Philosophy Now Forum

How is philosophy different than religion or science? Philosophy is about feeling good about yourself, positive emotions, truth, love, and happiness. Philosophy is not about violence, negativity, and hopeless attitude. A negative attitude really doesn't belong on any philosophy forum.

Philosophy is about peace, not war. But, how is philosophy different than religion and science? I really don't see any difference, help me out, you wise philosophers of philosophy now! You people are so interesting and inspiring to read, especially chaz wyman! We should all aspire to be more like chaz wyman, I just needed to say this all of a sudden.

Religion is the Labour Party, philosophy the Conservative Party and science the Liberal Party, holding the centre ground between the two.

Grendel wrote:Religion is the Labour Party, philosophy the Conservative Party and science the Liberal Party, holding the centre ground between the two.

You're so right, Grendel! Philosophy is the Conservative Party. I will tell everybody who asks me what philosophy is, that it is the Conservative Party and they'll know what philosophy is all about. Thank you, now my question is completely answered. I feel much better now, and as we all know, that's what truly counts in our lives.

Consider this thread closed, thanks again.

In the current climate, a hard question to answer, but there is an answer. Among many other things, philosophy entertains many questions of a very general or high-level order. For example, questions about the nature of order are different to questions about the order of nature. Science is generally concerned with questions for which definite answers can be known - this is the idea of 'falsifiability'.

In my view a great deal of what passes for philosophy in the modern world has very little relationship with the actual discipline. It was defined in a certain way by the Greeks, with a particular style of thought, and even a particular type of content. Since the advent of the scientific revolution many of the techniques of philosophy have been used to advance a distinctly anti-philosophical type of attitude to the world. Now a lot of philosophers have basically ceded the territoty to science.

You could say that the difference between philosophy and science is a philosophical distinction - and therefore one which many scientists will not be sympathetic to.

As for religion, some types of religion are very friendly to philosophy, others much less so. Most dogmatic Christianity is suspicious or hostile towards it.

Atthet wrote:How is philosophy different than religion or science? Philosophy is about feeling good about yourself, positive emotions, truth, love, and happiness. Philosophy is not about violence, negativity, and hopeless attitude. A negative attitude really doesn't belong on any philosophy forum.

Philosophy is about peace, not war. But, how is philosophy different than religion and science? I really don't see any difference, help me out, you wise philosophers of philosophy now! You people are so interesting and inspiring to read, especially chaz wyman! We should all aspire to be more like chaz wyman, I just needed to say this all of a sudden.

Chaz Wyman wrote on his thread that claimed there can be no atheist Jews, that all Jews were racist. Now, that would be something a philosopher would say and then pat himself on the back, "good job, I showed them evil, racist Jews." Now, a scientist would come along and ask Chaz for evidence of his claim. Furthermore, if the scientist discovered that the Jews accept people from every possible ethnic background, then the scientist would conclude Chaz was full of crap. The difference between a scientist and a philosopher is that a scientist can expose bull crap for what it is while a philosopher is the one shoveling bull-crap around, claiming it is knowledge.

this place is like a kindergarten, only a little less educated, and a little less polite. I guess I should have learned my lesson by now.

Theories of a scientific nature are not certain or fixed and can be developed further or can be forgotten. So why are we prepared to accept science but expect to reach decisively or accurately truths in philosophy. Scientists have claims to superior importance and this stems from increased supplies of money and consequently think nothing else can contribute effectively as science does.

My question is, why cant people, through both science and philosophy join and obtain a desired objective.

reasonvemotion wrote:Theories of a scientific nature are not certain or fixed and can be developed further or can be forgotten. So why are we prepared to accept science but expect to reach decisively or accurately truths in philosophy. Scientists have claims to superior importance and this stems from increased supplies of money and consequently think nothing else can contribute effectively as science does.

My question is, why cant people, through both science and philosophy join and obtain a desired objective.

Because science has no mechanism for weeding out crap. Science produces the goods, like cars, planes, the internet, robots, vaccines, etc., etc. What has philsophy produced? Arguments, many of which are meaningless and have been shredded by science. None of which, however, are going to produce anything of real value, like a dvd player, alarm clock, freezer, stove-top, oven, etc., etc.

All are related to epistemology.

Science is rigor - empirical measurement.
Philosophy is every other kind of meaningful question, logical necessity.

That distinction is explored here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/ Both also apply to the body of knowledge (or questions) so obtained.

Religion is a culture, a set of rituals, and other things but what all religions share at their core is dogma, which is faith - unjutisfied belief (as opposed to knowledge, which is justified belief, whether obtained through science or logic).