WA Delegate (non-executive): The Socialist Federal Republic of Czechostan (elected )
Founder: The Eudaemonium of Dr George
Embassies: The Skeleton Army, Forest, Futaba Aoi, Circle of Badularity, Scandinavia, The Commonwealth Of Furry Peoples, Haiku, Free States of Gaia, Nudist Dreamland, 10000 Islands, Free Thought, Gay, New Europe, Argentina, Israel, India, and 56 others.The Respected Realms, The House at Pooh Corner, Hippy Haven, The Maritimes, United States of America, Deutschland, The SOP, Gay Equality, Groland, The Legions of Heaven And Hell, The Atheist Empire, The Sea Of Love, Eladen, The Cavalry of the DuckCrocs, Hell, Underworld, Nelborne Union, Texas, The Northern Lights, Konfoederation deutschsprachiger Staaten, Federation of Planets Headquarters, the Rejected Realms, Equilism, The Alliance of Queens, The Rose Garden, The Socialist States of the Philippines, Kittens Sanctuary, Western Americas, International Northwestern Union, Krillin, New Utopian World, Hippiedom, Portugal, The Illuminati Council, Peoples Federation of Qandaristan, Right to Life, A Liberal Haven, Union of Free Nations, Future Earth, East of West, Osiris, Anti Trump Alliance, Association of the Countries of the Free, The Peaceful Coffee Shop In Chicago, Philosophy 101, Philosophy, Anarchy, Bus Stop, Heaven, Serendipity, The Third Anarchist Brotherhood, Kuiper, True Left Movement, Saint Johns College Annapolis, Regionless, and Antichrist Superstar.
Regional Power: High
Today's World Census Report
The Most Devout in Philosophy 115
World Census Inquisitors conducted rigorous one-on-one interviews probing the depth of citizens' beliefs in order to determine which nations were the most devout.
As a region, Philosophy 115 is ranked 4,225th in the world for Most Devout.
|1.||The Holy Red Empire of BizarroBot||Corporate Police State||“Me Ams More Smarter than U”|
|2.||The Principality of Nioya||Corrupt Dictatorship||“Peace be to you”|
|3.||The Publishing Juggernaut of New Old New New York||Civil Rights Lovefest||“☆ Setting the pace since 4 June 2004☆”|
|4.||The All-Devouring Kraken of Aki Zeta||Civil Rights Lovefest||“NONNY's little sister.”|
|5.||The Empire of Unite helghast citizen empire||Iron Fist Consumerists||“United under suffering ”|
|6.||The Minjung Republic of Hanguk||Scandinavian Liberal Paradise||“홍익인간”|
|7.||The Unholy Black Empire of Buer the Demon||Corporate Police State||“Professor of Philosophy and Insufferable Know-It-All”|
|8.||The Federal Republic of Antzaria||New York Times Democracy||“Trust God”|
|9.||The Emirate of Shayr Eryf||Father Knows Best State||“God, Homeland, Liberty”|
|10.||The Enlightened Purgatory of NW Hell Rehab Center||Psychotic Dictatorship||“The good intention capital of the world”|
Regional Poll • Greatest Philosophers in History
Voting opened 3 days 9 hours ago and will close . Open to all nations. You cannot vote as you are not logged in.
- : The Kingdom of Iznjord departed this region for The Outerlands.
- : The Theocracy of Res Mitevisia departed this region for The Outerlands.
- : The Dictatorship of Kiz Urazgubi departed this region for The Outerlands.
- : The Kingdom of Iznjord arrived from The East Pacific.
- : Islands of bintica ceased to exist.
- : Tyj mikiang ceased to exist.
- : Spengler ceased to exist.
- : The United Socialist States of Antians arrived from The South Pacific.
- : The Republic of Xenkin arrived from The Pacific.
- : The Commonwealth of Jenzan arrived from The North Pacific.
Philosophy 115 Regional Message Board
I vote for Nagarjuna to be included in the poll
Thanks to all of YOU for keeping me engaged philosophically all of these years! Even as I hope you've learned a thing or two from me, I've learned quite a bit from you. This cannot help but improve my work if and when I return to the classroom. It's remotely possible I might start teaching in the summer (which I enjoy quite a bit), which would be in a matter of weeks (spring semester classes end next Wednesday with exams after that), but most likely I would begin in the fall. A fall beginning would be helpful as this university undoubtedly uses different books from those I have used in the past, so I could read all the books ahead of time as I prepare my lectures, even though I presumably know most or all of what they say already.
One of the challenges of teaching philosophy is finding the right balance between teaching the history of philosophy, which is not unimportant, and doing philosophy, which I consider critical. One of the joys of teaching at the university level is that the students are presumably prepared to do both, while when I taught at the junior college level, I was forced to spend a lot of time on tertiary things like reading comprehension, English composition, what plagiarism is and how to avoid it, etc.
A parallel issue in teaching religion, especially when teaching various texts, is how much of the course to devote to the texts themselves and how much to the commentaries. In particular, teaching the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) involves more reading for the scriptures themselves than one typically has in an entire semester's course. And, of course, reading the entire Bible is even more monumental for an Introduction to the Bible course, which some schools still offer.
In my seminary, OT and NT were both 6-hour courses over two semesters, yet still had the same issues. One very unpopular professor on tests included a section we called drop the needle--he would give us one verse (in this case, from the NT) and require us to identify which book it came out of. As I recall, such was about 20% of the test, so you would not be able to make an A (and would struggle to make a B) if you did poorly on this section. There were usually at least some present or former fundamentalists, who had largely memorized the scriptures, especially the NT, so they often did well, at least on that section of the tests. There are different ways to play drop the needle. You can choose some somewhat familiar verses, you can choose less familiar verses that are characteristic of a particular book or author, or you could choose uncharacteristic verses that only a person with an in-depth, subtle, and uncharacteristically memorized grasp of the scriptures would likely get correct. This professor chose the last of the three. For instance, if the passage comes from one of the 12 books attributed to Paul (which are truly Pauline is a topic for another discussion) and concerns Christian freedom from the OT law, that naturally brings to mind the book of Galatians, but there are plenty of references to this topic outside of Galatians if you look for them. If a passage comes from the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) there are plenty of passages with nearly-identical wording common to all three books. I remember when I was trying to find a particular passage's origins as an undergrad (this was in the days before doing an internet search), I asked my faculty adviser where it came from and he, slightly condescendingly, said it was from the wandering passages of Luke. This gent was a noted and well-published biblical scholar and had taught at the graduate levels as well as undergrads like me at the time. Except he was wrong. There's also the question of which version of a text you use. When I was in seminary, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) was most often used (although towards the end of my studies at Yale, preliminary versions of the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] were becoming increasingly available). Most people who had extensively memorized scriptures usually knew the King James Version (KJV or sometimes just AV [Authorized Version]). Of course, many students entered seminary never having read the entire Bible through before, so there were enormously varying levels of familiarity with the scriptures. (One of my classmates, an Episcopalian, had a TA write on her test that she should focus on the narrative of the text moreso than just lectionary readings!) I myself had already read the entire Bible cover-to-cover a few times by the time I entered Yale, and read it cover-to-cover many times afterward. My undergraduate religious studies had primarily focused on understanding the biblical passages in their original context, exegesis. A great deal of biblical interpretation in the world today is instead eisegesis, introducing one's prejudices, theological slant, and wishes for what a passage might mean into the text, which is the worst form of corruption. If you're being upfront and honest about your eisegesis, you can call your version of the Bible a paraphrase, like the Living Bible. It's not always black and white. For instance, in my doctoral studies, one passage we studied referenced the wise person's loving the instruction of the Lord. The original Hebrew text was included for those who could read Hebrew (I cannot), but I did notice that the word for "instruction" was torah, which usually means "law." When I asked the professor as to why this passage translated it as instruction and not law, he kind of stammered a bit, and finally said, unhelpfully, "it just does."
So for those of you wanting a Bible to read, it is important to know how rigorously it follows the original texts in Hebrew and Greek, is it couched in modern language, does it reflect current scholarship, is it explicitly a paraphrase, does it use contemporary idioms, does it include notes on the passage in question (including parallel passages elsewhere in the Bible), etc. The NRSV is often considered an academic, left-wing version of the Bible. The American Standard Version (ASV) of the Bible is the most rigid in its translation of the text, making it more difficult to understand in English. The Revised English Version (REV) is focused on excellent English and is highly readable. The Living Bible is probably the clearest of all, but it is a paraphrase and tends towards a conservative evangelical POV. The New International Version (NIV) has a heavyweight academic tradition behind it and attempts to convey concepts into standard English moreso than gearing it towards the idiom of a particular variant of English. The Jerusalem Bible (JB) targets Catholic readers and occasionally fudges on the text to make it more amenable to Catholic doctrine. An interlinear translation gives the text in the original language and underneath it attempts to render a word-by-word translation, so the English is often out of order and it is more of an academic tool than a usable Bible. The King James Version is often the most beautiful, poetic translation, but it depends on inferior scholarship and is couched in Elizabethan English, such that this 1611 version is almost unintellible to those of us in 2017. When I have led Bible studies in churches I have served, I would often bring a box with these translations and more, so as we would go through each verse, I would often ask people with the various texts if theirs had something significantly different, which was often the case. This might refer to a problem in translating a particular word into English, or it might reflect that historically some portion of the scripture was lost and the translators are trying to fill in the blanks, there might be different scrolls with different words of the text, etc. For those of us unfamiliar with biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek, this is the best way to explore the most subtle layers of meaning within a text. Those of you fluent in a language other than English know that translation can be tricky and it is sometimes not possible to give a literal word-for-word translation, at least one that makes sense.
For those of us who live in western civilization, I strongly recommend that you read the entire Bible cover-to-cover at least once, even if you believe it is nothing more than fairy tales, as it has been so critical in western history, in the development of languages, legal codes, proverbs, etc.
OK, I'm rambling now and it's getting late. Later!
I just emailed graham oppy about how to talk to atheists.
We're just like you, only we believe in one less god.
Thats a really dumb philosophy of religion
It's true. Monotheism is qualitatively different from polytheism and you don't get that, tgen you're stupid. Read yehetzel kaufman. And on the other hand, atheism is a product of modern thinking. Unto itself it's an assertion of disbelief in the supernatural or materialism, which is just a huge rejection of normal human thinking historically.
I believe in all the gods.