Philosophy Proper

[The Inglorious One]

I admit it: parts of what follows in this post are plagiarized. Even though I am solely responsible for the association and recombination of the plagiarized ideas, detractors can rightly accuse me of not thinking for myself in all things. That's okay. After all, 'think for yourself' has become a mantra for 'free thinkers' everywhere even as they march in lockstep to the beat of a single drum.

I seriously doubt whether most posters here even know what philosophy is. Virtue, let alone the virtue of wisdom, is scarcely mentioned in even the finest schools so it comes as no surprise that philosophy forums would be used as a platform to espouse political ideas and sentiments rather than discuss philosophy proper. Philosophy, the rational investigation of questions about existence, knowledge and ethics, should be beautiful as well as true and good. Like art, its beauty is largely a matter of the unification and harmonization of contrasts. Philosophy mediates between things that have being — particulars — and the nature of being. It studies how particulars play out in relation to universals or, in my book, it is not philosophy.

Both religion and philosophy are concerned with the inherent unity of all things. It is, therefore, difficult to imagine how philosophy can be philosophy without also being religious. A philosophy that concerns itself only with particulars, that is, a philosophy without the guidance of a unifying principle, can never be systematic, can never be more than a random assembly thoughts. G. K. Chesterton succinctly explains what I mean when he writes: “A man's opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli [an Italian painter of the Early Renaissance] matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters — except everything.” Particulars matter, but the nature of being itself does not.

It is not at all uncommon to see religion railed against in philosophy forums such as this, as though it were some kind monster from the deep. Well..., maybe it is. After all, Francis Bacon did famously say: “A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.”

The more I learn about Hegelian philosophy the more I am fascinated by it. From what little I've learned, it seems very much like my own. Unlike Berkeley, Hegel does not deny matter but believes that what is not spirit is determined by spirit, therefore it follows that nature is not absolutely other, but understood as other and therefore not essentially alien. We do not relate to the world as if it is apart from ourselves, but find ourselves within the world. With the realization that both the mind and the world are ordered according to the same rational principles, our access to the world is made secure. Kant's proclamation that being as such ('Ding an sich') to be ultimately inaccessible is brought down. This serves as my basic proposition — at least for now, until something better comes along.

What are the basic propositions in your philosophy that brings it all together?

[HexHammer]

..very talkative, cut it by 50% please.

[The Inglorious One]

..very talkative, cut it by 50% please.

No.

Philosophy proper is not for everyone. It is not easy nor is it a platform for espousing mere sentiment. It is not a myopic assembly of disconnected beliefs, but understanding expressed on the form thought-symbols — words. Philosophy moves essentially in the element of universality that includes within itself the particular. One has to be studious, persistent and insightful. One has to be able to let go of their personal likes and dislikes enough to step back and see how they stand in relation to reality and the influx of new information. Consistency is paramount.

All this is faraway beyond the capacity of most people. I can go to just about any thread in this forum and can find examples.

[HexHammer]

..very talkative, cut it by 50% please.

No.

Philosophy proper is not for everyone. It is not easy nor is it a platform for espousing mere sentiment. It is not a myopic assembly of disconnected beliefs, but understanding expressed on the form thought-symbols — words. Philosophy moves essentially in the element of universality that includes within itself the particular. One has to be studious, persistent and insightful. One has to be able to let go of their personal likes and dislikes enough to step back and see how they stand in relation to reality and the influx of new information. Consistency is paramount.

All this is faraway beyond the capacity of most people. I can go to just about any thread in this forum and can find examples.

Pure nonsense! You can easily put it in lay terms, no need to express yourself in an overly fancy manner.

[The Inglorious One]

Pure nonsense! You can easily put it in lay terms, no need to express yourself in an overly fancy manner.

Is your inability to grasp what I said also why you do not answer the question?

[HexHammer]

Pure nonsense! You can easily put it in lay terms, no need to express yourself in an overly fancy manner.

Is your inability to grasp what I said also why you do not answer the question?

Because I first want you to do away with your talkative nonsense, you delude yourself with all this hot air.

[The Inglorious One]

Pure nonsense! You can easily put it in lay terms, no need to express yourself in an overly fancy manner.

Is your inability to grasp what I said also why you do not answer the question?

Because I first want you to do away with your talkative nonsense, you delude yourself with all this hot air.

In other words, you do not think deeply enough or clearly enough to have a personal reference point?

[HexHammer]

In other words, you do not think deeply enough or clearly enough to have a personal reference point?

LOL! ..a kuku like you can't possible have any high paying job.

[The Inglorious One]

In other words, you do not think deeply enough or clearly enough to have a personal reference point?

LOL! ..a kuku like you can't possible have any high paying job.

Wow. Impressive. You're a regular Clem Kadiddlehopper.

[The Inglorious One]

Thanks to HexHammer's crude impersonation of Clem Kadiddlehopper, we have all been made painfully aware that philosophy proper is not for everyone. But in spite of this forum's boorish idea of what philosophy consists, I want to flesh out some of the things I said.

I am sure that many people reading this will object to this being posted here rather than in the philosophy of religion forum, but while philosophy and religion are not the same thing, they do overlap in many areas. Science deals with observable facts; religion deals with cosmic values. Philosophy does its best to correlate the quantitative facts of science and the qualitative values of religion. It is in this sense philosophy is — or should be — beautiful, and beauty is largely a matter of the unification and harmonization of contrasts. The highest beauty consists in the panorama, the unification of the variations which are born of pre-existent harmonious reality. A human being living in conformity with the cosmos is the supernal achievement of the supremely beautiful, the attainment of the apex of cosmic art. Hence, as I see it, materialism — atheism — is the maximation of ugliness, the climax of the finite antithesis of the beautiful.

Some people call a crucifix suspended in a jar of urine “art”; I do not. Some people see beauty in a Picasso abstract; I see the work of a confused mind. I may be wrong, but at least I don't mistake the scribblings of a child for a masterpiece. (This is something art “experts” actually did and when the deception was revealed, the excuse was that it was a very talented child.)

Although most philosophers nowadays (about 62%) are atheists, historically, religious philosophies have dominated. I am not out of form to think atheism is irrational inasmuch it does not recognize and give an accounting for the inherent unity of all things. Hegel's philosophy — at least what little I understand — is a kind panentheism (not to be confused with pantheism), which succeeds in unifying the sum of my experiential existence better than any other “ism” or philosophy I've come across to date, and it does so with an elegance unmatched in any traditional religious or materialistic thought. There is no empirical evidence that panentheism is true, but it is wholly consistent with modern science. And I think it is beautiful.

[Dalek Prime]

In other words, you do not think deeply enough or clearly enough to have a personal reference point?

LOL! ..a kuku like you can't possible have any high paying job.

I see you're of the moronic "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich" crowd. Pretty sad measurement, Hex.

[HexHammer]

In other words, you do not think deeply enough or clearly enough to have a personal reference point?

LOL! ..a kuku like you can't possible have any high paying job.

I see you're of the moronic "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich" crowd. Pretty sad measurement, Hex.

But so far it holds true, yearh ..truth hurts!

[Dalek Prime]

"Hahaw, Hahaw, Hahaw!"

*burp*