If the esthetic value builds upon the concept of beauty, the ethical upon the concept of goodness, and the scientific upon the concept of truth then what would be the determinant of the religious value and the philosophical value?Can we talk of border values, the religious and philosophical values?Religion and philosophy have a syncretic character in the sense that they do not have a clear specific value.
And that is because religion and philosophy are extensions of personal and mostly subjective desires/opinions.
They are methods, not resources.
The religious value is built upon faith, and the philosophical value is bulit upon wisdom. The religious mans’ search is for his faith, the philosopher searches for wisdom.
Very well, oldphil. Seems a sensible answer, religion builds on faith, philosophy on wisdom. Only that this is apparently the case. Neither faith nor wisdom are values. They are attributes of the human subject and not intrinsec qualities of the object.
Cool, so I logically guess that leaves only man as determinant for philosophy and religion, eh ?
One can found a religion on biscuits and sausages as easily as on ‘reason’. A Priori categories? Don’t make make me laugh into my pint. Phenomenological immanence? Not in this language. Even Socrates was occasionally found vomiting in a ditch after an amphora or two too many. We build beliefs on other beliefs and can argue endlessly about how they all justify each other. Indeed, we do and probably will. As with football - there’s no knowledge being gained here but rather a game being played out. The crowd usually knows when one player is better than another.
A summary of man’s philosophical achievements to date…
Science is just a branch of philosophy. Philosophy is the search for truth.
Zarathustra’s Ape wrote:
Maybe. Only that philosophical truth is very much different from scientific truth. Scientific truth is based on scientific evidence, and also marks a progress and operates by integration of previous achievements(Einstein does not deny Newton only surpasses him)
Philosophical truth doesn’t need validation. We consider Leibnitz’s Monadology, for instance, accepted philosophical work, not in terms of true and false, neither we need to prove it. Time does not affect philosophy. Platonism and marxism are both studied as valid philosophical theories. Not the same can be said of atomism and nuclear physics.Atomism is true for the ancient man not for us.Philosophy is speculation, when at its best is logical discourse. But logic is correct thinking, not true thinking.
Socrates is a philosopher.
Socrates is a man.
All men are philosophers.
This is corect because is a silogism, it’s logical, not true.
So we need to emphasize what kind of truth philosophy is after. And that’s philosophical truth.