The Philosophers' Creed

[WisdomTree]

Based off the Nicene Creed, I decided to make this for fun.

Well here it goes:

The Philosophers' Creed

I believe in wisdom, the attribute of all things intelligent whether it is from experience or reason.

And in knowledge, which proceeds from wisdom as it is gained from the truth with justification of that truth.

I also believe in the one absolute truth with different perspectives, which is scattered amongst the information in this universe.

I acknowledge that it is this love of wisdom, or philosophy, that is the foundation for all things academic; especially art, science, and mathematics, and it is the prime factor on why we think.

Because of this I shall practice what I believe and confess to completely love wisdom, where I shall aquire unbiased knowledge and discover the truth so that I will have enough intellect to guide all the descendents of philosophy with the goal of sharing the gifts of this fruit to all the world.



What do you all think?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Aside from some small quibbles, that's not bad.

I like the prayer offered by Plato with his Socrates sock puppet:


Beloved Pan, and all ye other gods who haunt this place, give me beauty in the inward soul; and may the outward and inward man be at one.



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WisdomTree]

Aside from some small quibbles, that's not bad.

I like the prayer offered by Plato with his Socrates sock puppet:


Beloved Pan, and all ye other gods who haunt this place, give me beauty in the inward soul; and may the outward and inward man be at one.



eudaimonia,

Mark

What's a quibble?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What's a quibble?

Has that word gone out of style? Or maybe it's not often used Down Under?

A quibble is a tiny objection or criticism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WisdomTree]

Has that word gone out of style? Or maybe it's not often used Down Under?

A quibble is a tiny objection or criticism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Okay, I see. Which part of the Creed do you find objectionable?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Okay, I see. Which part of the Creed do you find objectionable?

The one thing that leaped out at me has to do with this line:

I also believe in the one absolute truth with different perspectives, which is scattered amongst the information in this universe.

Maybe I'm misreading this sentence, but I would prefer to say that there is one reality that grounds the truths that see from many different perspectives.

Perhaps you use "truth" as a synonym for "reality", but it sounds like you are saying that truths hide inside of information that is distributed around the universe. That commits philosophers to quite an unusual position in philosophy. I think that most philosophers would say that there are many observations one can make in the universe, but information and truths don't hide inside of those observations, rather, our minds are capable of generating those truths and information through rational activity.

I realize that some people, such as Deepak Chopra, think of "information" as existing within the universe, but this is actually an oddball view.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WisdomTree]

The one thing that leaped out at me has to do with this line:

I also believe in the one absolute truth with different perspectives, which is scattered amongst the information in this universe.

Maybe I'm misreading this sentence, but I would prefer to say that there is one reality that grounds the truths that see from many different perspectives.

Perhaps you use "truth" as a synonym for "reality", but it sounds like you are saying that truths hide inside of information that is distributed around the universe. That commits philosophers to quite an unusual position in philosophy. I think that most philosophers would say that there are many observations one can make in the universe, but information and truths don't hide inside of those observations, rather, our minds are capable of generating those truths and information through rational activity.

I realize that some people, such as Deepak Chopra, think of "information" as existing within the universe, but this is actually an oddball view.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I see what you mean and I can understand how the wording can be quite trippy. That was not my intent, but it was rather a refutation (by that I mean just plain denial) of post-modernism.

Not reality, but truth in terms of epistemology using the traditional JTB model where truth is a precondition to knowledge. To be honest, I didn't know how to word this part hence the weird result.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I see what you mean and I can understand how the wording can be quite trippy. That was not my intent, but it was rather a refutation (by that I mean just plain denial) of post-modernism.

Not reality, but truth in terms of epistemology using the traditional JTB model where truth is a precondition to knowledge. To be honest, I didn't know how to word this part hence the weird result.

Yes, but it's still a good effort.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WisdomTree]

Yes, but it's still a good effort.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Do you think that sentence makes more sense if the whole creed is about the pursuit of knowledge and the love of wisdom?

Also, thanks for the compliment.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do you think that sentence makes more sense if the whole creed is about the pursuit of knowledge and the love of wisdom?

Yes, that part is fine.

Philosophy is by definition the love of wisdom, and I don't see how the pursuit of knowledge aspect takes away from the philosophical enterprise. After all, wisdom helps one to see the world in a particular way with known justifications, and that presumably may affect our knowledge of the world.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

I think its a fine effort; anchoring on the love of wisdom was definitely a wise, thoughtful move.

I just wonder that there has to be a creed for philosophy in general; wouldn't it make more sense to have a bunch of creeds for different philosophies? I don't know, what's your take on that?

I whole-heartedly agree there is a problem with post-modernism, some of the ugliest most detestable creations of art have come out of post-modernism and it should irk anyone with taste at all that they pat themselves on the back about that

Distributing truth among various points certainly addresses the problem of subjectivity, too, so I have to commend you on that

You couldn't include something about compassion, at all? I think philosophy really pivots on compassion and if you are going to create a creed, talking about compassion would define a plumb-line for valid and invalid philosophy

Overall, a great effort, I took some time thinking about it, so I am not just patting you on the back, it actually has weight

 

[Eudaimonist]

You couldn't include something about compassion, at all? I think philosophy really pivots on compassion and if you are going to create a creed, talking about compassion would define a plumb-line for valid and invalid philosophy

Philosophy isn't about compassion in any primary sense and shouldn't "pivot" on that. There's nothing about a focus on compassion that makes a philosophy valid or invalid.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Philosophy isn't about compassion in any primary sense and shouldn't "pivot" on that. There's nothing about a focus on compassion that makes a philosophy valid or invalid.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't think you're right, even as a technicality. If you are going to call Philosophy the love of Wisdom, you should realize that Compassion is one of the pillars of Wisdom. Actually it is the central pillar, so discussing one without the other basically achieves nothing.

And it is a feature of philosophy that someone believes it, so in a sense that is compassion at the very root. If all you want is more and more people to believe it, that is growing compassion. If you want to keep it from being damaged by people who don't believe it, that is protective compassion. It might not be the driving force behind the details of the philosophy, but it is fundmentally behind the formation of it as a human discourse.

Why do you think people love philosophy? You don't think it's for the arguments between philosophies, do you?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't think you're right, even as a technicality. If you are going to call Philosophy the love of Wisdom, you should realize that Compassion is one of the pillars of Wisdom. Actually it is the central pillar, so discussing one without the other basically achieves nothing.

Compassion is NOT one of the pillars of Wisdom. That's just silly. You are confusing religion with philosophy, and you are making your own preferences in just one branch of philosophy (ethics) central to philosophy itself (which includes such issues as epistemology and metaphysics).

Why do you think people love philosophy? You don't think it's for the arguments between philosophies, do you?

In large part, it is.

And I know why I also love philosophy, and it is because of my curiosity about life and the universe, along with a desire to flourish. Compassion is a good thing, but it is a minor issue. It was minor for the Greek and Roman philosophers as well, including seminal philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Zeno of Citium. The four cardinal virtues of the classical world are prudence, temperance (sophrosyne), fortitude, and justice. Compassion doesn't even rank as one of their cardinal virtues.

The reason you give centrality to compassion is because Christianity does. It's a religious bias.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WisdomTree]

I think its a fine effort; anchoring on the love of wisdom was definitely a wise, thoughtful move.

I just wonder that there has to be a creed for philosophy in general; wouldn't it make more sense to have a bunch of creeds for different philosophies? I don't know, what's your take on that?

I whole-heartedly agree there is a problem with post-modernism, some of the ugliest most detestable creations of art have come out of post-modernism and it should irk anyone with taste at all that they pat themselves on the back about that

Distributing truth among various points certainly addresses the problem of subjectivity, too, so I have to commend you on that

You couldn't include something about compassion, at all? I think philosophy really pivots on compassion and if you are going to create a creed, talking about compassion would define a plumb-line for valid and invalid philosophy

Overall, a great effort, I took some time thinking about it, so I am not just patting you on the back, it actually has weight

Do you mean have different creeds for different philosophical schools of thoughts or different brances of philosophy?