m not sure how this is very logical sage, you can look at this many ways…but to ever say anything isn’t general philosophy, is saying nothing is ever general philosophy. What/who can ever cover all philosophies? But it’s still philosophy, regardless.

I’m not sure why someone can’t be a great teacher and a philosopher.

Why are you using the trilemma? How is that helping you in any form?

Apologetist defend everything…Christ undoubtfully had moral and ethical values…I’m not sure why an apologetist can’t defend that? Those two are within Religion.

You’re trying to assign cans and cannots by classes, when the fact is any class can do anything he wants. A policeman can be a cook at the same time, what prevents him from this?

Basically based off the information I’ve gotten from many of you.

The bible is a philosophy of some sort. So Christ was a philosopher of some sort. So then the people who defend his philosophies are only apologetist.

So then if you’re ‘using’ Nietzsche, Kant, Sartre, Heidgegger, Socrates, etc. You’re just basically a defender of that philosophy, so then you are no philosopher then are you? (based on whether or not you’re using they’re philosophies)

So I guess if the world runs out of new philosophies one day, nobody can claim a philosopher status if nobody can revolutionize idealogies anymore.

All of this is based off what you guys have said, just a note, I’m not sure if this is correct or incorrect, I’ll let you decide that.

09.04.06.1497

Your point? I already explained to you what the goal of the Christian apologist is, and it has nothing to do with the classification of the Bible.

I was using the trilemma as an example of Lewis’ arguments that show how he was against you. Obviously you clearly think that Jesus was a great teacher and philosopher, yet you support Lewis who argued that Jesus could not be one. The question is not how this helps me, but how does it help you? You support an apologist who goes against what you believe, correct? Or have I misinterpretted your words this time? Regardless, my suggestion to you is read more Lewis to find out why his opinions don’t fall in sync with yours.

Whoa there Club… I said that an apologist can defend a single topic, not everything… I said the Bible has moral and ethical values in it, I never said Christ… I can say that it’s more productive for an apologist to defend just the precepts of Christianity rather than the Bible itself: wouldn’t proving the divinity of Jesus be more interesting than proving the Bible is more than just a book of values? Finally… you do not have to go far to find that morals and ethical values exist elsewhere besides religion… just read philosophy!

And Lewis was not a fiction writer as well as an apologist? I think you’re confusing the point Club. Obviously a policeman cannot prepared a Baked Alaska while tackling a theif stealing a television from Sears. All the same, an apologist could defend two things, like Christianity and Bush, but both topics would not belong in the same book… unless you’re trying to prove that Bush is somehow related to Jesus.

Some of that was stated by faust as I recall. Just as well, I don’t agree with your conclusion.

There’s a difference between defending the philosophies of a philosopher and agreeing with him (or her even). If I’m using tidbits of philosophy from all the people you’ve named, I might be doing a research project to show how Kant and Socrates influenced Nietzsche, and how he influenced Heidegger and Sartre. If you of course disputed that, only then would I be defending my case and become an apologist out to prove who influenced Nietzsche and who he influenced. Is this clear for you?

Some one or people back in the early 1900s thought that the U.S. Patent was no longer needed because all the inventions that could ever have been invented were made. (need source for this) Point is… the world will never run out of new philosophy…