Quote:
Originally Posted by nguirado
That's an odd thing to say since all great philosophers have dealt with religion in one way or another.
I know this will start a row, but one should only take theistic philosophy seriously. Think about it: If the world is only material, then everything has a material explanation. Love, consciousness, compassion, morality, etc. are all chemical reactions that came about through adaptation. Politics, sociology? Who cares? There's no right way to live. Live the way that makes your time here happiest and try to influence your society to move in a direction that suits you. You like equality, be a socialist, You like competition, go with Rand. Morality? Nature doesn't care. It seems more productive to study science.
And, the Greek philosophers assumed a divine order. Assuming a natural law doesn't necessarily mean religious dogma either. It just means that there's a right way to think about ourselves, morality, society, etc. and a wrong way.
Again, I'm trying to be descriptive, not insulting so don't get too mad.
To keep on topic, I'm reading Aristotle's Politics.
|
I can see where you are coming from in regards to following what you believe in and how every great philosopher has dealt with religion at one time or another. The only reason I thought the content of his poetry were too religious was because he (Iqbal) openly claims in some of his verses that his religion is the only right one.
I personally believe that such a strong claim should not be made in philosophical context. True you can comment on religious ideas or lack of them but to make a claim like this is kinda a wrong. (I would like to point out that I am of the same religion as he was but still I don't believe in making such claims.)
I would like to point out that barring some of these strongly opinionated verses I really enjoy rest of his work. Like I said before, his ideas regarding self recognition are quite interesting.
It is interesting to note that he makes this claim in this book only. In his other works he tackle the religion in a more philosophical light. e.g. in one of his lectures he says that....
" religion on its doctrinal side, as defined by Professor Whitehead, is ‘a system of general truths which have the effect of transforming character when they are sincerely held and vividly apprehended’. Now, since the transformation and guidance of man’s inner and outer life is the essential aim of religion, it is obvious that the general truths which it embodies must not remain unsettled. No one would hazard action on the basis of a doubtful principle of conduct. Indeed, in view of its function, religion stands in greater need of a rational foundation of its ultimate principles than even the dogmas of science. Science may ignore a rational metaphysics; indeed, it has ignored it so far. Religion can hardly afford to ignore the search for a reconciliation of the oppositions of experience and a justification of the environment in which humanity finds itself. That is why Professor Whitehead has acutely remarked that ‘the ages of faith are the ages of rationalism’. But to rationalize faith is not to admit the superiority of philosophy over religion. Philosophy, no doubt, has jurisdiction to judge religion, but what is to be judged is of such a nature that it will not submit to the jurisdiction of philosophy except on its own terms. While sitting in judgement on religion, philosophy cannot give religion an inferior place among its data. Religion is not a departmental affair; it is neither mere thought, nor mere feeling, nor mere action; it is an expression of the whole man. Thus, in the evaluation of religion, philosophy must recognize the central position of religion and has no other alternative but to admit it as something focal in the process of reflective synthesis."
As you can see he strongly believes in religion having a strong place in human life but he also believe that philosophy has the jurisdiction to judge it.
Anyways my point in initially removing the link was because of his strongly opinionated statements regarding religion.
If you still want to read his book and I would welcome honest comments on it from those who read it. I did provide the link to it in a later post on this forum. Post no 870