Religion of Science/Science of Religion

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » MetaPhilosophy
  3. » Religion of Science/Science of Religion

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 07:00 pm
I see philosophy as the religion of science and the science of religion.

It's the religion of science because Truth/Wisdom is it's numen. Knowledge is virtue and virtue is its own reward. It's a religion inasmuch as it provides that sense of perfection and wholeness which has long been associated with the word "holy."

It's the science of religion in that it focuses on the eternal, the transcendental, the fundamental....and of course the holy or sacred or numinous. To say that man is God is still theology, and perhaps the peak of theology. I can't help but think of P-cubed, or Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Plato. Triangles, ones, ideas, music-as-number.
They were concerned with what was always true. And this is the transcendental. But they were also concerned with the splendor of truth, the form of the Good. And this Form of the Good is another way to say "transcendental numen."

Philosophy as a numinous transcendental and historicist self-consciousness.....
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 07:03 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;133408 wrote:

Philosophy as a numinous transcendental and historicist self-consciousness.....


Who would have even guessed?!
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 07:18 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;133408 wrote:

Philosophy as a numinous transcendental and historicist self-consciousness.....


Plato/Kant/Hegel/Jung/Nietzsche

Man becomes conscious of himself as a numinous temporal self-conceptualization. Man is the only essentially temporal animal. His essence is that he changes his essence, for this essence is synthetic transcendentally structured concept.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 07:21 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;133408 wrote:
I see philosophy as the religion of science and the science of religion.

It's the religion of science because Truth/Wisdom is it's numen. Knowledge is virtue and virtue is its own reward. It's a religion inasmuch as it provides that sense of perfection and wholeness which has long been associated with the word "holy."

It's the science of religion in that it focuses on the eternal, the transcendental, the fundamental....and of course the holy or sacred or numinous. To say that man is God is still theology, and perhaps the peak of theology. I can't help but think of P-cubed, or Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Plato. Triangles, ones, ideas, music-as-number.
They were concerned with what was always true. And this is the transcendental. But they were also concerned with the splendor of truth, the form of the Good. And this Form of the Good is another way to say "transcendental numen."

Philosophy as a numinous transcendental and historicist self-consciousness.....
The gigantic human awakes. Where is psychology in this?

"The literature of religious experience abounds in references to the pains and terrors overwhelming those who have come, too suddenly, face to face with some manifestation of the mysterium tremendum. In theological language, this fear is due to the in-compatibility between man's egotism and the divine purity, between man's self-aggravated separateness and the infinity of God." -Aldous Huxley
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 08:49 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;133416 wrote:
The gigantic human awakes. Where is psychology in this?

"The literature of religious experience abounds in references to the pains and terrors overwhelming those who have come, too suddenly, face to face with some manifestation of the mysterium tremendum. In theological language, this fear is due to the in-compatibility between man's egotism and the divine purity, between man's self-aggravated separateness and the infinity of God." -Aldous Huxley


Psychology and philosophy are almost synonymous, really. But philosophy refers to wisdom in its very name, so it seems slightly preferable as the master science/religion. Philosophy is still the science of science as well as the science of religion. I think if you cover the mind's science (thinking) and religion (higher feelings/symbolic response), you have covered, conceived, synthesized the essentials. A triangle with religion and science for the bottom corners and philosophy enthroned above (top angle) as the synthesis of its foundations.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 09:29 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;133434 wrote:
Psychology and philosophy are almost synonymous, really. But philosophy refers to wisdom in its very name, so it seems slightly preferable as the master science/religion. Philosophy is still the science of science as well as the science of religion. I think if you cover the mind's science (thinking) and religion (higher feelings/symbolic response), you have covered, conceived, synthesized the essentials. A triangle with religion and science for the bottom corners and philosophy enthroned above (top angle) as the synthesis of its foundations.
This is a new thought for me that psychology and philosophy are the same thing. But you're the third voice I've heard saying it.

Philosophy can be the same thing as science and it can be a perspective on science.

It can be the same thing as religion, and it can be a perspective on religion.

When we ask what the philosophy of psychology is... answer? none? Psychology of philosophy, though... Adler was short.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 01:35 am
@Reconstructo,
Lately I've been totally absorbed in the transcendental. So I offer my biased view that philosophy is a psychology of the transcendental and only the transcendental. In my empirical life, I use empirical psychology like anyone, but as a "philosopher" it no longer much appeals to me.
"Persuasion as proof" is still "true" in my mind but it's too empirical, not numinous enough. If we want to be strictly logical, we must deal with the transcendental, which is the source of logic, or is logic. Philospohy is the virgin. Psychology is the whore. Both are "ladies" but with different priorities.

---------- Post added 02-28-2010 at 02:38 AM ----------

The root of science is the transcendental, which is arguably the source of number, an intuition of space that makes perfect geometry possible, causality, and abstraction/synthesis. Transcendental self-consciousness is the mind seeing an image of itself as if it were not immersed in an environment.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 01:26 am
@Reconstructo,
It's starting to seem to me that the "transcendental numen" is just the numinousness of the transcendental. It seems now that Truth as opposed to "truth" is beautiful from the beginning, and is all the more fair the more bare.

"Beauty is the splendor of truth," and the "truth is fairest naked." Plato and Schopenhauer. & Dante was closer to God the closer he was to Beatrice.
 
north
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 09:20 pm
@Reconstructo,
is not philosophy simply the quest for knowledge , the want of truth

where we get these divisions was not part of the past , our history

but of the thinking in the now
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 09:35 pm
@north,
north;136774 wrote:
is not philosophy simply the quest for knowledge , the want of truth

where we get these divisions was not part of the past , our history

but of the thinking in the now


The quest for truth is the building of an edifice. Just as a bud becomes a blossom, so does the first question burst into three questions, then into 9. The trick is seeing the 1 at the heart of it all, perhaps.....or the Negative One.
 
north
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 09:48 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;136780 wrote:
The quest for truth is the building of an edifice. Just as a bud becomes a blossom, so does the first question burst into three questions, then into 9. The trick is seeing the 1 at the heart of it all, perhaps.....or the Negative One.


well decode what your trying to convey
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 09:59 pm
@Reconstructo,
As we move through history, philosophers continue to argue and refine one anothers points. They debate such things as causality and the self and god and the good and the true. They build a tower of terminology from just a very few words. All of this increases our self-consciousness.

At some point we become conscious that our the difference twixt mind and matter, and self and other is only the difference that is put there by "it," because we can no longer say "mind" as "mind" is the concept of that unnameable source of concept.

All distinctions are finite, imposed by the mind, accidental..as opposed by essential. The essence is a negative. It can only be inferred. "Man" and "nature" are just abstractions. The "it" becomes consciousness that it is no thing, but something outside of things. And yet this thought is a thing. So there is no outside.
 
north
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 10:22 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;136789 wrote:
As we move through history, philosophers continue to argue and refine one anothers points. They debate such things as causality and the self and god and the good and the true. They build a tower of terminology from just a very few words. All of this increases our self-consciousness.


Quote:
At some point we become conscious that our the difference mind and matter, and self and other is only the difference that is put there by "it," because we can no longer say "mind" as "mind" is the concept of that unnameable source of concept.


Quote:
All distinctions are finite, imposed by the mind, accidental..as opposed by essential. The essence is a negative. It can only be inferred. "Man" and "nature" are just abstractions. The "it" becomes consciousness that it is no thing, but something outside of things. And yet this thought is a thing. So there is no outside.


yet at some point we have to become aware of the fact , that in order to think is based on the Universe , Nature

Living things evolve to the point of thought , because they can

the outside , the without , is where life has a chance to place its foot-hold and does
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 01:56 am
@north,
north;136795 wrote:
yet at some point we have to become aware of the fact , that in order to think is based on the Universe , Nature

Living things evolve to the point of thought , because they can

the outside , the without , is where life has a chance to place its foot-hold and does


It's all very strange. Yes. But the outside is actually inside, as the "outside" is one more concept imposed by "it."
 
north
 
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 09:07 pm
@Reconstructo,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
yet at some point we have to become aware of the fact , that in order to think is based on the Universe , Nature

Living things evolve to the point of thought , because they can

the outside , the without , is where life has a chance to place its foot-hold and does





Reconstructo;136818 wrote:
It's all very strange. Yes. But the outside is actually inside, as the "outside" is one more concept imposed by "it."


the without or " outside " is NOT a concept

the without is what builds us , makes us and gives us a place to exist
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 06:22 pm
@north,
north;138077 wrote:

the without or " outside " is NOT a concept

the without is what builds us , makes us and gives us a place to exist


Building, making, and giving are all actions. Actions belong to things. Things, to the extent they are even in the least wise abstract, are concepts. A general "without" with special powers is certainly abstract, if only a little. Thus, "without" is a concept. (My logic and definition of terms aren't perfect, but I trust they at least give something of an idea of my meaning. Maybe someone can improve on them.)
 
north
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 11:12 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;138450 wrote:
Building, making, and giving are all actions. Actions belong to things. Things, to the extent they are even in the least wise abstract, are concepts.


concept , is in the mind , a thought

what I'm trying to point out is the physical form that enabled you to have a mind and therefore enable you to develope , the idea of concept
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 11:43 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;133445 wrote:
This is a new thought for me that psychology and philosophy are the same thing. But you're the third voice I've heard saying it.

Philosophy can be the same thing as science and it can be a perspective on science.

It can be the same thing as religion, and it can be a perspective on religion.

When we ask what the philosophy of psychology is... answer? none? Psychology of philosophy, though... Adler was short.


...And sociologists only confirm what philosophy already knew.
 
north
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 12:14 am
@Theaetetus,
Quote:
When we ask what the philosophy of psychology is... answer? none?


to understand the emotions of the Human mind


Quote:
Psychology of philosophy, though... Adler was short.


the vocal or written expression of thinking , outward or in otherwords let it be known:D
 
pondfish
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 02:25 am
@Reconstructo,
humans are fools
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » MetaPhilosophy
  3. » Religion of Science/Science of Religion
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/23/2019 at 04:11:57