From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Beginnings[edit source]

I've been wanting to explore this idea for a long time. I'm encouraging other users to come and create content here, and share their own ideas. The Jade Knight 07:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so this is the study of normative politics? history? pychology? philosophy? To me what is SO confusing about social science (as a whole) is its vague boundaries. to study any of those four topics is to understand something about each of the others.--Jolie 19:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the whole point of Relosophy—it assumes bleed. Relosophy is thus the study of human belief and thought, and may be considered an "interdisciplinary" field. One of the most "core" elements of Relosophy is the study of the border between philosophy and religion, which are, in essence, the same thing, but are generally approached differently and given a (somewhat) artificial distinction. Does this answer your question? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well its interesting... I had missed the distinction that this discipline is far more centered upon philosophy and theology than other fields of social science. I am curious about this subject, but a little hesitant. The tools an acedemic uses in philosophy is far different than the means I use to get a religious answer. This difference in tools and approach seems a divide between the two subjects.
If in a class, assuming one comes about, this divide is acceptable and understood, there is no problem study relosopy. In fact, I consider it a misconception of some to consider faith defined as a unswerving belief in something no matter the evidence. Faith is, for me, and in my faith.. belief in things not seen which are true. You know they are true because you have used the right process to prove them.
You are active and participating.. but there doesn't seem to be too many people around. Will you wait for other participants? Are you looking for a teacher with some expertise? I do not have any expertise in philosophy but would be interested in this subject. I have read some plato. (smile). If you are waiting, can we talk in another forum and somehow explore this topic in a little more detail?--Jolie 14:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it from your reference to Hebrews 11:1 that you are Christian. "You know they are true because you have used the right process to prove them." —but isn't this the exact same thing that a philosopher would say of the truths they have discovered? The idea to realize is that people come to religious knowledge through a combination of reasoning and experience (perhaps experimentation). If someone prays and receives an answer, that is a methodological way of coming to a greater truth, though it may be a difficult one to replicate. If someone reasons about the state of the world and comes to the conclusion that there must be a God (or that there must not be a God), this is also a methodological way of coming to a greater truth. Faith, when it is not totally blind (and the suggestion in Hebrews 11:1 is that faith cannot be blind), can be one of many "tools" used to develop relosophical understanding—there are indeed many. To some religions (like many branches of Christianity), faith is very important. To others (such as Buddhism), faith in this same sense may play only a secondary role, if any role at all. It's a wonderful question to explore.
Now, there are not many participants at the moment, indeed (just you and me)! I have been busy with other projects on Wikiversity, and have been working on these things while biding my time with this project. I figured that if someone showed an interest here, I could shift gears. I do not expect to find any teacher with expertise in Relosophy; it is, as far as I am aware, a very new field. But if you are interested in discussing this subject and exploring this topic with me, I am more than willing to change tack a little and spend more time on it. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 17:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. Yes, I see you are a busy man! I am game to exploring the field, a little --Jolie 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking; perhaps you could start with a 'sampler' course. perhaps a few different issues, comparing and contrasting texts from each of these disciplines. With a topic in hand and readings from relevenant literature. This would enlighten participants greatly about what kinds of issues skirt the division beween religion and philosophy.
If you don't have to worry about being extremely concise, fundemental or rigorous, this should make it easier to be an instructor and intriguing and enjoyable for me; as I am unquestionable unknowledgeable about some of this (particularly philosophy). --Jolie 16:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. I will stew on this. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 17:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I'm shooting down your idea. I hope for your sake that I'm wrong. But it seems entirely unnecessary to me. I think Philosophy is the most fundamental in thought analysis as you can get, and anything else is just a reiteration of the same goal. Nobody can read every book ever written or every thought ever made. That's the point of classifying a subject between human thougths. Religion and Philosophy are two very separate things for very good reason. Religions seeks to fundamentally insist on several commands or claims. Philosophy, if there is one thing most fundamental at all, is to question all beliefs through dialectic. There are religious studies. But any analysis of a religion (without being a part of the religion itself) is to question its commands or to add critique. aka, "Philosophize" it. I do not however think that you are without a useful pursuit here. Perhaps you seek to bridge some gaps in philosophical analysis of religion. I just think it would go to better use under the category of philosophy rather than seek to create an entirely new identity for your approach. -Gaiaguerrilla (The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) )
What category of philosophy would be free to explore these relationships without being restricted in some unnecessary fashion? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

references for defintion?[edit source]

Please provide references: perhaps by making a [Wiktionary] or even [Wikipedia] entry. Philosophy has always aimed to study everything, so I am not sure why you made this page: there is little relosophy info on the 'net. It sounds interesting, but did you find out about it from a teacher or book?--Dchmelik 01:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is quite certainly original research. There was a discussion group (online) many years ago that forked away from the Langmaker project to discussion Relosophy. While modern philosophy purports to study everything, today philosophy has become so estranged from religion (and especially from theology) that it was felt a more generic term was needed (and this is particularly true when referring to people's "relosophies"). Thus Relosophy was born—the concept and term are not my own ideas, BTW, but I find them useful. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! (whether O.R. is allowed here or not.) I would like to know the etymology though. Is it not mainly implying religion, is it? I said what I did mainly because I like Perennial Philosophy, which may be a 1600s term but is an ancient idea that has always had religion as one of the highest--maybe highest--topic in Philosophy: sort of as a synonym for Philosophy, because of course Pythagoras, Socrates & Plato, Plotinus, etc., were religious indeed. Western Philosophy soon after Plotinus is mostly dry--except at least by the time of Madame Blavatsky. She also sort of coined a term 'Theosophy,' though it is Greek-based and beforehand it was lowercase. Then Steiner made 'Anthroposophy' and others made other sophos. It is alright, but it is sort of 'out of hand:' the ideas are more important than just making up a new name unless it is useful. Another ancient term is 'Philaletheian:' 'aleitheia' is truth. Between that term and 'Philosophy' and the perennial ideas, I rarely need any other similar terms... except academia, science, religion, gnosticism (and agnosticism because math proves some of its own ideas unknowable,) mysticism, esoterism, pneumatology & theology & monadology & logic, psychology, nous studies, phrenology, biology (the latter 8 are all Greek-derived and highly related,) spirituality, arcaneness, magic (and math--an old euphemism for it,) literature (another Logos-based term,) mythology, mythography, etc..
I am not worried about whether the term is relevant, but I hope its ideas are original and in fact revolutionary--then it will be relevant to me... well, even if it has enough original stuff that is reasonable and fascinating.--Dchmelik 09:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relosophy and Science[edit source]

Something worth exploring: Many of the major branches of Science today began as branches of Philosophy. As Philosophy is designed to incorporate all human knowledge, and Relosophy is designed to incorporate Philosophy, Relosophy, indirectly, also endeavors to incorporate all human knowledge. However, the relationship between Philosophy and Science is complicated, and the relationship between Relosophy and Science much more so. The implications of this relationship are definitely worth discussion and exploration, however. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 00:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly... and Philosophy can easily incorporate Relosophy. To me, Philosophy may only need some of the strange social ideas in Republic, but to me Philosophy needs Pythagorean ethics and, personally, as much as possible and of the culture and religion of the ancient Philosophers. However, as I said there are both philosophers and philaletheians: synonyms. It is said Blavatsky originally had another idea for her society than 'Theosophy,' but she implied it combines 'science, religion, and Philosophy.' Because she may have wanted another name, I just incorporate it all into Philosophy as is traditional, and I do so with anthroposophy and will probably with relosophy... if their ideas are perennial (ideal, whether forgotten and re-discovered or still known in society for a long time or newly discovered such as in concrete science.) That is not to say I doubt relosophy has any ideas of value--it is just that esoteric philosophy and abstract reasoning, mentation (including 'intellectual' control of the body) are other synonyms to me, and I must do (abstract) reasoning to do relosophy, right? I wonder if my comments have been useful... but I would like to read the author or original source of relosophy... I should re-read the page and try to find that discussion you mentioned.--Dchmelik 10:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure if archives of the Relosophy group still exist anywhere. I probably have some of the emails from the group archived somewhere. While I agree that, in theory, Philosophy should include all that is intended by "Relosophy", in usage it currently does not. One advantage to Relosophy in usage is that its meaning is immediately evident to modern English speakers, where Philaletheia and Mentation are not. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 08:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unnamed science of nous (mind) studies[edit source]

The 'Do you have thoughts...' link led back to here. In my list of Greek-derived sciences from pneumatology to biology (meaning studies of life consciousness, not somatology, i.e. exoteric study of the body) I mentioned 'nous studies.' Some call this 'noology,' but it is not in the OED or M-W and maybe not even However, that is what study of the mind is. Psychology, i.e. study of the soul, can either be the study of 'the 7 souls' (etc.) or an arbitrary one of these that is the vehicle of spirit and is between that and mind. If you capitalized 'mind' you would have a better definition of relosophy because nous can be capitalized and then it means all of higher consciousness. Is not consciousness a more accurate description of what relosophy is about? Of course in Classical Philosophy (or study of it) intelligence, consciousness, reason, ego, spirit, soul, mind can be synonyms, though reason and spirit also have distinct definitions. Sometimes they do not, and Classically the rest do less so though they may also have many definitions. BTW 'ego' also translate as 'monad,' but 'Monad' (capitalized) means something else.--Dchmelik 10:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a similarity here with Classical Philosophy. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relosophy[edit source]

Every serious study at one time was classed under philosophy. Around 1800 science became natural philosophy, which then became individual sciences. As Captain Obvious would say, everything can be related to everything else at some level in some way. Before we go and invent a new discipline, we should explore whether or not Relosophy actually can be classified within an existing discipline. Certain beliefs do tend to be held together, such as conservatism, religious piety, a belief in capitalism, and a certain belief in science. This was not always so. Even today an Objectivist will not believe in conservatism or religion, yet cannot be classified as a liberal, leftist, or someone who engages in physical protests. How are these disparate clusters of beliefs going to be named?

A science fiction and non-fiction author, Jerry Pournelle, came up with a 2-variable system for describing political-economic beliefs, instead of a left-right spectrum as part of a PhD dissertation. Perhaps his research would be helpful.

And that is my contribution to date. 01-06-2016 --AgentCachet (discusscontribs) 03:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]