| Archived - Ethics & Morality Archived threads from Ethics & Morality | 
29th January 2003, 04:37 AM
| | Regular Member
 | | Join Date: 5th June 2002
Posts: 465
Blessings: 90,784
Reps: 61 (power: 0) | | | Philosophy Somehow lately I've become more interested & astonished about.... is, than how things should be.
I'm reading philosophy.
Last edited by pace; 29th January 2003 at 04:53 AM.
| 
29th January 2003, 05:23 AM
|  | Logic + Reason = Atheist
 | | Join Date: 10th October 2002 Location: Melbourne
Posts: 967
Blessings: 85,362
Reps: 71 (power: 0) | | | Very interesting for you I'm sure pace.
Did you have an actual point of philosophy you wanted to discuss, or was this just a general announcement?
__________________ "The height of arrogance is believing that your religion is the True Religion; the height of ignorance is not realizing this arrogance" -- Davros | 
29th January 2003, 10:03 AM
|  | Veteran 31 
| | Join Date: 10th December 2002 Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,206
Blessings: 91,089 My Mood
Reps: 1,549 (power: 12) | | | pace, i recommend u read CS Lewis....u'll love it
__________________ A life in Christ is a life of restfulness. There may be no ecstasy of
feeling, but there should be an abiding, peaceful trust.
Steps to Christ, p. 70. | 
29th January 2003, 11:31 AM
| | Senior Member 40  | | Join Date: 21st November 2002 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 601
Blessings: 66,450 My Mood
Reps: 46 (power: 0) | | | Zen and the Art of Motocycle Maintaince is a good book on philosophy. I had a sucky teacher for philosophy so I never got too interested in it beyond what I could think up myself.
Scott (Quath) | 
29th January 2003, 01:15 PM
|  | Empirically Speaking
 | | Join Date: 21st September 2002
Posts: 3,296
Blessings: 63,982
Reps: 6,441 (power: 19) | | | Try David Hume.
__________________ I find it amusing, that on the one hand that although science and reason provide us with a very workable method of explaining this universe, the Christian would argue that since it cannot be proved, we should feel free to discard it. Yet we should assume that ancient authorless and dateless manuscripts somehow prove the existence of some being true as a presupposition. | 
29th January 2003, 01:28 PM
| | Regular Member
 | | Join Date: 5th June 2002
Posts: 465
Blessings: 90,784
Reps: 61 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by Sin of Man Very interesting for you I'm sure pace.
Did you have an actual point of philosophy you wanted to discuss, or was this just a general announcement?
Everything | 
29th January 2003, 01:28 PM
| | Regular Member
 | | Join Date: 5th June 2002
Posts: 465
Blessings: 90,784
Reps: 61 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by seangoh pace, i recommend u read CS Lewis....u'll love it
k, I'll check it out | 
29th January 2003, 01:32 PM
|  | Regular Member
 | | Join Date: 20th August 2002
Posts: 307
Blessings: 90,966
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | | Rather than name this or that philosopher you should read (there will be several), I will make a more general recommendation: try to get Frederick Copleston's History of Western Philosophy. If memory serves, Copleston was a Jesuit scholar, and over the course of several years he produced a massive, multi-volume work that is still highly regarded.
It's true, Copleston's history was intended for use in seminaries, but, in fairness to him, he is upfront about his biases (his deep interest in Aristotle and Aquinas is evident). He generally treats philosophers he is not particularly sympathetic to with evenhandedness and high standards of scholarship, something I can't say about some other authors I've read who tried to tackle the history of philosophy. His lengthy discussions of Plato, Aristotle and the various schools in Greece and Rome that sprung up in their wake are some of the best writings that I know of for those subjects. | 
29th January 2003, 01:57 PM
| | Regular Member
 | | Join Date: 5th June 2002
Posts: 465
Blessings: 90,784
Reps: 61 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by Humanista Try David Hume.
Actually I had in mind some sentences from him. Yes, I like him too..
David Hume (1711-1776) : " In any moral system I've so far met, I've always noticed this: The author arguments a while normally, and concludes that there is a God, or another acting in human affairs. But suddenly (later in he text) I'm supprised to find - instead of the ordinary connections of saying 'is' and 'is not' - that statements are connected to a 'should' or a 'should not'. This change has been payed little attention to, but is nonetherless utterly important. Because since this 'should' or 'should not' express one or another new relation or statement, it's necessary that one makes notice of it and explain it. And at the same time it's important that there is given a reason why something that seems so thruly incomprehensible, namely how this new relation (x should y) can be deducted from other thing that's completely different from it. But since authors don't seem to go by this carefull-rule I allow myself recomending it to the readers. And I'm convised that this little awareness will [throw coal] over all the normal moral systems, and lets face it that the distinction between the moral garbage and the valuable are neither based only on relation between (outer) objects, or understood though reason or intellect. " | 
29th January 2003, 02:09 PM
|  | Reverencing the Exalted Spirit of Man 45 
| | Join Date: 1st January 2003 Location: American resident of Sweden
Posts: 18,497
Blessings: 8,259,764 My Mood
Reps: 440,945,404,461,670,976 (power: 440,945,404,461,699) | | You could try Ayn Rand. I also find the philosophies of the ancient Greeks to be fascinating.
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode | | | |