My Philosophy

[mtmynd1]

Philosophies are religions without an Absolute.

Philosophy is malleable and always unsure. Philosophy is an attempt at diversity thru intellect.

Philosophy is the unguarded twin of Religion, without a Temple, without the faithful...
a vagabond on the landscape seeking that which lies beyond religious beliefs thru the mind's logic.

[jayjacobus]

Philosophy is many premises with many arguments searching for important reasons.

[Counterinsurgency]

I feel that you can't be a conscious human being without having a basic philosophy one way or another. No matter the conditions of a human life, which range from being the heir of a billionaire to eating dirt to survive, you must have an outlook on your existence. It comes with your ability to perceive. Its the only thing that separates us from the 8.7 million other species that we know of. So yes, people follow their philosophy religiously but i think you're kind of reaching on the idea that philosophy itself is a religion. Maybe individually but not as a whole.

[Skip]

Philosophies are religions without an Absolute.

What purpose is served by misusing the word "religion"? Just trying to stir a little controversy?

Philosophy is malleable and always unsure.

Not the ones I've read.

Philosophy is an attempt at diversity thru intellect.

Diversity of what? And why is that desirable?

Philosophy is the unguarded twin of Religion, without a Temple, without the faithful...
a vagabond on the landscape seeking that which lies beyond religious beliefs thru the mind's logic.

And this is yours?

[A_Seagull]

Philosophies are religions without an Absolute.

Philosophy is malleable and always unsure. Philosophy is an attempt at diversity thru intellect.

Philosophy is the unguarded twin of Religion, without a Temple, without the faithful...
a vagabond on the landscape seeking that which lies beyond religious beliefs thru the mind's logic.

So? What's your point?

[Troll]

Philosophies are religions without an Absolute.
What purpose is served by misusing the word "religion"? Just trying to stir a little controversy?

This is not so wild if one says, as has often been said, that Buddhism is not properly a religion. For the reason that it is wholly personal, and has no absolute in the sense that there is no one to tell one, this is the right thing, neither Pope, prophet, angel nor God (it is worth noting that what is mostly meant by religion is, in essence, Catholicism and its fall out), this is the ideal of action or of thought. It is easy to see, that if we are not very strict about what philosophy means, that Buddhism looks rather like one. Yet, on the other hand, philosophy in the proper sense, Greek thinking, has at its feet the saying that I know that I don't know, with the suggestion that knowing is assumed as the goal. In this sense, philosophy is said to be over. Since it is admitted that there is no truth, or, precisely put, no way from opinion to certainty.

Philosophy is malleable and always unsure.
Not the ones I've read.

One can say, however, less controversially, that there are contradictions between the great philosophers' teachings. And therefore malleability and uncertainty.

[jayjacobus]

Philosophy is many premises with many arguments searching for important reasons.

I am not a philosopher because I don’t have a PhD.
I am not a philosopher because I don’t have important reasons.
Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
You got dick, Dick.

[Skip]

This is not so wild if one says, as has often been said, that Buddhism is not properly a religion.

Absolute is not the sole defining characteristic of religion. There are places of worship, holy books, holy orders, holy days, chants and/or prayers, rituals, images and trappings.
While each religion has a central philosophy; secular philosophies have none of the other characteistics.

For the reason that it is wholly personal,

Personal beliefs are not celebrated in temples, with a community of believers, according to established rituals.
Nothing shared with 500,000,000 other people is wholly personal.


["Philosophy is malleable and always unsure."
Not the ones I've read.

One can say, however, less controversially, that there are contradictions between the great philosophers' teachings. And therefore malleability and uncertainty.

One can say, more accurately: "Philosophers disagree, and because I have not decided on one particular philosophy, I am unsure. "

[jayjacobus]

Philosophy is many premises with many arguments searching for important reasons.

What I meant to say is a philosopher should have important reasons for being a philosopher.

[Skip]

Just as writers, doctors, chefs and stonemasons should have important reasons for their vocation.
At least philosophers are not in it purely for the money!

[Troll]

“Absolute is not the sole defining characteristic of religion. There are places of worship, holy books, holy orders, holy days, chants and/or prayers, rituals, images and trappings.
While each religion has a central philosophy; secular philosophies have none of the other characteistics.”

You sound like Kant. In response to your last sentence, couldn’t one say that if they don’t, they could? It’s not clear to me that they don’t. No “images”? No “trappings”? Well, neither did the early Church. And if one wants those things, why not?

“Personal beliefs are not celebrated in temples, with a community of believers, according to established rituals.
Nothing shared with 500,000,000 other people is wholly personal.”

This is a bit too subtle isn’t it?, “wholly personal”. I’m not perfectly informed about this distinction, but my guess is they mean that Buddhism points to no positive law. It’s not a public thing. There are temples but not like the temples at Rome or Greece, which were part of political life proper.

“"Philosophers disagree, and because I have not decided on one particular philosophy, I am unsure. "”

This sounds like a deeply misguided polemical statement based on an assumed uncritical reception of Enlightenment propaganda. Even the Catholics perpetually change their dogma. Philosophy and religion are about investigation. It is salutary to reflect on the fact that "dogmatism" was not a pejorative before the rise of Galilean science and its claim to apoptotic certainty or possession of the truth in contradistinction to opinion in the form of the mathematical natural science.

[mtmynd1]

Thanks to all the responders and your comments.

I find it interesting the vast differences in beliefs are found amongst this diverse group. There is no certain definition that philosophy can provide and despite that opinion, it is a great exercise for the mind and has been ever since our species realized we could think.

What we who enjoy philosophy to varying degrees are a minority in today's world, and quite likely any conversation that delves into deeper thoughts may be surprised to find themselves in a world of metaphysics which will certainly lessen the amount of friends or fellow philosophers you had before that "deep dive" in the mind. Not quite philosophical but yet some may agree is a better path to use, i.e. follow in that journey into metaphysics.


I'd like to especially thank Troll on his lucid answers that I found to be well thought out and lucid..... not that many others weren't as enjoyable and even entertaining as we all find in any group conversation.

[Skip]

Regarding the title of the thread: it is exactly as lucid and lucid as the explanations.

[mtmynd1]

Regarding the title of the thread: it is exactly as lucid and lucid as the explanations.

You are a true gentleman, Skip, but why hide it?