Why do the free minds of philosophers seem to stationary themselves with someone

Question:I constantly see Buddhists and Krishna and related philosophically religious views being pushed into answers. Isn't philosophy supposed to guide you to logical conclusions through the education of its different levels of spirituality? Thus giving you the tools to find your own personal answers? I thought philosophy was supposed to make you think for yourself, not tell others what to believe when they have to question their reality. Using your background to help guide is one thing, but telling an asker that some philosopher said this and then created a whole religion based on it, they must be right and you should become part of their belief system. And yet I see a lot of people on here disrespecting Christians for the same thing all in one breath. Maybe I'm wrong, but it just doesn't seem like that is what the forefathers of philosophies intended. I thought they sought enlightenment through logical thinking, not dogmatic oppression. One view from a thousand years ago is not enough.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I constantly see Buddhists and Krishna and related philosophically religious views being pushed into answers. Isn't philosophy supposed to guide you to logical conclusions through the education of its different levels of spirituality? Thus giving you the tools to find your own personal answers? I thought philosophy was supposed to make you think for yourself, not tell others what to believe when they have to question their reality. Using your background to help guide is one thing, but telling an asker that some philosopher said this and then created a whole religion based on it, they must be right and you should become part of their belief system. And yet I see a lot of people on here disrespecting Christians for the same thing all in one breath. Maybe I'm wrong, but it just doesn't seem like that is what the forefathers of philosophies intended. I thought they sought enlightenment through logical thinking, not dogmatic oppression. One view from a thousand years ago is not enough.

your not wrong and your analogy of philosophy is correct. Philosophy is finding your own personal answers. Everyone have different philosophy of life; how to live, dealing with obstacles, etc.

Philosophy is art of thinking. But that doesnt necessarily mean that you cannot share with others. People's words enlighten others, people's thoughts enlighten others. When personal philosophy is shared, the listener may prosper, changing their lives, etc.

Buddha's teaching was very popular, many people followed his teachings and enlightenment. He was the man beyond his times. And few of his words are very inspirational. Buddhism is not necessarily a religion, its more focused on teachings.

I too find christians being disrespected. But i dont people are criticizing his teachings, rather the religion in that whole picture; ie religion caused many problems, war, etc.

Thanks for asking. ;)

[Here is a bit of Ayn Rand's position on her hero, Aristotle.]

It is Aristotle who first formulated the principles of correct definition. It is Aristotle who identified the fact that only concretes exist. But Aristotle held that definitions refer to metaphysical essences, which exist in concretes as a special element or formative power, and he held that the process of concept-formation depends on a kind of direct intuition by which man's mind grasps these essences and forms concepts accordingly.

Let us note … the radical difference between Aristotle's view of concepts and the Objectivist view, particularly in regard to the issue of essential characteristics.

Aristotle regarded "essence" as metaphysical; Objectivism regards it as epistemological.

[Philosophy does cause you to think for yourself. Aristotle is admired by all; Rand is vilified by many. How could that be if she did not think for herself?
But she applied Aristotle's logic to the problems of the 20th century. No one wanted to hear Aristotle's invincibility applied to topical critiques. She showed that today's "heroic" philosophers are out of touch with Aristotilean logic. So even though she said "do no harm to others--you do not have that right..." they called her a facisist.
Don't tell me that applying someone elses principles to more modern ideas is not "thinking for yourself."
I follow Rand. I do not speak for Rand. I do not know what her words would be on the subjects of the 21st century. But if I apply her principles to it, I can think for myself.]