u/MartinJanello

Philosophy is the pursuit of rational knowledge. Religion is the dogmatic organization of belief. The two are diametrically opposed.

So why is it that religion is still widely accepted as being part of philosophy? I am not talking about Philosophy of Religion, i.e. the phenomenological study of religions and related topics. My beef is with including religion as a legitimate way of pursuing philosophy. Why is this still allowed? Heck, they even let religious institutions award degrees in Philosophy!

This is all the more surprising because in the western word, religion has for about two millennia been the sworn enemy of rational inquiry. It relentlessly persecuted actual philosophy and systematically sought to impersonate and replace it.

Why has academic philosophy not kicked out this chronic abuser once it became free to choose?

All classifications of Philosophy are just fancy window dressing on the fact that there are only 2 actual categories of thought: Happyism and Sadism.

Happyism is loving, hopeful, constructive, cooperative, and life-affirming.

Sadism is cold, hopeless, destructive, competitive, and nihilistic.

Everything else is not even Philosophy.

Why does it take so many philosophy professionals a lifetime to become experts in one philosopher or philosophy? I get that it can be difficult to actually create new concepts or an entire system of them. But once these exist, why would studying and becoming proficient in them take a lifetime? The work has already been done. All one has to do is read and learn it. And chances are others have already read and learned it and can guide us. So even the most difficult philosophies should not take more than six months to catch up on. Leaving plenty of time to go on and build on this knowledge or devise something in questioning or rejection of it. Or, for the less talented, study and become proficient in yet ANOTHER philosopher or philosophy. Why is virtually none of that taking place?

Some of you are going to say: Well, some philosophy professionals maybe don't take a lifetime to become proficient in a philosopher or philosophy. Maybe they are smart and industrious enough to get there within a shorter time. OK. But why are they then still spending their entire lifetime circling through these same subject matters without evolving to new horizons?

During my studies, thinking, and writing I have often thought how good it would be if one coined new words or phrases to describe novel or existing concepts more crisply or correctly. I think this could tremendously assist mutual understanding. Surely, the illustrious membership of this subreddit has had similar thoughts. So please emote your favorites here.

I go first, if I may: I like the word "betterwitter" for someone who no matter the topic or question asserts superior knowledge. This is a rather direct translation from the German "Besserwisser". But I felt the English language needed such a world as well. I also like the phonetic connotation to "bed wetter".

Being romantically involved with a Philosopher, or a Philosopher being romantically involved with whoever. Beyond platonic. Actually. A hypothetical question for many. Others might have experience.

Either way, let’s hear how you think about a relationship with someone studying or professionally involved in academic Philosophy. Or, if you are pursuing Philosophy, how do you think about relationships within or without your profession?

Many of you are going to say “it depends on the person”. Of course. But what personality types and professional postures do you think are good or bad matches? Alignments or opposites? And how would you define these? Right and wrong answers only, please.