Original thought (to the extent such is possible after 70 years of reading other people’s stuff). Good sources are anything Buddhist, Carl Sagan, Joseph Campbell, Thích Nhất Hạnh, Karen Armstrong, Elaine Pagels, Thomas Merton, Julian Jaynes, Dalai Lama, Alan Watts, Jean Piaget, Leon Festinger, Paul Tillich, Baruch Spinoza, you know... everybody.

@skado Interesting. But I would say this is moot if you recognize religion as a subset of philosophy provided you see philosophy literally defined as the pursuit of truth. Thereby, religion is the pursuit of truth through the analysis of the supernatural.

@skado If those are your sources but that's your idea derived from those sources, then you have not understood the sources.

g

@Hicks66
That's a reasonable claim. I tend to think (these days) that we've misunderstood that word supernatural. What it has come to mean in our time is something in direct conflict with evidence, or at minimum, with a complete lack of support from evidence. In the past, I think it referred to experiences, mostly of a psychological nature, that pre-science cultures had no explanations for. Today we could talk about, at least some of that stuff, in terms of human psychology. That is to say, not in terms of something that doesn't exist, or that there is no evidence for, but in terms of the invisible but real, such as emotional, attitudinal, or psychological phenomena. So to me, what religions were trying to do, at least in the monastic traditions if not for the laity, was to explore the realms of mental discipline, and they just didn't have the modern nomenclature we do, so their language sounds archaic to us now. But here in the 21C we fully recognize the validity of mental or psychological training - no biggie. I might say... something like... umm... science is the pursuit of the truth of objective reality, philosophy is the pursuit of the truth of rational thought, and religion is the pursuit of the truth of emotional buoyancy... something like that.

@genessa
That's always a possibility. Insights welcome.

@skado Into the works of everyone named, as could possibly relate to your declaration, here? No thank you!

g

@genessa
OK, thanks for letting me know.

@skado It seems that you have three pursuits as separate yet equal magisteria. I would contend that all frames of thought pursuant to truth, or perception thereof is under the single blanket of philosophy. Other subsets would include empiricism. inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning etc up to and including science and religion.
I might also add for clarity that although I dismiss religion and mysticism as genuinely productive methods, I will not seek to assume that their practitioners are fraudulent out of hand or that their motivations differ from mine.

@Hicks66
Yeah, I can’t take issue with any of that. I’m happy to put philosophy in that position. And I also don’t think mysticism is productive, probably in the same ways you don’t. I do think psychology is productive, and I think daily or weekly personal mental hygiene practices can be surprisingly productive. Yoga and meditation are thought of as secular practices today, but of course they have religious roots. It’s that sort of thing I’m talking about; not supernatural beliefs.

@genessa I disagree. You cn use other epeople's thoughts and add to them to make them more acceptable to othere people. The more universal the combined thinking the better.

@Mcflewster of course you can. but evidently, the poster didn't do that. his thoughts appear to be unrelated to the sources he quoted, which, by the way, are numerous and unspecific (about works, and parts of works) so even if we are widely read we don't have a chance of knowing which part of what influenced him. it doesn't matter, since while the sources, or at least some of them, are pretty darned good, the idea allegedly derived from them is still ridiculous.

g

@genessa My theory is "Don't ridicule without fully testing an idea." It is impossible to fully test an idea based on one person's comment because you cannot have the full spectrum of background ideas of the thousands of people that might evaluate it. This is why i have always been a "mixed ability teacher".

An aside . Using the phrase mixed ability which I do occasionally, I am reminded that at the age of 5 I entered school through a door which had "MIXED INFANTS" above it. It has taken a lifetime to find out just how mixed I was, but not just in gender.

@Allamanda
thanks

@Mcflewster i can ridicule any idea i like without testing it. if someone tells me that jumping off a cliff will clear my sinuses, i do not feel it necessary to test that idea to ridicule (and eschew) it.

g

@genessa Just a tiny bit of an extreme case as an example. Of course as a Scientist I want you to test widely and sometimes wildy but not without a lot of forethought.

@Mcflewster In what way would I be able, much less want, to (re)test the propositions in the original post, especially given the fact that you have no idea whatsoever what, in my life, I may or may not already have tested, which may have (in this case definitely has) conflicted with or rendered either u likely or impossible said propositions? There is an awful lot of assumption going on there.

g

@genessa This is what I would do had I the time and the money. I have no wish to bore you though so thanks for reading this far I would do a psychological test for fear before I read the proposition to 100 test subjects, Then I would repeat a psycholigal test differently worded and see if the proposition made any statistical difference. I am not a social scientist so the above would probably need modifying. Testing things with words rather than test tubes is becoming more acceptable especially in management training. I do know that lots of peole do not like or think in scientific terms
"There is an awful lot of assumption going on there". I like that sentence of yours. Assumptions are the bane of all our lives.

@Mcflewster Lol yes they are.

But considering that only a little under half of our country's citizens know the earth or its the sun, I don't understand the possible statistical significance of anyone's agreeing or disagreeing with the propositions.

g

John 1:1 In the beginning was the logic, the logic was with God and was God. John 1:14 ... the logic became flesh. John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

People are gods that come about by logic process into the flesh?

Does the human body build itself with D.N.A. illogically and function in an illogical way?

There are nearly unlimited religions and related practices. Being told what to do is not a desirable feature in my opinion. Being offered insights for a self-directed practice is another thing altogether.

But if every moment of your life feels like bliss, and you’re never depressed or worried, and your life is going swimmingly, then you don’t need religion.

Socrates lived from 470-399 BCE, NOT a "goat herder" ! !

@FearlessFly goat herder is what people has referred to biblical writers as

It’s not for sale. It’s not a claim about material reality, or about history. It’s a perspective; a view. More like a poem than a scientific statement, but not in conflict with science either. Poems don’t require evidence; they require understanding. And that can’t be bought.

Dope is good!

Then, my good Sir, I humbly and honestly suggest that you attempt to expand your knowledge and comprehension of Philosophy and Philosophical Thinking and Thought.
For, in my opinion, Philosophy IS NOT akin to 'intellectual masturbation" it IS a form of Mental Exercise that creates stimuli for the brain itself thus expanding the mind.

@Triphid You are absolutely welcome to your opinion. I just don't happen to share it. I can exercise my mind without developing esoteric modes of thought that have little connection to reality. Good day, sir.

@sterlingdean Are we NOT each entitled to our opinions and thoughts my good Sir?
Answer me this IF you so please, Do you deliberate over the results that will come from some action, etc, you intend to take?
IF the answer be in the Affirmative then in a small way you too are using Philosophy and philosophizing.

@Triphid Incorrect, sir. I'm using logic, reason, and my on innate sense of empathy.

@sterlingdean Philosophical thinking in its true sense IS using Reasoning, Logic and Empathy.

@Triphid But without necessarily attaching it to anything real.

@sterlingdean REAL Philosophers tend to pose questions that are designed simply to make the reader do the thinking for themselves rather merely handing the answers on a silver platter.
Their philosophies ARE based upon reality/realities but are disguised to, as I stated above, to make the reader think for themselves, etc.
Not intending here to be derisive, etc, in any way BUT it does seem to me that you may have a very limited understanding and comprehension of what Philosophy real is, ergo, I humbly suggest that you try reading up on it for change, you never know, IT may even enlighten you.

@Triphid I have lived in this world for 61 winters and have read philosophy. It never kept me warm, never fed my family, never kept me out of harms way. That's all I need to know.

@sterlingdean Well congratulations on your age.