Imperial_Samura
Anticrust Smurf
Originally posted by Regret
I am not stating that a religious leader is a philosopher or that a philosopher is a religious leader, such is absurd.
You said "... hold that Christ, and other religious leaders, were philosophers."So if you aren't saying a religious leader is a philosopher what are youy saying by stating "I believe Jesus was a philosopher amongst other things."
Manner of approach is irrelevant. A philosopher is only describing and defining manners, or a manner, of approach to the ansering of questions.
No, manner of approach is important, since it is part of what defines a philosopher as a philosopher. Go back and look at your little defintion and note the sections that deal with how a philosopher operates (their method as it were) and compare it with religion or theology. Manner of approach is highly relevant in terms of definition here, as the manner of approach is the first step in coming to the over all philosophy or religious claim.
Source is absolutely irrelevant to the philosopher. Philosophy often describes and defines the pattern that is followed to achieve a solution, to allow for prediction of future decisions as well as prescribing methods of reasoning to reach that decision that are considered wise.
Oh? The fact a philosophers source might be a past philosophers works or their concept of the human mind is irrelevant. I guess you consider the source of a religious leaders theories (say the Bible or the Prophet or a God) equally irrelevant? I suggest you look into the religion vs. philosophy debate and you will see the source from which the definition, the descriptor is derived is highly relevant to defining a philosopher and a religious figure.
Philosophers have varying views on humanity, and many did approach the religious view in their writings.
Correct, but in a way that set them apart of your average "the gods did this. Worship the gods" kind of world view. Many philosophers have more in common with political scientists or sociologists then a priest, in the early days many philosophical works were arguements against gods in favor of humanity.
A religious leader can also be a philosopher and a philosopher can also be a religious leader, they are not exclusionary.
Correct, but not both at the same time. Jesus did not have a philosophy life and a religious life. He preached a religion. His source was claimed to be God. They are not interchangeable. If he had presented a philosophy based upon his religion it would be justified. Or if he, like a guru, built a religion from a philosophy - but that wasn't the case. Jesus was a religious figure. Ultimately all you have done is reaffirmed what I said - there are valid similarities between a philosopher and a theology. However the difference are sufficient to overcome the similarities.
A religious figure cane be a philosopher as long as the necessary criteria are met in the philosophical thought. Jesus preached a religion. Jesus preached a religious approach to life, and gave religious reasons to live it. Philosophical similarities, but the differences are still there to classify him first as a religious figure, not a philosopher (remembering as well the numerous Christian texts in the middle ages that spoke out against philosophy in favor of religion.)
I am not stating that a religious leader is a philosopher or that a philosopher is a religious leader, such is absurd. Lao Tsu, Siddhârtha Gautama, Jesus, among other religious leaders can be considered philosophers as well as religious leaders, although I would hesitate to consider Lao Tsu anything of a religious leader and only a philosopher.
As above - we were dealing with Jesus, but we can expand. Certain religions are far more philosophical in nature and the religious aspect far more balanced. Buddhism is approached by many as a philosophy rather then a religion. It is very balanced. Christianity on the other hand - is it Christianity is one strips away the divine aspect? Simple question - if you remove Jesus is it still Christianity? Or is it merely a philosophy of nonaggression like numerous other philosophies? Because Buddhism can maintain its tenants even removed of the divine aspect - Christianity can't, nor can Islam.
You can argue that a religious figure can also be a philosopher. However you can't claim they can be both at the same time if aspects necessary for definition aren't present. Since Jesus presented works of a solely religious basis derived from a religious mindset and outlook his qualification as a "philosopher" is very shaky.
Many paramedics I know are also firefighters, and vice versa.
Australian bias (that is I am working with Australian ones) - they undergo similar training but diverge - a paramedic is a paramedic, a fire man a fireman. Both have the designator "emergency worker" but the difference essentially stop them being interchangeable. One is not the other. However one can be both (two jobs) but not at the same time (since there is no paramam or firemedic) - however they can use the skills from one in the other. There are religious leaders who are also philosophers, but that is still two different disciplines held by a single person, just like the emergency worker example. Was Jesus a philosopher because he presented the Christian doctrine however? No. The Bible is not a philosophical text, it is a religious one. And since the Bible is our source on Jesus and his teachings Jesus is locked in as a religious figure, not a philosophical one, and definitely not philosopher and religious figure.
The two terms are not exclusionary. I never claimed either were first or second. No matter the claims, regardless of truth of such claims, regardless of main title, regardless of belief in the individual, philosophy is philosopyI am not stating that a religious leader is a philosopher or that a philosopher is a religious leader, such is absurd. They are not interchangeable, but they are not exclusionary. Philosophy has nothing to do with scholarship, philosophy is philosophy.
They are exclusionary if the only teaching from an individual is religious in nature. I believe we are on the same path with the "a person can be a religious figure and a philosopher" - I know professors with doctorates in both philosophy and theology.
However they are rarely if ever both at the same time. And a religious figure, just because of the superficial similarities between a philosophical theory of life and a religious one, is not automatically classifiable as also a philosopher. The argument that Jesus is also a philosopher lacks grounding or justification as the teaching he presented (as per mainstream Christianity) lock him into the role of religious figure, and there is nothing to indicate he deserves the co-title of "Philosopher" - he delivered nothing to the world that would justify the title "philosopher", Christianity can not be broken down to pure philosophy because of the defining theological aspects that insure the Bible and Jesus's teachings remain religious in nature.
So it is correct to say "A religious figure could also operate as a philosopher" but not correct to say " religious figure presents a religious theory of life and thus is also a philosopher." A philosopher requires criteria to be met to qualify as a philosopher, just as a religious figure requires criteria to be a religious figure. Some religious figures were philosophers as well, but not all.