Philosophy and faith

[Coolydudey]

When were they separated? I think it was actually a good idea though, spare perhaps a bad start for the philosophy forum...

EDIT: ok, cavalier did it.

Shouldn't a more aggressive moving of topics take place though?

 

[Coolydudey]

Also perhaps it should be: Faith and spiritual discussions?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Also perhaps it should be: Faith and spiritual discussions?

I think this is a good idea. It might be implied, but it'd be nice to have it official. Faith & Spirituality.

 

[Coolydudey]

I think this is a good idea. It might be implied, but it'd be nice to have it official. Faith & Spirituality.

Yes, that is the best way of putting it.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Can we just divide them into "Philosophy" and "Theology," assuming the latter encompasses both faith and spirituality, and in accordance with this: http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=346797&postcount=21

 

[MissQuote]

I think this is a good idea. It might be implied, but it'd be nice to have it official. Faith & Spirituality.

I approve.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Can we just divide them into "Philosophy" and "Theology," assuming the latter encompasses both faith and spirituality, and in accordance with this: http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=346797&postcount=21

Spirituality rightfully fits under philosophy as metaphysics, making a split between theology(answers) and philosophy(questions) is too limiting.

Faith & spirituality is fine.

 

[walfin]

Meaningless, meaningless, everything is meaningless. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Cavallier]

I've divided up the subforum to be "Philosophy" and "Faith and Spirituality". I've created an archive for anything too old and really more for reasons of my own sanity. Otherwise I've divided out the threads a bit. Not an easy undertaking might I add. I've read close to 30 long and involved threads today in an attempt to sort them all out.

I am done now and going to bed.

 

[Da Blob]

This has been done before, it did not work before. Perhaps because few are really interested in pure philosophy, except to use it in philosophy versus faith discussions and even then they pull up obsolete philosophies of prior centuries to justify their POVs.

I happen to advocate a modern philosophy, that of Constructionalism, whereas I have rarely seen any philosophy more recent than the now discounted Logical Postivism of the 1920s, referred to any thread.

 

[Coolydudey]

The "and" should be changed to the symbol so as to be consistent with the other subforums
Here you go (for copy-paste): &

 

[Cavallier]

Ack. Fixed.

WHY ARE YOU NEVER HAPPY?!?!?!

 

[loveofreason]

This has been done before, it did not work before. Perhaps because few are really interested in pure philosophy, except to use it in philosophy versus faith discussions and even then they pull up obsolete philosophies of prior centuries to justify their POVs.

Because only humans born after 1999 have the capacity for intelligent, critical thinking, right? Thank god we don't have to take any those silly old books or the philosophies of archaic characters from myth seriously.


A public thanks @Cavallier, for undertaking such a mammoth task. Now folks - use your opportunities well!

 

[BigApplePi]

I am happy for the nonce. Does that (<--) go under Philosophy or Faith & Spirituality?

I hope and trust this act of segregation precedent doesn't result in

"MBTI & Typology" being separated into "MBTI" & "Typology."

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I appreciate the recent changes, Cavallier.

I hope and trust this act of segregation precedent doesn't result in

"MBTI & Typology" being separated into "MBTI" & "Typology."

As much interest as I have for typology outside MBTI, I guess it still seems too indulgent to have separate sections. I have some Socionics resources I'd like to offer but not enough people seem to care that much about typology. I think there's barely enough active interest even for MBTI theory.

 

[BigApplePi]

I appreciate the recent changes, Cavallier.


As much interest as I have for typology outside MBTI, I guess it still seems too indulgent to have separate sections. I have some Socionics resources I'd like to offer but not enough people seem to care that much about typology. I think there's barely enough active interest even for MBTI theory.

@EyeSeeCold. I'm game. Feel free to post any Socionics you like. If you label it as such, one can identify.

I went to a Socionics and MBTI meeting last nite. Seven attendees. None could say anything about Socionics. There was one INTP (female) and I immediately took a liking to her. She observed she didn't seem to fit the stereotype for INTP females as she was very well groomed and pretty to boot. The others were of varied types, all N's, one E, two INTJ's. I quickly got confused with people talking, unable to analyze much about types. The ENFP was the most different though. One guy, an INFP claimed to be able to try to type people by looking at them. I completely forgot to mention Pod'Lair. He was studying for his PhD in psychology.

 

[Coolydudey]

Ack. Fixed.

WHY ARE YOU NEVER HAPPY?!?!?!

I'm rarely happy in the conventional sense, though I often feel content.

As for the "and", well, it just looked horribly out of place, you know...