Of course this happens at the end of each semester, but my brain feels completely fried out. I have thought in ways I've never thought before in this class and encountered so much new information. I feel like everything is just rolling around in my head and mixing together in a fog...I need time for everything to settle. Who knows how long that will take.
I'm not a philosophy major (which you can probably tell right away just looking at my blog!), nor am I planning on studying psychology or theology or anything remotely close to it. I took this class because I picked religion as my cluster and had no idea what I was getting myself into! And I don't mean that in a bad way, just that I had no clue how in depth and complicated everything can get once you start asking questions. I guess I'm just not a very inquisitive person (for better or for worse) and once we started pulling at the various strings and unraveling the nature of religious experiences, I started to get a better picture of how vast the subject is. I knew nothing of reductionism, or pluralism or what hermeneutics were. Even all the time we spent talking about language and what a huge role it plays in some of the theories. What I am really coming away from this class with is a better awareness of how vast a pool of theories there are on religious beliefs, and also the desire to dive a little deeper into issues and question things more.
I don't think this class has changed my mind on any of my beliefs, but it has prompted me to ask more questions, and to really re-examine what I think about religion. Even yesterday while I was sitting in church, something my pastor said in his sermon reminded me of one of our class discussions and I was temporarily lost in contemplation. Plenty of questions were raised. When I say something is an answer to prayer, do I really believe that it is? Would I practice my religion the same way if no one else did it? What's the difference between what I believe as my religion and what theorists believe about their propositions?
So if the point of the class were to answer the question, what is the nature of religious experience? did we answer it? No, not really. Can it be answered? Yes, but only in the sense that everyone will have their own opinion and everyone will think they are the one who is right. So what was the point in all this? Why did we fight just to understand chapters and chapters of text, re-reading everything just to get an idea of what those guys are talking about? We are to observe and point out. And as hard as that was to do without letter my own opinions infiltrate or prejudice me against the ideas of others, it was worth the work.
All in all, a very enlightening experience. Thanks Professor Pam!
Monday, December 15, 2008
Feuerbach
"The need to represent the Absolute as Subject has found expression in the propositions..." (from the preface to Phenomenology of Spirit)
The whole concept of reification was very interesting to me. When we had our guest speaker in class the other week he was talking on Feuerbach and one the main points he touched on was the use of reifying propositions by using God. The word "God" doesn't mean anything in and of itself, because like all words, it is just letters strung together until we tie some meaning on to it. In the same way, concepts are without actual substance. Once we say something like "God is love" or "God is holiness", we have something concrete to tether the concept to in our mind. So if the attribute is what defines God, why don't we focus on the preposition instead of on God? Because we need a thing, that's just the way our minds work. Like Seasame Street does, we need to put an image of some kind with the idea. But in this case, instead of the number two walking around or something, it would be omnipotence, or compassion.
But does that mean God would not be those things if we didn't describe him that way? I'm struggling with reading the texts without my personal beliefs getting in the way...
The whole concept of reification was very interesting to me. When we had our guest speaker in class the other week he was talking on Feuerbach and one the main points he touched on was the use of reifying propositions by using God. The word "God" doesn't mean anything in and of itself, because like all words, it is just letters strung together until we tie some meaning on to it. In the same way, concepts are without actual substance. Once we say something like "God is love" or "God is holiness", we have something concrete to tether the concept to in our mind. So if the attribute is what defines God, why don't we focus on the preposition instead of on God? Because we need a thing, that's just the way our minds work. Like Seasame Street does, we need to put an image of some kind with the idea. But in this case, instead of the number two walking around or something, it would be omnipotence, or compassion.
But does that mean God would not be those things if we didn't describe him that way? I'm struggling with reading the texts without my personal beliefs getting in the way...
Hume and Miracles
Even as someone who believes in miracles, I applaud Hume's skepticism of them. I think a lot of people just throw the idea of "miracle" around to explain away things that are unlikely, lucky, or, well, hard to explain. Hume makes some good points on the issue and kind of restores miracles back to a higher concept in a sense.
I've heard so many people say things like "I found the book I needed even though the clerk assured me they didn't carry it! It's a miracle!" or "I aced that test and I didn't even study for it, what a miracle!" As Hume states, miracles are not only unlikely events, but are something that necessarily violates some law of nature. If the person in the first scenario had the book suddenly appear out of thin air and land in his/her hands, that would be more like a miracle. Of course, no one would be likely to believe that person, which is another point of Humes- to evaluate the witness and to weigh that with the likeliness of what they are saying.
I have met people who have actually claimed miracles in their lives, things like cancer going away and healing and stuff like that. In most of those cases though I haven't known the person well enough to judge their character, their reliability. And being in the position I'm in, I would have no proof of what their situation was before or even exactly what happened.
Basically, there are a lot of reasons to doubt and debunk miracles. Hume says that even though he is not saying there are no miracles, we should at least agree that there isn't any proof of miracles. Which in his mind means that we shouldn't believe in them, but I will have to be a little stubborn here, because as someone who is continually amazed and surprised in life, I am going to keep believing in the possibility of miracles.
I've heard so many people say things like "I found the book I needed even though the clerk assured me they didn't carry it! It's a miracle!" or "I aced that test and I didn't even study for it, what a miracle!" As Hume states, miracles are not only unlikely events, but are something that necessarily violates some law of nature. If the person in the first scenario had the book suddenly appear out of thin air and land in his/her hands, that would be more like a miracle. Of course, no one would be likely to believe that person, which is another point of Humes- to evaluate the witness and to weigh that with the likeliness of what they are saying.
I have met people who have actually claimed miracles in their lives, things like cancer going away and healing and stuff like that. In most of those cases though I haven't known the person well enough to judge their character, their reliability. And being in the position I'm in, I would have no proof of what their situation was before or even exactly what happened.
Basically, there are a lot of reasons to doubt and debunk miracles. Hume says that even though he is not saying there are no miracles, we should at least agree that there isn't any proof of miracles. Which in his mind means that we shouldn't believe in them, but I will have to be a little stubborn here, because as someone who is continually amazed and surprised in life, I am going to keep believing in the possibility of miracles.
Our "Nothing" Writing Assignment
So Professor Pam handed out a fake writing assignment with two questions on it. 1) Why is there something rather than nothing? and 2) What is wrong it question #1? Thank goodness we didn't actually have to write an essay on that! But seriously, that was a very intriguing idea (and corresponding class discussion) for me. The point of those questions was to realize that there is a point when we need to stop asking questions. Not only can we not answer #1, but we Professor Pam explained that we shouldn't even ask it.
When I was growing up, sometimes I would think about what the world would be like if I wasn't born. From there I would move on to what the world would be like without people, or animals. Eventually I would think, "What if there was no earth...what if there was nothing???" (Yes, I regularly had these thoughts as a child) Trying to think about absolute nothingness would give me this weird vacuum-like feeling inside as my mind tried to grasp that concept, which is why, actually, I had this mental conversation so often because I thought that feeling was so overwhelming. I couldn't even picture "nothing." We talked about it in class, because nothing is only understood as the absence of something and we can only comprehend it in context to what we know.
So I won't ask anymore why there is something instead of nothing, but it definitely was fun trying.
When I was growing up, sometimes I would think about what the world would be like if I wasn't born. From there I would move on to what the world would be like without people, or animals. Eventually I would think, "What if there was no earth...what if there was nothing???" (Yes, I regularly had these thoughts as a child) Trying to think about absolute nothingness would give me this weird vacuum-like feeling inside as my mind tried to grasp that concept, which is why, actually, I had this mental conversation so often because I thought that feeling was so overwhelming. I couldn't even picture "nothing." We talked about it in class, because nothing is only understood as the absence of something and we can only comprehend it in context to what we know.
So I won't ask anymore why there is something instead of nothing, but it definitely was fun trying.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Reality of the Unseen
When reading the “Reality of the Unseen” by James I was confused about what stance exactly he takes on rationalism. When he starts the conversation it seems that he is praising rationalism, and then he turns right back around and says it not enough and he starts to praise intuition. The deeper part of us relies on the intuitive side and there is no way rationalism can feel this need. Moreover, rationalism cannot lead while the intuitive is there in any great degree. Once the intuitive groundwork has been firmly laid though, any rational thought that falls into those beliefs can work alongside it and follow its lead. It seems like he is saying that rationalism is important, but in the sphere of religion is it somewhat inferior.
But then, farther into the chapter James says that once rationalism and intuition work hand-in-hand, only then will the “great world-ruling systems….grow up.” If he concluded that rationalism doesn’t have much place in religion, why is it so important for these to work together? A possible answer could be because rationalism helps us to understand our intuitions better.
And why and how does a religion “grow up” without changing any important essentials that make that religion distinctive? Is there a way to retain the core of religion while stepping ever farther into the rational realm?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Durkheim
I think I jumped the gun a little in answering our discussion questions on Durkheim, doing so before I really sorted through my initial reactions compared to the bare facts. Professor Pam was asking us if there really is a way to refute Durkheim’s claims that religion is the social because you cannot separate religion from the people. I had previously stated that I thought I could still practice my religion independently and thus argue against this notion, but as we discussed in class the other day, the religion I would be practicing there all by my lonesome would still have its roots in culture, in the society of other believers. Even the choice to isolate oneself would have it’s origin in something social. A Christian or a Buddhist who never comes in contact with another follower is still tied to the others in the society of believers. So how really can we argue with Durkheim? We will never be without other people, so we can’t say how religion would be without the influence of society.
That said, I still have a problem with his view on religious rituals. The idea that their sole purpose is to reinforce a commitment to the community in which they reside isn’t really taking in the whole picture. I’m still turning this over in mind and to argue my case would chip away at the stand I just took on Durkheim’s overall claims…. This is something I have to wrestle with a bit more.
James
James’ layed-back approach to religion is nice in that it allows for religious freedom and expression, but I’m concerned that it is so hands-off that it includes a little too much. Saying that “what is true is whatever is working out for you” seems like a bit of a cop-out in my opinion. True, there would be a whole lot less arguing and division among religious people if everyone could just believe in this philosophy, but I’m the type of person who likes things a little more concrete than that. And in this science-minded day and age I feel like a lot of people would take that stance as well.
On a positive note, I am glad to hear from an analyst who at least admits that religion is (or can be) a positive solution to meeting some of our needs. As if it isn’t enough that Freud and Frazer and the others take religious study and turn it into something completely different (I’m not a huge fan of the functionalist/reductionist view, if you can’t already tell) they also seem to cast it into such a negative light that one should fee like a completely stupid, ignorant or sick person. James seems to have some mixed views on religion but in the end he at least admits that it is an asset in life and can be healthy and normal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
