Guest guest Posted July 13, 2003 Report Share Posted July 13, 2003 Hi Ramji, (On the thread: Re:What is the difference between Brahman and Sunya?) you said "Philosophy by definition is an enquiry into the nature of things based on logical reasoning rather than an investigation by empirical methods." Not sure I quite agree with this, to be pedantic. Philosophy is simply 'love of wisdom' according to the Greek. Whatever means we may use to arrive at the truth must be valid. I don't think that the likes of Locke and many subsequent acknowledged philosophers would agree with your statement either. Descartes would have done so but Empiricism became dominant for several centuries thereafter, I think. Also do not classic Advaita and Shankara tell us that we should validate what the scriptures tell us 'through our own experience'? In fact, is it not reasonable that empirical methods come first, are subjected to examination in the light of reason and then we look again at the experience in terms of our new understanding? Without seeing how things appear to be, we cannot have the substance for rationalisation, can we? Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2003 Report Share Posted July 13, 2003 Namaste: Thanks for phislophying your disagreement on the stated definition of philosophy. The American Heritage Dictionary provides the following alternate Definitions. Yes, I agree, that there is no unique way to define what philosophy is? This gives even stronger reason why we can't conclude that two philsophies are equal because the suggested end appears similar! regards, Ram Chandran 1. a. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self- discipline. b. The investigation of causes and laws underlying reality. c. A system of philosophical inquiry or demonstration. 2. Inquiry into the nature of things based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. 3. The critique and analysis of fundamental beliefs as they come to be conceptualized and formulated. 4. The synthesis of all learning. 5. All learning except technical precepts and practical arts. 6. All the disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology. 7. The science comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. 8. A system of motivating concepts or principles: the philosophy of a culture. 9. A basic theory; a viewpoint: an original philosophy of advertising. 10. The system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote: > Hi Ramji, > > (On the thread: Re:What is the difference between Brahman and Sunya?) you > said "Philosophy by definition is an enquiry into the nature of things based > on logical reasoning rather than an investigation by empirical methods." > > Not sure I quite agree with this, to be pedantic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2003 Report Share Posted July 14, 2003 Most of Universities give after masters, the degree, Ph.D. - a doctrate in philosophy - irrespective what field he studies - engineering to arts to sciences to humanities. It looks like The Philosophy encampases everything we do or we think. Hari OM! Sadananda --- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: > Hi Ramji, > > (On the thread: Re:What is the difference between Brahman and Sunya?) > you > said "Philosophy by definition is an enquiry into the nature of things > based > on logical reasoning rather than an investigation by empirical > methods." > > Not sure I quite agree with this, to be pedantic. Philosophy is simply > 'love > of wisdom' according to the Greek. Whatever means we may use to arrive > at > the truth must be valid. I don't think that the likes of Locke and > many > subsequent acknowledged philosophers would agree with your statement > either. > Descartes would have done so but Empiricism became dominant for > several > centuries thereafter, I think. > > Also do not classic Advaita and Shankara tell us that we should > validate > what the scriptures tell us 'through our own experience'? In fact, is > it not > reasonable that empirical methods come first, are subjected to > examination > in the light of reason and then we look again at the experience in > terms of > our new understanding? Without seeing how things appear to be, we > cannot > have the substance for rationalisation, can we? > > Best wishes, > > Dennis > > > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.