Closed

[NightDweller]

Closing Thread Because It Is Going Nowhere and Is Very Close to Violating Forum Rules

[BWR]

They can't be both? History has several examples, and there already is the concept of philosophy clerics
Anyway, the very concept of a cleric is a religious figure and removing that strikes me as weird. Philosophy clerics that exist so far may not serve a specific god but they do believe in and serve a higher purpose in a manner that is pretty much identical to any other religion. I don't really see how you can remove that aspect and keep them clerics.

If you're talking the natural philosopher type character, that is far more of a wizard type approach to the situation: use your brains to try to make a coherent picture of reality and what must logically entail from what you know.

[NightDweller]

They can't be both? History has several examples, and there already is the concept of philosophy clerics
Anyway, the very concept of a cleric is a religious figure and removing that strikes me as weird. Philosophy clerics that exist so far may not serve a specific god but they do believe in and serve a higher purpose in a manner that is pretty much identical to any other religion. I don't really see how you can remove that aspect and keep them clerics.

If you're talking the natural philosopher type character, that is far more of a wizard type approach to the situation: use your brains to try to make a coherent picture of reality and what must logically entail from what you know.

Muh hah ha aha the sinister philosophy major/ D&D nerd has lured you into his trap!!!! Ha ha ah!!



Well seeing as clerics get their power from a higher purpose and wizards get it from empirical study of arcane forces. A philosopher cleric would be to a wizard what a philosopher would be to a scientist.

The search for truth, improvements for humanity, freethinking, true altruism, and inner peace are all purposes I would very much think would make great foci for cleric philosophers. Where a cleric of a deity or religion would simply obey a being they find superior a philosopher cleric would obey an ideal that they find superior.

The problem with your idea about the philosopher cleric that also serve deities is that just as how in most settings a cleric can revere multiple deities and only have one as their patron and source of power it would likely be the case for ideals so you could not draw power from both. For instance a theologian would get their power from their deity while a philosopher that happened to be religious would get their power from an ideal.

[Milo v3]

Most cleric's I've seen in my game have been philosophers, even clerics who worship deities tend to be inquisitive about why their deity has chosen their tenants, examine their doctrine through different ethical perspectives, and create thought experiments about what their deity would view as the answers to various questions (as it generally takes a few levels before they can ask an angel).

Also, a lot of gods don't have answers to many philosophical questions. People may ask about where an individual's true conscious lies considering how souls, the brain and undead works and their War deity might simply have no idea since it's not in their wheelhouse.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Religion and philosophy aren't intrinsically at odds with one another.

Link If you check under philosophers, most of those men where adherents to the religion of their time, if not clergy themselves.

Religious philosophers just filter their inquisitive thoughts through a religious viewpoint. In a D&D world, this is an eminently sensible thing to do, given that gods make their presence keenly felt and the ideas of good and evil are cosmic manifestations rather than only being socially subjective judgements. If you then also consider that those deities are -not- omniscient, there's a whole lot of room for questioning what's what and evolving ideas.'

The only hiccup is that, if you're not a cleric of an idea, you have no choice but to convert if your evolving philosophy carries you too far away from your deity.

[Katrina]

For me, the difference comes from not the concept of Cleric or Wizard, but the Source of the magical power. Wizards work within an existing framework that is only partially understood, testing various theories and practices until they find things that work. Those things that work are the established spells in the book.

Clerics are making a form of supernatural pact with an alien extradimensional entity to gain access to its magical power in exchange for proper behavior and converting others. Why doesn't every person of faith have Divine magic? They haven't all made the pact. Why can clerics only channel so many spells per day? Channeling the power of their patron is taxing on the body and mind. Thus, they are limited by similar constraints as the wizard but for very different reasons.

The difference between a Philosophy cleric and a God Cleric in this model is obvious. There is no pact. Unless, there is a pact. Which means that the Philosophy Cleric has found some entity that approves of his philosophy and is of similar enough inclination that he is willing to espouse said cleric.

In all honesty, anyone with a high wisdom score (the primary need of clerics) is probably going to be inquisitive anyway.

/End Two cents

[NightDweller]

Religion and philosophy aren't intrinsically at odds with one another.

Link If you check under philosophers, most of those men where adherents to the religion of their time, if not clergy themselves.

Religious philosophers just filter their inquisitive thoughts through a religious viewpoint. In a D&D world, this is an eminently sensible thing to do, given that gods make their presence keenly felt and the ideas of good and evil are cosmic manifestations rather than only being socially subjective judgements. If you then also consider that those deities are -not- omniscient, there's a whole lot of room for questioning what's what and evolving ideas.'

The only hiccup is that, if you're not a cleric of an idea, you have no choice but to convert if your evolving philosophy carries you too far away from your deity.

Not wanting to start a religious argument here.

But suffice it to say that if you read philosophers the vast majority only use a god or gods for hypothetical discussions and to use terms similar to the modern "oh god" and stuff like that. The vast majority of philosophers in history have been agnostic atheists. Philosophy requires you to question everything and not take anything to be certainly true without it being proven true, due to that epistemological philosophy has been and is at odds with religious belief. Even of the "philosophers" though to be religious many of them lived in a time period where if they where not they could be executed or persecuted.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not wanting to start a religious argument here.

But suffice it to say that if you read philosophers the vast majority only use a god or gods for hypothetical discussions and to use terms similar to the modern "oh god" and stuff like that. The vast majority of philosophers in history have been agnostic atheists. Philosophy requires you to question everything and not take anything to be certainly true without it being proven true, due to that epistemological philosophy has been and is at odds with religious belief. Even of the "philosophers" though to be religious many of them lived in a time period where if they where not they could be executed or persecuted.

That would not appear to be an accurate picture of the history of philosophy.

And if anything, what philosophy and religion have in common is that neither field would appear to require claims to be falsifiable or empirically testable.

[Millstone85]

If we are talking Great Wheel, then the Outer Planes are realms of ideals much like the Inner Planes are elemental. And the gods are the most notable residents of the Outer Planes.

Who is to say then that all divine magic isn't philosophical, with the gods acting as a conduct for it into the Material Plane? Some gods might even reward great sages without caring for their adoration.

A direct access? Yes, mortal, you have one now. But I gave you a little nudge some time ago.

[NightDweller]

That would not appear to be an accurate picture of the history of philosophy.

And if anything, what philosophy and religion have in common is that neither field would appear to require claims to be falsifiable or empirically testable.

Your claim is simply incorrect.

An unfalsifiable claim is fundamentally opposed to philosophy.

[Max_Killjoy]

Your claim is simply incorrect.

An unfalsifiable claim is fundamentally opposed to philosophy.

A basic perusal of assertions made by various philosophers over the centuries will reveal a multitude of unfalsifiable claims, and claims which were taken quite seriously as philosophy but which fall apart when held up to reality.

Logical atomism, innatism, idealism (not to be confused with "idealistic"), phenomenalism...

[NightDweller]

A basic perusal of assertions made by various philosophers over the centuries will reveal a multitude of unfalsifiable claims, and claims which were taken quite seriously as philosophy but which fall apart when held up to reality.

Logical atomism, innatism, idealism (not to be confused with "idealistic"), phenomenalism...

The fact they they fall apart when held up to our understanding of reality shows that they are in fact falsifiable, what you just stated supports my position not yours.

[FreddyNoNose]

What do you think of the idea of D&D and Pathfinder Clerics being philosophers rather than religious figures?

If that is how you want to GM them, why not?

I wouldn't GM it that way.

[JAL_1138]

An unfalsifiable claim is fundamentally opposed to philosophy.

Uh...no it's not. It's fundamentally opposed to empiricism, logical positivism, and a couple other isms. Epistemological theories--theories of knowledge--can have holes poked in them by thought experiments, but they're often closer to definitional arguments than true/false statements. Wittgenstein sent up the logical positivists for an insistence that the only meaningful problems were those that could be reduced to logic by reading poetry at them when he was invited to discuss his Tractatus (which had been a heavy influence on positivism).

All of metaphysics is unfalsifiable by empirical tests. So is ethics. Kant's categorical imperative, for instance, doesn't even have a truth value; it's prescriptive, not a true/false statement. Same as Rawls's veil-of-ignorance. Contradictions are one thing--a lot of Western philosophy doesn't like contradictions--but falsifiable is another. Anselm's Ontological Argument is unfalsifiable. So is Aristotle's Prime Mover and Virtue Ethics. Plato's Forms. Existentialism. Berkeley's idealism is unfalsifiable by any empirical tests. Kant's noumena (which we cannot even perceive, much less test and thus falsify; we only perceive phenomena in Kant's metaphysics).

[Max_Killjoy]

The fact they they fall apart when held up to our understanding of reality shows that they are in fact falsifiable, what you just stated supports my position not yours.

The fact that those ideas were taken seriously within philosophy at all, is illustrative of the general lack of regard for testing claims against reality that exists within philosophy.

Or, to cite a more famous comparison:

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'

This disregard, philosophy shares with religion.


Of course, the initial claim was that "most philosophers have the agnostic atheists", and that's just pure rubbish. From Augustine of Hippo to Descartes, a great many of the renowned philosophers have been religious to some degree.

[NightDweller]

Uh...no it's not. It's fundamentally opposed to empiricism, logical positivism, and a couple other isms. Epistemological theories--theories of knowledge--can have holes poked in them by thought experiments, but they're often closer to definitional arguments than true/false statements. Wittgenstein sent up the logical positivists for an insistence that the only meaningful problems were those that could be reduced to logic by reading poetry at them when he was invited to discuss his Tractatus (which had been a heavy influence on positivism).

All of metaphysics is unfalsifiable by empirical tests. So is ethics. Kant's categorical imperative, for instance, doesn't even have a truth value; it's prescriptive, not a true/false statement. Same as Rawls's veil-of-ignorance. Contradictions are one thing--a lot of Western philosophy doesn't like contradictions--but falsifiable is another. Anselm's Ontological Argument is unfalsifiable. So is Aristotle's Prime Mover and Virtue Ethics. Plato's Forms. Existentialism. Berkeley's idealism is unfalsifiable by any empirical tests. Kant's noumena (which we cannot even perceive, much less test and thus falsify; we only perceive phenomena in Kant's metaphysics).

I think you do not understand the difference between being unfalsifiable period and being unfalsifiable by empiricism. You do realize things can be shown to be false rationally right?

[NightDweller]

The fact that those ideas were taken seriously within philosophy at all, is illustrative of the general lack of regard for testing claims against reality that exists within philosophy.

Or, to cite a more famous comparison:

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'

The fact that you seem to not understand the idea of why those ideas existed shows you do not understand that the reconciliation between empiricism and rationalism by Kant is rather modern and due to that if one took the rationalist background it was quite possible for such ideas to be true given the information you had available.

Now I have shown your statement saying that philosophy supports unfalsifiable claims to be false but you instead tried to switch the subject rather than admit that, this does not strike me as an act that someone who genuinely is open to changing their mind would do.

[Max_Killjoy]

The fact that you seem to not understand the idea of why those ideas existed shows you do not understand that the reconciliation between empiricism and rationalism by Kant is rather modern and due to that if one took the rationalist background it was quite possible for such ideas to be true given the information you had available.

Now I have shown your statement saying that philosophy supports unfalsifiable claims to be false but you instead tried to switch the subject rather than admit that, this does not strike me as an act that someone who genuinely is open to changing their mind would do.

First, don't you go accusing anyone else of moving the goalposts, when your original claim was that "most philosophers have the agnostic atheists", and that's just pure rubbish. From Augustine of Hippo to Descartes, a great many of the renowned philosophers have been religious to some degree.

Second, in no way did you show what you just claimed to show. Philosophy and religion have long shared an open disregard for examining their claims against reality.

"Is the chair real?" -- a question bound to provoke hours of debate among philosophy students.
"If your butt doesn't hit the floor, then yes." -- the actual test

[Milo v3]

Religion and Philosophy have been working together for quiet some time.

[JAL_1138]

I think you do not understand the difference between being unfalsifiable period and being unfalsifiable by empiricism. You do realize things can be shown to be false rationally right?

Yes. I majored in philosophy (although to claim that in itself makes me correct would be an appeal to authority fallacy). However, I'm typing this on a cell phone and getting everything typed out and organized as it should be would give me a thumb cramp from Baator and take 'till tomorrow, so forgive me for that. "Parallel lines never meet" can't be empirically tested, because we can't go to infinity in both directions looking. But it can be ascertained logically. And a claim that parallel lines do meet can be demonstrated incorrect definitionally.

But you can't demonstrate that "Plato's Forms" don't exist by logical examination any more than you can test them. Statements about beauty or the meaning of life aren't falsifiable by logic. Reiterating Wittgenstein reading poetry at the positivists here, since you're essentially arguing positivism. Philosophy as a whole is loaded with things that aren't falsifiable by either empiricism or formal or informal logic.

[NightDweller]

Go troll someone else, PHIL 101 student.

First, don't you go accusing anyone else of moving the goalposts, when your original claim was that "most philosophers have the agnostic atheists", and that's just pure rubbish. From Augustine of Hippo to Descartes, a great many of the renowned philosophers have been religious to some degree.

Second, in no way did you show what you just claimed to show. Philosophy and religion have long shared an open disregard for examining their claims against reality.

"Is the chair real?"
"If your butt doesn't hit the floor, then yes."

Ignoring ad hominem.

You listed two examples of people considered philosophers that you consider religious, that does not contradict my statement.

Second, some philosophers in the past disagree with you in what we should use to find out what is real. I would recommend reading the stances of classical rationalists.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ignoring ad hominem.

You listed two examples of people considered philosophers that you consider religious, that does not contradict my statement.

Second, some philosophers in the past disagree with you in what we should use to find out what is real. I would recommend reading the stances of classical rationalists.

You can suggest all you want, I long ago gave up on navel-gazing nonsense.

The reason I called you "PHIL 100 student" is because this is the same tedious exchange I'd put up with from at least one freshman philosophy major every year I was in college.

[NightDweller]

Yes. I majored in philosophy (although to claim that in itself makes me correct would be an appeal to authority fallacy). However, I'm typing this on a cell phone and getting everything typed out and organized as it should be would give me a thumb cramp from Baator and take 'till tomorrow, so forgive me for that. "Parallel lines never meet" can't be empirically tested, because we can't go to infinity in both directions looking. But it can be ascertained logically. And a claim that parallel lines do meet can be demonstrated incorrect definitionally.

But you can't demonstrate that "Plato's Forms" don't exist by logical examination any more than you can test them. Statements about beauty or the meaning of life aren't falsifiable by logic. Reiterating Wittgenstein reading poetry at the positivists here, since you're essentially arguing positivism. Philosophy as a whole is loaded with things that aren't falsifiable by either empiricism or formal or informal logic.

Plato's forms can be demonstrated to not exist.

Human concepts are now know to have not always existed therefore the forms cannot have always existed which contradicts their definition.

[NightDweller]

You can suggest all you want, I long ago gave up on navel-gazing nonsense.

Very well, I hope you have a fruitful life regardless.

[NightDweller]

You can suggest all you want, I long ago gave up on navel-gazing nonsense.

The reason I called you "PHIL 100 student" is because this is the same tedious exchange I'd put up with from at least one freshman philosophy major every year I was in college.

I honestly do not care for your justification for the ad hominem. Have a nice day.

[NightDweller]

Religion and Philosophy have been working together for quiet some time.

I do not want to argue against a religion in these forums due to the forum rules.

Suffice to say that anything that makes an assertion without supporting evidence is fundamentally incompatible with philosophy,

[Max_Killjoy]

Suffice to say that anything that makes an assertion without supporting evidence is fundamentally incompatible with philosophy,

That's dangerously close to a tautology... anything long regarded as "philosophy" but not meeting your circular definition, can be arbitrarily disqualified as being "philosophy", and thus not count as a counter-example against your definition.

E: Meanwhile, historically, religion and philosophy emerge from the fog of protohistory intertwined and searching for the same answers. See, Pythagoras, etc. Or right up through the modern era, both philosophy and religion attempting to answer questions such as "what is the meaning of life?"

[Milo v3]

Suffice to say that anything that makes an assertion without supporting evidence is fundamentally incompatible with philosophy,

For godsake mate, just because you disagree with their methods and or beliefs doesn't mean it isn't philosophy nor that the individuals weren't philosophers.

[NightDweller]

That's dangerously close to a tautology... anything long regarded as "philosophy" but not meeting your circular definition, can be arbitrarily disqualified as being "philosophy", and thus not count as a counter-example against your definition.

Seeing as you attribute things to philosophy that I do not, I would think that we probably simply define the word differently.

A good working definition for how I define philosophy is the method of using logic to empirically and rationally investigate human experience.

In what way are you using the word?

[NightDweller]

For godsake mate, just because you disagree with their methods and or beliefs doesn't mean it isn't philosophy nor that the individuals weren't philosophers.

Can you give me a definition of what a philosopher is?