Philosophy and Religion
Last time I took a short view on ancient greece and the understanding of the term Philosophy, at the time when the term was coined, as a knowledge based undertaking. But I mentioned only the rational half of the situation. Philosophy encompassed back then not only logic, math, geometry and astronomy, but also psychology and religion - terms that rose up centuries later.
Well religion back then was very different. You had temples for a couple of deities. There the ordinary people did their religous duties, like worship, prayer, sacrifice and so on. But than there were also mystery schools, which were much more secretive than today's masons. Sure, the novices walked cloaked in public the streets of Athens to Eleusis (that's where the term mystic comes from), but to talk about any trade secrets was punished by death alone. What we do know, is that these traditions were very long lasting and most probably many of the well known, highly educated individuals were trained there.
Coming back to the term ''Philos Sophia'', I pointed out, that wisdom was considered a goddess, with which who you could have personal communication and get direct inspiration, a lot like Christians see Jesus today.
Sure, almost no contemporary philosopher would claim having such communication, but didn't our despise for religion go a bit too far? Isn't it one of the blinding believes of our times that religion and rationality hinder each other? It didn't seem so in the old Greece.
I'm not here to make any theological arguments, nor interested in labels. My interest is rather what helps our development. Brain scans are advanced enough, so that we can today identify modes of religious piety as soothing and even healing. They even support clear thought and can be trained for.
What I want to argue for, is to use the long experience of our forefathers, who had no computer but plenty time to look inside of them, to our benefit, to get our deeper, seldom conscious drives stable and into desirable paths. This should also clear the mind. I think for most people is not out of the world to suggest, that when I'm happily married and filled with high energy and optimism, I can be a better scientist. And it sounds rather suspicious to assume that when I'm exploring my feelings for hours by playing piano, that makes me want to introduce irrational ideas into my math equations. I think what most people mean by being rationalist or sceptic is - they don't like the excesses of religious people and don't want to muddy their thinking process by emotional reactions.
Bad news are though, that the scientific method brought us enough evidence, that we can't help but process most incoming information by unconscious filtering and emotional navigation. Only after that fact we can (if we are willing) ponder a small amount of informations at once rationally and correct our emotional relation to them. To get a more coherent view of our world this way is a hard task, that requires constant learning, mental and emotional work, but the elevating effects are undeniable. Philosophers that merit their title need to do this, because it is (at least was) in their job description.
Plato did understood ''Philos Sophia'' as to be a lover of wisdom, which meant you prioritise the described pursuit of truth over that of money and fame. I think that is also a point Christians approve of and also atheist can get behind. Philosophers worth their name do not only have to set their emotional leanings in oder but also their urges and impulses. Such an accomplished person we would still today call unironically wise, but how many ''Philosophers'' would pass that test?