Philosphy as Religion (an aside to Ms. Rand thread)

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Seeing the quotations fly and gospels preached and being as I am the near-constant dweller in the shuttered towers of academia, it almost seems to my weathered eyes that in this day and age of decreased respect and unconditional forced loyalty to religion, there has been a rise in the treatment of philosophy texts as gospels.

In other words, philosophers have been quoted as a holy book would, their words uncontestable and inmutable. People adhere to favorites religiously, citing them as a firmly religious person would cite their own dogmatic texts. Now my statement may seem unfair as many would argue that philosophers at least try harder than most religious texts to fill in logic holes or to make everything seamless as long as one takes certain assumption as true, but this seems a bit of a comment on literary critique rather than a strong argument. A "my text is better than your text" battle, but I am getting side-tracked.

This philosopher as God trend it seems, is a direct product of the way philosophy is taught (i.e. a focus on learning and respecting the viewpoints of famous philosophers rather than producing philosophies of one's own out of composites or out of one's simple own convictions (a process used by most actual famous philosophers)). But I could be wrong.

It could be nothing more than differing one's own opinion to one who put it better in one's mind. A mere tool for one's own belief, but a growing trend of this philosopher or die (like the Rand Social Darwinism cult) seems to take this completely to the next step where the text is not referred to, but idealized as if its words are final and total evidence rather than a poetic illustration.

I know open this thread to whatever it may be or in other words...FEEDING FRENZY!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Related to the Rand thread, there are two competing branches of Objectivism right now, each with its own institution. The first is Leonard Pieckoff's Ayn Rand Institute. They treat Rand's words very much like gospel, which to me is bizarre. They are extremely rigid, intolerant and hostile to "heretics" and "infidels." Cult-like, in a word. I am told that the organization is very hierarchical and Piekoff is treated like a prophet. Rand made Piekoff and this institution the heir to her royalties, so they have a guaranteed income stream as long as her books sell. In my view they are very destructive to the further growth and expansion of the Objectivist philosophy. Frankly, they are the souce of all the negative stereotypes about Objectivists, and confirm the stereotypes whenever Piekoff or one of his associates opens his mouth.

The other strain is "led" by philosopher David Kelley and The Objectivist Center. In my view Kelley and his associates are much more thoughtful. They recognize that there is unfinished work to do in the philosophy. For example, from certain axioms Rand derived the virtues of honesty, justice, independence, rationality, pride, productiveness, and integrity, all with very precise definitions. Kelley has filled in an important blank by deriving one more, “benevolence,” also precisely defined.

I guess it's pretty clear which side I am on! I'm not really in the game, though. I am mostly an Objectivist but not a slavish one, and am a bit more eclectic in my philosophy (I'm a big Adam Smith fan, for example.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

Seeing the quotations fly and gospels preached and being as I am the near-constant dweller in the shuttered towers of academia, it almost seems to my weathered eyes that in this day and age of decreased respect and unconditional forced loyalty to religion, there has been a rise in the treatment of philosophy texts as gospels.

In other words, philosophers have been quoted as a holy book would, their words uncontestable and inmutable. People adhere to favorites religiously, citing them as a firmly religious person would cite their own dogmatic texts. Now my statement may seem unfair as many would argue that philosophers at least try harder than most religious texts to fill in logic holes or to make everything seamless as long as one takes certain assumption as true, but this seems a bit of a comment on literary critique rather than a strong argument. A "my text is better than your text" battle, but I am getting side-tracked.

This philosopher as God trend it seems, is a direct product of the way philosophy is taught (i.e. a focus on learning and respecting the viewpoints of famous philosophers rather than producing philosophies of one's own out of composites or out of one's simple own convictions (a process used by most actual famous philosophers)). But I could be wrong.

It could be nothing more than differing one's own opinion to one who put it better in one's mind. A mere tool for one's own belief, but a growing trend of this philosopher or die (like the Rand Social Darwinism cult) seems to take this completely to the next step where the text is not referred to, but idealized as if its words are final and total evidence rather than a poetic illustration.

I know open this thread to whatever it may be or in other words...FEEDING FRENZY!

I have always wondered about what you are pointing out. When a philosopher says something, it is just an opinion. An intelligent and insightful opinion, perhaps, but colored by the individual's experiences and lack of experiences. It should not be treated as akin to the Bible or the Koran although both those tomes have a lot of hokum also.

 

[Stella_Omega]

They're just guys who thought about something, as far as I'm concerned.
Some of them had some good ideas- none of them are God.

 

[Pure]

I can't think of that many philosophies that became religions (leaving aside Ms Rand for the moment).

Certainly there are adherents to any of the schools, lets say, to Thomism, that are 'religiously bound'-- the Master cannot make a mistake.

I think though I agree with your general point that a good philosopher is not looking for a blind follower, but a person who can think and develop.
But they are human, and 'egos' do take the stage at times.

OF course the teaching of philosophy--with which I was involved for a while--cannot be like high school history, memorizing facts; in this case, who said what. One isn't really learning philsophy is one isn't learning to think.

 

[3113]

I think one of the problems is that most people who quote philosophers--or any people with opinions who write them down in a book or spout them over radio/television/blog--are NOT philosophers.

I'm not saying that philosophers can't, themselves, be hidebound and stubborn. But let's face it, only a small percentage of the world gets a higher education, and in that higher education only a small percentage goes into philosophy.

That leaves a good 90% of the human population in a position of:
1) NOT knowing how to question or think about philosophies/opinions
2) Not knowing alternate theories or opinions to the one they've heard and latched onto.
3) Likely not knowing the theory they're adhering to very well at all.

We can see this with the Bible itself, where, despite bible study classes, most folk only know sections of the bible AND they only know THEIR bible (say, King James--a not so good translation--translated into more modern English. Which makes it a bad translation of a bad translation of a bad translation....).

Likewise, many people who latch onto some other form of life philosophy (say Rand) are fed it second or third or even fourth hand--and in pieces. They don't get what was really said or intended, but rather what the one who told it to them wants them to hear--and what they want to hear.

This in addition to their own inferences and personal decisions on what it all means. But then, that is the nature of Philosophy. We all see what we want to see, right?

 

[rgraham666]

The problem is that people, no matter what their background, are very uncomfortable with doubt.

And who can blame them? Being in a constant state of doubt is troubling, it makes you feel rootless, not anchored to the world, unconnected to things. If you can't know for sure, how can you know at all?

So they latch on to something as The Truth, Unchanging, Absolute and The Answer To All Things.

Then they never have to doubt again. And as I have pointed out before, never have to take responsibility again. People tend to dislike responsibility as much as they dislike doubt.

I do notice that people rarely seem to latch on to Socrates, the man who introduced doubt to Western philosophy as the source of Absolute Truth. Plato, yes, but not Socrates.

 

[amicus]

I wonder about rGraham, who continually quotes someone called Saul. something or other as if he/she/it were a deity.

But on a serious vein...

The reason Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Roxanne Appleby notwithstanding, is a watershed in modern philosophy, is not really difficult to discern.

(edited to add She was a watershed, a change of course in modern philosophy that had been mired in post modern European Existentialism and Logical Positivism for nearly half a century.

3113 made some good points; most people, at least 90 percent, ( think even a larger number) will never read a single line written by any philosopher.

We are told and we read that 'philosophy' was a motive force in past societies, I am not certain of that, regardless of all I have learned about the past and it has been substantial.

I rather think, as in modern times, that all, not some, but all, of the classical philosphers (add names as you wish), had little or no influence during the time they lived and wrote or spoke. All of them. From before Thales and Socrates and Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas and Voltaire or any of them.

I think most died penniless and unpublished in their lifetimes.

If you were asked to name a major philosopher in the 20th century, what name would you offer?

Think about it. 20th century.

A few, very few, might offer Bertrand Russell, or John Paul Sartres...and...you would be wrong.

Most people can't even identify the major writers of fiction or non fiction in the 20th century. I can. I can name them all, miss a few, think and go back and pick up those I left out. Can you?

Am I bragging or gloating? No, not at all; it was my quest to know these things at one time. As other men exploited PNP transistors, I studied philosophy and literature and economics, that was my choice.

But most people, 99 out of a hundred, chose to follow a different path. I never questioned their quest as I did not question mine.

Most of you, not just on this forum, but in general, who watched Seinfeld, and the Simpsons and Sex in the City and Friends and the daytime soaps (none of which have I ever seen), and a hundred other 'entertainment' venues, and thought that a knowledge of philosophy and economics and ethics and psychology was not of any importance, are now seeking answers.

You are like customers at Walmart and Radio shack, looking for the 'best buys' and the guaranteed results.

Good luck!


Lucifer Carrol, who started this thread, did so with this introduction: "...Philosphy as Religion (an aside to Ms. Rand thread) ..."

First off, Philosophy has always and does to this day, rejects 'religion' as a matter of 'faith and belief', whereas philosophy is based on reason and rationality.

Lucifer C intended to blur this definition at the outset, on purpose and with malevolent intent, ( these pinko's are all the same)

Philosophy was and is the 'outgrowth' of religion, a divorce from faith and belief and a pursuit of knowledge through reason and truth, arrived at through logic and non contradiction.

Philo + sophy is defined as a 'love of knowledge'.

Not faith, not belief, but knowledge.

And even that bare bones definition of a simple word, is beyond most who are reading these words.

You simply have not been educated to understand 'words' and their meanings.

You have not been taught to understand the history of language or to comprehend the part 'conceptualization of concepts' plays in the role of human understanding.

You have no method and no means of even conceiving the concept of 'philosophy' as you have been taught, rather, 'brainwashed', to ignore the function of the human mind.

You wonder why masses flock to the television evangelists like the asshole Billy Graham and a plethora of others? People want answers, they want to 'know' and lacking venues that offer truth, they turn to witch doctors like Lucifer and others, who promise salvation through ignorance.

And yes, it is sad.

And no, I have no answers for you.

Instead of reading what these assholes 'say' about Ayn Rand, or Adam Smith, or John Locke, or Stuart Mills, or any of a hundred other 'men' who thought and struggled with issues of import, why not go read them?

You read 'wanker' stories, go read Paine, or Franklin, or Edison, or Jefferson or Madison or even Shakespeare who laughed at them all.

Most of you, if you read Rand at all, will perhaps dabble in her fiction and never pursue her non fiction or her essays on a hundred subjects.

When I read an author and find value, I read everything they wrote, be it Hemingway, Steinbeck, Nevil Shute, Heraclitus, Homer, Shakespeare, Tom Clancy, Philip Wylie, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, or Ayn Rand.

Do I learn anything? You bet your sweet bippy I do. Do I become a follower?

Never. I think on my own.

Do I owe anyone for what I have learned?

Yes. Everyone I have read has contributed to what I know.

That is as it should be.

amicus...

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I can't think of that many philosophies that became religions (leaving aside Ms Rand for the moment).

Certainly there are adherents to any of the schools, lets say, to Thomism, that are 'religiously bound'-- the Master cannot make a mistake.

I think though I agree with your general point that a good philosopher is not looking for a blind follower, but a person who can think and develop.
But they are human, and 'egos' do take the stage at times.

OF course the teaching of philosophy--with which I was involved for a while--cannot be like high school history, memorizing facts; in this case, who said what. One isn't really learning philsophy is one isn't learning to think.

I'm glad it wasn't like that in your classes. One of the reasons I have been noticing this trend is not only the discussions on this board but the method of teaching Philosophy at my current school where they teach very much what X thought and test what X thought and ask students to write essays defending what X thought without putting much critical thought into whether X corresponds with their personal thoughts, whether they give a damn about X's philosophies or not, and how to or how not to incorporate X philosophies with one's own growing personal philosophy and it leads to people unable to form their own philosophy despite knowing X, Y, and Z philosophers fairly shinily.

In my mind this activity and the dull activity of quoting these men be they brilliant or not and merely quoting or debating their philosophies and what they meant without addressing validity or even exposing the gaping logic holes most philosophers have left in their works (often in the assumptions) and worse, without addressing what one's own self believes seems tragic. It is the point where it fails to be about the pursuit of truth and a firm handling of one's own beliefs tempered and enlightened by those who one admires and becomes the land of theology, of worship. This occurs regardless of what the purpose of the -ology is much the same way a biologist who deviates from the scientific method can land smack dab in Intelligent Design.

I'm glad to see most do hold their own views, have used philosophy to that end and feel as I do that to do otherwise is a disservice to the very pursuit of philosophy.


I think you've got a point Rob, that doubt or an incomplete philosophy especially if one has been voracious in their consumption of the texts can be frighteningly bad. I know a recent philosophy graduate who is pulling out her hair and nearly to tears because despite finishing her philosophy degree, her personal philosophy is far from coalesced. She is disheartened by the fact that it will continue to be a journey for her to find what she truly believes, what she agrees with, what she doesn't and what she understands to be true from studying the world. This prospect is disheartening to her as she expects completion and I suspect many are the same way. They read a text or multiple texts or even all the texts they can find and if they can't coalesce, they may tend to adhere just to force a definite, a freedom from doubt. It may also be a product of the fact that many turn to philosophers after they have abandoned a religion and seek it to definitively answer the unknowns and though the philosophers do try to accomplish this weighty task, it seems a bit religious to accept their explanations as the new salve without figuring out what one already believes about those unknowns and whether that's plausible.

And 3113, yes, but I am growing to suspect that philosophy is sort of viewed by these ignorant folk as the cure-all for their ignorance. That by reading voraciously of works that can be quoted, one can appear urbane and sophisticated regardless of whether they a)comprehend or b) can apply that work. On the effort scale it is far easier than becoming the expert on something like one of the sciences or history or et al. Those fields require both knowledge of terminology and etc, but deep in depth comprehension of often complex subjects. Have Colly deliver a lecture on any American history topic and you will soon understand the complexity of these fields. Whereas with philosophy one can APPEAR brilliant by the learning of one quotation. Again, this is a travesty of philosophy, the reduction of a pursuit of absolute comprehension and the defense of that comprehension to yet another trivia board. It is like the old joke in my old Lit department: "And that's the major themes, and a quotation from Chapter 13. Obviously I am a master of this book." "But what did you get out of it?" "An 'A' and a way to win Trivia Contests." "Ah Bartleby. Ah humanity." "Apparently you got an 'A' too." We sacrifice the very point for trivia and as the modern trend goes, trivia leads to religion in the fanatics (Star Wars geeks becoming Jedi, Star Trek geeks becoming Vulcan-esque religions, etc...)

 

[Liar]

I'm glad it wasn't like that in your classes. One of the reasons I have been noticing this trend is not only the discussions on this board but the method of teaching Philosophy at my current school where they teach very much what X thought and test what X thought and ask students to write essays defending what X thought without putting much critical thought into whether X corresponds with their personal thoughts, whether they give a damn about X's philosophies or not, and how to or how not to incorporate X philosophies with one's own growing personal philosophy and it leads to people unable to form their own philosophy despite knowing X, Y, and Z philosophers fairly shinily.

I can see where you come from there. Fortunately, I don't think that that is a general omnipresent philosophy of teaching. Instead the approach to the subject seems to vary greatly from learning site to learning site. My own philosophy courses have all been of a more open-minded nature. Yes, we studied what Philosopher X said and thought at great length. But the important perspective was always what X thouught in comparison to Y, Z and W. The Great Thinkers became more representatives of different classes of opinions and thoughs, and those then became tools that the students could use to put definitions and structure on their own philosohies, rather than deities to worship.

The most important question that we learned to ask ourselves while reading the works of the esteemed names was: If mr X's words are Truth, and mr Y's words are Truth, how come they don't say the same thing?

 

[rgraham666]

It helps if you go back to the roots of Western philosophy.

Premise 1: "I'm an ignorant bastard."

Premise 2: "So is everybody else."

Premise 3: "We have to examine and question who we are, what we do and the world we live in to lessen our ignorance."

Premise 4: "We'll never completely succeed. Get over it."

Oh yes. And a final caveat. Don't drink the hemlock.

 

[Pure]

A couple more comments;

Luc said,

This philosopher as God trend it seems, is a direct product of the way philosophy is taught (i.e. a focus on learning and respecting the viewpoints of famous philosophers rather than producing philosophies of one's own out of composites or out of one's simple own convictions (a process used by most actual famous philosophers)). But I could be wrong.

It could be nothing more than differing one's own opinion to one who put it better in one's mind. A mere tool for one's own belief, but a growing trend of this philosopher or die (like the Rand Social Darwinism cult) seems to take this completely to the next step where the text is not referred to, but idealized as if its words are final and total evidence rather than a poetic illustration.

Let me come at the thing from a slightly different angle. Religion, except in the red states and the islamic world is waning in general (though evangelists have some successes in Africa).

So given this 'urge for certainty' as mentioned we see a phenomenon of 'secular religions': marxism, fascism, 'objectivism,' even libertarianism,
not to say the well known 'secular humanism.'

Libertarianism is an intersting case, since I don't claim it's always treated as religion. But sometimes, Hayek, von Mises etc, become 'holy writ.' In the best cases, the concept of 'freedom of thought' is embraced, and that will entail that a dogmatic libertarian is a contradiction in terms.

The old concept 'free thinker' has a lot to be said for it: applied to Voltaire, Mencken, Ingersoll, B. Russell. Someone who challenges 'accepted wisdom [and religion]'. One has to avoid too rigid political entanglements, though it must be said that free thinking persons tend to be 'pro choice' and to vote for democrats. Yet there are relatively free thinking Catholics, but they don't get to write encyclicals, and they often get excommunicated or 'relieved of teaching duties' (at Catholic colleges).

Needless to say, philosophy, imo, should be connected to 'free thought.' It can get one into trouble (Russell went to prison, Socrates was executed.)

 

[3113]

Religion, except in the red states and the islamic world is waning in general (though evangelists have some successes in Africa).

I'm not so certain about this--but even if true, there is a problem. The religious may be a smaller percentage, but if they're in power, then they have the chance to prostilitize and change the balance. As when fundamentalists get elected to school boards (without saying they're fundamentalists) and then insist that the schools teach Intelligent Design in the science classes.

Now, so far, most such things have failed in the courts (i.e., judges are not allowed to post the 10 commandments and intelligent design cannot be taugh in science classes). But what I've found is that the "secular religions" lack one important thing to secure their popularity over a resurgence of more fundamental religions and/or the fact that such religions will put everything into getting their people into power: magic.

Fundamental religions promise that if you pray to God, you will be cured. You go to a prayer meeting and everyone prays with you for your happiness and healing or well being. So even if a miracle doesn't occur, you feel that you have support; doubt is put to rest. That doesn't happen in the humanist religions. You don't get together with a bunch of Marxists and say, "I'm sick and feeling depressed, help me." And the Marxists all say, "Well, let's just think about the Communist Manifesto and how it will cure our poor sick friend."

Which is why I suspect that even if such religions are giving way to more humanist "religions" they will resurge in one form or another--rather like the Angel phenomena of the 80's, where everyone was deeply into guardian Angels. Because people need that magic and many humanist religions offer magic only in limited quantities and with too much work. Liberitarianism requires that the world do away with certain laws and change it's economic practices for the magic to work, that is, for everyone to be happy. That's a lot harder to achieve than lighting a candle and saying a prayer.

 

[Pure]

Hi 3113

3113You go to a prayer meeting and everyone prays with you for your happiness and healing or well being. So even if a miracle doesn't occur, you feel that you have support; doubt is put to rest. That doesn't happen in the humanist religions. You don't get together with a bunch of Marxists and say, "I'm sick and feeling depressed, help me." And the Marxists all say, "Well, let's just think about the Communist Manifesto and how it will cure our poor sick friend."

P: I do see your point, the religion may be cozier and solve problems at a person level.

On the other side, taking your Marxist example, individual concerns become subordinated (as in some religions and cults). A coziness can come from working together on a project, however (and maybe that's healthier than 'group therapy'). But some of the thinking is similar. The Xtian prays for mom's recovery and she dies; "it's god's will"; "your prayer was not strong enough", etc.

A Marxist may want a revolution to come, indeed believe it's inevitable. Yet its postponement can be explained. E.g. in Chile, Pinochet and the fascists intervened and the left wasn't strong enough. Similarly the 'freedom' issue can be fudged. If socialism equals true freedom, why are some of Castro's enemies in prison. Well, the CIA forced these measures upon Fidel.

If you ask a 'free enterprise' believer: well, what are the effects of the tax cuts and deregulation--see, it's a mess" He says, "taxes weren't cut enough, there wasn't time, etc."

If you ask the socialist about Stalin, he will say, "That was an aberration, not the kind of socialism envisaged by Marx."

So secular causes and 'religions' do fill many of the functions, and the thinking has some similarities to religious thinking. (At the same time, we have to admit that a number of scientists were religious, including Kepler, Galileo, and Newton.)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

My Philosophy teacher was a younger gent, and perhaps his irreverence kept him from "preaching" rather than "teaching". In the course of the class, I managed to be told I was going to hell not once, or even twice, but multiple times by the Amen pew. The Prof. after the class was finished, confessed I was his facorite student in sometime, simply because I was such a skeptic. My, sometimes vicious, deconstructions of various arguments, particularly those in favor of religion or a god, delighted him, even as they incensed my more SB classmates.

Philosophy, is most fun, when you're debunking the accepted positions, point out their inconsistances and logical fallicies. Nothing will keep you as mentally sharp, as a debate on philosophy, assuming your partners in the debate are reasonably intelligent.

I love the discipline. I love the mental free for alls it can produce, where you don't just have to be able to marshall your facts, but you have to be adaptive and react quickly. I don't think any discipline promotes mental facility like a well taught philosophy class.

On the other hand, your classess sound more like a history of philosophy survey than an actual philosophy class Luc. Which would be interesting to the history major in me, but not a mental challenge at all.

 

[silverwhisper]

lucifer carroll: i would argue that the distinction you're seeing is that since most people's first exposure to much philosophy is at the college level, there's a pressing need to understand the fundamentals first before proceeding to more contemporary ideas.

amicus: faith and reason are necessarily at odds. i don't think that anybody disputes that. however, arguing that philosophy explicitly rejects religion is an overstatement. descartes was hardly an atheist. he and other thinkers of his day still believed it was possible to prove the existence of god logically. that they were wrong should not IMHO be construed to mean that their efforst are an attack against religion.

ed

 

[3113]

A Marxist may want a revolution to come, indeed believe it's inevitable. Yet its postponement can be explained. E.g. in Chile, Pinochet and the fascists intervened and the left wasn't strong enough. Similarly the 'freedom' issue can be fudged. If socialism equals true freedom, why are some of Castro's enemies in prison. Well, the CIA forced these measures upon Fidel.

You're absolutely right that the Marxism can be as much a religion, using the same excuses religions do to explain why the utopia it promises has not yet been achieved even if all the required goals have been met. Just like a someone asking a priest, "Why didn't prayer cure me?"

What I think is missing from the humanist religions, however, is not only that personal level, but also the more primitive level. I sometimes think that Marxism was more fervently embraced in China than Russia not JUST because of the Chinese mentality (work for the goal not yourself), but also because of Mao and that little red book.

High priest and magical object (aka, bible). Human beings seem wired that way. They need their fetish objects, and they need someone if not something to fight for. If there isn't going to be an unseen, omniscent being to fight and die for, then there needs to be a man to stand for god, a leader they revere almost like a god.

In Marxist revolutions, the people don't carry icons of Marx (usually), they carry icons of leaders who tell them, in rousing, charismatic ways, of Marxism (Lenin, Mao). Once again--second hand/piecemeal philosophy.

I suspect such revolutionaries would carry icons of Marx IF Marx had written up his philosphy as entertaining fiction, like Rand, instead of a rather dry treatise on economics.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

On at least one issue I will agree with Luc here (damn, that's twice in one day- a record): there are few, if any new philosophers. That's partly why I am trying to formulate my own comprehensive philosophy. I'm calling it "meritism", at least for a start. It is essentially the notion that merit, or justice, is the highest moral good, with everything else subordinated to it.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

On at least one issue I will agree with Luc here (damn, that's twice in one day- a record): there are few, if any new philosophers. That's partly why I am trying to formulate my own comprehensive philosophy. I'm calling it "meritism", at least for a start. It is essentially the notion that merit, or justice, is the highest moral good, with everything else subordinated to it.

Self-threadjack: The pursuit of Eternal Justice on Earth? Tasty. Now that is a nice pipe dream.


Unthreadjack: Everyone continue, this is great.

 

[amicus]

SEVERUSMAX]On at least one issue I will agree with Luc here (damn, that's twice in one day- a record): there are few, if any new philosophers. That's partly why I am trying to formulate my own comprehensive philosophy. I'm calling it "meritism", at least for a start. It is essentially the notion that merit, or justice, is the highest moral good, with everything else subordinated to it.[/[/I]QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~~

Someone already beat you to it Severus, a 'meritocracy' was formulated some centuries ago. However the thoughts ran into the current and concurrent problem of epistemological absolutes, the same quagmire that has trapped many a fine scholar.

amicus...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Self-threadjack: The pursuit of Eternal Justice on Earth? Tasty. Now that is a nice pipe dream.


Unthreadjack: Everyone continue, this is great.

Well, I'm as qualified to start my own school of philosophy as the next guy.

 

[rgraham666]

But who defines 'merit'? Is this the same thing as being good?

Will it allow human beings to live in harmony with one another and the world? Or will it sharpen the already too vicious competition people already have with each other?

Will it allow people to exploit and harm one another if such action is 'meritorious'? Is there any room at all in such a system for people without 'merit'?

Questions to ponder.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

SEVERUSMAX]On at least one issue I will agree with Luc here (damn, that's twice in one day- a record): there are few, if any new philosophers. That's partly why I am trying to formulate my own comprehensive philosophy. I'm calling it "meritism", at least for a start. It is essentially the notion that merit, or justice, is the highest moral good, with everything else subordinated to it.[/[/I]QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~~

Someone already beat you to it Severus, a 'meritocracy' was formulated some centuries ago. However the thoughts ran into the current and concurrent problem of epistemological absolutes, the same quagmire that has trapped many a fine scholar.

amicus...

Figures. Just my luck. I wonder if the particular principles are identical or not. To me, the idea is that everyone gets precisely what they deserve, no better, no worse.

 

[Equinoxe]

Philosophy in Three Easy Steps

Have you ever thought to yourself, if only I had legions of mindless zombies parroting my every sentence, then people would finally respect me? Good news! You too can have your own Philosophy Cult -- just follow the easy instructions of my programme. In three simple steps, you can be quoted by thousands on the internet as if your words were God's.

Step 1: Invent or plagiarise a simple philosophy

Now, I know what you're thinking: invent a philosophy, isn't that a lot of work? It doesn't have to be! Just don't worry about silly things like "making sense" or "being consistent" -- sense and consistency are the enemies of real thought. But if that's still too difficult, you can always plagiarise. Stealing another's ideas is a great way to develop your own! Of course, if you plagiarise, you will certainly run into the problem of the philosophers whose ideas you have stolen, and even if you didn't, you'll encounter problems with the ideas of others that yours resemble, which brings us to step 2.

Step 2: Denounce and ignore other philosophers

So, you've stolen ideas from another philosopher, but how do keep people from catching on? Simple -- you lie! You claim to despise the philosopher whose life's work you've stolen and claim that he or she promoted ideas which were immoral and unethical. But, you don't have to do that for every idea you've stolen, only those you've pilfered from well-known philosophers. Minor philosophers can be safely ignored -- nobody cares about them (Lysander who?). Now, you'll want to maintain some veneer of history -- your ideas are new and brilliant, but people want a strong historical basis, which brings us to step 3.

Step 3: Steal the name of an ancient and well-respected philosopher

Pick a philosopher sufficiently long deceased to have gained great notoriety, but to have lost some relevance to the modern world through changes in society. Preferably one whose ideas are not entirely incompatible with and somewhat sympathetic to your own, preferably someone Greek. Now claim to be their only worthy successor and the only person who carries on their legacy in a modern world of uncertainty and falsehood. What do they care if it's true or not? They're dead.

Follow those instructions and in no time I guarantee that you will have your own philosophy cult and you will be respected and remembered by people for decades after you die.


If you would like to order the complete version of my programme with detailed step-by-step instructions and full-colour illustrations, please send a check or money order to:

Philosophy in Three Easy Steps
℅ Philosophastry, Inc.
Gefälschte Straße 123
9490 Vaduz
Liechtenstein​

 

[CharleyH]

Seeing the quotations fly and gospels preached and being as I am the near-constant dweller in the shuttered towers of academia, it almost seems to my weathered eyes that in this day and age of decreased respect and unconditional forced loyalty to religion, there has been a rise in the treatment of philosophy texts as gospels.

Good philosopher, I am not sure how you use words like gospel and religion, and similarly I am not sure how either gospel or religion are not philosophy?