I consider myself to be a neonate, a beginner when it comes to philosophy.
I don’t think philosophy has proven (proven to me, at least) the existence of God- it may turn out to be an untenable position. Nevertheless, it’s the position I had going into philosophy, and one thing I am confident of is that there are enough Christian philosophers, and philosophy, out there that it’s plain that I don’t have to abandon my religion at this phase, as I’m just getting started. Who knows what will happen down the road- but for now, there’s plenty of room to grow and learn in a theistic perspective, and little apparent reason to move from that perspective.
Well Ucci, you already know my opinion. I’ll state it this way - nothing counts more than authenticity. If you’re going to practise philosophy, it had better be your own, or it’s just a waste of time. I think you’ll be just fine.
No Ucci its not bad, it is good. When disscussing and learning about philosophy or religion most folks tend to forget the single most important fact about both. Personal, both are subjects are very personal. They are not about laws and rules, they are about faith, belief and soul. They help to mold how you run your life and how you view the universe. No two people believe the exact same way. They may follow the same guidlines but it ends there.
In learning about these subjects we get other people to show us their personal faith, belief and soul. If we reject or question it, It is tatamount almost to an insult because they are personal, so arguments ensue. That is why “personal attacks” happen in disscusions. You actually are attacking the person if you disagree with their faith, belief and soul.
So on your journey to discovery keep in mind that religion and phiosophy are a part of the person who is sharing with you.
Ucci, that depends on what religion means to you. In my opinion, a philosopher (or anyone for that matter) needs religion only as much as a fish needs bicycle.
You are being too humble. Your posts shows that you are far from a beginner.
I like that stance. and I agree whole-heartedly. I think all to often, quasi, semi or even real philosphers get too caught up in a particular movement of another philosopher, instead of themselves.
I too second (or third) Faust. I believe in learning philosophy from my own experience. But when we argue with other academic philosophers, who quote all those old German and French philosophers, I feel like lost and diffident (I haven’t read many philosophy books, yet). I also believe that knowing something merely as words from the books and experiencing them personally are as different as day and night. But people who quote all those philosophers but have not experienced them personally is as good as someone who has never read them.
Yeah, too often I hear “so and so said this theory” or something or other, something to explain something that I perhaps, may understand better than he, in my own way. It’s interesting because what I tend to do, before I read someones opinion on something, is to first write my OWN initial opinion, be it logically sound, emotionally charged or otherwise. Then, after reading the arguments, go back and analyze my initial reaction and see if it still stands up, the critisizms etc, compare and wonder about things…as you do!
Right now, its 1:37am in the morning, I’m staying at a backpackers, most of my friends have gone clubbing, many are sleeping, and do you know what i’m doing?
Typing philosophy.
Hahahaha
So I guess i’m doing the URL title of the website justice huh…hehehe
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that reading professional philosophers is a waste of time. But it is more fruitful to read them for technique than for content. Ideas are easily had. Techinique is news you can use.
Of course, a few philosophers actually get both right. But which they are is up to you.
Trust me about the neonate thing- I read Plato for the first time like, two weeks ago. If I seem talented, it’s because I really love it, not because I’m really good. I’m reading Zagzebski’s “Divine Motivation Theory” and I barely understand it.
Drift
Drift, when it comes to questions like yours, I don’t really consider ‘philosophy’ to be this body of knowledge that potentially conflicts with religion. Maybe it is, but if I came to the kind of point you’re talking about, I wouldn’t see it as “Philosophy getting me to stop my belief in God,” but rather, me deciding God doesn’t exist. Maybe that’s just my libertarian free-will side talking.
Anyways, I guess the answer to your question is ‘Yes, but’.
dignified
As it stands right now, I believe the best reasons to believe in God are experiential. I think I could argue that experience is the best reason to believe in [i]any [/i]object. I think philosophy can do a lot to show that belief in God is plausible or rational in certain circumstances, but I don't think things like (for example) the ontological argument succeed in their original aims. So you won't see me proposing an argument that God exists- you'll see me posing an argument that it's rational to believe in God, or that belief in God helps answer certain stubborn problems in philosophy, though.
faust
About the technique vs. content thing- I find myself fixating on the content, adopting the ideas of this or that philosopher, while learning the technique unconsciously (some would say, not at all). What about you?
I think I started that way. And there is nothing wrong in this. Of course, you have to read for comprehension, so content counts in that regard, for you cannot discern techinique if you don’t know the object of the exercise. But you may find that, as you read more, the content may become familiar enough so that you can concentrate more on technique.
I have recently taken up the saxophone again. I know how I want “Misty” to sound on any given occasion - I just have to get good enough to make it sound that way. But I have heard the song enough to know it - I am no longer concentrating on reading the notes, or even listening to them on a recording. I’m looking for ways to accomplish certain effects - tonalities, timbres, riffs.
But at first, yes, you do have to know how the song “goes”.
That might not have been my clearest expression ever. Hope some of it got through.
I’m a baritone, I sing that all the time…some…day…when I’m awf’ly low…when the world is cold…i will feel a glow just thinking oOoOoOof u…
Whoops. Wrong song.
Very true about reading philosophy for the technique rather than for content in some cases. Some arguments are just sooo badly put together, although their content is very entertaining.
I find that the more stuff I read, the more I get to understand what kind of reasoning philosophy is. Perhaps just like anything, going back to the point Uccisore said earlier, that experience is the best reason to believe in any object. Maybe that ties into the idea of an individual sense of self?
Not sure just what you mean here. I can easily tell you "Jesus died and rose again". I believe this, and I consider myself a neonate philosopher...but I don't know if the statement is particulary philosophical, any more than "My shoes are brown" is philosophical.
If you mean a philosophical defense of the statement, the best philosophy could do is show that the statement doesn't contain a logical impossibility. Examining the truth of it would be more of a historical thing.
This is not a limitation on the part of philosophy. The limitation of philosophy (in the narrow sense of “knowledge-seeking”) is that it believes that the truth is “out there”, even though we may not know it or may not be able to know it.
I take a strange angle on these sorts of questions. If a person says "Jesus Died and Rose from the Dead", I believe that in almost every case, that person came to believe this through religious faith. It may come about that later on, they find historical, philosophical, or other information that backs this up, and when you ask them years later why they believe this, they will cite that information. But I think it's very, very rare for someone to [i]initially [/i] come to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead as a result of philosophy or history.
So. Claims about Jesus can be 'based on' philosophy in the sense that philosophy can back them up or support them. But if by 'based on' you mean 'originated with', it's almost always faith.
Hahahaha