The reason philosophy is distinct is because it’s focused on seeking and understanding the truth for the sake of seeking and understanding itself, and not for anything else. Like science. The word metaphysics itself means “beyond physics” or “after physics”, and I personally see it closer to science than religion.
Religion was invented to solve some practical problems - how to bring order to larger groups of people so that the group prospers rather than destroying itself, how does one know what is right and what is wrong, how does one find happiness, what is the purpose of life and so on. And I see it closer to engineering. Unlike philosophy that is an inner quest, religion is an outer quest. Even at a personal level, people seek religion because they want some benefit out of it (happiness, prosperity, liberation etc). A physicist wins a Nobel prize because they were driven a quest to understand something that was previously not known. A company goes public because the founder was driven by a quest to solve a big enough problem for a large enough group of people.
Science can only get better, not worse. One can only get closer to understanding the truth. Even if there are differences in understanding and interpretation, those differences actually contribute to taking us closer towards the goal (like you were trying to do in this post).
Engineering can get worse over time because the maintenance of the solution starts taking more effort. Systems crumble down. There are unintended side effects. War starts between systems. The focus shifts from the problem being solved to debating what is a better way to solve the problem. The differences take over and the problem gets ignored.
Since the bases on which philosophy and religion are built are fundamentally different, to me they are fundamentally different as well.
Superb comment, one that made me reflect. Very interesting juxtaposition as well (philosophy:religion :: science:engineering). But I have a slightly different take on some of your points.
You write that philosophy is ‘focused on seeking and understanding the truth for the sake of seeking and understanding itself’. While that might be the primary impulse for many who are drawn to philosophy, for some the quest for the truth is a very *personal* (existential?) affair, driven by an almost primal force. For such people, philosophy isn’t something one does as an academic exercise (or a 9 to 5 job), before getting back to their lives unaffected; to such people philosophy is the attempt at understanding life (or existence) itself, the attempt at understanding *their own* selves, and thus the answers put forward to the metaphysical questions will have very real implications on how they view their own place in the world (and what they see as the correct way of living in the world). It is thus that the walls between philosophy and religion collapse.
I mean religion here more in the sense of a ‘religious spirit’, which can perhaps be seen as the conviction that there is a transcendental reality beyond appearances, and as an acceptance of the limits of our knowledge. Organized religion - and all its accouterments - is of course a different matter, which is where the ‘engineering’ comparison makes sense to me.
Excellent point in your note about how engineering systems (and religion) can get worse with time, whereas science (and philosophy) only gets better with time (and with open argument). ‘The focus shifts from the problem being solved to debating what is a better way to solve the problem.’ True!
Yup, not taking anything away from the quest being a very personal and existential affair, the result of which having a real implication on the day to day life. In fact, it is the same for me as well.
Understand your point on the religious spirit as well. I think it's fair to say so as long as it ends with "God" in a generic sense, without necessarily dwelling into which God. If the answer to personal philosophical quest ends with the acceptance of God, devotion to God etc. then it is absolutely true that there's an overlap.
The reason philosophy is distinct is because it’s focused on seeking and understanding the truth for the sake of seeking and understanding itself, and not for anything else. Like science. The word metaphysics itself means “beyond physics” or “after physics”, and I personally see it closer to science than religion.
Religion was invented to solve some practical problems - how to bring order to larger groups of people so that the group prospers rather than destroying itself, how does one know what is right and what is wrong, how does one find happiness, what is the purpose of life and so on. And I see it closer to engineering. Unlike philosophy that is an inner quest, religion is an outer quest. Even at a personal level, people seek religion because they want some benefit out of it (happiness, prosperity, liberation etc). A physicist wins a Nobel prize because they were driven a quest to understand something that was previously not known. A company goes public because the founder was driven by a quest to solve a big enough problem for a large enough group of people.
Science can only get better, not worse. One can only get closer to understanding the truth. Even if there are differences in understanding and interpretation, those differences actually contribute to taking us closer towards the goal (like you were trying to do in this post).
Engineering can get worse over time because the maintenance of the solution starts taking more effort. Systems crumble down. There are unintended side effects. War starts between systems. The focus shifts from the problem being solved to debating what is a better way to solve the problem. The differences take over and the problem gets ignored.
Since the bases on which philosophy and religion are built are fundamentally different, to me they are fundamentally different as well.
Superb comment, one that made me reflect. Very interesting juxtaposition as well (philosophy:religion :: science:engineering). But I have a slightly different take on some of your points.
You write that philosophy is ‘focused on seeking and understanding the truth for the sake of seeking and understanding itself’. While that might be the primary impulse for many who are drawn to philosophy, for some the quest for the truth is a very *personal* (existential?) affair, driven by an almost primal force. For such people, philosophy isn’t something one does as an academic exercise (or a 9 to 5 job), before getting back to their lives unaffected; to such people philosophy is the attempt at understanding life (or existence) itself, the attempt at understanding *their own* selves, and thus the answers put forward to the metaphysical questions will have very real implications on how they view their own place in the world (and what they see as the correct way of living in the world). It is thus that the walls between philosophy and religion collapse.
I mean religion here more in the sense of a ‘religious spirit’, which can perhaps be seen as the conviction that there is a transcendental reality beyond appearances, and as an acceptance of the limits of our knowledge. Organized religion - and all its accouterments - is of course a different matter, which is where the ‘engineering’ comparison makes sense to me.
Excellent point in your note about how engineering systems (and religion) can get worse with time, whereas science (and philosophy) only gets better with time (and with open argument). ‘The focus shifts from the problem being solved to debating what is a better way to solve the problem.’ True!
Yup, not taking anything away from the quest being a very personal and existential affair, the result of which having a real implication on the day to day life. In fact, it is the same for me as well.
Understand your point on the religious spirit as well. I think it's fair to say so as long as it ends with "God" in a generic sense, without necessarily dwelling into which God. If the answer to personal philosophical quest ends with the acceptance of God, devotion to God etc. then it is absolutely true that there's an overlap.