Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by PsychoticEpisode, Oct 16, 2009.
A pantheist does not need to deny the theory of evolution, nor do many kinds of pagans. For example.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
for the record , I am not in any and in any form , religious
Darwinism is not a belief , although it was at first
today , Darwin , is based on fact , genetic fact
I haven't said it isn't based on fact. I have not denied its accuracy.
but theism and supernaturalism are not one and the same, IOW one can maintain superstitions without being a theist.
more importantly, recent research (i.e. Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols; Fredrik Barth, Nomads of South Persia, etc.) suggests that earlier interpretations of, say, paleolithic cave paintings were rather fanciful and wildly extrapolative, and that early nomadic peoples (and even contemporary nomadic peoples) were not and are not theists. certainly, they may hold to certain superstitions and practice various methods for transcendent experience (if such can even rightly be interpreted as such); but they were/are by no means necessarily theists of any variety (poly-, mono-, pan-, panen-).
theism, and specifically polytheism, seems to have emerged when people became sedentary, tribes became much more populous societies, and means and methods for controlling people, and creating hierarchical orders, became necessary.
so then whats your angle
I think I made that pretty clear in the posts to FR. But I do appreciate the shift to the question on your part.
Please answer my question.
How do you know you are really "thinking for yourself"?
hmmm. haven't read through the entire thread again (like 15 pages or something?) but has "primitive" been all that clearly defined, and are we just to assume all those negative connotations that may be associated with such?
anyways, i just realized that what i wrote two posts above (post#? i'd have to open another window to check--not gonna do it.) would suggest that atheism* be the more primitive thinking.
* though not proper atheism perhaps: the aforementioned "atheists" may possibly have never even considered a "god" in the first place.
when I can question
Alas, despite my multitudinous exhortations throughout the entire GP subforum, it's a rarity indeed that anyone actually provide so much as a working definition for critical terms.
Thus, all too often, we all have to guess (see my post#11 herein..), and of course, we all know what kinds of chaos thereby ensues...
The OP was penned by psychotic episode so you can be rest assured that he was trying to get every inch of negativity he could out of the word "primitive"
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But sometimes, it is those definitions that are actually being sought.
How do you propose that a definition be arrived at?
If that were the case, then it should be made clear in the OP.
However, I do understand what you mean.
That being the case however, a good place to start would be to do some research. There are numerous resources available (both online and off..) if one is seeking such. Within philosophy (indeed, if not all scholarly domains..) it's pretty much understood that unless otherwise specified, terms will be interpreted in their conventional sense within the lexicon. Aberrant uses are to be made clear.
I suppose you wish that topics would be formulated differently then?
Instead of putting forward a provocative sentence, the OP should be formulated as "The lexicon definition of such and such is such and such, but I am wondering if ... and then if that, then ... and if ... What do you think? Does my reasoning follow" -?
But perhaps some of us have read (one word too much) of Derrida and the likes, and are just too much into being cool and provocative, at the expense of philosophical clarity ...:xctd:
No, that's just silly verbiage.
What should be done is ordinary formal standard:
Briefly provide a synopsis of your position and a supporting argument.
Provide working definitions for terms that may be contentious.
Without definitions, there cannot be clarity.
As the good Wittgenstein said:
"Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries." Tractatus, 4.112
dammit! you beat me to it. but i'll add:
"This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule." Philosophical Investigations, s201
any rule--or term--can be interpreted in ways that are incompatible. an interpretation remains unclear until it is supported by yet another.
so i (think) i see what Signal is getting at: without definitions there can be no clarity, but just how clear can we be with our definitions.
again, with respect to the OP, theism? are we just to assume that of the monotheistic, abrahamic variety? even if such is the case, there are traditions amongst such--apophatic traditions, for instance--for which this "god" is in noway clearly defined, nor can it be clearly defined. and of the other "theisms," well they've already been brought up--but i'll add, as pantheism has been mentioned: how about panentheism?
At one time theism was avant garde, modern thinking ahead of its time. It seems most ideas have tenure, a time allotted for them, before they become stale and outdated.
It seems obvious to me that the only people seriously concerned with killing one another are from the major theistic religions. The acts & the threats of violence alone are enough to tell me that theism is behaving normally, so out of touch with reality. The only way out is to step away, remove yourself from the insanity of theism, a primitive and prehistoric remnant of a stone age civilization. None of it belongs in a modern human society.
Could you link us to some research supporting this idea.
Is there a way one can test this idea? How did you arrive at this conclusion?
Modern society was made primarily by theists.
contrary to the messages of daytime television, the problems of birth, death, old age and disease (all within the medium of ascribing eternal values to things that will very shortly cease to exist) remain unchallenged.
It seems obvious to me that this is not the case since anyone involved even vaguely in the legal system, conflict resolution, criminal investigation or any other such administrative body that deals with wholesale violence (and possible murder) merely adopts a filigree of theistic underpinnings at best. Rather, they tend to examine issues of land/assets, means of income/production, social resources and access (eg education, health, etc) as the core means of determining the precise nature of conflict.
the only problem is that you haven't established this inextricable link you're alluding to between religion and violence. For instance are religious holidays in your area characterized by unusually high levels of theistic induced violence?
.... meanwhile, no doubt ....... envy, wrath and animosity will still find a florurishing market to trade their goods in
Yes, this is why you chose the name "glaucon", looking for wisdom while posing as Plato's older brother ... the one to whom Plato himself, by fraternal obligation, owes special respect.
Without a purpose and a goal, the activity of philosophy is merely an exercise in futility, and what matters then is whether one at least has some flair ...
Separate names with a comma.