Is philosophy an alternative to religion?

[LuisDantas]

What about its goals?

 

[xkatz]

What about its goals?

GOOOOOOOOOOAL!

(Marcar um gol de placa!)

...Sorry I just had to

But if you are implying that religions have goals while philosophies usually don't, then I agree with you. It's what makes religion generally more meaningful than most philosophies IMHO.

 

[Sha'irullah]

GOOOOOOOOOOAL!

(Marcar um gol de placa!)

...Sorry I just had to

But if you are implying that religions have goals while philosophies usually don't, then I agree with you. It's what makes religion generally more meaningful than most philosophies IMHO.

Religion more meaningful than philosophies? Philosophies have goals and religions have none. Religions seems to do nothing else but create confusion for oncoming eras of wisdom. It just creates confusion in the long run.

The reason why I dislike religion so strongly is for what religion is, which is nothing. Religion has done nothing new that other institution could not have done.
Only thing new religion has done has all been negative.

 

[xkatz]

Religion more meaningful than philosophies? Philosophies have goals and religions have none.

That's quite a bold statement to make. What is the goal of a philosophy such as neoplatonism? The Christian religion? I think the answer to the latter is much more obvious and it helps that there are generally guidelines on how to be righteous.

Religions seems to do nothing else but create confusion for oncoming eras of wisdom.

Like what?

The reason why I dislike religion so strongly is for what religion is, which is nothing. Religion has done nothing new that other institution could not have done.
Only thing new religion has done has all been negative.

What other institutions are we talking about?

Granted, there have been problems with religion but OTOH it gives people a coherent sense of community + identity, and the practice IMHO can be beneficial.

 

[Sha'irullah]

That's quite a bold statement to make. What is the goal of a philosophy such as neoplatonism? The Christian religion? I think the answer to the latter is much more obvious and it helps that there are generally guidelines on how to be righteous.

Neoplatonism is not a philosophy is an era of philosophy, now this makes me doubt you do not even understand philosophy at all.
Philosophy has ethics which teaches right behavior and this has existed before Judaism or Christianity.

You would not be making any f these statements if you knew what philosophy was.

Like what?

Evolution denial,
genocide,
improper logic,
obscuring human rights,
obscuring political progress,
reality denial,
plenty of wars,
and immorality

What other institutions are we talking about?

We can start with the American Humanist Association for beginners.

Granted, there have been problems with religion but OTOH it gives people a coherent sense of community + identity, and the practice IMHO can be beneficial.

Religions creates strife when encountered with other religions, I point to Islam as exhibit A. Christianity and its wars with Islam as exhibit B. Must I go on? Essentially all the major religions to this very day wrong each other.

Practicing genital mutilation sound very beneficial. The practice of denying reality also sounds very beneficial along with indoctrination of children.

...Mew

 

[xkatz]

Neoplatonism is not a philosophy is an era of philosophy, now this makes me doubt you do not even understand philosophy at all.

Except it is a philosophy. It's pretty easy to figure out it is if you read Wiki or even read writings by a neoplatonist like Platon (which I have). Much of Judeo-Christian thought on G-d is influenced by neoplatonic philosophy.

Philosophy has ethics which teaches right behavior and this has existed before Judaism or Christianity.

Yes but it's meaningless w/o a sensible way to practice being ethical.

You would not be making any f these statements if you knew what philosophy was.

Evolution denial,
genocide,
improper logic,
obscuring human rights,
obscuring political progress,
reality denial,
plenty of wars,
and immorality

Reality denial is subjective. Evolution denial I'll agree with you on that. The rest have more to do w/ human behavior in-of-itself as opposed to religion specifically.

We can start with the American Humanist Association for beginners.

The AHA has not achieved anywhere near the success most religions have. I do not see the AHA having the magnitude of community nor the charitable efforts that many religions and religious bodies have.

Religions creates strife when encountered with other religions, I point to Islam as exhibit A. Christianity and its wars with Islam as exhibit B. Must I go on? Essentially all the major religions to this very day wrong each other.

It's unfortunate but again it has more to do w/ being humans than religion itself IMHO.

Practicing genital mutilation sound very beneficial. The practice of denying reality also sounds very beneficial along with indoctrination of children.

And non-religious people never do these things? You can't indoctrinate a child without a religion?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Except it is a philosophy. It's pretty easy to figure out it is if you read Wiki or even read writings by a neoplatonist like Platon (which I have). Much of Judeo-Christian thought on G-d is influenced by neoplatonic philosophy.

Neoplatonism (or Neo-Platonism) is a modern term[1] used to designate a tradition of philosophy that arose in the 3rd century AD and persisted until shortly after the closing of the Platonic Academy in Athens in AD 529 by Justinian I.

You have lost all intellectual credibility with that statement of yours. At this point you are just lying so you wont admit to a mistake. When your own source disagrees with you then you have lost your entire ability to maintain a logical argument. This is a mistake nobody should make.

You not only do not know what you are arguing about but you are trying to use a rough play on words to conflate them.

I wont even mew for you at this point

 

[xkatz]

You have lost all intellectual credibility with that statement of yours. At this point you are just lying so you wont admit to a mistake. When your own source disagrees with you then you have lost your entire ability to maintain a logical argument. This is a mistake nobody should make.

You not only do not know what you are arguing about but you are trying to use a rough play on words to conflate them.

What you said:

Neoplatonism is not a philosophy is an era of philosophy

Implies that Neoplatonism is a MERELY time period of philosophy. Which it isn't. It's both, but mainly refers to the school of philosophy in most cases I've seen it. A "philosophical tradition" is a school of thought, meaning it is a SPECIFIC philosophy, regardless of when it was prominent. If you bothered to look at the rest of the Wiki entry or look at any prominent neoplatonists writings like Iamblichius, Platon, or any early or medieval Christian thinkers, it would be obvious it's a philosophy as well. To say neoplatonism is not a philosophy means you do not know what neoplatonism is even to begin with.

If you think I'm wrong, here:
Glossary Definition: Neoplatonism
http://www.philosophybasics.com/movements_neoplatonism.html

 

[LuisDantas]

It is something of a challenge to establish what kind of goals religions have, but it seems to me that it is a worthy and workable one to address.

My own post #30 of this very thread mentions some.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3890515-post30.html

It is possible that we will have to establish several, somewhat mutually exclusive definitions of religion, as well.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It is something of a challenge to establish what kind of goals religions have, but it seems to me that it is a worthy and workable one to address.

My own post #30 of this very thread mentions some.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3890515-post30.html

It is possible that we will have to establish several, somewhat mutually exclusive definitions of religion, as well.

I am right on for you. I have a massive issue trying to establish what a religion is so I try making it vague.

 

[metis]

Hmm, come to think of it, Dharma is nearly as tricky to define as Religion. It is said that Boddhidharma insisted on refusing Dharma because the Tatagatha supposedly did not need it either. Of course, his take on the meaning of the word was closer to "Scripture" than mine.

The way I prefer to use the concept, Dharma is "religion proper", which I define as the living flow of religious teachings among sincere practicioners.

I agree as we see a difference in how Hindus and Buddhists tend to use the term. As for me, I use the term just to refer to "teachings", unless I specify something different.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree as we see a difference in how Hindus and Buddhists tend to use the term.

You do? I do not.

 

[metis]

You do? I do not.

You might want to check out how the term is used differently as explained here: Dharma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, I still fail to see the difference. Sure, there is Buddhadharma and there are non-Buddhist Dharmas, but the concept is pretty much the same, IMO.

The teachings themselves will of course vary (e.g., Atman vs Anatta, or whether the Buddha is an Avatar of Vishnu), but the concept of Dharma seems pretty constant to me, albeit somewhat difficult to translate and dependent on context to be clear in meaning.

 

[metis]

Well, I still fail to see the difference. Sure, there is Buddhadharma and there are non-Buddhist Dharmas, but the concept is pretty much the same, IMO.

The teachings themselves will of course vary (e.g., Atman vs Anatta, or whether the Buddha is an Avatar of Vishnu), but the concept of Dharma seems pretty constant to me, albeit somewhat difficult to translate and dependent on context to be clear in meaning.

One major difference is that dharma in Hinduism directly related to one's "duty", whereas the same in not true in Buddhism. Dharma was often used in conjunction with the caste system* that helped to determine ones "duty" in society.

For example, in the Gita, Arjuna, who's a military commander, is sick and tired of war and wants to quit, but he is directed by Vishnu that he should continue on because this is his "duty" in life, and he does.


* the caste system was not ordained by the Hindu scriptures but eventually evolved to the point whereas it was mostly accepted and meshed with "dharma".

 

[LuisDantas]

One major difference is that dharma in Hinduism directly related to one's "duty", whereas the same is not true in Buddhism.

I beg to differ. Buddhist Dharma also implies duties. It just isn't as forceful about it, and I figure even then there will be a lot of variation inside either Faith.

Dharma was often used in conjunction with the caste system* that helped to determine ones "duty" in society.

Certainly true. But that is an attribute of how Dharma was applied, not of Dharma in and of itself.

Nor is Buddhist Dharma all that opposed to specification of duties and social roles, either. There is often a clear separation between monks and laypeople, for instance. And the Vinaya Pitaka can be understood as a specification of the duties of both groups.

For example, in the Gita, Arjuna, who's a military commander, is sick and tired of war and wants to quit, but he is directed by Vishnu that he should continue on because this is his "duty" in life, and he does.

One of these days I must decide to make my mind about the Gita. Incredible as it is, to this day I have not made my own opinion of what its message is and to which degree I accept it.

But as of the matter at hand, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you contrasting the Hindu perspective that a military man should fight with the implicity understanding that a Buddhist society would aim to avoid fighting?

* the caste system was not ordained by the Hindu scriptures but eventually evolved to the point whereas it was mostly accepted and meshed with "dharma".

Indeed. One of the most exciting attributes of Dharma is that it is maintained by actual people. Perhaps counter-intuitively, that makes it so very superior to dogmatic, immutable scripture - and not coincidentally, much less reliant on divine revelations, if at all.

 

[metis]

I beg to differ. Buddhist Dharma also implies duties. It just isn't as forceful about it, and I figure even then there will be a lot of variation inside either Faith.

That depends on how one defines "duties" in context. For example, Old Sid did not agree with the caste system and its defined duties that every single individual had, so your duties were not defined by birth, which it was in Hinduism.

Nor is Buddhist Dharma all that opposed to specification of duties and social roles, either. There is often a clear separation between monks and laypeople, for instance. And the Vinaya Pitaka can be understood as a specification of the duties of both groups.

Yes, there are exceptions, but are the duties of monks defined by the sutras themselves? I don't believe they are but evolved and came later. However, I'm not positive about this, so I'll check it out a bit later.

But as of the matter at hand, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you contrasting the Hindu perspective that a military man should fight with the implicity understanding that a Buddhist society would aim to avoid fighting?

No, his duty as a military officer was defined by both dharma (duty) and his position in society, so even though he was sick of war, he was directed to continue on with it.

Indeed. One of the most exciting attributes of Dharma is that it is maintained by actual people. Perhaps counter-intuitively, that makes it so very superior to dogmatic, immutable scripture - and not coincidentally, much less reliant on divine revelations, if at all.

I agree, and this is one of the things I very much appreciate with Buddhism, namely that there's a great deal of flexibility built in whereas a person is not bound by dharma itself if (s)he determines through experience, contemplation, and meditation that there's a better path.

 

[LuisDantas]

are the duties of monks defined by the sutras themselves? I don't believe they are but evolved and came later.

I may be mistaken, but it is my understanding that the original Buddhist scriptures are the Tipitaka or Tripitaka, the "Three Baskets" - the Abidhamma, the Sutta Pitaka and the Vinaya Pitaka. The Abidhamma is a philosophical text, very difficult to understand. The Sutta Pitaka contains the Sutras, which are perhaps more directly comparable to the usual understanding of scripture. And the Vinaya Pitaka deals with discipline and duties.

My current understanding is that both were developed somewhat concurrently, and during the period of time when the Tatagatha (the Buddha Sakhyamuni) was still alive.

 

[metis]

I may be mistaken, but it is my understanding that the original Buddhist scriptures are the Tipitaka or Tripitaka, the "Three Baskets" - the Abidhamma, the Sutta Pitaka and the Vinaya Pitaka. The Abidhamma is a philosophical text, very difficult to understand. The Sutta Pitaka contains the Sutras, which are perhaps more directly comparable to the usual understanding of scripture. And the Vinaya Pitaka deals with discipline and duties.

My current understanding is that both were developed somewhat concurrently, and during the period of time when the Tatagatha (the Buddha Sakhyamuni) was still alive.

Ah, ya got me there because I don't know the sequence. Just what I need, more homework! :thud:

 

[ChristineES]

When I took an overview course in Philosophy in college, in addition to Metaphysics and other things, religion was also mentioned as a form in Philosophy. That said, I think people who don't want to follow a faith but still want some kind of guidance, Philosophy might fill that role.