Philosophy

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Lol, this is just factually untrue, unless you define 'philosophy' as 'philosophy that I like'. Ever heard of Augustine, Anselm, Thomas of Aquino, John Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Voltaire, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke?

Seriously, you can't claim philosophy only started again in the 19th century........

I mean, at least get your facts straight.
You don't get it do you? I meant a philosophy that's devoid of Christian doctrine, which hence becomes anti-philosophical in the strictest sense, because it is shackled by the constraints of faith. With the exception of Spinoza, which I had not been thinking of at the time, Christian doctrine has doused the fire of thought in our civilization since the ancient Greeks and Romans. After Plotinus, what did our so called Church fathers produce in the way of anything original? What intellectual freedom did our philosophers have for over a thousand years under the monstrous pressure of Christianity? So, no, you are wrong and I am right.

And I am at liberty to make any assertions I want, under the aegis of philosophy and the law of intellectual freedom. This is what we are doing here.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
rhubroma said:
You don't get it do you? I meant a philosophy that's devoid of Christian doctrine, which hence becomes anti-philosophical in the strictest sense, because it is shackled by the constraints of faith. With the exception of Spinoza, which I had not been thinking of at the time, Christian doctrine has doused the fire of thought in our civilization since the ancient Greeks and Romans. After Plotinus, what did our so called Church fathers produce in the way of anything original? What intellectual freedom did our philosophers have for over a thousand years under the monstrous pressure of Christianity? So, no, you are wrong and I am right.

And I am at liberty to make any assertions I want, under the aegis of philosophy and the law of intellectual freedom. This is what we are doing here.
...well said...

...funny how the quote you were responding to referenced Augustine, who in my humble opinion, was the most destructive person in history, because in large part of the role he played in stifling philosophical debate within the broad movement which, under Augustine's leadership became the corporate entity known as the Catholic Church...( which became the great millstone around the neck of the Western philosophy for millenia)

Cheers

blutto
 
blutto said:
...well said...

...funny how the quote you were responding to referenced Augustine, who in my humble opinion, was the most destructive person in history, because in large part of the role he played in stifling philosophical debate within the broad movement which, under Augustine's leadership became the corporate entity known as the Catholic Church...( which became the great millstone around the neck of the Western philosophy for millenia)

Cheers

blutto
I think to get a grip on the historical background to this debate, the following is useful.

It was during the reign of Hadrian that Quadratus, a bishop of the Christians, sent the emperor a defense of his faith, for which he is thus considered the first of their apologists. Hadrian had made it a principle to maintain towards that sect the strictly equitable line of conduct which had been Trajan's in his better days: he had just reminded the provincial governers that the protection of the law extends to all citizens, and that defamers of Christians would be punished if they leveled accusations against that group without proof. But any tollerance shown to fanatics was immediately mistaken by them for sympathy for thier cause; though it is hardly imaginable that Quadratus was hoping to make a Christian of Hadrian, he assuredly strove to convince the emperor of the excellence of his doctrine, and to prove, above all, that it offered no harm to the State. Hadrian read his work, and was even enough interested to have Phlegon assemble some information about the life of the young prophet named Jesus who had founded the sect, but who died the victim of Jewish intolerance about a hundred years before. This young sage seems to have left behind him some teachings not unlike those of Orpheus, to whom at times his disciples compared him. In spite of Quadratus' singularly flat prose Hadrian could discern through it the appealing charm of virtues of simple folk, their kindness, their ingenuousness, and their devotion to each other. All of that strongly resembled the fraternities of slaves or poor citizens found almost everywhere in honor of the Roman gods in the crowed quarters of the cities of the empire. Within a world which remains, despite all our efforts, hard and indifferent to men's hopes and trials, these small societies of mutual aid offered the unfortunate a source of comfort and support.

But Hadrian was also aware, too, of certain dangers. Such glorification of virtues befitting children and slaves was made at the expense of more virile and more intellectual qualities; under that narrow, vapid innocence he could detect the fierce intransigence of the sectarian in presence of forms of life and thought which are above other men, and his voluntarily circumscribed vision. Hadrian no doubt speedily tired of Quadratus' captious arguments, and of those scraps of wisdom ineptly borrowed from the writings of the pagan philosophers. Chabrias, ever preoccupied to offer the gods the worship due them, was disturbed by the progress of sects of this kind among the people of large cities; he feared for the welfare of the Romans’ ancient religions, which yoked men to no dogma whatsoever, but to the contrary lent themselves to interpretations as varied as nature itself; they allowed austere spirits who wished to do so invent for themselves a higher morality, but they did not bind the masses to precepts so strict as to engender immediate constraint and hypocrisy. Arrian shared these views. It is possible that the two even encountered one and other to plausibly discuss the injunction which consists of loving another as one's self; it is too foreign to man's nature to be followed with sincerity by the average person, and it is not at all suited to the philosopher, who is little given to self-love.

Sources: Eusebius of Caesarea's Chronicle, the Historiae Augustae, Photios' Myriobiblon and the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, from which the following philosophical quotes have come:

The first rule is, to keep an untroubled spirit; for all things must bow to Nature's law, and soon enough you must vanish into nothingness, like Hadrian and Augustus. The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are, remembering that it is your duty to be a good man. Do without flinching what man's nature demands; say what seems to you most just--though with courtesy, modesty, and sincerity.

If the choice is yours, why do the thing? If another's, where are you to lay the blame for it? On gods? On atoms? Either would be insanity. All thoughts of blame are out of place. If you can, correct the offender; if not, correct the offence; if that too is impossible, what is the point of recriminations? Nothing is worth doing pointlessly.

Death robbed Lucilla of Verus and later claimed Lucilla too. Death took Maximus from Secunda, then Secunda herself; Diotimus from Epitynchanus, and Epitynchanus after him; Faustina from Antoninus, and Antoninus in his turn. So it is ever. Celer buries Hadrian, and is buried himself. Those noble minds of old, those men of prescience, those men of pride, where are they now? Keen wits like Charax, Demetrius the Platonist, Eudaemon, and others like them; all enduring but for a day, all now long since dead and gone; some forgotten as soon as dead, some passed into legend, some faded even out of legend itself. Bethink you then how either this complex body of your own must also one day be broken up in dispersion, or else the breath that animates it must be extinguished, or removed and translated elsewhere.

A man's true delight is to do the things he was made for. He was made to show goodwill to his kind, to rise above the promptings of his senses, to distinguish appearances from realities, and to pursue the study of universal Nature and her works
.
 
Apr 8, 2010
1,257
0
0
rhubroma said:
I meant a philosophy that's devoid of Christian doctrine, which hence becomes anti-philosophical in the strictest sense, because it is shackled by the constraints of faith.
You dislike the Christian knowledge and the Christians dislike your knowledge.
The Christians love their own knowledge and you love your own knowledge.

Why is it that you are a true philosopher and the Christians are anti-philosophers?
 
Magnus said:
You dislike the Christian knowledge and the Christians dislike your knowledge.
The Christians love their own knowledge and you love your own knowledge.

Why is it that you are a true philosopher and the Christians are anti-philosophers?
Christianity is a faith. It is not philosophy. Christianity is organized along doctrinal lines and professes to know the Truth. A Truth, furthermore, that isn't up for negotiation nor scrutiny, and simply has to be taken at face value and never questioned. Otherwise they wouldn't call it faith. One may have doubts, sure, but ultimately to participate one has to except the dogma, however absurd and indemonstrable. By contrast philosophy proposes paths of inquiry to approach notions like justice and morality, however imperfect, but it can never presume to explain what the truth is, as the religious faiths erroneously claim to be capable of doing. We were discussing philosophy and the effects Christian doctrine had on Western thought for over a thousand years.

It thus has nothing to do with my knowledge or theirs, so called, or what I love versus that of the religious; but the inscrutable essence of existence and the implacable reality of everyone’s own extinction under all the philosophical criteria, or as Flaubert so profoundly put it: our lives set before "the ‘black whole’ of infinity itself; where our dreams loom and vanish against the background of immutable ebony. No crying out, no convulsions—nothing but the fixity of a pensive gaze.”

Got it?
 
Apr 8, 2010
1,257
0
0
rhubroma said:
Christianity is a faith. It is not philosophy. We were discussing philosophy and the effects Christian doctrine had on Western thought for over a thousand years.

It has nothing to do with my knowledge or theirs, so called, or what I love versus that of the religious; but the inscrutable essence of existence and the implacable reality of everyone’s own extinction under all the philosophical criteria, or as Flaubert so profoundly put it: our lives set before "the ‘black whole’ of infinity itself; where our dreams loom and vanish against the background of immutable ebony. No crying out, no convulsions—nothing but the fixity of a pensive gaze.”

Got it?
Nope. I didn't get it.

I thought you said that a philosophy that's non-devoid of Christian doctrine is anti-philosophy, but maybe I got that wrong?
 
Magnus said:
Nope. I didn't get it.

I thought you said that a philosophy that's non-devoid of Christian doctrine is anti-philosophy, but maybe I got that wrong?
What I said was that a philosophy that's interjected with doctrine and faith is ultimately anti-philosophical, for reasons of irreconcilability with its nature, lest it become denatured. The one must be infinite, not finite, must be unconstrained, not constrained. If you’re interested go back and read the posts.
 
Apr 8, 2010
1,257
0
0
rhubroma said:
What I said was that a philosophy that's interjected with doctrine and faith is ultimately anti-philosophical
So you say that love of certain types of knowledge is hate of knowledge?
 
Sep 9, 2009
6,391
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
What do people think about the philosophy that in order for people to truly know and feel happiness, they must feel sadness to be able to differentiate between these two emotions?

Interesting thread btw.
That's cod psychology, not philosophy.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY