Top 5 most damaging philosophies?

[Didymos Thomas]

I agree that extremism is a danger, but I feel that philosophy has the potential to be widely accepted and damaging simultaniously. Obviously philosophy in itself is not damaging but the affect of them are. I'm thinking of the Aztec philosophy that required human sacrifice as one example. It may seem extreme to us now but I doubt that it seemed extreme to them at the time.

I have to agree with Aedes' here; philosophy is more a product of the times than the times are a product of philosophy.

But let's take your example of Aztec sacrificial killings. This 'philosophy' that humans must be sacrificed to appeased the Gods is still immensely popular around the world in the form of Christianity, where one man is sacrificed for everyone's sins. The theory is essentially the same, the Aztecs were simply more extreme.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

But let's take your example of Aztec sacrificial killings. This 'philosophy' that humans must be sacrificed to appeased the Gods is still immensely popular around the world in the form of Christianity, where one man is sacrificed for everyone's sins. The theory is essentially the same, the Aztecs were simply more extreme.

I wouldn't apply the word philosophy to either example. Philosophy can occur within the framework of certain religions, as often happens with eastern philosophy, but that doesn't make religious rites and beliefs philosophy unto itself.

[Didymos Thomas]

I wouldn't apply the word philosophy to either example. Philosophy can occur within the framework of certain religions, as often happens with eastern philosophy, but that doesn't make religious rites and beliefs philosophy unto itself.

Neither would I, which is why I used the quotations. Then again, a lot of so called philosophies on these lists are not exactly what I would call philosophies. But, for the purposes of this thread, the word philosophy has been given a broader meaning, and I wanted to carry out the example.

[ogden]

How is it that we can say religious beliefs are not a philosophy and then celibrate Augustine and Aquinas as philosophers? Is nuclear proliferation a philosophy? Maybe not in the most pure sense, but I would have to say it is a philosophy. Almost any train of reason could be considered a philosophy--or that is what I thought.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by ogden

How is it that we can say religious beliefs are not a philosophy and then celibrate Augustine and Aquinas as philosophers?

They weren't philosophers, they were theologians. But they're celebrated as philosophers for two important reasons. Number 1, and particularly for Aquinas, he (and Scholasticism in general, as well as its earlier counterparts in Islam and Judaism with Avicenna, Maimonides, and others), represent a rediscovery of classical rational philosophy. They were pioneers in incorporating classical philosophy into their own time and place. Sure, the output was theology, but this was one of the earliest seeds of what became modern thought. Secondly, if you did not count Augustine and Aquinas, you would have no one to study in the ~1200 years between Plotinus and Descartes, so why not?

[saiboimushi]

This raises a fundamental question: what is philosophy?

Or to put it another way, What are the specific qualities that differentiate supposed non-philosophies (e.g., Naziism, Aztec sun worship, and Christianity) from real or true philosophy?

But also, I'm interested in validating, or at least articulating, a criteron by which one can determine whether a given belief-system is harmful. What do you guys suppose a possible criterion might be? We can say that a given system is harmful, but what do we mean when we say that? And how can we know that we are right?

[GoshisDead]

Doesn't this discussion stray far away from the intent of the original post? I think this would be a good thread all on its own.

[ronsher_gangwar]

Originally Posted by Play_Dough

1) Capitalism (self evident as to why)
2) Christianity, as taught to the masses (God as an 'external only' phenomenon)
3) Democracy that 'sees' corporations as a 'legal person'.
4) Pre-determinism without free will (avoidance of responsibility for one's actions)
5) Trying to get answers for test questions on the internet.

.

hey hi! i'm ronsher... i don't understand what made you believe that there are five damaging philosophies... what i think is that most damaging to human civilisation is the philosophy of survival, a survival safeguarded by four walls on sides and a roof to hide.... rest is all outcome, may i ask you to ponder into the depths i tried take you to by putting forward this notion.....

[Doobah47]

I'd say that belief in the possibility of 'truth' is the most damaging philosophy.

There is no such thing, there never will be, and just look howmany people have died in wars governed by those claiming 'truth'! For example; 'bin Laden did the deed' hence blow up afgahnistan and iraq, impose a stupidious democracy of warlords and muppets and dem0nise a religion. hmmmm....

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Doobah47

I'd say that belief in the possibility of 'truth' is the most damaging philosophy.

Ok, you've given one example, though it's hard to say that this results from a 'philosophy of truth' per se, as opposed to just premature closure on an evidence-based epistemology.