the active vs the passive in philosophy

[Peter Kropotkin]

We could, if we want, we could write a book on philosophy
in regard to the active understanding of philosophy as opposed to
the passive understanding of philosophy...

think of the passive in line with religious thinking in which we are to
accept the word of god, the truth of the bible passively...
Religious thinkers say, accept the word of god without reservation,
or said another way, accept the word of god passively...

For many years, I read the bible and I actively engaged with
what was written..... and in the end, I rejected the bible
and god... I actively engaged with the questions of the bible,
specifically the "book of Job" and in doing so, I rejected god and the
bible...

and we can see this active and passive in our modern day political
landscape....the right practices a passive engagement
and the left practices an active engagement..

To passively follow the party, god, the cult leader IQ45 is what the
conservative practices and engages with... want evidence, see Liz
Chaney.... the conservative wants people to passively seek out
god, bringing prayers back into schools for example as part of
a "Moral" agenda... not to question god or the party, but to
passively accept god and the party...

so we dip into Philosophy and we see how Kant for example,
practiced an active engagement with philosophy, his categories
for examples... and philosophers like Spinoza, practiced an
passive engagement.. for the most part, philosophers practiced
an active engagement with philosophy and the world...
and mostly encouraged people to engage in the world
and philosophy, actively...

As a liberal, I cannot do anything but have an active engagement with either
philosophy or the world..... I cannot do anything other but have
an active engagement with philosophy or the world...

so, what is your level of engagement with either philosophy or
the world? is it active or is it passive and of course as always,
why that engagement?

Kropotkin

[Age]

We could, if we want, we could write a book on philosophy
in regard to the active understanding of philosophy as opposed to
the passive understanding of philosophy...

If we want to write a book on 'philosophy', then I suggest we start by defining what the word 'philosophy' means, and refers to, in this book that we want to write.

But, how many DIFFERENT definitions do you think will be 'argued' over BEFORE an agreed upon and accepted definition arises, by us?

think of the passive in line with religious thinking in which we are to
accept the word of god, the truth of the bible passively...

Is it written absolutely ANYWHERE that 'you', human beings, are to accept the word of God?

If yes, then WHERE?

Religious thinkers say, accept the word of god without reservation,
or said another way, accept the word of god passively...

Well, OBVIOUSLY, if and WHEN God actually SAYS some thing, and because of who and what 'God' IS, EXACTLY, then why would ANY one NOT accept the word of that 'Thing', which some call and refer to as 'God', without reservation.

For many years, I read the bible and I actively engaged with
what was written..... and in the end, I rejected the bible
and god... I actively engaged with the questions of the bible,
specifically the "book of Job" and in doing so, I rejected god and the
bible...

and we can see this active and passive in our modern day political
landscape....the right practices a passive engagement
and the left practices an active engagement..

To passively follow the party, god, the cult leader IQ45 is what the
conservative practices and engages with... want evidence, see Liz
Chaney.... the conservative wants people to passively seek out
god, bringing prayers back into schools for example as part of
a "Moral" agenda... not to question god or the party, but to
passively accept god and the party...

so we dip into Philosophy and we see how Kant for example,
practiced an active engagement with philosophy, his categories
for examples... and philosophers like Spinoza, practiced an
passive engagement.. for the most part, philosophers practiced
an active engagement with philosophy and the world...
and mostly encouraged people to engage in the world
and philosophy, actively...

As a liberal, I cannot do anything but have an active engagement with either
philosophy or the world..... I cannot do anything other but have
an active engagement with philosophy or the world...

so, what is your level of engagement with either philosophy or
the world? is it active or is it passive and of course as always,
why that engagement?

Kropotkin

What does 'philosophy' even mean, or refer to, to you?