Mindfire
Istar
Nietzche's proclamation that "God is dead" is certainly misunderstood by a heck of a lot of people.
Misunderstood how exactly? I don't see how it can be interpreted as anything other than a sneering condemnation of religion.
Nietzche's proclamation that "God is dead" is certainly misunderstood by a heck of a lot of people.
Where then is the line between philosophy and religion drawn?
Where then is the line between philosophy and religion drawn?
So religion is revealed by the supernatural, philosophy is reasoned from observation. Two extremely different things. There's no need for confusion.
Ok, the line between religion and philosophy is extremely clear.
Religion is derived from revelation, from the point of view of the members of the religion. That is, it is revealed to them by a supernatural source. (And I'm not going to debate this. It doesn't matter whether the revelation is legitimate or not, the people in a religion believe in that revelation.) And the practice of the religion is about the relationship between the human and the supernatural source of revelation that the people believe in.
Philosophy is about observing the world around you and using your own skills of reasoning to learn about the nature of that world. This includes things like existence and ethics, but it also includes things like motion and change and other things that today we would reserve for science. Philosophy is the predecessor to modern science, which science used to be called "natural philosophy".
So religion is revealed by the supernatural, philosophy is reasoned from observation. Two extremely different things. There's no need for confusion.
And what if the supernatural—say, magic in a fantasy novel—has a physical manifestation in the world, and the people of that world can use their observations of it and their reason to come to an understanding of that supernatural event? If, further, that magic is identified with a god or goddess, then how does reason (philosophy) intertwine with religion?
I'm also reminded of many examples of manifestation of the supernatural at earlier points in, for example, Christianity. Indeed, revelation was sometimes through (a means) or aided by just such a manifestation.
For instance let us say I believe that the divine has revealed to me tenant or fact X. I can then reason other things based on my premise of X, leading to a all encompassing philosophy based on a revealed premise. That is why there is Catholic philosophy and Catholic philosophers, for instance.
No, theologians reason from divine revelation. Philosophers reason from what can be known through reason and observation. There certainly were and are Catholics who are theologians and philosophers, but there's still a distinction. For instance, Aquinas' proofs of God's existence are not arguments from Christian beliefs, or divine revelation, but arguments from reason.
The study of Philosophy develops analytical rigour and the ability to criticise and reason logically. It allows you to apply these skills to many contemporary and historical schools of thought and individual thinkers, and to questions ranging from how we acquire knowledge and form moral judgements to central questions in the philosophy of religion, including the existence and nature of God and the relevance of religion to human life.
The study of Theology provides an understanding of the intellectual underpinning of religious traditions, and of the social and cultural contexts for religious belief and practice. It brings together a wide range of skills and disciplines, historical, textual, linguistic, sociological, literary-critical and philosophical.
Some theologians reason that way, some do not.
I would suggest that theology is a subset of philosophy.
For instance the Oxford Faculty of Philosophy and Religion explains it this way:
I guess one could argue that philosophy is a subset of theology, but I don't see the two as non-overlapping fields.
Well, that's just another example of the modern world having to change things to suit the modern mindset. I prefer to use older standards. They make more sense.
[...]but what if, in a fantasy world, such manifestations never became so rare? What does the unbroken existence of a class of people able to use magic (tied to their goddess) do to the philosophical, theistic, sociological underpinnings of a society?
Well, that's just another example of the modern world having to change things to suit the modern mindset. I prefer to use older standards. They make more sense.
Traditionally, philosophy is divided into seven disciplines: logic, cosmology, history of philosophy, psychology, ethics, epistemology, and ontology.
Logic is the science and art of correct reasoning. Cosmology is the study of matter in motion and material change. Psychology is the study of life and the principle of life, the soul. (Today it is relegated to the study of abnormal mental behavior, a far cry from its traditional subject of inquiry.) Ethics is the study of human acts as to their moral rectitude or lack thereof. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. How is it that something outside the mind is abstracted into the mind? Ontology, the highest of the philosophic sciences, is the study of being as being. What is the difference between essence and existence? Ontology is also called metaphysics.
Misunderstood how exactly? I don't see how it can be interpreted as anything other than a sneering condemnation of religion.
I skimmed the thread and I saw some posters mention things they'd come up with on their own, but for the most part it seems most of you are just discussing real world philosophers and how they're represented in your works (and I think MOK is doing the right thing in not going into detail about the philosophy he's using).
By any chance, by legal philosophies do you mean things like confucianism and the other Chinese government philosophies? Those are actually some of the things I'd like to see more in fantasy. As in, philosophies that permeate an entire way of life rather than just focusing on a singular area of expertise.You know, I was thinking about it, and I do have one book where certain legal philosophies will come into conflict. I also mention philosophies in various books but they're about as fleshed out as a fossil.