Those who are religious bent of mind, conservative and able should should have know what philosophy is on account not of honour ( yet) but of value a) it's useful in any political discourse b) it's needed to a. understand theology and b. defend theology. I therefore propose that not ony these but also anyone else who is so inclined to philosophy reconsider the term: "philosophy". As far as those who desire to "follow" Christ is concerned "philosophy" it's should be taken up as a theme for contemplation, especially the passage, "Wisdom has built her house; she has hewn her seven pillars. She has slaughtered her beasts; she has mixed her wine; she has also set her table. She has sent out her young women to call from the highest places in the town, “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!” To him who lacks sense she says, “Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed. Leave your simple ways, and live, and walk in the way of insight.” contrasted to "The woman Folly is loud; she is seductive and knows nothing. She sits at the door of her house; she takes a seat on the highest places of the town, calling to those who pass by, who are going straight on their way, “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!” And to him who lacks sense she says, “Stolen water is sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.” But he does not know that the dead are there, that her guests are in the depths of Sheol." Be aware of the difference between philosophy as it is found and philosophy as philosophy. Philosophy as it is found is what the speaker says it is and it is widespread in the America, England, etc. but this is a political problem or a problem of management and good managers come and go and students and teachers can hardly do anything about it at all. But we've inherited much and we are limited there by those who lived and dead. Thus philosophy is few in number. From somewhat prominent and somewhat chronological manner we get: 1. Philosophy of the Pythagoreans 2. Philosophy of the Platonists and what academicans call "neo-Platonists" 3. Philosophy of Peripatetics 4. Philosophy of the Muslims 5. Philosophy of the Christans 6. Philosophy of the Jews( but 6,5,4,3 are in one oder and neo-Platonists or 2 take Aristotle and Plato to be in agreement. So we have three: of Pythagorean, of Plato and of Aristotle) Then there is two thinkers that got the attention of modern Europeans in the 18th or so cen. Descartes and Locke( mindue Newton, Copernicus, etc. are popular names at this point. And religion is protestant or catholic, and neither sways hearts as they once did) but the academicans loose many thinkers, etc. when they make a programme as there must be philosophers throughout and this makes history of philosophy rather a task impossible. But believe me you need only know one philosopher or one book by a philosper; the magnum opus I'd say is Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Das Phänomenologie des Geistes, Also sprach Zarathustra. Everyone else uses these books but never mentions them as it is customary in academicans, who are but sophists reborn, have a) have to hide their confusion behind complex names that give the appearance of knowledge-it only takes someone to shout that the empiricist..oh sorry! I meant "emperor" as we say in that story: Emperor has no clothes. b) they desire to be taken as deep thinkers in theor owm right or orginal, thus the number of neologisms are amazing. The philosophy divided into five "sub-disciplines" is a curious social phenomenon? Ofcourse what basis is there behind this division is what the arguments for adopting it is not given as easily as the "sub-disciplines" are. Rather it would be more prudent to first learn: logic, then morality and then the natural world. New oder of study then than specialisation: 1. On Logic, 2. On Morality and 3. Metaphysics. As I see no reason to stop at five "sub-disciplines". There maybe as our host has pointed out indefinite philosophies. My professor too has used philosophy for: philosophy of mind, philosophy of cognitive science, etc. I can't complete this..sorey Truth is simple and unlike the academicans need to make it complex otherwise they would not be academicans, i.e livelyhood invariably depends on their association with academia. Truth is expressed using one or the other indefinite noun, for eg. unchanging, etc. The sensible world serves to give the impression that it is real as it changes slowly in comparison to the entities that one encounter in one's fantasy. It's intresting who is responsible for the what academic philosophy and what is philosophy? I am satisfied with a general academic philosophy as it is contemporarily taught wthin by anglophones( anglophones being those who speak in one of English speaking parts of the world or parts of the former British Empire). Philosophos is held to be used by Pythagoras to distinguish himself from others.
Would philosophy of language and philosophy of mathematics come under logic? What about philosophy of science, philosophy of sociology, philosophy of history, and philosophy of education? Would theology come under philosophy of religion or would it be a distinct branch or even outside the scope of the field of philosophy?
By far the best introduction to philosophy available on UA-cam, very comprehensive!
That's very kind.
Those who are religious bent of mind, conservative and able should should have know what philosophy is on account not of honour ( yet) but of value
a) it's useful in any political discourse
b) it's needed to a. understand theology and b. defend theology.
I therefore propose that not ony these but also anyone else who is so inclined to philosophy reconsider the term: "philosophy". As far as those who desire to "follow" Christ is concerned "philosophy" it's should be taken up as a theme for contemplation, especially the passage, "Wisdom has built her house; she has hewn her seven pillars. She has slaughtered her beasts; she has mixed her wine; she has also set her table. She has sent out her young women to call from the highest places in the town, “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!” To him who lacks sense she says, “Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed. Leave your simple ways, and live, and walk in the way of insight.” contrasted to "The woman Folly is loud; she is seductive and knows nothing. She sits at the door of her house; she takes a seat on the highest places of the town, calling to those who pass by, who are going straight on their way, “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!” And to him who lacks sense she says, “Stolen water is sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.” But he does not know that the dead are there, that her guests are in the depths of Sheol."
Be aware of the difference between philosophy as it is found and philosophy as philosophy. Philosophy as it is found is what the speaker says it is and it is widespread in the America, England, etc. but this is a political problem or a problem of management and good managers come and go and students and teachers can hardly do anything about it at all. But we've inherited much and we are limited there by those who lived and dead. Thus philosophy is few in number.
From somewhat prominent and somewhat chronological manner we get: 1. Philosophy of the Pythagoreans
2. Philosophy of the Platonists and what academicans call "neo-Platonists"
3. Philosophy of Peripatetics
4. Philosophy of the Muslims
5. Philosophy of the Christans
6. Philosophy of the Jews( but 6,5,4,3 are in one oder and neo-Platonists or 2 take Aristotle and Plato to be in agreement. So we have three: of Pythagorean, of Plato and of Aristotle)
Then there is two thinkers that got the attention of modern Europeans in the 18th or so cen. Descartes and Locke( mindue Newton, Copernicus, etc. are popular names at this point. And religion is protestant or catholic, and neither sways hearts as they once did) but the academicans loose many thinkers, etc. when they make a programme as there must be philosophers throughout and this makes history of philosophy rather a task impossible. But believe me you need only know one philosopher or one book by a philosper; the magnum opus I'd say is Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Das Phänomenologie des Geistes, Also sprach Zarathustra. Everyone else uses these books but never mentions them as it is customary in academicans, who are but sophists reborn, have a) have to hide their confusion behind complex names that give the appearance of knowledge-it only takes someone to shout that the empiricist..oh sorry! I meant "emperor" as we say in that story: Emperor has no clothes. b) they desire to be taken as deep thinkers in theor owm right or orginal, thus the number of neologisms are amazing.
The philosophy divided into five "sub-disciplines" is a curious social phenomenon? Ofcourse what basis is there behind this division is what the arguments for adopting it is not given as easily as the "sub-disciplines" are. Rather it would be more prudent to first learn: logic, then morality and then the natural world. New oder of study then than specialisation: 1. On Logic, 2. On Morality and 3. Metaphysics.
As I see no reason to stop at five "sub-disciplines". There maybe as our host has pointed out indefinite philosophies. My professor too has used philosophy for: philosophy of mind, philosophy of cognitive science, etc. I can't complete this..sorey
Truth is simple and unlike the academicans need to make it complex otherwise they would not be academicans, i.e livelyhood invariably depends on their association with academia. Truth is expressed using one or the other indefinite noun, for eg. unchanging, etc.
The sensible world serves to give the impression that it is real as it changes slowly in comparison to the entities that one encounter in one's fantasy.
It's intresting who is responsible for the what academic philosophy and what is philosophy? I am satisfied with a general academic philosophy as it is contemporarily taught wthin by anglophones( anglophones being those who speak in one of English speaking parts of the world or parts of the former British Empire).
Philosophos is held to be used by Pythagoras to distinguish himself from others.
Would philosophy of language and philosophy of mathematics come under logic?
What about philosophy of science, philosophy of sociology, philosophy of history, and philosophy of education?
Would theology come under philosophy of religion or would it be a distinct branch or even outside the scope of the field of philosophy?
Great share, thank you.
Amazing video, thanks for your time my friend.
Your passion for this subject really shines through. It's contagious!
Thank you!
sharp !
Beneficial