I think it’s bullshit.
…John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
Drank half a pint of shandy (was particularly ill).
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle, was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart.
``I drink, therefore I am!’’
Oh, Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker…
But a bugger when he’s pissed!
Philosophy? Only after at least half a bottle of single-malt scotch. Have to grease those synapses…
Australia, Australia, Australia, we love you, amen.
Y’all can discuss philosophy. I’ll just be in charge of the sheep dip, if you don’t mind.
-bruce-
This is called a wattle,
It’s them emblem of our land,
You can put it in a bottle,
You can hold it in your hand.
Hear hear, well said, Bruce.
If one claims to have definite answers because a god or gods provided them, then one is not dealing with or in philosophy. Theology and philosophy are sometimes questing in the same areas, but are very different animals. Christian897 is not using the word corrctly (and word use itself is part of the branch of philosophy of language).
Even if I accept the Bible as true, it has a few philosophic gaps:
Aesthetics
Politics–sorry, George W., but Jesus’ statements on politcal philosophy are pretty scant
Philosophy of language
Epistemology (beyond questions of faith)
Logic
What does it cover? I suppose that you could claim ethics, cosmology, teleology, and metaphysics. That’s still lots and lots o’gappage here.
Bucky
Well, let’s say one thinks the Bible is just a good book, and only applied to people that lived around the era in which it was written. Well, the works of Karl Marx were designed with in the arena of what he knew to be true, as well as that of Plato, Socrates, Ghandi, and just about any one else you could throw out there. However, for myself, if I lived in a world that 100% followed the teachings of the Bible, I’d live in a place where we are would all be much nicer to eachother, there woulnd’t be the need for money, because we would all just love eachother, blah, blah, blah. But we don’t live in that dream world - because as I think I said before, any strict philosophy is doomed to fail because there is no way that everyone is going to follow it. Sure maybe all would work well to begin with, but over time things are going to break down. As for the Bible though, it said just as much…every phase of history has been expected, all to what we are culminating in now. the way we live today is described in the book of Romans. Now, I’m not trying to convince people that teh Bible is the only truth, I believe it to be, and I feel I have evidence enough for myself to accept that. But, everyone will come to their own conclusions, I’m just sharing my perspective…so, don’t guzzle too much beer, there’s really no need ;).
Jesus said…
John 14:1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.”
John 14:11 “Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.”
Karl Marx KNEW his stuff to be true? When he was wrong? (about several things, like Communism and his theory of value)
Well, Christian897, if you think the Bible is true and is the only truth, how about this?
Psalm 137:9 “Happy shall he be who takes thy little ones and dashes them against the rocks.”
Some versions of the bible are more specific, saying that they must dash the HEADS of the little ones up against the rocks. And yes, this is talking about the Israelites retaking Babylon and killing their children and pregnant women.
Can you worship that? I dare you to try and kill a baby. If you can’t, what does that tell you? If you can…
For anyone interested, these are my philosophies:
Ontology — objectivism
Politics — libertarianism
Weltanschauung — Christianity
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Christian;
Perhaps this will help you understand:
From The Oxford Desk Dictionary, American Edition:
phi.los.o.phy
- use of reason and argument in seeking truth and knowledge of reality, esp. of the casues and nature of things and of the principles governing existance.
Frankly, I don’t understand why you see all philosophy as contradiction of the Bible. I’m sure this is going to be insulting to you, but I don’t know how else to say it. Your posts in this thread sound like, “Baked beans are the greatest food ever, and I don’t need to try any other foods in order to be absolutely convinced that baked beans are the best.” I’m not suggesting that you try other religions, only that you try letting a thought that doesn’t center around religion enter into your mind sometime.
“I should not take bribes and Minister Bal Bahadur KC should not do so either. But if clerks take a bribe of Rs 50-60 after a hard day’s work, it is not an issue.” ----Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Current Prime Minister of Nepal
Look, watery tarts distributin’ swords is no basis for a system o’ government! Supreme executive power has to come from a mandate of the people. If I went around saying I was King because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d haul me away!
– tracer, inviting you to come see the violence inherent in the system.
Lucky, I appreciate your comments, and if you think I’ve only ever just tried baked beans (which happens to be one of my least favorite foods ;)), well I’m sorry to have come acrossed that way. I spent my college years pretty much not commiting myself, atleast not how I do now, to my faith. I took a ‘world and history of religion’ class, and also had a philosophy class, and I enjoyed them very much. At a time that I struggled most with my faith, I rediscovered it after taking those classes. But, do I ever discuss something with out bringing religion into it? Well, my ethics and morals are based on my faith, so even if I don’t specifically say it, it is always behind (as much as possible), what I do say. It’s just a part of me, and I guess I can’t help it. So, I guess, even if my diet was totally consisting of all different foods, I’ll always be craving the baked beans (as you put it). And hey, I’m not offended, I’m willing to hear anything you want to say, I never said I couldn’t learn anything. I’ve just been trying to offer my perspective :), so thankyou for your comments, and I’ll try to keep it in mind.
On a more serious note:
Half a bottle? I label the dilettante!
A true deep thinker never begins until the half-empty half-full debate has been long since resolved.
Well, I don’t like to argue by myself, so I have to share. And a bottle that is full, shall soon be empty, so there really is no half-half debate.
Kippis! raises a glass of Glengoyne 10
There’s no limit to desire but desire’s needs. -Grendel’s law
Terry Pratchett once wrote that any tape which you leave in your car stereo for long enough will eventually turn into Queen’s Greatest Hits. It seems that any thread which is left in Great Debates for long enough will turn into a debate about the Bible/Jesus/God/Christianity.
Nonetheless, the thread title indicates that it’s about philosophy and Christian asked a question on the social contract, about which I have a pet theory. Here goes:
Most social contract arguments (I’m thinking of Hobbes as an example, since it’s the one I’m most familiar with) are in fact disguised a posteriori arguments. Nobody seriously believes that there ever was a moment when people in the state of nature decided to band together and form a civil society or commonwealth for the purposes of mutual preservation. Likewise, nobody would seriously argue that a “contract” entered into by one generation at some (unspecified/fictional) time in the past should bind the present generation. The social contract and the state of nature are rather ways of describing the alternatives to civil society in such a way as to point up its advantages. I think that this disposes of one of the principal objections to social contract arguments.
By extension, I think the same argument applies to John Rawls’s “original position”. The objection is that the original position is the product of the end rules of justice and that the argument is therefore circular (the inclusion of risk-aversion is, IMHO, particularly blatant). That may well be the case, but it is still possible to effectively re-phrase the question along the lines of: “What original position would lead to these principles of justice?” and then to have the argument on that rather simpler and more abstract ground where the “big” questions are more apparent.
I realise that I’m kind of defending something that hasn’t been attacked, so if anybody wants to attack me, please feel free.
Christian897,
You have failed to understand the difference between philosophy and religion. It is perfectly possible to be a Christian and have opinions on general philosophical questions which are not derived from the Bible. Read Descartes, read Locke, read Berkley. All of them Christians (Berkley was a bishop). Each has a different and interesting view of human understanding which is based, at least in part, on their belief in God. On the other hand, read Hume. He was not a Christian but was writing at a time when he could have been tried before an ecclesiastical court for publishing atheist views. His arguments against the existence of God, disguised as arguments for the existence of God, are some of the most elegant published in the English language.
Believing in the truth of the Bible does not mean you have to be narrow-minded or wilfully ignorant.
PHILOSOPHY…the art of saying as little as possible, using as many long words as possible!
OK, here’s a philosophical debate for you: Can Pratchett receive credit for a line from a book he co-wrote with Neil Gaiman? I mean, we don’t know which one of them actually set down those exact words . . .
IMO, that’s about the calibre of most philosophical debates . . .
-andros-
Lucky: You started off wrong by using a “common” dictionary to define philosophy. Here, let me help… 
Libby: What in the world are you talking about in the W… Christianity thing? The other two I understand, but the third one left me scratching my head!!!
andros,
You’re right: I couldn’t remember where I’d read it, but it was co-written by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. I still can’t remember the name of the book, though.
Apologies to Neil gaiman or, if you thought it wasn’t funny, to Terry Pratchett.
Courtesy of my Dad: “Major in philosophy, then sit around and contemplate why you don’t have a job.”
He paid for my education, God bless him; needless to say, majoring in philosophy was not an option.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia