What is a fundie? Apparently philosophers are strung out on coined phrases instead of ideas.?

Question

I ask a question in PHILOSOPHY. They say it is nat a philosophical question. They answer the question.
They avoid telling what they philosophise abnout because their thinking is incomplete and based on others ideas instead of their own. I cahllenge a "philosopher" to give me one thought that he did not get in a school textbook and is uniquely his own thoughts. Links, links, links. If you find it on google it is not philosophy.

Answer 1

Fundie is a new word deriving from the word Fundamentalist, and is in common use by my Atheists and other Americans who fear the spread of Christian fundamentalism in the USA.
The words has not as yet entered the common British English language as the fear of the phenomenon is not so great in the British culture.
However in the USA this word is used to speak about hard line Christians who refuse to accept modern scientific explanations for things such as Evolution and Big Bang theory, preferring the biblical version of the events and not being open to fair discussion which may caste doubt on there belief system.
The word also has slight derogative connotations, suggestive of an inflexible mind.

The Etymology of Sly

Answer 2

A fundie is a slang term for a Bible Fundamentalist. Bible Fundamentalists believe in the bible word for word.

I believe in the universal mind. all matter is 99.99% empty and only .01% matter actually exists and is popping in and out of existence constantly. since it is like that it's not really that real it's more like thought. which raises the question "whose thought is this?" well from our own experience and from experiments that have been done we know that our own thoughts affect reality therefore this is everyone's thought and everything that exists is a form of consciousness else it would not be. The thing that does the thinking is half in and half out, we know it as the soul and all things have a soul. We can observe from what I have told you that we are all intrinsically connected and essentially one. I call this oneness The Universal Mind.

I incorporate many thoughts into my own philosophy including buddhist, hindu and other thoughts. But i do not keep them all I pick and choose what is true and not.

I am an anarchist, anti-corporations, anti-military, atheist and anti-theist.

The Punk Rock Genius

Answer 3

I don't know what you are asking exactly, but i don't personally rely on what i get out of books on the whole unless the question is something like that "type identity" theory from Kripke that came up a few days ago.

I think that one of the uses of the internet is to bring home the distinction between knowledge and wisdom, because there is so much information there, not always reliable, that it emphasises what can and can't be trusted, and what can be gotten from an authentic approach to one's own experience. However, i also think that some wisdom can be written down, and if that can happen it can be typed into a PC and end up on the internet.

When you say "if you find it on google it is not philosophy", i can see where you're coming from, but if i type you an answer now, it will probably end up getting picked up by Google eventually, at which point does it stop being Philosophy? I'm not trying to be trite here. People have conversations which are meaningful in a philosophical sense, and this could happen online or end up online.

Is it possible to be completely original? I have obviously read a lot of Philosophy, and even if i hadn't, i would have been influenced by my culture and would be quite likely, after some thought, to produce something which someone else was thinking and perhaps writing down at the same time.

In any case, leaving that aside, here's some stuff for you.

There is no rationality, only rationalisation. People choose the ways of thinking which best support their own feelings about a matter rather than the other way round. Therefore, one's view of the world cannot be based on rationality. What should it be based on then? Well, people tend to discount what is furthest from their own identity, so for example, scholastic philosophers can be imagined (but actually didn't) as saying women have no souls whereas men have, those who would deny the Holocaust might not believe the past is real and people who eat meat might deny that the suffering of members of other species either exists or is as important as human suffering. This can be avoided by basing one's view of the world on the "benefit of the doubt", in that one should not believe or act on beliefs which allow one to do anything which allows prejudice in favour of one's own interests. This implies, for example, that quantum theory is wrong because every part of the Universe is in fact conscious and therefore observed.

Here's another one. Freewill is often argued against because of determinism. However, the absence of a chain of cause and effect involving one's will, i.e. spontaneous activity, also implies lack of control. Therefore, freewill does not depend on either determinism or its absence. Nevertheless we have the impression of having freewill. Two things entailed by this are that just as consciousness is undeniably real, so is freewill, and that the method currently popular of observing the world as either causal or non-causal is in some way mistaken.

What else? Well, since a promise is the free placement of oneself under an obligation and is true by virtue of the meaning of the act or statement whereby one places oneself under that obligation, a promise is analytically a moral act, i.e. it must always be wrong to break a promise. Consequently, since it is wrong to do so in all possible worlds, it is wrong regardless of the disastrous consequences of making that promise. Therefore, it is always wrong to make promises.

Google any of that and you will find nothing, so far as i know, and you will also find nothing anything like it in any books of Philosophy i am aware of. However, i come from a philosophical tradition. I'm also writing in English here. All of these things are examples of how hard it is to escape from tradition and produce something which is original.

If someone asks me a question about Hume say, then i will answer using something i have learned about his life. I also think some of the statements he makes about life, e.g. "reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions", are relevant, either as something to take on board or to react against. Not taking this into account is possible, but it's also possible, though not inevitable, that you would then just be re-inventing the wheel and going over old ground. It would be like building a bridge without any knowledge of engineering or architecture. Why would you want to do that?

There's a place for both, basically.

Answer 4

The very essence of religion is faith, belief without proof (this is not really true of basic Buddhism, but you aren't talking about my godless faithless religion here anyway). The essence of philosophy is the love of knowledge, of knowing and not in any way relying on faith. A philosophical inquiry seeks to know things by evidence and reason. Religion, and specifically Christianity, explicitly demands faith without proof as a hallmark of true faith--and this is just simply irrelevant to philosophical inquiry. They are two intrinsically different approaches to the world. Religious assertions just don't belong in philosophy, and philosophical concerns are not relevant to religion.

Answer 5

When they say it is not a philosophical question, they are speaking from a school of thought called Logical Positivism. LP is concerned with determining answerable questions before trying to answer them. Any question about the existence of god is not philosophical because there no way of proving it one way or the other, so there is no reason to bother posing it.

Answer 6

''Fundies'' are those charmers who judge everyone by some impossible standard.,and they take their moral values from cherry picking, through the bible!
As R&S is my usual category, I have noticed that many fundies, condemn everything that does not fall into 'their' narrow per view of life.
There are shades of gray, in every situation, regardless of what anybody says
No one has the right to judge me. Comment all you want to on my ideas, but you don't have the right to judge!
No one does!!