Church of philosophy

[Uccisore]

@cba1067950

Ah yes, speaking of the beginning of the thread I did request that we not discuss the differences between philosophy and religion.

Well, technically I’m pointing out their similarities. Is that still out of bounds?

So according to you, “open minded” philosophers have put up unnecessary barriers that make it impossible for two groups to share a church?

I don’t even know what you mean by ‘church’ yet. If all you mean is a building that you go into and stand around for a little while, then by all means, you can have a Church of Philosophy. But if you mean some sort of movement, organized by a creed, then no you can’t- not without excluding huge portions of the mainstream philosophical community. Even really basic stuff that you might expect philosophy to be generally about like the pursuit of knowledge or the value of reason are hotly disputed.

How is it possible to have an internet philosophy forum if two groups can’t share the same space? Are you claiming that everyone here believes the same thing? Or are you claiming that a church in name alone is somehow going to make everyone poop themselves?

I’m claiming that a “church” is something more than a bunch of guys that happen to be standing near each other or speaking to each other. For example, if you change the name of this website to ilovephilosophyNOWITSAFUCKINGCHURCHBRO.com, it still wouldn’t actually be a church.

So I suppose this all comes down to what you think a church is.

[cba1067950]

@Uccisore

Well, technically I’m pointing out their similarities. Is that still out of bounds?

I don’t even know what you mean by ‘church’ yet. If all you mean is a building that you go into and stand around for a little while, then by all means, you can have a Church of Philosophy. But if you mean some sort of movement, organized by a creed, then no you can’t- not without excluding huge portions of the mainstream philosophical community. Even really basic stuff that you might expect philosophy to be generally about like the pursuit of knowledge or the value of reason are hotly disputed.

So I suppose this all comes down to what you think a church is.

Yes. Still out of bounds.

Alright perfect. So what do we call a gathering of philosophers who meet weekly? What is the name of the building?

@felix dakat

Good question. The word philosophy has multiple definitions. What do you mean by the term?

Where is the consensus between Ayer and Heidegger? You’re probably right that there is some commonality. But apart from the fact that they both support their thought with arguments I don’t know what it would be. Is that your idea a church of arguments? Argument seems to be antithetical to the idea of church which is supposed to be a unity of spirit.

If the word philosophy has multiple definitions, what are you referring to when you use the word?

Really? So the database hasn’t changed for thousands of years? That’s clearly false.

They weren’t. Some were discussing metaphysics. Other’s maintained that metaphysics is gibberish unworthy of consideration.

Are you really doing this? So Aristotle taught Socrates everything he knows. Confucius was the biggest advocate of determinism. Descartes famously wrote “God is dead.” Philosophy is so hard to pin down that no one can agree on anything, even after thousands of years. This is your argument. Please stop.

@felix dakat

To me, the word church implies religion. You would have to explain how you can have a church without religion. To me, if you take religion out of church it isn’t church. If that’s true, your thesis is nonsense.

Great. I will ask you the same question I am asking Uccisore. What do we call a gathering of philosophers who meet weekly? What is the name of the building?

[cba1067950]

@Ierrellus

Instead of church call it Gatherings. You’ll upset no one, except maybe a few Druids. Do a history of philosophy in services.
Or divide your gatherings into the branches of philosphy–epistemology, ethics, politics, etc. I tried such a group in college. We called ourselves Palladians. We didn’t offer a viable alternative to the traditional religious church. At best, people go to church to learn how to live. Maybe philosophy can teach that. Who knows?

COOOOOoooll… Why Palladians? Was your group religious?

[felix_dakat]

@cba1067950

Are you really doing this? So Aristotle taught Socrates everything he knows. Confucius was the biggest advocate of determinism. Descartes famously wrote “God is dead.” Philosophy is so hard to pin down that no one can agree on anything, even after thousands of years. This is your argument. Please stop.

My argument is that there is not enough agreement among philosophers to constitute a church. A group of “philosophers” conversing in a building is not a church.

Great. I will ask you the same question I am asking Uccisore. What do we call a gathering of philosophers who meet weekly? What is the name of the building?

Call it whatever you want. It’s not a church. A church is not a building. Your thesis is based on misplaced concreteness. A church is a gathering of people who believe they are called together by God. The place where they meet is only called a “church” by virtue of the fact that they meet there. If they meet in the parking lot that’s the church.

[Ierrellus]

@cba1067950

@Ierrellus

Instead of church call it Gatherings. You’ll upset no one, except maybe a few Druids. Do a history of philosophy in services.
Or divide your gatherings into the branches of philosphy–epistemology, ethics, politics, etc. I tried such a group in college. We called ourselves Palladians. We didn’t offer a viable alternative to the traditional religious church. At best, people go to church to learn how to live. Maybe philosophy can teach that. Who knows?

COOOOOoooll… Why Palladians? Was your group religious?

Palladians after Pallas Athene. Nope, we were not religious. Our motto was --live to learn to live to learn to live.

[Ierrellus]

Felix, Stephen was stoned for saying a church is not a building.

[felix_dakat]

@Ierrellus

Felix, Stephen was stoned for saying a church is not a building.

…among other things. Literally he referred to the temple. Many of the Jews were unhappy about the temple because Herod built it and he was a collaborator with the Roman occupiers. This thread strikes me about as serious as a lightbulb joke. How many philosophers does it take to make a church? Whoever comes up with the snappiest punchline wins.

[cba1067950]

@felix dakat

@Ierrellus

Felix, Stephen was stoned for saying a church is not a building.

…among other things. Literally he referred to the temple. Many of the Jews were unhappy about the temple because Herod built it and he was a collaborator with the Roman occupiers. This thread strikes me about as serious as a lightbulb joke. How many philosophers does it take to make a church? Whoever comes up with the snappiest punchline wins.

Is this your punchline? Or was it one of the other knee slappers you made earlier? If this isn’t serious then why are you so insistent that I stop calling it a church?

@felix dakat

My argument is that there is not enough agreement among philosophers to constitute a church. A group of “philosophers” conversing in a building is not a church.

Call it whatever you want. It’s not a church. A church is not a building. Your thesis is based on misplaced concreteness. A church is a gathering of people who believe they are called together by God. The place where they meet is only called a “church” by virtue of the fact that they meet there. If they meet in the parking lot that’s the church.

Yes I see that is your argument. And obviously there is quite a bit of contradicting evidence in the thousands of institutions around the world that have structured/standardized lessons on how to teach philosophy. Each time that is throw at you, your argument appears to be, “It’s not a church.” Which by the way, I know what a real church is. I was assuming we all knew that and that we were going about this with an understanding that I’m misusing the word to some extent. What I’ve done is the equivalent of what happens in language all the time in many many situations. A group of people see a word that sort of fits the definition of the behavior they want to engage in… say “marriage” for instance. An established group of brown pantsed, conservative dudes, with grumpy faces say, “But that’s not how I use the word. You’re banned from using it.” and a debate ensues. In this case though, you’re not even capable of helping construct a new nomenclature to define the behavior. Yet somehow it is my fault that I can’t come up with a better term. We are both incapable of coming up with a word that properly defines a group of philosophers philosophizing… a civil union of thinking. How about a gaggle? Gaggle of Philosophy? Here’s your chance for a punchline. Come on slugger. You gots this.

[Jayson]

You can actually create a Church of Philosophy.
People have done so in modern history, and also people have done so in the ancient history (or rather, we would think of it that way today even though our modern rendition is academic rather than “churchy”).

But for a “Church” to be classed in America, it doesn’t have to be “spiritual”.
Just pull this up:
irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Make sure you get all of your ducks in a row to meet the IRS criteria, and enjoy having a new Church of Philosophy.

Typically, the way it would probably work best is if you picked a particular philosophy and outlined that as your “Church”, rather than a general “philosophy”.
This was how many early philosophy sects worked.

In a nut-shell, religion, philosophy and martial arts all pretty much work the same way in regards to organization.
Lots of propositions for what’s the best way to go about things, and then a bunch of competition to see who can win in being right, and then scatter in some sects that don’t care about who’s right, but focus on some other idea - rinse, repeat.

So yeah, knock yourself out:
Go here,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

Pick a philosophy, and start a Church of Idealism (for example).
Then just draft up Idealism’s constructs into fluff that makes the IRS happy, and tada! Church!

I would hazard against a Church of Nihilism, however, as that may not produce very good intrinsic value in attendance.

And also…there kind of are already churches of philosophy.
Look up Religious Humanism:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Humanism

There’s lots of little secular humanist church affiliations.
Frank Zappa even started one if I recall correctly.

[felix_dakat]

@cba1067950

felix dakat wrote:Call it whatever you want. It’s not a church. A church is not a building. Your thesis is based on misplaced concreteness. A church is a gathering of people who believe they are called together by God. The place where they meet is only called a “church” by virtue of the fact that they meet there. If they meet in the parking lot that’s the church.

Yes I see that is your argument. And obviously there is quite a bit of contradicting evidence in the thousands of institutions around the world that have structured/standardized lessons on how to teach philosophy. Each time that is throw at you, your argument appears to be, “It’s not a church.” Which by the way, I know what a real church is. I was assuming we all knew that and that we were going about this with an understanding that I’m misusing the word to some extent. What I’ve done is the equivalent of what happens in language all the time in many many situations. A group of people see a word that sort of fits the definition of the behavior they want to engage in… say “marriage” for instance. An established group of brown pantsed, conservative dudes, with grumpy faces say, “But that’s not how I use the word. You’re banned from using it.” and a debate ensues. In this case though, you’re not even capable of helping construct a new nomenclature to define the behavior. Yet somehow it is my fault that I can’t come up with a better term. We are both incapable of coming up with a word that properly defines a group of philosophers philosophizing… a civil union of thinking. How about a gaggle? Gaggle of Philosophy? Here’s your chance for a punchline. Come on slugger. You gots this.

Like I said above, call it whatever you want.

[felix_dakat]

@Jayson

But for a “Church” to be classed in America, it doesn’t have to be “spiritual”.
Just pull this up:
irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Who needs philosophy when we have the IRS.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

Call it ecclesia …

[Ierrellus]

@V-OutOfTheWilderness

Call it ecclesia …

I like that. But you are welcome to Palladians or Sophia or Logos.
Christian churches started out as gatherings in homes of the devout. A home church of philosophy is probably a good start.

[cba1067950]

@felix dakat

@cba1067950

felix dakat wrote:Call it whatever you want. It’s not a church. A church is not a building. Your thesis is based on misplaced concreteness. A church is a gathering of people who believe they are called together by God. The place where they meet is only called a “church” by virtue of the fact that they meet there. If they meet in the parking lot that’s the church.

Yes I see that is your argument. And obviously there is quite a bit of contradicting evidence in the thousands of institutions around the world that have structured/standardized lessons on how to teach philosophy. Each time that is throw at you, your argument appears to be, “It’s not a church.” Which by the way, I know what a real church is. I was assuming we all knew that and that we were going about this with an understanding that I’m misusing the word to some extent. What I’ve done is the equivalent of what happens in language all the time in many many situations. A group of people see a word that sort of fits the definition of the behavior they want to engage in… say “marriage” for instance. An established group of brown pantsed, conservative dudes, with grumpy faces say, “But that’s not how I use the word. You’re banned from using it.” and a debate ensues. In this case though, you’re not even capable of helping construct a new nomenclature to define the behavior. Yet somehow it is my fault that I can’t come up with a better term. We are both incapable of coming up with a word that properly defines a group of philosophers philosophizing… a civil union of thinking. How about a gaggle? Gaggle of Philosophy? Here’s your chance for a punchline. Come on slugger. You gots this.

Like I said above, call it whatever you want.

Remember when I called it Church of Philosophy? Yeah well, I’m pretty sure I was going with that until this thread was derailed. God damned brown pants.

@Jayson

You can actually create a Church of Philosophy.
People have done so in modern history, and also people have done so in the ancient history (or rather, we would think of it that way today even though our modern rendition is academic rather than “churchy”).

But for a “Church” to be classed in America, it doesn’t have to be “spiritual”.
Just pull this up:
irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Make sure you get all of your ducks in a row to meet the IRS criteria, and enjoy having a new Church of Philosophy.

Typically, the way it would probably work best is if you picked a particular philosophy and outlined that as your “Church”, rather than a general “philosophy”.
This was how many early philosophy sects worked.

In a nut-shell, religion, philosophy and martial arts all pretty much work the same way in regards to organization.
Lots of propositions for what’s the best way to go about things, and then a bunch of competition to see who can win in being right, and then scatter in some sects that don’t care about who’s right, but focus on some other idea - rinse, repeat.

So yeah, knock yourself out:
Go here,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

Pick a philosophy, and start a Church of Idealism (for example).
Then just draft up Idealism’s constructs into fluff that makes the IRS happy, and tada! Church!

I would hazard against a Church of Nihilism, however, as that may not produce very good intrinsic value in attendance.

And also…there kind of are already churches of philosophy.
Look up Religious Humanism:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Humanism

There’s lots of little secular humanist church affiliations.
Frank Zappa even started one if I recall correctly.

If people could win at the internet it would probably look like this. Thank you kind sir.

I was under the impression that churches under federal law were basically just non profits. It appears that is the case. But you have to pay for this shit? It almost seems easier to just open a for profit business.

[Ierrellus]

Perhaps if you described your church as an educational facilty, the government would subsidize it. That might be the best of both worlds–philosophy as learning and philosophy as being.

[uglypeoplefucking]

The Church of Nietzsche is alive and well on various internet forums.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

@uglypeoplefucking

The Church of Nietzsche is alive and well on various internet forums.

Right. Lead us into madness. Seems churchy to me.

[d63]

Philosophy, as Deleuze maintains, is about the creation and critique of concepts. This gives it common ground with religion in that it is distinguished from science in that both are dedicated to less practical effects than science. The understandings we come to through philosophy and religion (and art) are the result of a natural and instinctive desire to understand the world that usually requires that we pursue it without corporate sponsorship. Philosophers, artists, and theologians must do the best they can with the tools they have while maintaining confidence and a sense of worth in the face of science.

Given that, the worse thing it can do is bow to science. Science requires a check and balance as much as religion, art, or philosophy.
So yeah, there should be a religion of philosophy. As Jaspers points out: philosophy gives shelter to those for whom religion no longer works.

[felix_dakat]

@cba1067950

Remember when I called it Church of Philosophy? Yeah well, I’m pretty sure I was going with that until this thread was derailed. God damned brown pants.

How does questioning the assumptions on which your proposed church is based “derail” your thread? Questioning assumptions is philosophy.

[eyesinthedark]

Rather than call it a Church, you could call it a symposium, to avoid conflation.