• Anonymys
    117
    To 'philosophize' is its most basic form is 'to think.' So I philosophize that those who aren't afraid of thinking, philosophize. However, philosophy can look different everywhere. While Hispanic philosophers philosophize about community, family systems, and god, the American Eurocentric post-modernists look at generalizable theoretical systems outlining psychology and comprehensive religious frameworks. However, in both systems, people are being represented. The people live similarly, and fall into the same categories, or at least, my understanding of humans is that there are fundamental characteristics that are seen that throughout culture, race, ideology, or society.

    Basically, there are a few ways in which people live in a philosophical world and are represented by two venues which define the type of philosophy that can be engaged in: Society and religion.
    In a free-speech society, philosophy is allowed to be expressed no matter what your view is. However, in a corrupt society, philosophy is defined differently. Corrupt societies are corrupt because of their trademark ability to want more control than is ethical. They are afraid to lose *place greed here*.

    The fear of thinking comes from the need to control. Those in power who are not willing to let go of control fear a power greater than there own, so they limit the ability to learn, reason, analyze, and/or think. They burn books and create punishment for spreading new ideologies. Those who are affected by this do one of four things, follow the rules (They believe them, are ignorant, or are scared), adapt, repress thought, or push back. Those who follow the rules because they believe them, create seemingly unbreakable structures that are created to not allow for individual expression, belief, or identity. Those who follow them because they are ignorant are, well... ignorant. Those who follow them because they are scared to live life afraid of those seemingly unbreakable structures created by enthusiastic followers. Those who adapt create ways to express. Adaptors push the limits and often get in trouble for their ability to follow the rules without believing them. While these set of people may not be willing to change the system outright, and do what they can to stay off the radar, they sure as hell don't appreciate those who follow (or the structure). Then, there are those who repress thought. These people live without understanding why. Their repression is unintentional yet weighs heavily on them and limits their will to be alive in this type of society. Finally, there are the pushers, those who fight the system outright and often die because by the followers hands.
    To philosophize in this type of society is to go against the regime, philosophers here are the 'pushers' and 'adaptors' because they question the very existence of the framework. Everyone else is either too dumb to think, too scared to question, or began to question but weren't able to break their repressive state. In these societies personality and character play an immense role in the drive to want to learn more than what is being presented, in this society, to philosophize is to create a new standard of living.

    In religious settings, philosophy is defined a bit differently. It is not about thinking, but it's about what path of religion you're focused on. Is the focus of the philosopher on the ideologies of Buddha, finding internal peace through thought and gaining self-understanding through self-analysis, toward enlightenment? Or is the philosophers focus on the pathway of Jesus, whose basis was social reform, synthesizing principles to define new normalities of a spiritual life, rather than a physical one.
    Whatever the philosopher's journey, there are two primary pathways of internal ideology that are addressed and expressed in personal life. The first is a religious-based life, that is focused on expressly stated organized belief systems, external focus, and formal structure, with the goal of salvation through only one truth with only one right way. Or is the your internal ideology one of a Spirituality based life, one of belief within all individuals, internal focus, with the goal of determining universal principles, values, and ethics through belief in what is good, true, and beautiful. One defines truth as absolute, the other unites people.

    Which is the correct/better way to live life and expereince a religion? Through a religious pathway or a spiritual one?
    Are there any examples through which either side has created adverse social/spiritual/cultural outcomes?
    Have "corrupt" societies changed the way people view philosophy for the better, or worse? I ask this question because people blame societal frameworks such as Marxism having come from 'good' and 'bad' philosophy.
    ( I use the word 'corrupt' as a short way of saying 'societies that are communist (Russa), totalitarian (Cuba), or evil (Somalia), and I use the word 'societies,' but I also want to include, culture, family systems, religion, etc. )
  • SethRy
    152
    n religious settings, philosophy is defined a bit differently. It is not about thinking, but it's about what path of religion you're focused on.Anonymys

    Philosophy is all about thinking. Finding truth, like in Buddhism, there is a particular, ideological, and constant proposition that is believed to be the only way to live. That is still from thinking, for without philosophizing, the ideology would not develop.

    Which is the correct/better way to live life and expereince a religion? Through a religious pathway or a spiritual one?Anonymys

    One defines truth as absolute, the other unites people.Anonymys

    I don't understand the point here. I disagree. Both, as you define; spiritual and religious pathways, unite people and find absolute ethics, which I would view as morality. Finding a central principle in life is basically asserting to absolute truths, but not assuming one — like what a religion would do. To add, I would personally view 'Absolute truths' as a tautology, truth is absolute in itself, there is no truth that's truthful, unless of course, like a religion, you assume a truth. In contrast, a spiritual life (as you define it) would still consist of organised beliefs, that given, flaws their pursuit of truth.

    However, these believed assertions for religion and spirituality of truth are derived with empirical and rational evidence; they are designed to meet conditions that challenge their credibility, so the assumed truth is an acceptable truth — with an exception for technical ramifications.

    to philosophize is to create a new standard of living.Anonymys

    To philosophize, honestly, would be more of the process than the truth. You are finding a truth, not creating one. You could revise revolutionary standards, but not create one.
  • Louco
    42
    It seems to me that what we are discussing is the relationship between society and philosophy. You identify two examples (corrupt societies and religion) where the society pressures, limits philosophy.

    I would say that what underlies your concerns is conserving freedom of thought.

    I agree that corrupt societies and religions limit thought, and more specifically they limit communication. However, isn't this true of all societies and of all schools of thought?

    In this generalized sense, we must acknowledge the creative power of castration. By this I mean: societal thought limits are the shared limits of culture. But these elements can be taken constructively and creatively, and what are shared limitations are also shared platforms upon which we create new thought.

    Perhaps we could say that in corrupt societies, castration is overdone.

    I very much like your idea that "those who aren't afraid of thinking, philosophize". It would seem to me that the courage one must have is the courage to overcome one's castrations; to question that which is forbidden.
  • Anonymys
    117
    That is still from thinking, for without philosophizing, the ideology would not develop.SethRy

    I would state that the definition of social ideology is different than the philosophical definition of philosophy. A social ideology is a set of normative belfies or societal systems. Yes, they are developed through philosophical reform, however as it is 'normative', most individuals live their life inside an ideologically based system without questioning it. An example of this would be basically any social system that exists today. In philosophy, an ideology is much more fluid. While the presently held ideologies may be held systematically within a philosophical community, the concepts of human life, nature, politics, religion, etc. are dynamic. Because as I mentioned, philosophers aren't afraid to think outside the normative views of a particular society.

    Absolute truths' as a tautology, truth is absolute in itself, there is no truth that's truthful, unless of course, like a religion, you assume a truth.SethRy

    I believe I was using the phrase absolute truths in the same way you were using absolute ethics. They both have absolute and relative descriptions, so I was just affirming it to be absolute.

    To philosophize, honestly, would be more of the process than the truth. You are finding a truth, not creating one.SethRy

    You only mentioned the backend of my original quote, which was that in societies that are defined as 'corrupt, oppressive, or evil' philosophy is more than just finding truth, because the truth that is presented by the corruptors will always be found or justified to be acceptable given the audience. I think that in those societies, to philosophize is to create new understandings than the one that are forced onto the individual 'philosophying.'

    You could revise revolutionary standards, but not create one.SethRy
    I would think that by revising revolutionary standards, you are creating new standards that were not present before.

    Ill come back to respond to the
    Which is the correct/better way to live life and expereince a religion? Through a religious pathway or a spiritual one?Anonymys
    but I have to go for now
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment