Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I'm surprised that he makes no distinction between analytic philosophy and continental philosophy, and doesn't really make it clear that he is apparently talking about the history of philosophy the entire time.

What exactly were you blown away by?

 

[SentinelSlain]

Do people generally say that the Abrahamic religions were ultimately positive for mankind or negative?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

70% of people on Earth believe the former.

 

[Einherjar86]

NYT: Philosophy's Western Bias

Edit: On that note, reading the opening pages of Neitzsche's "Human, All Too Human" and I'm blown away.

Really good article; damn. Also, you rarely admit to being affected such that you're "blown away," so I'm not sure if that's good or bad...

I'm surprised that he makes no distinction between analytic philosophy and continental philosophy, and doesn't really make it clear that he is apparently talking about the history of philosophy the entire time.

What exactly were you blown away by?

The Continental/Analytic divide is not one between East and West, but one within the Western tradition.

 

[Dak]

Really good article; damn. Also, you rarely admit to being affected such that you're "blown away," so I'm not sure if that's good or bad...

I don't recall ever having used that term in a negative fashion. Anyway, the opening pages where he describes the process of "freeing" ones-self. I can relate.

Pro Libertate: State Control: What the UN Arms Treaty is all about

 

[Einherjar86]

I didn't mean that it sounded negative; in fact, I thought it sounded like a positive reaction. You just very rarely express such excess when talking about texts. Usually you have a more conservative reaction. So I was pleasantly surprised.

 

[Dak]

I didn't mean that it sounded negative; in fact, I thought it sounded like a positive reaction. You just very rarely express such excess when talking about texts. Usually you have a more conservative reaction. So I was pleasantly surprised.

My exuberance probably had to do with
A: Imbibing
B: Coming out of exposure to some serious self-nonage an hour or so earlier.

Although it is quite excellent; not the content alone, but the prose as well.

Edit: I'm about halfway through it, it's not a very long read but efficient. I had tried Thus Spoke but was quite put off by what appeared to me to be rambling. Beyond Good and Evil and Human are right to the point(s).

 

[SentinelSlain]

70% of people on Earth believe the former.

Yeah but I mean philosophy and religion bigwigs, not the average person who is Christian but hasn't even read the bible and certainly not in Greek or whatever and not any further historical material on the times and on the creation of the church of their denomination.

 

[Einherjar86]

On average, I would venture that most contemporary philosophers acknowledge the detrimental effect that organized Western religion had on humanity. But trying to seriously assess whether it's been positive or negative to any discernible degree is pretty impossible; after all, the criteria for such a judgment can't really be settled. Sure, it may have caused immense physical trauma and fatalities (Crusades, Inquisition, etc.); but it also certainly provided a central force of direction and consolation for people. I, for one, would weigh the material consequences (i.e. physical pain and suffering) above the psychological (i.e. personal), but it would be presumptuous of me to try and institute that. Who am I to say that the death of a husband in the Crusades qualitatively outweighs his family's psychological well-being due to their belief in God (if they attribute it to that)?

 

[Dak]

On average, I would venture that most contemporary philosophers acknowledge the detrimental effect that organized Western religion had on humanity. But trying to seriously assess whether it's been positive or negative to any discernible degree is pretty impossible; after all, the criteria for such a judgment can't really be settled. Sure, it may have caused immense physical trauma and fatalities (Crusades, Inquisition, etc.); but it also certainly provided a central force of direction and consolation for people. I, for one, would weigh the material consequences (i.e. physical pain and suffering) above the psychological (i.e. personal), but it would be presumptuous of me to try and institute that. Who am I to say that the death of a husband in the Crusades qualitatively outweighs his family's psychological well-being due to their belief in God (if they attribute it to that)?

Can we blame the Crusades (a least solely) on religion though? Anyway here we see a built in mechanism to deal with the very problem caused by the same overarching structure, no different than government. That an arsonist runs around later attempting to put out his old fires (while setting new ones) does not make him less of an arsonist.

Edit: In Human (@59), Nietzsche essentially invokes Hanlon's Razor. My attempt at philosophical thought on this matter is as follows:

In light of these assertions, which is the greater insult? That one is evil or that one is stupid? I submit that the perception of the greater insult lies precisely in the relative degree to which one happens to be evil or stupid.

 

[Einherjar86]

Not solely, no; but even its partial influence is undeniable. Without devotion, it's likely the Crusades would not have been as extensive. If people had seriously doubted that going to fight for Jerusalem would alleviate them of their sins, then I bet the war would have been much shorter. That said, the underlying problem of land ownership and feudal hierarchy still stands; but sincere devotion and the material stranglehold of the Church ensured that it played a prominent role in obscuring the other issues, thus itself becoming a troublesome ideological issue.

 

[Dak]

Not solely, no; but even its partial influence is undeniable. Without devotion, it's likely the Crusades would not have been as extensive. If people had seriously doubted that going to fight for Jerusalem would alleviate them of their sins, then I bet the war would have been much shorter. That said, the underlying problem of land ownership and feudal hierarchy still stands; but sincere devotion and the material stranglehold of the Church ensured that it played a prominent role in obscuring the other issues, thus itself becoming a troublesome ideological issue.

Oh I agree. I wish to distinguish though between the purpose of the leadership and the motivation of the masses.

 

[SentinelSlain]

This might sound a bit simplistic, but what is even deemed to be have been the better alternative to the Crusades? Obviously the fourth was basically crap, but what about the general premise of saving Europe from Islam? When you ask whether Abrahamic religion has been good for the world, it's not just about the sins of Christianity vs "the good". It's more like this:

Has the extremely influential, in relation to size of population, role Judaism has taken in the evolution of human societies and other matters been broadly positive or negative?

Did Arabia benefit from Islam more than it suffered from it and has the long lasting Muslim decline and current situation basically countered what merit Islam might have had and what it may have brought to civilization?

Christianity in Europe and its colonies and former colonies, a benefit or a blight?


It's a list of considerably difficult questions.

 

[Einherjar86]

The Islamic religion isn't the reason for what we perceive as a third-world disaster; that's just how Western culture portrays it. We focus on the veil and oppression of women, which are certainly horrible humanitarian issues; but these sorts of issues aren't the reasons the Islamic world is "in decline." Furthermore, Muslims are the reason why our mathematics is as advanced as it is, the reason why our medicine is as advanced as it is, and the reason why we know who Aristotle is.

 

[SentinelSlain]

I'm aware of all of those things. I've studied Arab history at University by the way.

 

[Einherjar86]

Then I don't see why you would accuse Islam itself for the decline you speak of.

 

[SentinelSlain]

There's plenty of reason actually. A lot of people, including scholars, basically say that Islam had its high point and after that, the failure of, for example, Ahmadiyya and Baha'i reform sects to gain the influence that the Wahhabi movement has, has been a failure within Islam.

Also, are you aware of the fact that within the same time span, the entire modern Arab world produced less than about 10% of the copyrights that South Korea has and that most Muslim countries in the world have basically failed to invest in their people and modernise competitively since, well since the modern state system we have now, since the end of Ottoman Empire and so on. Look at the Islamic movements we have now, the Muslim Brotherhood, The Taliban and so on. What a progressive force .

 

[Dak]

Are you aware that Britain created/funded Wahhabi extremists prior to WWI?

Proverbs 26:27 strikes again.

 

[SentinelSlain]

It isn't about sides though or who is right. America funded / created the Mujahideen which partially became the Taliban, it funded Pakistan, which partially became the Taliban (that's not even that much of an oversimplification if you read into it) it funded the Viet Minh whose successor groups and leadership it became ultimately embroiled in a very expensive and ultimately failed war with and even allowed IBM to supply the data systems used during the holocaust by the Germans. Israel funded the creation of Hamas. That's how these things work sometimes.

I was just thinking about the religion itself and its influence on society.

 

[Dak]

I was just thinking about the religion itself and its influence on society.

We might be less skeptical of your newfound contemplative self if it weren't for your posting habits, history, and content.

I think religion goes hand in hand with the state. It is the "force" behind the force. Once the state realized it could become the god itself, it began to dispense with the church.