I see us debating each others philosophies often, but why don’t we ever debate the ‘mistakes’ in the known philosophers?
I think that is generally implicit in our arguments.
Since most of us have built our personal philosophies off of real philosophers, when we argue our influences show.
Well then if that’s our base why don’t we question it? It doesn’t come through us as well as it does them.
What’s the difference? Wouldn’t our perceptions of their mistakes and their defenses be just as weakened? Also, some people’s philosophies are influenced by many thinkers, so isolating the effects of each could just convolute a discussion unnecessarily.
I think if you asked most people about the flaws in their favourite philosopher, they’d be able to hand them over pretty quickly.
What? You mean you guys aren’t just making it up as you go along. I know I am!
08.23.06.1443
I think it’s interesting that you’ve brought such a topic up in a religion forum, Club. Why? Well… I understand the basis of your inquiry given as many people question religion or the basis thereof, but as their own philosophies become their own personal religion, should one not question the basis of those philosophies?
To answer your question about debating the “mistakes” of known philosophers, I believe you would have to read and understand philosophy on your own accord. In fact, if you’ve ever read Nietzsche, you would find he does a wonderful job of questioning himself and his ideas all the time.
I think the majority of posters on this site really have no reason to debate such inacuracies that may be found since the philosopher is a human being and can be given not only a benefit of a doubt, but also that it becomes utterly pointless to debate something that everyone is generally aware of. That’s the long answer though… the short answer is… by debating each other’s philosophies, we debate the roots from which they came. Just as Patton defeated Rommell’s plan, he defeated Rommell.
Is that not what I said? By debating each other we’re debating the base(roots) from which they came?
Are you assuming this was about Nietzsche? It wasn’t, and like I said he does a great job of proving the need for a God, so why would I even want to discuss him?
Most of the great philosophers have good points and bad points, we can’t discard or keep everything they’ve said. My point is someone you double check that philosophy that acts as their roots to see if they are rooted.
08.24.06.1447
I was explaining that by debating differing philosophies, we subtly debate the mistakes of those philosophies.
No, I wasn’t assuming this was about Nietzsche, I was using him as an example. Glad I could clear that up. Also, while he did explain the need for a god, he disdained the raping of such a god (such examples of this can be found in his intense criticisms of Christianity). By the way… why do you not want to discuss Nietzsche? Are you incapable of conquering his views on your religion? I don’t mean that in a demeaning manner, just a percieved observation.
Please expound more on what you mean by “rooted.”
Like I said I wouldn’t have a good reason to display Nietzsche’s mistakes because they benefit Christianity, as in I wouldn’t want to discuss a mistake of Lewis or Chesterton unless you would bring it up, I have no motive to, it doesn’t help my defense.
I mean if some of these beliefs actually have a base, if their base doesn’t contradict itself.
08.24.06.1455
Yeah, you would need a good reason because Nietzsche’s mistakes wouldn’t hold much water (or any water for that matter) in benefiting Christianity. It’s a matter of using credible sources, and the mistakes of a philosopher are hardly credible as all they do is prove that the philosopher is still human; capable of making mistakes. I hope you don’t use mistakes to support your views; that would be bad… for you I mean.
By the way… did you mean C.S. Lewis? I hope not, because he can hardly be called a philosopher… neither is Chesterton for that matter.
Ok, lets break it down for you. In Certain areas Nietzsche actually helps Christianity with what he fortells about a world without God and so on. I’m not quite sure why C.S. Lewis isn’t a philosopher? And Chesterton is great…You’ll need to explain why here.
Hmm, I often see one misunderstanding from my readings of Nietzsche and that is this.
When he says “God is dead.” I have found that he referenced the fact that the Church has killed him. Due to the laws and teachings the church had forced the spirituality aspect was gone. This along with people love of science and its explanations created a “godless” society. Then again his morality of Absolutism is one lacking divine morality so I guess that is just my take.
08.25.06.1459
Which areas? I appreciate your attempt to ‘break it down for me,’ but it’s not getting us any farther than where we were. Is there a specific passage that you can quote to validate this?
Well, for starters, both Lewis and Chesterton are religious apologetists. I admit that I once thought them to be philosophers like you Club, but then when you really analyze their writings you find how very different they are from a philosopher. Not to mention, the defeat of Lewis by the hands of G.E.M. Anscombe pretty much put him in his place that he was unfit to be considered a philosopher and nothing more than an aethiest who found religion and became a theologian and prominent fiction writer. It’s interesting that after his defeat, he NEVER returned to theological writing. I could make a thread detailing how she beat him (imagine that, a woman beating a man in a debate about religion), but I think you should do the research yourself. Another thing I find interesting is that Chesterton dabbled in the occult in his youth… if he had crossed paths with Aleister Crowley, perhaps he might not have gradually made that conversion to Roman Catholicism. Given that Lewis ‘reluctantly’ accepted Christianity after reading Chesterton’s book, one has to be careful how much stock they actually put in the credibility of religious apologeticists when trying to support claims for a belief. You really should do some research Club… you will find there is a difference between a philosopher and a theological apologetist.
In particular the “taking back” of the spirituality and the idea behind God.
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?
— Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufman
I believe this statement to condemn man for doing what he has done to God by almost commercializing religion. But then again that is just my take on it.
08.26.06.1463
Thanks for that tidbit Satori… while I agree with your interpretation, it’s not really clear how it benefits the Christianity of today. The way I see it, Nietzsche clearly makes a case that we as humans require something to look up to, aspire to, and that Christianity failed in that for him… especially after the commercialization of Constantine and definitively after Theodosius I. Considering Nietzsche’s love for Classicism, it would not at all be unlikely for him to suggest a return to a less rigid spirituality… one that would cater the freedoms of the human spirit. Concordantly, not at all unlikely for him to believe in a divine force, but not have a need to build a religion around it…
…before we can become gods we must first make for ourselves an image to which we can aspire to one day achieve.
Hmm, I am not too sure of it now…perhaps I was just injecting that Nietszche wasn’t al that bad of a guy? Lol I will go away now. 
08.26.06.1465
LOL, you don’t have to feel embarressed Satori… you did bring up something helpful and worthwhile that made a valid point in the end. Oh yeah, and Nietzsche wasn’t all that bad of a guy although he did have problems.
What I was wanting to know from Club was which of and how Nietzsche’s mistakes benefit the Christianity of today that he clearly is in favor of. It’s a curiousity I’m rather intrigued to persue.
I have to admit I’ve heard more than just Chesterton adn Lewis. Have any of you listened to Ravi Zacharias? or read “The Case For” books by Lee Strobel? They do present some definite points to consider, so take a look if you haven’t already.
What do all of you mean by ‘philosopher’ and a ‘theological apologeticist’? Please clarify on what YOU mean by those terms - it makes it a lot easier to work with. Thanks.
Yeah i’m not sure what point you make sage when you decide to clarify someone as being a ‘philosopher’. Aren’t we all in some way philosophers? Why is it that any religious philosopher must be thrown into a apologetist category? Why not apologetist philosophers? Or just philosophers? do you even know the correct definition of philosophy? It doesn’t say it excludes religion.