Philosophers and Christians are more alike than they realize. I'd like to hear the arguments from both as to why the other is wrong and your's is right.
2007-06-23 17:44:31 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Being a philosopher does not disqualify you from being a Christian, or vice versa. Personally, I know a man who went to both Notre Dame and Oxford (I don't know exactly the path he took, but I believe he did two years at both) as a philisophical scholar and is a hard-core Catholic.
Anyway, I'm not sure I see the conflict. Jesus was sentenced to death and accepted it because it was a necessary step toward what he envisioned as a plan to save mankind. Socrates, while I don't think he saw himself on the same level as Christians view Jesus, similarly took the hemlock because to deny it would be to deny his entire philosophy, which he saw as a necessary part of what he envisioned as a plan to save Athens.
2007-06-23 20:09:10 · answer #1 · answered by Born at an early age 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Here there shall be no ridiculous attempt to deconstruct the spirit of your question with a prosaic dissertation on the actual meaning of the word "suicide."
Philosophers and Christians are more "opposite" than "alike." The philosopher's way of thinking is intrinsically skeptical. This is because one who is truly philosophical adheres to NO particular belief, as it is that he realizes the shortcomings and strengths of them all. Philosophers realize, further, that...
he who holds sway
simply made the best case
for his way...
Philosophers don't believe, or especially have no particular faith, in the righteousness of hemlock for Socrates. It's just that no greater thinker has made a better case against it than Socrates has made for taking it. This is representative of the essence of being philosophical.
I probably don't need to explain the essence of being Christian, in terms of how crucifixion/Christ is the opposite of hemlock/Socrates as explained above. However, Christians must accept as a matter of faith, that the crucifixion was righteous within their belief system.
In closing, I won't emphatically state that one way is wrong and the other is right. For those of us who need something other than a nicely closed system (Christianity), philosophy is the way.
2007-06-24 01:19:04 · answer #2 · answered by M O R P H E U S 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The difference would be the horror. Crucifixion is one of many punishments authoritarians thought up to horrify potential threats to their rule. It is brutal. It is painful. And it is drawn out. It is torture. The taking of hemlock, as in the case of Socrates, was seen as a noble gesture putting the welfare of society above personal interests. Sure, I can see that sentiment being abused by authorities, but it sure beats the alternative you have presented.
I will, however, readily admit that philosophically I don't buy into the strict taboo against suicide. I truly believe every life is precious but I support the individual's control over termination of his or her life over the state's control.
2007-06-24 02:30:00 · answer #3 · answered by Mac 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't see what "right" or "wrong" has to do with it. The only difference is that taking hemlock, voluntarily, is suicide. Crucifixion is not. I'm curious about the way you phrased: "ACCEPTING Crucifixion." Accepting? I doubt anyone accepted it, certainly Jesus didn't. I'd like to add that philosophers are the antithesis of Christians.
2007-06-24 01:50:45 · answer #4 · answered by Valac Gypsy 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Only part of it thought through as yet, but . . .
Jesus did freely accept his crucifixion, and that is an important point. Being God he could have not accepted it and gotten down from the cross. And God the Father would not do that or allow that to be done to His son if the Son did not freely accept it. Christ said - Father, if possible, let this cup be taken from me - and if not, thy will be done.
In a divine exchange, Christ gives His self as sacrifice for our sin, (because only God could satisfy for the sin that we had, no mere human could) and in exchange we gain (His) life, His immortality, forgiveness,
But, it was not a suicide, because, as a previous poster said, he did not crucify himself. He allowed it, but he did not do it. It was committed by those who feared his message, doubted His divinity, and whose status quo was upset.
2007-06-24 02:16:27 · answer #5 · answered by amazed 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are a lot of common links between religion and philosophy. The moral lessons are what really matter, and I guess that either could be right.
2007-06-24 00:53:42 · answer #6 · answered by Chloe 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Accepting crucifixion is not necessarily suicide, if you would pardon me for saying so, because suicide by definition is self-killing. To be crucified, one must crucify you.
Taking hemlock, drinking the poison you take in the cup in your hand is suicide, albeit a coerced one.
2007-06-24 01:00:56 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
circumstances ....a crucifixion is a little more painful .
2007-06-24 01:07:15 · answer #8 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋