To me it seems that the major goal of Christianity and Islam (and I also speculate Judaism) is to teach and ask people to love others as they love themselves. Moreover, even if we don't believe in God's existence, if people simply follow this commandment the world would be much better. Then if this is so what is the point of pursuing God and having a relationship with him?
Especially given the fact, if any God is to be worthy of following, he should be valuing that major commandment (Love). In this way, even if we don't believe in God but still follow the major commandment (Love) then we should not be even worried of going to hell. So then why should one go after knowing God? Why shouldn't one just reduce religion to an attempt of refining people's character; to make them more affectionate and kind?

Proclus wrote:

Here is a fun rearrangement of letters:  Pilate asked "Quid est veritas?"  The tacit answer staring him in the face is "est vir qui adest."

A true sentence is one in which the contents correspond with reality.  Specifically, the relation between the subject and the predicate of the sentence bears an analogical relation to the relation between an object in the world and a some real feature of that object.  Or paraphrasing Aristotle, speaking true sentences happens when we say about what is that it is or about what is not that it is not, and speaking false sentences happens when we say about what is that it is not or about what is not that it is (Metaphysics 1011b).

Truth is to "true" what Beauty is to "beautiful," in other words, the Truth is that in virtue of which true things are true.  Ultimately, I think that this is Jesus Christ the λόγος of God, in virtue of whom (1) there is a world at all, (2) the structure of that world is intelligible, and (3) a correspondence can exist between our thought and the intelligible structure of that world.  (Incidentally, Νοῦς plays something like this role in Plato and Aristotle.)  At a lower level of analysis, knowing the truth can mean latching onto even a corner of his robe, i.e. achieving even a partial coincidence between our thought and the intelligibility of the world.  And at a still lower level, a correspondence between what we say about the world and the way the world is.

Thanks.

I somehow get the feeling that you want to have knowledge of everything. This brings me to another point that such a task is impossible to do and you have to narrow your inquiry. So then what would your inquiry and its goal be?

Greg wrote:

Well, I have been more interested in practical philosophy recently. So part of my interest in theoretical philosophy is that it sometimes bears on practical philosophy.

Strictly speaking, according to the way I understand the division between theoretical and practical philosophy, this would make my study of theoretical philosophy in fact a study of practical philosophy. I follow Aristotle, that is, in holding that the theoretical and practical intellects are the same power; the one is intellect directed to contemplation, the other is the intellect directed to action. Practical knowledge is knowledge about singulars in action. But other truths are practical in a certain respect if they are or can be used in practice.

So throughout the Ethics, Aristotle will mention 'theoretical' points about how the virtues are defined, etc., and note that these too are included in ethics and politics. But he is also constantly saying that we need not inquire into certain matters further, as far as action is concerned.

Realistically, though, prior to engaging in theoretical inquiry, we do not know which theoretical truths are useful for ethics.

But I think another option that is not listed is the most classical one (albeit close to (1)): theoretical philosophy is worth doing simply for the sake of contemplation. This activity is enjoyable but enjoyment is its result, not its purpose.

Another option, which I suppose is not too common among members of this forum, is quietism, of the sort defended (advocated?) by Wittgenstein and McDowell: The point of philosophy is to convince yourself that there are no true philosophical problems. Such philosophy is also called therapeutic.

Naturally this blurs theoretical and practical philosophy.

Thank you for your responses Greg.

I have not heard about quietism or therapeutic philosophy. I will try to look at it and see what it means.

Just one small note. The inward force, the weight and all of these are not easy concepts to grasp. I studied these in high school. It took me great efforts to understand these. I think for this weight loss problem, I thought for about 1 hour or something when I was given this problem in high school. Consider that I was familiar with the physics, formulas and so on and I had seen similar problems but still it was hard to get my head around these subjects.

So it is not wrong to ask even the simplest question. The thing that I did not find justifiable is to claim that physics is wrong and scientist are wrong about it and so on. I'm not saying to trust completely in authority. All I want to say is that, study enough and then question what is being taught in universities and books.

And I would say physics is much better than philosophy. You have Feser on one hand who is catholic, you have Craig who is protestant. They are both major figures of defending Christian faith but you can see that you cannot simply trust them.

Greg wrote:

nojoum wrote:

Regarding intention: to me sterile couple can only have sex for the purpose of unity. Now it does not follow from perverted faculty argument that they are doing immoral actions. It follows from common sense that sterile couples having sex are sinning as much as healthy people having protected sex are sinning. The reason is that this condemnation is based on the intention of these people which is the same in both cases.

Now the problem with the perverted faculty argument is that it does not take into account the intention of people. So to me an improved version of perverted faculty argument should also say that people who have the intention of perverting a faculty (yet are not perverting it explicitly, like sterile couples having sex) are committing immoral actions.

I'm not sure that this follows from "common sense," and I'm certainly not sure what would count as common sense in sexual ethics.

People using contraception generally intend to avoid having children; the exceptions to this are cases where, say, an anovulent pill is taken for health reasons, in which case the anovulent pill is consumed neither qua anovulent nor qua contraceptive. Sterile couples simply need have no such intention; a sterile couple can be open to have children in the sense that they do not intend not to have children. And one might think that is a morally relevant distinction, if one thinks that openness to children is a requirement of proper conjugality.

On the other hand, a sterile couple could be engaging in contraception; for example, if a particularly scrupulous Catholic sought out an infertile person to marry, because he wanted to avoid having children, he might be engaging in contraception when he has sex after marriage. This would require, I think, some continuing commitment to the intention; I think it is possible for someone who gets and cannot reverse a vasectomy to engage in non-contracepted sex if (after a r

…