Yeah, a brilliant poet.
"Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together." — ZzzoneiroCosm
Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. — frank
frank
Eek. From eagles to vultures. How did that happen? — ZzzoneiroCosm
You were quoting the King James Version. It's got a lot of mistranslations in it. — frank
Also, I like 'eagles' better. — ZzzoneiroCosm
. . .It is easy to imagine that if the way that a people worship their gods permeates their work, art, and politics, and they do not know of alternative ways, then it would not be likely that they would have created a concept for it. There is little need for a generic concept that abstracts a particular aspect of one’s culture as one option out of many until one is in a sustained pluralistic situation. . . . — SEP
. . . A methodological individualist, Smith denies that groups have any reality not explained by the individuals who constitute them. What one finds in history, then, is religious people, and so the adjective is useful, but there are no religious entities above and beyond those people, and so the noun reifies an abstraction. . . . — SEP
. . . We might say that a bounded polythetic approach produces concepts that are fuzzy, and an open polythetic approach produces concepts that are fuzzy and evolving. Timothy Williamson calls this “the dynamic quality of family resemblance concepts” (1994: 86). One could symbolize the shift of properties over time this way:
Religion 1: A B C D E
Religion 2: B C D E F
Religion 3: C D E F G
Religion 4: D E F G H
Religion 5: E F G H I
Religion 6: F G H I J
…
Wittgenstein famously illustrated this open polythetic approach with the concept game, and he also applied it to the concepts of language and number (Wittgenstein 1953, §67). If we substitute our concept as Wittgenstein’s example, however, his treatment fits religion just as well:
Why do we call something a “religion”? Well, perhaps because it has a direct relationship with several things that have hitherto been called religion; and this can be said to give an indirect relationship to other things we call the same name. (Wittgenstein 1953, §67)
Given an open polythetic approach, a concept evolves in the light of the precedents that speakers recognize, although, over time, what people come to label with the concept can become very different from the original use. . .
— "SEP
Most, though not all, moral codes advise me to cultivate altruism. But since the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense. — Richard Polt, Anything but Human
. . .
Race is not a thing
A striking example of this is Laura Tabili’s (2003) argument that ‘race is a relationship, not a thing’ — itself playing on the famous phrase by the historian EP Thompson (1963) that [socioeconomic] ‘class is a relationship, not a thing’.
As Tabili shows, even though the concept/category of ‘race’ is considered to be rooted in physical differences, this category is itself historically (and thus socially) constructed. Thus, it is not the case of race (as a thing) causing racism, but rather the social construction of racism creates race. . . .
. . . .
Capital is not a thing
Going somewhat further back with this: in the nineteenth century the philosopher and historian Karl Marx wrote the influential book Capital, which of course set out much of his highly influential theory of political economy. Even though Marx had a lot to say about the idea of ‘capital’ (and with it of course the capitalist mode of production), he does throw in a brief comment:
‘capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons’ (Marx 1887, ch.33, p.533)
. . ..
Thus capital, class, and race are all not things despite being considered to be things. I could continue with other examples — the idea of gender talks about things (gendered bodies, clothes, dispositions) which are also social relations (see, of course, Butler 2002). The category is not the thing in itself, it is the means by which the ‘thing’ is made ‘thingy’ (that is, it is how the category comes to be seen as a thing). . . .
That is, for McCutcheon, and many other contemporary scholars in the field, religion is not a thing in itself, but is a discourse that has political uses within certain social and cultural contexts. People do not call things religion because religion is a thing in itself (that has some special core at its heart that makes it religion).
Instead, the discourse of ‘religion’ is a human construct that does certain types of work by the human actors that put it to use. No more or less, it is a powerful term, but what the term describes (the ‘thing’) is not necessarily what we assume ‘it’ to be from the label ‘religion’.
. . . — Malory Nye
If Frank is too skittish to express his objections maybe some else knows what he’s talking about? — praxis
What’s striking about this graphic is how utterly egocentric it is, with man (even women are merely supporting characters) being the center of heaven, earth, and selfhood. How can these stories of sin and ignorance fit other lifeforms when most don’t even possess a central nervous system? — praxis
Freeloaders take advantage of the cooperative nature of others for personal gain. That doesn't seem selfish to you? — praxis
It's poetry. Open your heart. Read on. — ZzzoneiroCosm
The question is, then, what is there, in the world, that is the foundation of religion, and minus the historical accounts, minus the specious metaphysics, minus the comfort of authority, and minus everything that is merely incidental. It is a reduction that is sought. — Constance
That's half an answer. What is the other half? What is it that you have left, after you take the history, metaphysics, authority and all away? — Banno
There is no god. We make our own purpose. — Banno
There is no god. We make our own purpose.
— Banno
Which is what? To help your fellow man and woman, love and educate your kids, be a force of happiness to all? Why? Seems meaningless to simply make someone's stay as comfortable as possible if you admit there was no reason for them to come and stay in the first place. — Hanover
Forever the same on thephilosophyforum. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.