From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 11:16:23 GMT
Hi David,
DMB said
> The word I'd use "to describe the intellectual evaluation of
> systems of value" or just about anything else is "PHILOSOPHY". You can
call
> that theology if you like, but I think that is extremely misleading and
> confusing.
Okey dokey, a few more questions, then I think we might - *might!!* - be
able to get some common ground.
1. Do you think theology has to be about God? (In other words, there is no
such thing as Buddhist theology, because Buddhism doesn't talk about God?)
2. If so, where would you put the language of Buddhist teachings; at what
level?
3. How do you distinguish Buddhist thought from Christian thought (aside
from the blatantly obvious)?
4. Is it your view that theology is inevitably and irrevocably social level
thinking?
5. Do you think there exists something which can legitimately be called
'Christian philosophy' (eg Aquinas) which operates at the fourth level?
6. Can you justify your comment "philosophically speaking, these notions
have no meaning", referring to traditional Christian language? (Are you a
logical positivist in disguise?) In other words, what are your criteria for
philosophical meaning?
7. Is it possible to be committed to any substantive values while operating
at the philosophical (ie 4th) level? In other words, is there something
philosophically legitimate about embracing a particular intellectual
conception, whether it be Stoic, Wittgensteinian, Kantian, Modernist,
Rortian, Epicurean, whatever?
8. If so, how are those philosophical positions distinguished from religious
ones (Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh et al)?
9. What criteria are available for distinguishing between alternative
philosophical conceptions, eg systems of metaphysics?
10. Do you have a hierarchy of philosophical disciplines (eg relating
epistemology, logic, metaphysics, aesthetics etc)?
That'll do for now :o)
~~~
DMB said: "a rejection of the seperation of church and state, has dominated
the conservative "intellectuals" since world war two. I suppose this offers
little consolation, but I was thinking of guys like Scalia, Buckley and
Bozell."
I'm exploring the issues here at the moment, so my views might change
following an examination of evidence and argument, but my basic position is
an acceptance of the church/state division, for straightforward Christian
(and Lockean) reasons. Just so you know!
Sam
"Bush's speechwriters may be able to help him talk the talk, but does he
kneel the kneel?" (Alex Pennell)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 09 2003 - 19:28:11 GMT