Definitions

[Caid Ivik]

Philosophy in centuries always lead to a dead point. In ancient Greece those where so-called sophists, which gained immense popularity for their relativizing and showing illness from extreme number of used terms, until Socrates redefined them. Same it was in eras before Augustinus (where same relativization came with sceptics and gnostics), Cusanius (post-scholars) and Descartes (renaissantic philosophers). Now we call these "ill" ones as a sign of postmodern times, and they took place mostly in 19th century. However, the "socratic rebirth" has already been made.

Wittgenstein and Russel propagated idea, that most conflicts come from varied vision on words by sides. One has another view over thing as the other one, but he doesn't know it. Their philosophy is to first define exact meaning of all terms and then start to argue.

There was already made one thread about definitions of political terms by Nema Fakei, I want to spread this positive trend for religion and philosophy, other pillars of this forum board.

If it would be possible, make it a sticky topic as some kind of manual for using PRP  ;D

[Caid Ivik]

So let's start:

to exist - time-dependant participation on reality, everything inside universe (set of whole existance); this includes matter, space and time flow; creation is the process of starting existance, when metaphysical source formalizes itself (Platon); every existance has dependence on its source

to be - pure participation on reality, independent, over limits of universe; could be also said meta-being (meta, gr behind, over), being on a metaphysical sphere; being due to own cause (Kant); can be said being is before existence

God - primary metaphysical subject, source (Platon) or creator (Aristoteles) of the world; could be interpreted as world soul, what means pantheistic, thinking force contained in the material world itself (Spinoza) or as shakti, a natural force without thoughts (Schopenhauer); deistic God means a subject, which is considered as pillar of existence, due to need of morale (Kant), ultimate perception (Berkeley), cause (Hegel) or existence itself

god - artificial deity, a lord of specified force (Zarathustra), high-level monade (Leibnitz), idea (Platon)

[nemafakei]

"In ancient Greece those where so-called sophists, which gained immense popularity for their relativizing and showing illness from extreme number of used terms"

Hang on! The sophists gained immense 'unpopularity', especially towards the end of the Pelopponesian war, because they were distrusted, characterised as being able to twist words to such an extent that they could prove the blatantly untrue. I'm lost as to the meaning of the final clause (from "for their").

[Timenn]

I believe that was one the reason why Aristoteles, for example, hated them. While he was searching for the truth, people whom he called "sophists" were not really searching for it, and were using logic to make flawed arguments. Those arguments were pretty neatly done I must say. Something like this:

That bundle of paper is a book

That bundle of paper is mine

==> That book is mine

next,

That vehicle is a bike

That vehicle is mine

==> That bike is mine

So basically it comes to this:

x is y

x is mine

==> y is mine

But watch it when you do this:

That dog is a father

That dog is mine

==> That dog is my father

Although it fits when you fill in the right values for the variables, it still isn't right. But sophists could use these kind of things to convince people of certain things.

I don't know if they were unpopular because of that. But if great philosopher's hated them, that might be a clue then...