• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Philosophers' God Profiles

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not really the same deity, more the same type of deity. They are all "God," but "God's" rules and beleifs are diffrent (At least to my understanding of Islam and Judaism).

If you want we can discuss that on my wall since it's kinda derailing.

The Bible, The Torah, and The Quran have the same reappearing characters (ugh I don't want to use the word "character", I don't know what other word to use) such as the Archangel Gabriel.

We all know Gabriel is in The Bible and The Torah, but he was also in the Quran but his name was translated into Arabic and it comes up as Jibril. It was the Archangel Jibril (Gabriel) that visited Muhammad in a dream.

There are other instances of the same "characters" appearing in all of them. Same as God but he's only given a different name to appropriate the culture and language. All three see the Prophet Abraham of great importance (varing reasons for why though).
 
A lot of the theology, myths, overall message is completely different.

By this logic we should say that the Canaanite Skyfather El and the Sumerian Skyfather Anu and Yahweh are the same deities, since they trace back to the same root. The very terms God Almighty and God the Highest are El Shaddai and El Elyon respectively, both terms used for these gods in ancient Hebrew.

But then again, The Abrahamic God is monotheistic while Canaanite El is Polytheistic despite having the same name and basic characteristics.

Don't derail this into a theological discussion thank you very much.
 
I agree with Matthew about that we should quit the theological discussion.

Anyway, I think that DontTalk has a point in that philosophically related character profiles are better suited for other types of wikis, and that featuring articles for monoteistic interpretations of "God" could trigger discussions about allowing more of them, that would be considerably more offensive to worshippers.

Basically, it is probably best to stay clear of Jehovah, YHVH, Allah, Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu, and even Buddha.
 
I belive other gods then the monotheistic one and those of major relligions are fine. Tbh i've seen many movie and literature that include non-monotheistic god (even budha and hindi) based on the author view. I 'm not really sure it won't be cotroversial though. But yes i agree it would be interesting having their profile here.
 
I suppose so, but they are fictionalised characters, not real world philosophical concepts.
 
Characters like YHVH are for more blasphemous and offensive, fictional or not, than a philosopher's interpretation of God. We already have real life profiles here, so that shouldn't be a massive issue if bridging the gap is the problem, and some of the aforementioned "fictionalized characters" are the author's views on said deity. While that universally true, some authors may believe their portrayals of a deity to be accurate and akin to a philosophical interpretation.

I personally think already having stuff like Real Life, SCP, and other things pretty much throws out the issue of "it isn't normal fiction" and such profiles would be less controversial than any of the aforementioned Judeo-Christian God characters, removing that as an issue.
 
Well, it is the combination of not being a developed character in a story of any sort (a major requirement for being featured here), just a philosophical theory, being potentially offensive, and opening the door to featuring profiles for the actual deities, that is a problem.

If we allow this, we basically say that almost anything whatsoever is acceptable.
 
1. Not in a story; Literally real life

2. Philosophical Ideas are pretty close to a decent number of god figures on the Wiki already, they just don't have a "work of fiction" that they come from.

3. Like I said, YHVH is far more offensive than anything in philosophy. Same with The Authority. We crossed the "don't want to offend people" bridge a while ago.

4. Indinvidual philosophers' views on God or a supreme power are different than an actual religion deity profile. A religion deity (Say "Christian God") would imply that our interpretation is exclusively correct, and honestly is nearly impossible to pin down. Different interpretations of that deity will exist and conflict with out profile. A philosopher's interpretation would be just that: A singular interpretation.

5. If what we allow is an issue, we need hard-and-fast rules on this. Is popularity a factor? If so how popular? Why is real life here if we don't allow influence of non-fictions works or real life views?

I personally think these profiles wouldn't cause any harm. We could add them and if people complain about them/try to abuse any "slippery slope" we could remove them and then set the aforementioned rules.
 
Well, the general rule is that we feature notable characters within fiction, that have a developed personality, important function, and/or backstory.

We have made exceptions for real life animals and weapons, given that they are fairly inoffensive and reasonably easy to quantify.

A philosophical concept of "God" on the other hand, would fit none of our requirements. It would open up for memes, throwaway Youtube characters and personalities, and multiple other real world philosophical concepts that would be very hard to properly quantify.

I think that it seems better to play things better safe than sorry regarding such profiles. As DontTalk said, it is likely better to stick to philosophy wikis instead.
 
With all due respect I disagree. I don't believe that memes even remotely relate to philosophical interpretations of God.

I'd prefer to get more input rather than calling it a day with two disagreements. Azathoth has been informed and is thinking about this topic, and I know Perpetual has seen this and liked it to a certain degree, since he Kudos'd a favorable comment.

It seems like Matthew, Sera, Executor, and several other users support this. Reppuzan also believes this would be OK, though he doesn't directly support it.
 
Well, I suppose that I may get outvoted then, but I am nevertheless rather uncertain about this.
 
  • double checking if it is staff only*
Well, while I would love the idea (love it, in fact) I kinda see where Ant is coming from and have to agree with him. I gotta say, personally am agnostic, but coming from a highly religious family, and knowing the hard way to be highly cautious with what I say, I personally prefer that rather than profiles, these be kept as blogs (like the DB composite thing).
 
This seems to have derailed into a subjective discussion of what is and isn't offensive to any certain religious denomination.
 
@Matthew

Yeah, sorry. I will delete the off-topic messages.
 
Um, how was mine off-topic? I was agreeing with this... Ideas... Be kept as blogs rather than profiles as I understand and agree with Ant's position regarding this.
 
Hmm... after sleeping about it for a night I have come to the conclusion that I got too invested in defending my personal preference here.

So I am fine with whatever the wiki staff decides is supposed to be the content of the wiki.
 
@Ant

What about Philosophy view 'Gods' such as Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, which do not deal with any theological God, but more the concept of one but not in a religious sense
 
Philosophical concepts still seems hard to properly define, and well outside the boundaries of what is intended with this wiki.

Or that is my impression anyway, but I am not always correct.
 
I would prefer they be done as blogs TBH. You can still insert the Tier of the "character" as a tag in the blog so it would show up if you went through the category.
 
I do not mind a blog format for philosophical concelts, but think that the tier categories should probably be reserved for actual character pages.
 
I do not mind the blog format for philosophical concepts, but think that tier categories should probably be reserved for regular character pages.
 
Yeah, categories should preferably be for actual pages, since the entire purpose of categories is to organize the content of the wiki. Alternatively, we could make pages, not include in the maintain categories, and just label them as Not Important, similar to most Fun and Games threads. Either works for me.
 
The wiki is glitchy. The latest replies disappeared.

Anyway, to reiterate my latest reply, I am personally fine with creating philosophical concept blogs, but the tier categories should probably be kept for the regular profile pages.
 
Boundaries?

These "gods" are natural principles.

Rejecting that is the same as rejecting what is commonly presented, within exlusive worlds that are not "real", that is litterature. Subjects cannot lay their acceptance upon this or that as some unitary prospect, since such assessment is always concluded by compossible means.

There are things such as the "plane of immance" that may are bit difficult, to grasp as it is. But by trying, a picture will always be realizable.

Anyhow, i suppose there can be profiles, whether as blogs or wikia article.
 
I'm not sure what to think of this. I agree stuff like this wouldn't be offensive, though. We already allow mithologies, and they technically have the potential to be far more offensive than a specific interpretation of God by a philosopher.
 
Antvasima said:
The wiki is glitchy. The latest replies disappeared.
Anyway, to reiterate my latest reply, I am personally fine with creating philosophical concept blogs, but the tier categories should probably be kept for the regular profile pages.
Click to expand...
There is a completely diffrent segement for blogs as for actual pages.

EX
 
@Kepekley23

Well, never mind the offensive part then, but my other points remain.

@MasterOfArda

Can you provide a screencapture image?
 
Antvasima said:
Philosophical concepts still seems hard to properly define, and well outside the boundaries of what is intended with this wiki.
Or that is my impression anyway, but I am not always correct.
Click to expand...


What if we limit the 'character' to what was only written or spoken about in the original works, or that which popularized the character via expanding upon it? Such as we limit The Unmoved Mover to what is explained and expanded upon in Aristotle's Metaphysics but cut out Aquinas's aditions to the idea due to it not being the original and the religious application that he uses. that way there is no gray area, or if there is any, almost none
 
@Iapitus

I am not very experienced with philosophy. Sorry.

@MasterOfArda

I think that blogs are intermingled together with regular pages when selecting the regular text list display format.
 
Pretty much I'm saying we would the being as more of a character than a concept and we would e able to eliminate the gray area you were concerned with
 
Well, my point is that we should preferably feature profiles of fully developed characters with personalities, backstories, etcetera, rather than real world ideas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Agnaa
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Links Revision
Replies
11
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
10 11 12
Replies
470
Views
31K
AerrowStorm1
AerrowStorm1
PrinceofPein
Minor Overgeared Revision (Naming Rule)
Replies
15
Views
856
Suigetsuhyugs
Suigetsuhyugs
Regarding Page Names (Semantics)
Replies
21
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top