OK, to catch up here, one at a time...
@Gunfighter:
"I disagree. I do not think Philosophy is about gaining understanding. This is going to sound cynical and probably ignorant, but I think philosophy is an attempt to conveniently oversimplify the complexities of human life. I do not think philosophic inquiry has solved any real problems.
I try to live my life in accordance with Christian beliefs and carry out the plan that I feel God has for my life. I also hold the Confucian belief that everyone is born basically good, but society corrupts almost everyone.
I do not spend much time trying to untangle the complexities of life, because such an effort would be futile at best. Philosophers have been trying to figure out every aspect of human existence for thousands of years. I would be a much better person if I spent my limited time on Earth attempting to help the world as much as possible."
I would argue that your living in accordance to Christian dogma IS a form of philosophy...philosohpy and faith go hand in hand, two ways of looking at and searching for the same sort of guidance, really, so philosophy isn't just relegated to Greeks with ridiculously-awesomely-long beards and Germans with anger issues and English pontificators with too much time on their hands, perhaps... ;)
Augustine and Aquinas were philosophers as well, and it may be argued Jesus was as well (I'd say he's more of a spiritual leader than a philosopher in proper, and maybe Peter was the more "philosophical' of the pair, but I don't want to take that too far for fear of grossly kmisunderstanding my NT-era history and such...Jesus is more the leader and preacher, and Peter, perhaps, is closer to the role of "philosopher" or "thinker," ie, putting a system of faith behind Jesus' teachings? Right, wrong, a bit of each? I don't know, Jesus strikes me as a sort of Ghandi figure, a leader, but his ideas are taken from previous sources and presented in a way that affects the masses...?)
In any case, I'd submit that as you follow Christianity, you DO utilize its ideals and, by extention, philosophy in your life.
"I disagree with that statement. I think religious faith is the only thing that can fill the gap between human knowledge (science) and the "void". Whether God is real or not, you cannot say that religious people do not have wholesome lives."
See my previous comment on religion-as-a-form-of-philosophy.
@Octavious:
Perhaps, I don't know...to be honest, it's a bit difficult soemtimes to remember what's been done here and what hasn't been, and in any case, I think at least a few of these discussions are probably worth having multiple times, albeit at long spaces between...perspectives change, new people join the forums and, again, it's entirely possible I've forgotten if we've done a topic before, as we generally start somewhere and then bleed into other areas, so maybe we started discussing it in another thread and I don't remember...
(In addition, I try and pick topics that are as "open" and "deep" as possible, "deep" in the sense that there's room for a substantial discussion on the matter with multiple sides to be taken, and "open" in the sense that anyone can join in, whether they've read every last work of Plato or Russell or kant or whomever to someone who's jsut interested in these ideas in passing to someone knew to the idea of philosophy, or even just knew to the topic--which is me, in certain situations, contrary to what some broken-record Canadian seems to spout, I DON'T pretend I know everything...the Schroedinger's Cat thread being a perfect example of my starting a thread on a philosophical/theoretical/scientific idea that I understood a sketch of, perhaps, but mostly ast back and learned from others in their debate to get a better picture.
So yeah, I tend to lean towards broader topics like this, or governmental/political philosophy, or ethics, or theological/Biblical ideas, rather than do something more specific that I maybe haven't done here before, like devote an entire thread to the discussion of Frege's Philosophy of Mathematics, or Russell's idea of Logical Positivism, or Kant's Categorical Imperative in relation to his metaphysical ideas...if you've never read about these ideas, or listened to a lecture on them, you might be lost, and so I try and keep it more open.
Of course, I'm no thread-Nazi, so if everyone would rather do those more specific topics, we can do that, of course, I'm just trying to be more broad and not too exclusivist or obscure.) :)
@baumhauer and Draugnar:
"Paraphrasing some quote I heard out of context some time said by Socrates, written down, of course, by Plato:
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
" ^^ Bullshit. All life is precious and worth living. Anyone who thinks self-examination is a requirement for worthiness should be examined - by a psychiatrist."
I agree with Plato/Socrates/baumhauer (I think that's found in Plato's "The Republic," baumhauer? When he's going on about the Cave Allegory, and trying to set up for the argument for Philosopher Kings, as a result? I might be wrong, and I disagree with his taking that to the Philosopher King extreme, but I agree with the quote."
Draugnar, may I ask:
-Suppose you live a life in un-ending pain, of an incredible sort, and it cannot and will not ever cease, and it pains you so much it occupies every corner of your brain and torments you every moment, so you can't even so much as take a pee without being reminded of this pain, let alone think or write or listen to music or eat or watch the ballgame without it blocking out the joy of those moments with this pain that sears every fiber of your body...IS THIS A LIFE WORTH LIVING? If it is...please tell me why, because frankly, that does NOT seem a life worth living, contrary to your statement.
-All life is precious? I hate to use a VERY tired cliche, so I'll take the non-German mustachioed dictator here...was Stalin's life precious? Was Pol Pot's? A rapist who also happens to be a serial killer of six women and molests children for fun? If THOSE lives can be considered precious--and I'll strike a bit of a theological chord here and extend that, if all of those lives can be considered SACRED--really...IS there such a thing as preciousness or sacridity in life? And, if there is, in ALL life? Because if so...well, how are these lives mentioned here either precious or sacred?
-To close here, and to relate to baumhauer's quote, I'm reminded of an exchange in George Bernard Shaw's "Man and Superman," namely, in Act III, which has it's own subtitle--because it's so long and really is just a one-act by itself and is...well, it's a long story--of "Don Juan in Hell." In this act/one-act play (if performed by itself, which I don't recommend, nor MAS without DJIH, but I digress) the titular Byronic hero, Don Juan, has a conversation in Hell with The Devil, a Statue of an old, respected army officer, and a newcomer, Senora Anna, who dies as an old woman but becomes a young woman gradually again throughout the course of the act. In the act, a TON of questions are raised, with Don Juan's end point being that life should be a progression upward, ie, a celebration of life and growth in any and all faculties, and so Heaven is worth it to him, as it's the ultimate achievement, it's where, according to him, you must work the hardest, and perhaps even feel pain, but the rewards are real, more real than anything else. The Devil argues that the point of life is DEATH, that all life is amounts to people killing each other in senseless ways, effort isn't worth it, and so HELL--his domain, after all--is the ideal location, because in Hell, in this version, anyway, you can do whatever you want and be whatever you want, even if it's a total illusion--case in point, the lady becoming "young" again--but that's all it is, an illusion, and NOTHING is real or has any substance.
The point?
The Statue asks, at one point, why he should care to have a brain at all, as pleasure is enough for him.
Don Juan resonds that without a brain, he could never be able to even process the ideas of pleasure at all.
The Statue says fine, give me just enough brain power to enjoy things, he doesn't want to know WHY.
Don Juan responds that such enjoyment is so shallow and hollow that, without any understanding whatsoever, it's meaningless, as if you can't understand, you can't grow, and if you can't grow, you'll never get to enioy HIGHER pleasures, in much the same way that if you never mature in life, you can never learn to drive a car or dink alcohol or enjoy Shakespeare or have sex...if you're stuck at the base-limit mentality forever, if you're forever with a child's mind, you can only ever enjoy child's pleasures, in part because you will only seek out child's pleasures, and in part because you won't be able to understand/perform/enjoy adult pleasures.
Urgent Pause Request
)
)
)
)
)