Is philosophy compatible with religion?

>Evidence doesn't exist at all.

gotta C it 2 habeeb it

no, theology always seeks to subjugate philosophy

Because philosophy is trash

>Life-denying

Can you please elaborate on this claim? I know a lot about Buddhism but I have no idea what you are talking about.

A central claim of Buddhism is that life is inherently suffering and the only way to escape that suffering is to escape samsara by becoming a non-being.

Religion and Philosophy are phenomenon on the same level, maybe just of different orders (though that isn't certain), like Cats and Lizards.

The distinction between Philosophy and Religion, or Ideology and Religion, is largely a false one. In China, you can't be a member of the Chinese Communist Party and also a Christian. They recognize that adhering to both systems can lead to contradiction of allegiances.

What is a religion and what is a philosophy? This distinction is only meant to give authority to one system over another. The question is not important and serves only to obfuscate.

Certain Philosophies, Religions and Ideologies are certainly compatible.

Shut the fuck up, you insufferable faggot.

How ironic, monsieur, that you post here --HA!-- a very creation of science, no doubt! Oh, indeed, how the wheels of irony do turn --HA! HA!-- and, no doubt, the microchip, internet and electricity do not exist? HA! HA! Where is your evidence to the contrary?

No, one of central claims of Buddhism is that everything in life is dukkha. Dukkha isn't the same as suffering. Stop reading bad translations.

Is it the idea you object to, or did I just state it in an obnoxious way?

All philosophies, religions, political ideologies and even Scientific Materialism seek to explain the world. It is only a matter of subjective opinion that one system explains things better than another.

I think philosophy is the set that religion and science are subsets of.

This. Theology and philosophy are one and the same.

They're one and the same, actually

I could see that argument, and to some extent I agree. Philosophy provides tools for interogating religions, science and political ideologies, but also for investigating Philosophy itself.

Science notably doesn't have this, it has firm limits, various axioms but also things like the Problem of Induction.

BUT, while I have some bias towards Philosophy as the overarching system, I think there are arguments out of Religion (that God knows all) and Science (that some merger of evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology and neuroscience will eventually explain all things) which could make similar claims for being the Supreme Form of knowledge.

spbp

As the great ‘Amr ibn al-‘As said
>"If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."

That's totally un-Islamic.

what is dukkha

No, they don't. Evidence doesn't exist.
I know a former monk, who translates it as suffering. He uses suffering and disappointment, actually.

Suffering doesn't mean agony, you dope.

Read Ecclesiastes. Even just the first few lines of it. Does this not sound like something that agrees with Buddhism to you?

I've read more of the Bible than you. Ecclesiastes is not life-denying, Buddhism is. Read the whole thing, why don't you.

Yes, the Catholic tradition is pretty rich in philosophy, especially the scholastics.

Buddhism isn't life-denying because it says life is suffering, it's life-denying because it's says desiring things is what causes the suffering.

If people didn't have goals to work towards bounded by their desire, life would be a literal pit of hell.

Nietzsche BTFO of this religion long ago.

Buddhism isn't life-denying.

Yes it is.

Of course. What is a theologian, but a religious philosopher?

Their will always be thinkers of faith, and to think - to seek after truth, is to practice philosophy.

Fuck off, Platonist.
>thinking leads to truth
FUCK OFF PLATONIST

That's an interesting translation that I had never heard of. Not very literal to be sure but I like its style.

>thinking leads to truth

Your words, not mine. Seems you haven't yet learned the importance of word choice. Interesting, considering where you are.

Still, how else, pray tell, does man come by truth? Enlighten me.

>I am refuting your claims. I AM REFUTING THEM SO HARD *SCREECHING NOISES

Yes you did you fucking illiterate.
>to think - to seek after truth
>refuting
fuck off platonist

>I did it again and I'll keep doing it as many times as it takes

>still didn't get it

Also, you still didn't enlighten me. How does one come by truth without thinking?

Truth doesn't exist

Enlighten me.

How do you know truth doesn't exist?

>Truth doesn't exist
>This statement is supposed to be true
>At least one truth exists
>Truth doesn't exist

Lol senpai

Are traps comparable with women?

Sure, in the same sense that men are comparable with women - because they are men.

>Please tell me you didn't actually need someone to explain this.

Yes, I was going to point that out to him eventually.

Likewise, for his statement to be true, there would have to be reasons it was true, and reasons why those reasons were true - which suggests an infinite number of knowable truths.

"Truth doesn't exist" is a self-annihilating axiom.

I will it.
No, stop shitposting. You being stupid is not a talking point.
No, kill that Western mindset of yours.

Logic (which you are poorly using) presupposes truth and order.

Fuck no.

Philosophy is the study of truth, it takes its basis from logically sound axioms and develops them following logic steps in order to reach a decent conclusion. On the other hand, religion takes its basis from faith, which by definition is believing something with no other reason than you just felt like it, and from that conjecture develops its ideas.

Philosophy is an attempt at reaching the truth while religion is emotional shit based on conjecture, if anything, they're opposites in principle.

Ecclesiastes is a fucking journey of a book that you can't grab the first few lines from and act like they're indicative of Abrahamic thought. Also nice translation, nerd.

>Philosophy is the study of truth, it takes its basis from logically sound axioms and develops them following logic steps in order to reach a decent conclusion.
False.
Daijoubu, the only scripture he's read are the first few lines of Ecclesiastes.

looks like you still need to read hume.

>He fell for the Ecclesiastes meme

How do you know it is a mindset? How do you know it is Western? How do you know what Will is?

How do you not see that all of these things not only require Thought, but also require belief in the reliability of one's thoughts, and, therefore, belief in Truth?

Also, I began my foray into Philosophy though the East and am fluent in Japanese. FYI (Likewise, my roommate is Japanese.)

Your idea of the East and the West is perverted by the things you believe to be T R U E about them, child.

I presuppose nothing. Reasoning from nothingness about existence brings order. Additionally, how would one know Disorder from Order without knowing Order? Likewise, is not Disorder, or Chaos, merely a type of Order?

I presuppose no Truth. I have proven Truth's existence using your own arguments.

Likewise, if there were no Truth, how could any word you say be true? How could any argument you make carry any weight? How could any observation you had be trusted? How could any concept of East or West be legitimate?

You are so brain-washed you fail to see your argument imploding as you type it.

If I'm T R U L Y (Lel) wrong, then counter each of my points. I'll gladly continue to let you make a fool of yourself.

Sloppy use of language. If you want genuine responses don't make a meaningless post.

Religion is philosophy.

The Talmud is rabbinic philosophy drawn from the bible of the Hebrews.

Did you have this very conversation before? Or do I finally have schizophrenia, of which deja vu is a symptom?

It's a really great translation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holman_Christian_Standard_Bible

>Holman Bible Publishers assembled an international, interdenominational team of 100 scholars and proofreaders, all of whom were committed to biblical inerrancy.[3] The translation committee sought to strike a balance between the two prevailing philosophies of Bible translation: formal equivalence (literal, "word-for-word", etc.) and dynamic or functional equivalence ("thought-for-thought"). The translators called this balance "optimal equivalence."
>According to the translators, the primary goal of an optimal equivalence translation is "to convey a sense of the original text with as much clarity as possible". To that end, the ancient source texts were exhaustively scrutinized at every level (word, phrase, clause, sentence, discourse) to determine its original meaning and intention. Afterwards, using the best language tools available, the semantic and linguistic equivalents were translated into as readable a text as possible.

Theology strengthens philosophy. Philosophy flourished under Christianity. It's not like everybody agreed either. Or they all had the same influences. These days it's mostly naturalist circle-jerking. Why do you think philosophy is so shit now?

No it isn't. Most of what you're told about the Islamic Golden Age is garbage. Considering Islam promotes a submission of ALL things to Allah, including governments, it seems pretty obvious that ideas counter to the Quran have no place in Islamic society.

We live in a less cerebral world now, we live in a progressively corporal world.

Our beliefs and thoughts aren't so dictated by ideas of self but ideas of external fact. Economy and politics has taken the place of philosophy. Philosophy is seen as redundant, not wanted or needed unless it can discuss/justify the destruction of the working class and the provisions for treatments of AI conducting the rule of law.

Ie. Wisdom is no commodity.

If books are ideas, and Quran IS the idea, it's logical to not include books counter to the idea or to include books which copy the ideas tit-for-tat.

Even Jesus said this, you cannot serve two masters. This is to every detail.

Yes, I told him something similar. Still your use of language is, likewise, sloppy.

>genuine

He did receive genuine responses.

If the flaw in his argument is merely in its presentation, please, present it again, and properly.

If I did, it was long enough ago not to remember it now, but, knowing how thread themes repeat on Veeky Forums, we may have done.

Take the fedora off for a second and read that post.

Perhaps you should post less?

Well keked.

It seems you've "reasoned" yourself right into stupidity.

Probably a good call, it seems to be trending these days.

Should I? No, I think not. I'll keep posting as often as I desire.

>positivism

lmao

Depends on what brand you are sippin. Philosophy isn't this homogenous set of ideas. Taken as a whole, quite a bit of it isn't even compatible with other philosophical ideas. If you want someone who will help you slide down on that Christy dick, you will be able to find him.

*tips beret*

is Veeky Forums just PHL101 these days?