compare philosophy to religion

To my knowledge, a philosphy must be upgraded to a religion when it does have some truth in it.

Obviously that statement should be read with its first three words emphasized, because the rest of the comment makes no sense.

It does make sense, yes, it does for sure, because you may share with me "my knowledge" that you failed to notice and then to reach some conclusions as what I said.

ace..;
could i b of some assistance in helping 2 extract that pointy tongue of u'rs out of u're cheek b4 it does some real harm?

Bo

Some help here, please.

Is Ace really just jiving -- tongue in cheek as you said -- or is he serious?

check the floor 4 blood frank!

Philosophy seems to be attributed to individuals. These individuals' specific thoughts are then grouped or generalized into general concepts or ways of thinking which is in turn possibly used as adjectives (i.e. Platonic relationship). This allows the transference of extremely complex ideas or memes in the form of discreet and small packets of words.

As has been mentioned, religion and its doctrine can be viewed as a "philosophy" but religions seem more an amalgam of ideas from many individuals only remotely based, perhaps, on a particular individual's actual teachings. Unlike a specific philosophy, religion seems to allow adulterations and additions over periods of time. In addition, it is not unusual to see hints of mysticism creeping into religion; indeed, many would say the word "hint" under describes mysticism's influence upon religion.

This is not to say that specific philosophies do not change or are brought up to date (Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism), however, they seem to be clearly labeled as such. Unlike the evolution of religious doctrine, these new ideas in philosophy are more clearly demarcated. This may seem a minor point but witness the conflict in the modern Christian churches today about homosexuals. If the Anglican Church approves clergy in homosexual relationships, what does that say about the "philosophy" expressed in the book of Leviticus? Will we see the emergence of the Neo-Anglican Church sans certain portions of traditional biblical law?

Setanta has pretty much laid out the overall devolution of Christianity. A story of a relatively simple philosophy of tolerance subjected to various edifications, concatenations, and mystical additions.

Philosophers strive hopefully towards Truth via mental rigor. Conversely religious Truth is pre-ordained and depends solely on hope. Mental rigor need not apply and is, indeed, discouraged.

JM

If you guys thought I was not serious, I am going to be, and here is my line of reasoning.

Philosophy is nothing but an argument based on some gratuitous assumptions that are not self-evident but totally man-made. No philosophy throughout the history builds itself from nothing. Traced back to the last piece wrung out of a philosophy, there always is a precondition based on which a job of "jiving the tongue" is carried out. Put differently, philosophy in its simplest form is merely an assumption plus a lot of "tongue jive".

But tongue jive does make some sense frequently, unfortunately without being noticed. Hegel's dialectics might throw upon this some light. He takes the evolution of philosophy as a process of our perception of the world being rectified, eliminating some flaws of the past contentions and revealing some truths in arguments that are in place to be reevaluated some time later. Like a swing, for the most time we are just swaying around the equilibrium point, and with every sway, get nearer to that point. Finally at certain point of time, we stop and the swing is suspended vertical toward the earth. This is where the ultimate and apocalyptic truths stand.

In this light, every philosophy might claim some truths in itself, but the problem is that we only have the power of hindsight that is not able to check the truthfulness of arguments befere we get to that equilibrium point. We might well just believe that a particular philosophy is true and hold it as a religion, a collection of bebiefs.

BTW, Bo and Frank, you guys better keep your lovely tongues safe so that nobody 's going to be successful to pull them out, because you need them to jive and we'll see if they are jiving the truth out. :wink:

Last but not the least, I ask for an apology for your brutality towards my tongue. Please put it back where it gotta jive.

well ace i 4 1 am extremely sorry 2 find that u were serious all along.
had such potential..........

in 'serious' mode u would do well 2 follow along james exempliary answer.

One thing i can say comparing philosophy and religion:

pious men make bad philosophers

This aroused my ire honestly. I'm not directing this at anyone at all, I'm serious, but it is something that annoys me.

[pompous rant]
If one wants to communicate effectively then certain standards have to be maintained. Spelling, grammar and politeness are critical ingredients in this formula for communication. Even when I'm in chat rooms I type the whole thing out, I can type pretty quickly so it takes the same amount of time as the shorthand but the shorthand cannot convey the depth of meaning the the correct words can.

I'm basically saying that sloppy communication is indicative of a sloppy thought process. If one allows oneself to slip into such things then you might as well be losing your mind. Have a look at the English language skills of any child you care to mention in America or Europe. They're bloody awful. It's down to wooly minded thinking by their teachers and a poor attitude to their jobs. I mean what's all this : "Don't worry about the exact spelling as we know what you mean." ? WHAAAAAAT ?!
It's an absolute outrage.

No wonder there's a president who can't even pronounce simple words properly if this is the state of education around the Western world.
I honestly feel that it is the duty of everyone to try and improve standards wherever they can. When standards are run down and the education system itself stops caring about them then the whole world has gone to hell in a handbasket.
I don't want that. I want my children to be educated properly and be able to communicate properly.
This is why I'm having a rant now.
[/pompous rant]

Ahhhhh, that's better.

Heliotrope, I hear you. It still amazes me that GWBush graduated from Yale and Harvard with his poor language skills. I wonder if he was a "affirmative action" student of the rich and famous?

hahahaha, he was a cheerleader, maybe he got in on that

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!
Nice one Locke.

Locke, Must admit that was a good one!