Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:
Quite a few, that's why you often find people's works in biographies called "later philosophy" and "earlier philosophy". And their philosophy certainly doesn't stay stagnate, it matures, such as Marx's and Nietzsche's did.
|
They mature , but thay have a fixed path usually, don't they? Nietzsche , I feel, has a similar flavour all the way through. In the same way religion often has a similar flavour, but as you say there are revisions. (I didn't phrase my previous quote well enough ,apologies. I meant more along the lines of radical change, sudden departure from previous beliefs , tha kind of thing.) For example, christianity has changed vastly, from the vengeful god of the old testament, to the forgiving god of the New. And the ever expanding idea of an afterlife.
Even religions change, and stagation occurs only in extremists. I will agree that religion as a rigid dogmatic system, such as some of the fundamentalist christian "sects" ,for lack of a better term, are harmful. However religion has changed, as a tool of control it has diminshed, now it is a tool of purpose ,a way to live your life. Religion in itself is good or as good as philosophy, it is People that twist it.
In the same way a person may use philosophy as a way to view their world, religion can be used in a differant way.
And let me redo the example: what if there was a God who punished those who believed in him, but rewarded atheists? You may think it is strange, but God works in mysterious ways and is too hard for our brains to comprehend.
I don't find it strange, IF there is a god he could very well be comepletely differant to anything. After all, there are so many interpretations of him. One view of God ,in my eyes, is as good as another. Not to say that God solely has a subjectie existence, he may have an objective existence, but while we can have no knowledge of God here any view makes sense, no matter how nonsensical it is.
Like I said before, have you read the bible not as a religious text but as a philosophical one (that sounds kind condescending, I don't mean it to sound that way.)? My interpreatation is that it not faith in God that is neccesary for salvation (Although there are parts that say this, I ignore them
) For example, "And now these three remain: Faith, Hope and Love. But the greatest is Love."
Now, I'm not a christian, but I've held to the view that IF there is a god he won't be a god that discrimnates due to belief. My
philosophy is that doing good is good in itself, and though there is probaly not an objective good (Where the hell would it live?). If religion makes people better they should stick to it, if it makes them worse they should abandon it.
Sht... I'm rambling a LOT here....
EDIT:
With a lot of philosophers you can use logic and reasoning to argue with their moral beliefs, with a religious person, their beliefs, however destructive, are set in stone and based on stories quite possibly made up.
I agree that with fundamentalist believers, of whatever religion, won't listen to logic or reasoning to argue there moral beliefs. However I woud say the same of steadfast believers in a philosophy. Could we make Nietzsche change his mind on the aspect of the SuperMan? Probaly not. Like I said, anyone who is unflexible is wrong, anyone that cannot bend there beliefs is wrong. But having faith in God and having faith in a philosophy are similar, in my mind.
To compare organized religion and philosophy is still, in my books, a crime against philosophy.
I can agree with this, if we define organised religion as a dogmatic ,inlexible whole, rather than a belief system ,or way of viewing the world. I didn't really clarify myself, so, my bad.
I still hold that philosophy and religion are linked when applied to indviduals but if they are incorparated into a system that refuses to discuss interpretation then it becomes stagnat and wrong.
Well... I've raved some crap, that's not wholly related to you post for a while, but ... I blame it on english coursework.
Linear Mode
