Philosophy rather than religion.

[Seattle]

There's a thread in this section, created by a poster named 'river,' that proposes the idea of a 'humanity based religion.' Just going from memory, think that was the gist. You might enjoy it. I *think* that's more of what you're driving at.

You're right. Thanks! I'll check it out.

 

[Balerion]

You're right. Thanks! I'll check it out.

Better than explaining yourself, I guess.

 

[Seattle]

Better than explaining yourself, I guess.

It doesn't work with Masulu and it doesn't work with you. Unlike some, I know when it's a waste of time and counterproductive.

 

[Balerion]

It doesn't work with Masulu and it doesn't work with you. Unlike some, I know when it's a waste of time and counterproductive.

You've never even attempted to explain your views. I guess you'd rather have everyone swallow it whole or dismiss it entirely.

Your intellectual cowardice has been noted.

 

[Seattle]

You've never even attempted to explain your views. I guess you'd rather have everyone swallow it whole or dismiss it entirely.

Your intellectual cowardice has been noted.

You and Mazulu can get a playpen together and continue with the name calling. The grownups will leave you alone, I promise. Until nap time anyway. Note that

 

[Seattle]

I suspect that those who feel that way are already trying to follow that advice. It's not always easy. Not to mention, what do you do with those that don't follow it?

The devil is in the details... so to speak.

You don't punch them or bomb them However, as you say correctly...the devil is in the details For starters you attempt to just ignore them in cases where that will work rather than encourage their disruptive behavior.

I'm definitely not arguing for no defense whether we are talking at the national level or at the personal level. I would say that you just go the extra mile to give someone the benefit of the doubt or wait for them to go too far before reacting and then trying to limit that reaction.

 

[Balerion]

You and Mazulu can get a playpen together and continue with the name calling. The grownups will leave you alone, I promise. Until nap time anyway. Note that

All you've done is name-call and mudsling. You haven't even attempted to answer my questions or discuss this subject with me in earnest.

I think we both know who really needs the nap here.

 

[Yazata]

Philosophy rather than religion

How do you propose to distinguish between the two?

How about a new philosophy with no God but based on what everyone generally thinks of as "what would Jesus do?".

Didn't Jesus spend most of his time preaching the coming of God's promised Kingdom?

Love your neighbor, love your enemy. These are great sentiments but they are never actually applied by religions.

They are rarely applied by anyone, religious or not.

Toss out the god, and the administrators (religions) and just take the philosophy.

I wouldn't characterize religions as 'administrators'. Religions are broad and internally diverse bodies of tradition, evolving over time.

Don't worry about what came before the Big Bang (but be open to any new info that science may derive), don't worry about what happens when we die (we die) and live life appreciating our fellow man (regardless of what race/sex/country they come from). It's the human race after all.

Cosmology and metaphysics have always been fundamental concerns of philosophy. Philosophy isn't just ethics.

People are deeply concerned by the deaths of their loved ones and with their own impending deaths. We can't just dismiss that. And many people passionately want to believe that the universe, reality itself at its deepest level, somehow embodies and validates their own deepest desires and concerns. Philosophies often end up spinning out worldviews that people find comforting and reassuring.

Wouldn't more be accomplished with such a philosophy than with all of the existing religions?

Religions aren't just bodies of doctrine. They include practices, things for people to do, ranging from liturgy and ritual to the subtlest comtemplative traditions. Those practices can have profound emotional and psychological effects. Religions are closely associated with the arts and with the aesthetic side of life in ways that philosophies rarely are.

 

[Seattle]

OK, then make it a Godless religion for those who need the rituals and other aspects of a religion. I went back and edited my original post since apparently I was unclear regarding my use of "what would Jesus do". I wasn't actually referring to Jesus but to the kind of philosophy that is generally thought of when mentioning Jesus.

 

[wynn]

OK, then make it a Godless religion for those who need the rituals and other aspects of a religion. I went back and edited my original post since apparently I was unclear regarding my use of "what would Jesus do". I wasn't actually referring to Jesus but to the kind of philosophy that is generally thought of when mentioning Jesus.

It's still a kind of philosophy that makes its practitioners vulnerable to those who don't follow it.

So as long as you allow for free will and free choice of one's outlook on life, you allow for the possibility that some will not subscribe to the philosophy you propose; and this will make those who do subscribe to your philosophy into sitting ducks.

This points at the basic paradox of pacifist and humanist philosophies: they have to be enforced under threat of imprisonment or death.

 

[Seattle]

It's still a kind of philosophy that makes its practitioners vulnerable to those who don't follow it.

So as long as you allow for free will and free choice of one's outlook on life, you allow for the possibility that some will not subscribe to the philosophy you propose; and this will make those who do subscribe to your philosophy into sitting ducks.

This points at the basic paradox of pacifist and humanist philosophies: they have to be enforced under threat of imprisonment or death.

Not really. It's a philosophy. It doesn't have to be applied as a rule or by everyone. Sure, if I "turn the other check" and someone else keeps attacking me it's not going to work in that case.

In that case you have to try another approach. There is nothing to say that you can't try that approach first. That approach will work in many cases.

It's no different than to say that with our personal interactions it's better to try being civil first before resorting to violence. It's better to start with empathy or trying to understand a conflict from the other sides point of view.

That approach not only helps them but it helps us. I'm better off by living in a more peaceful world.

Even if I disagree with the government of Iran, I'm better off trying to understand their perspective even if I disagree with it. If I read their actions in the worse possible light I'm potentially just short changing myself. Misunderstanding don't benefit either side.

 

[wynn]

In that case, your philosophy is only useful as a preliminary, in some circumstances, but not in all.

A decent philosophy is applicable all the time, in all situations.

 

[Seattle]

In that case, your philosophy is only useful as a preliminary, in some circumstances, but not in all.

A decent philosophy is applicable all the time, in all situations.

You can discount it by proclaiming that it's not a "decent philosophy" if you want to. It's not hard to add to the philosophy to account for those cases however. It's not necessary in my view point as it's only meant as a general thought process. No philosophy needs to be so structured as to account for every contingency.

If it does more good than harm it's a decent philosophy. Or rather I should say if it does more good than whatever the existing philosophy that one is using does than it a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[wynn]

It's not hard to add to the philosophy to account for those cases however.

Whatever you add to a pacifist or humanist philosophy to account for cases when said philosophy would increase vulnerability of its practitioner, it is necessarily going to be in conflict with pacifism and humanism.

"When possible, turn the other cheeck; when not, be willing to blind, maim and kill."

So much for "Love your neighbor, love your enemy" and "live life appreciating our fellow man (regardless of what race/sex/country they come from). It's the human race after all."

It's not necessary in my view point as it's only meant as a general thought process.

You mean like the self-image one outwardly projects of oneself?

No philosophy needs to be so structured as to account for every contingency.

It is useful if it does, as this way, one doesn't run into contradictions within one's outlook (and thus doesn't have cognitive dissonances to deal with, nor has to deal with those pesky critical people who point out that one is being a false humanist/pacifist).

If it does more good than harm it's a decent philosophy. Or rather I should say if it does more good than whatever the existing philosophy that one is using does than it a worthwhile endeavor.

Depends on what is meant by "good" and "harm."

 

[wynn]

Wouldn't more be accomplished with such a philosophy than with all of the existing religions?

You underestimate what existing religions have to offer, probably because you don't know them all that well.

 

[(Q)]

You underestimate what existing religions have to offer, probably because you don't know them all that well.

That is a cop out, as it is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[wynn]

That is a cop out, as it is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Nonsense, and you apparently don't know what a NTS fallacy is, you're just shooting from the hip.

 

[(Q)]

Nonsense, and you apparently don't know what a NTS fallacy is, you're just shooting from the hip.

I've already provided a link for you to educate yourself. Evidently, that failed.

 

[Seattle]

Whatever you add to a pacifist or humanist philosophy to account for cases when said philosophy would increase vulnerability of its practitioner, it is necessarily going to be in conflict with pacifism and humanism.

"When possible, turn the other cheeck; when not, be willing to blind, maim and kill."

So much for "Love your neighbor, love your enemy" and "live life appreciating our fellow man (regardless of what race/sex/country they come from). It's the human race after all."




You mean like the self-image one outwardly projects of oneself?




It is useful if it does, as this way, one doesn't run into contradictions within one's outlook (and thus doesn't have cognitive dissonances to deal with, nor has to deal with those pesky critical people who point out that one is being a false humanist/pacifist).




Depends on what is meant by "good" and "harm."

The cognitive dissonance comes from a philosophy trying to account for all contingencies (which can't be done). A broader less specific philosophy doesn't cause that kind of dissonance.

A realistic and useful philosophy does account for the way things are. Man is violent so must one's philosophy only be one of violence? The Art of War is an interesting read but more is required to have a balanced and fulfilling life I think.

 

[wynn]

The cognitive dissonance comes from a philosophy trying to account for all contingencies (which can't be done).

Says who?

Some schools in traditional Buddhism, for example, can do precisely that: they offer a philosophy that is applicable 24/7.

A broader less specific philosophy doesn't cause that kind of dissonance.

And is less applicable, has more grey areas.

A realistic and useful philosophy does account for the way things are. Man is violent so must one's philosophy only be one of violence?

You're the one who started this thread, proposing to have a solution. So you tell us.

:shrug: