Is it somehow relevant to our discussion?Will it make any difference? You think it would help or you will get more prejudiced?
Answer me that first.

Isn't the question "what happens after death?" available both in philosophy and religion? — dimosthenis9

It isn't really available in religion because to belong is to not question the dogma, and it's all about belonging. The function of philosophy is not to bind communities with shared values, norms, and narratives.

It isn't really available in religion because to belong is to not question the dogma, and it's all about belonging. The function of philosophy is not to bind communities with shared values, norms, and narratives. — praxis

I don't get your point. First people have the questions on their own a priory and after they seek the answers. Some turn in religions for answers.
Religion don't also deal with after death issue? So how can it not be available?

First people have the questions on their own a priory and after they seek the answers. — dimosthenis9

Not necessarily, some are raised within a religion and belong to it their entire lives. They may of course privately question it, but to publicly question doctrine is to risk becoming a heretic. Also, questioning too deeply will tend to erode faith and promote independence. Whether or not that's beneficial to the individual it's not beneficial to the religion because it loses support. A lost supporter can still be useful though, and that's why heretics exist. They help to reify the identity of the in-group by distinguishing them from the in-group. It's a 'you're either with us or against us' mentality. You'll note that there are no heretics in philosophy.

Not necessarily, some are raised within a religion and belong to it their entire lives — praxis

Some aren't though.

They may of course privately question it, but to publicly question doctrine is to risk — praxis

I care about the personal part in that case only. The private inner questions they make to themselves.

Whether or not that's beneficial to the individual it's not beneficial to the religion because it loses support. — praxis

It does indeed. But I didn't mention that religion urges people go question themselves. Just that many people try to answer these existential questions via religions.

You're as dogmatic as any preacher, only in the opposite direction :wink:

many people try to answer these existential questions via religions. — dimosthenis9

Sure, but there's a difference between seeking and belonging.

There is indeed.

You're as dogmatic as any preacher, only in the opposite direction :wink: — Wayfarer

:razz: I promise not to label you a heretic if you were to try explaining this claim. If you do try, I suspect that it will inevitably end in your saying something to the effect that my religion of scientism blinds me to glorious heavens. I'm paraphrasing of course.

There is indeed. — dimosthenis9

Apparently, I misinterpreted what you were asking. Maybe if I read the previous content it would have been clearer with that context.

I think we need to distinguish religion as a structure of group rules, practices and rituals from religion as a theoretical enterprise, that is, as theology or metaphysics.
My impression is the OP’s sense of religion focuses on ideas, not the group rituals that many on this thread have pointed to. As an idea, we can look at religion as it has been understood in different historical eras, but I think it may be helpful to see how the most forward thinking contemporary supporters of a religious outlook articulate the religious impulse. Liberal theology today takes many forms :the death of god, heretical Christianity, Caputo’s
religion after religion , Mark Taylor’s atheology. They
have dispensed with so many of the accoutrements that people associate with traditional religion ( God as a Being , the trinity, miracles ) as to be almost unrecognizable as ‘religious’. So what makes them so? Religion has its root in religio, which means binding. I think what keeps today’s radical theologies from crossing over into atheism
is that they bind humanity to a notion of the Good that cannot be deconstructed away.
With this in mind , we can’t say that philosophy as an enterprise gives us an alternative to religion.In fact, up until a century ago all philosophy was religious in its metaphysics, and that includes Hume. Not into Marx’s era do we see a thoroughgoing challenge to a religious pint of view , and at that Marx allows a certain faith to slip in through the back door. It was Nietzsche who most radically questioned the stability of the notion of the Good that justifies the religious impulse. Nonetheless, it continues to hang on in the most approaches within philosophy. There are religious variants of phenomenology , postmodernism and existentialism.

I get the sense, Jack, that you don’t want to abandon religion entirely, but are looking for a ‘reasonable’ sort of spirituality.

Apparently, I misinterpreted what you were asking. Maybe if I read the previous content it would have been clearer with that context. — praxis

It's Ok.

Doing some back-reading, I can't answer what you were asking any better than what 180 wrote and you seem to have ignored.

I'm curious why you're so intent on drawing a parallel between philosophy and religion. :chin:

Religion has its root in religio, which means binding. — Joshs

Joshs, I think the etymology which you suggest here is incorrect. Medieval Christian writers posited ligo/ligare ("to bind", "to tie") as the constituent verb to religio, but I deny that this makes sense within the Classical or Preclassical Roman context. I think it a false etymology purposely advanced within the context of the Church and it's medieval claims of propriety over the very person of the individual Christian. Of course, Cicero and other Classical grammarians had lego/legere ("to choose", "to select"; "to collect", "to gather") as the verb, which as I noted above, makes great sense within a pre-Christian context, rendering as a meaning for religio "that which is repeatedly chosen" (referring to religious ritual, such as rendering sacrifice to the gods, or seeking direction from the augur), or "repeated convergence", "repeated coming together (as a community)". Note that the stem of lego often undergoes a morphological change when used in the derivation of other lemmas from -leg- to -lig-, depending on how the morphemes which are affixed to it effect it according to the "Latin sound laws": note that while there is no phonetically based morphological shift in ad- + lego > allego ("I admit/enroll/recruit"), there is indeed in con- + lego > colligo ("I assemble/draw together/concentrate/compress"), and in de- + lego > deligo ("I cull/pick or pluck off"). I myself feel absolutely certain that, religio < re- ("again", "repeatedly") + legor/legi (passive voice of lego/legere, and so "to be chosen/selected for doing"...the stem of course remains the same) + -io (creating the abstract result noun). I specifically do not think that religio has anything to do with "binding".

Of course, I only mention it in satisfaction of my obsessive-compulsion to do so (...aaah, that feels better...). :wink:

I'm curious why you're so intent on drawing a parallel between philosophy and religion. :chin: — praxis

Cause imo there is one. In fact not parallel but many crossovers between them. But surely aren't the same.

I agree that religion tries to give answers from divine authority. Unquestionable ones.Philosophy's work is mostly questions. But that doesn't mean that philosophy doesn't also attempt to give some answers in specific existential matters also. "Possible answers" though and not "definite answers" as religion does.

"Possible answers" though and not "definite answers" as religion does. — dimosthenis9

And that's an insignificant difference for you? It indicates that their purposes are of an entirely different nature. If philosophy is the love of wisdom, religion is the love of social cohesion.

Very thorough, thanks . I got the etymology from Oxford Languages:


Middle English (originally in the sense ‘life under monastic vows’): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n- ) ‘obligation, bond, reverence’, perhaps based on Latin religare ‘to bind’.

‘Repeated convergence’ can work for me , not just in the sense of a convergence of individuals, but a convergence of thinking, which is a kind of binding. It captures my idea of religion as a faith ina moral constancy, a coming back repeatedly to a principle of belief.

‘Repeated convergence’ can work for me , not just in the sense of a convergence of individuals, but a convergence of thinking, which is a kind of binding. It captures my idea of religion as a faith ina moral constancy, a coming back repeatedly to a principle of belief. — Joshs

That works semantically, and if it works for you and me, all the better! I am a bit surprised to find that Oxford gives it with ligo/ligare; the OLD is the best Latin-English dictionary available, bar none. Forcellini is better, more comprehensive and exhaustive, but that is all in Latin. My own personal feeling about religio, though, is that it means "that which is selected and done repeatedly (indeed, one could say 'religiously')". Of course, I could always be wrong myself. It is hard to surmise what was in the mind of the original coiner of a lexeme thousands of years after the fact.

@Joshs, I just did a bit of research on this etymology of religio, and have made a fascinating discovery in linguist Michiel De Vaan's Etymological Dictionary of Latin, etc. (the Bible for Latin Etymology) It seems that the Proto-Italic verb *lego, and also lego in Early Latin (Preclassical Latin) also had the additional meaning "to care, to regard". This means that Proto-Italic *lego was the product of what is called by some "etymological conflation", with the meanings "to choose/select" and "to collect/gather" coming ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *leǵ- "to select//collect/gather", and the meaning "to care, to regard" coming ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *h₂leg- "to care". From this second sense of Proto-Italic lego ("to care/regard"), was derived a verb *religo ("to observe") which was lost by the time of Classical Latin in favor of Classical religo "to bind fast" (from ligo "to bind"). Also within either Proto-Italic or Early Latin was derived from said *religo ("to care or have regard for repeatedly/to observe"), the abstract noun (indeed our abstract noun) religio, which in fact meant "observance", did pass into Classical Latin, as by so doing it did not displace any other noun with the same spelling.

So...the Oxford people (in an apparently rare instance) do indeed have this wrong, and I had it partially right, though not right enough to render the true picture. The correct etymology for Latin religio appears to be (this probably occurred within Proto-Italic, but possibly within either Archaic or even Early Latin...note that an asterisk indicates a lost word or lost sense of a word by the time of the Classical period):

re ("again/repeatedly") + *legere ("to care/have regard for") > *religare ("to care/have regard for repeatedly", and so "to observe"); and said *religare ("to observe") + -io (suffix forming abstract nouns from verbal stems) > religio ("observance" either in the specific sense of "the practice of repeatedly or regularly observing a custom or ritual", or in the sense of "reverent concern").

Whew...now I'm tuckered out. Cheers!

Religion has its root in religio, which means binding. I think what keeps today’s radical theologies from crossing over into atheism — Joshs

When I studied comparative religion, one of the possible derivations, from religare, was to bind or join - as you said.

However the other possible derivation is more straightforward - the Latin 'religio' 'respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness' from here https://www.etymonline.com/word/religion

More prejudiced? Why so defensive? I ask because it suddenly struck me earlier that your questions regarding religion & philosophy are either (A) naive re: age or (B) ignorant re: subject-matter shallowness or (C) both. It's not that we merely disagree, it's your conceptions of what we are doing (or trying to do) when we practice "religion" or "philosophy" which make no sense in the light of the historicities / genealogies of their respective roles in 'the life of the mind' (re: the OP). Okay, don't answer; or rather, your nonanswers, dimo9, persuade me my suspicions are correct.

There was a time I believe when western philosophy declared truth (verum), good (bonum), beauty (pulchrum) as the primary objectives of (doing) philosophy. — TheMadFool

Apart from the postmodern nonsense, I think those objectives still are present in philosophy. And I should note, even if I'm not an expert on the field, that Eastern philosophy has similar ideas too. Harmony and all that. Of course Eastern philosophy has an even more direct link to religion than it's Western counterpart.

Perhaps just your average teacher of philosophy doesn't dare to say the above. because everything "Western" should be bad as we ought to be "critical", right?

More prejudiced? Why so defensive? — 180 Proof

It isn't defense. It was just observation since it was obvious the reason for you asking that kind of thing.

it's your conceptions of what we are doing (or trying to do) when we practice "religion" or "philosophy" which make no sense in the light of the historicities / genealogies of their respective roles in 'the life of the mind — 180 Proof

I still can't understand why you say that. And why you find it so weird that people through philosophy also try to feed their existential curiosity.
Not that philosophy is a substitute for religion as I agreed earlier but of course they have common field in some issues. And it is just a matter of logic and crystal clear to my eyes.

You can also identify it in the work of many great philosophers who dealt with religion morals and God. It really amazes me that you can't acknowledge such an obvious thing.

Okay, don't answer; or rather, your nonanswers, dimo9, persuade me my suspicions are correct. — 180 Proof

I would answer it anyway, just wanted to clarify the reasons for such an irrelevant question of the topic.
Since when is age an argument validity measurement?? Interesting.
As I see from your characterization on myself (naive, ignorant etc) I was right for being suspicious.

I m 34.And philosophical questions bother me since I remember myself. In a compulsive way. Since teenager I read philosophical and psychological books since they interest me the most.
If your question though is about academic philosophical education. Then none. I studied economic university but I m just a receptionist.

And that's an insignificant difference for you? I — praxis

Of course it isn't. And that's why I never mentioned that philosophy and religion serve exact the same purpose.Nor that philosophy can replace religion. I am careful with my wording.

I am careful with my wording. — dimosthenis9

:brow:

Philosophy and religion have combined origins, as expressed in the history of Western philosophy. — Jack Cummins

I disagree. Western religion has its origins in old Greece, a country more philosophical than others. Xenophanes replaced the concrete poly by an abstract mono. Unimaginable, independent of us, objective, eternal, and the same for all. Reflecting itself both in modern science (which posits, as does Xenophanes, an eternal single objective that cannot be known "an Sich", but only, in combination with the most abstract formal system of all, math, approximated, which is basically a Platonic notion, the difference being that Plato talks about mathematical objects, existing in an extramundane, metaphysical, heavenly world) and Western religion, delegating God to the same extramundane world. How many pictures exist of their image? Quasi non. And it's always a man with a beard. It's even blasphemous to picture them (in basically the same religion, Islam, the Sharia forbids explicitly to paint pictures of him, and I think the Bible says about the same). The views of Xenophanes and others in old Greece, still make their bells heard loudly nowadays. In the whole of the world. Be is science or religion. The scientific minarets are high as they have never been before.

one of the possible derivations, from religare, was to bind or join [...] However the other possible derivation is more straightforward - the Latin 'religio' 'respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness' from here. — Wayfarer

:up:
...and this latter set of meanings can only proceed from said Archaic *lego ("to care", "to have regard (for)"), and cannot rationally proceed from ligo ("to bind"), which in any case would not render the correct sense of "binding". Latin ligo meant "to bind" in the literal, physical sense...as with a rope or cord. The Latin word for a figurative "binding" was obligo, from whence obligatio and our English obligation. Surely, the reason that Medieval Christian writers gave the etymology with ligo was to reinforce the notion of the Christian's obligation to "Mother Church". The Church has always been as good at propaganda and (maybe not so much today, but certainly in the "good old days") at employing subtle, pretextual threats of violence as has any modern nation-state.

Perhaps just your average teacher of philosophy doesn't dare to say the above. because everything "Western" should be bad as we ought to be "critical", right? — ssu

I don't think being critical means black and white thinking. Nuances and subtleties are what make up the heart of philosophy.

Philosophy and religion have combined origins, as expressed in the history of Western philosophy. — Jack Cummins

The origin of western religion was connected once to the notion of abstract formal systems, which constituted the major part of ancient philosophy. Logic, math, moral systems, etc. Religion was still connected to them. Nowadays, the connection has gone, but the ontological content lingers on. A single God existing in a realm outside of spacetime, not-knowable to mankind. Though glimpses can be perceived sometimes, and they can interact with the world occasionally, mainly to punish. The only things we can know about them is their moral system. And the fact that they created the universe and life in it (how else could it be). But the nature of themselves is unknowable, so it's thought. The same attitude as held in science, which has its origins ancient Greece too, but is as disconnected from it as religion is nowadays.

When I studied comparative religion, one of the possible derivations, from religare, was to bind or join - as you said.

However the other possible derivation is more straightforward - the Latin 'religio' 'respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness' from here https://www.etymonline.com/word/religion — Wayfarer

:up: