Welcome

Use the Menus and the Categories to see what’s here. Only the new stuff will be on the front page. Look around and let me know your opinion, but first please read the CopyRight, Terms, and Privacy pages before accessing any other part of the site. By accessing any part of this site other than this page and the pages listed under Site Info in the Menu you have agreed to be bound legally by their content. Registered Users can leave comments. For those who want to comment but are not ready to register, you can use the write to me link in the Menu.
Dec 092011

I was reading an article in the Wikipedia on Jewish philosophy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_philosophy and the section far down the page at:

“Traditionalist attitudes towards philosophy”

which reads: “Haredi traditionalists who emerged in reaction to the Haskalah considered the fusion of religion and philosophy as difficult because classical philosophers start with no preconditions for which conclusions they must reach in their investigation, while classical religious believers have a set of religious principles of faith that they hold one must believe. Most Haredim contended that one cannot simultaneously be a philosopher and a true adherent of a revealed religion. In this view, all attempts at synthesis ultimately fail. Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, for example, viewed all philosophy as untrue and heretical. In this he represents one strand ofHasidic thought, with creative emphasis on the emotions.

Other exponents of Hasidism had a more positive attitude towards philosophy. In the Chabadwritings of Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Hasidut is seen as able to unite all parts of Torah thought, from the schools of philosophy to mysticism, by uncovering the illuminating Divine essence that permeates and transcends all approaches. Interpreting the verse from Job, “from my flesh I seeHaShem”, Shneur Zalman explained the inner meaning, or “soul”, of the Jewish mystical tradition in intellectual form, by means of analogies drawn from the human realm. As explained and continued by the later leaders of Chabad, this enabled the human mind to grasp concepts of Godliness, and so enable the heart to feel the love and awe of HaShem, emphasised (sic) by all the founders of hasidism, in an internal way. This development, the culminating level of the Jewish mystical tradition, in this way bridges philosophy and mysticism, by expressing the transcendent in human terms.”

I’ve quoted the entire piece so it will be clear that I’m not trying to distort the meaning of the article. This is an objective factual article and the arthur is not advocating any personal stand on the subject.

The article is on the subject of Jewish philosophy, but if you remove the Jewish aspects you get a contrast that applies to all Fundamentalist vs Rationalist.

The extracts below were made by me because they jumped out as such a clear and concise statement of two ways of looking at reality.

(1.) Those who’s view of reality is predicated on faith;

(“… have a set of … principles of faith that they hold one must believe.”

“… one cannot simultaneously be a philosopher and a true adherent of a revealed religion.”

viewing “…all philosophy as untrue and heretical.”

And supporting their views “… with creative emphasis on the emotions.”)

and:

(2.) Those who’s view of really is predicated on reason;

(“… start with no preconditions for … conclusions they must reach in their investigation,” .)

These statements grabbed my attention because I had been pondering over the growing divide between these same two view’s of reality that is occurring today.

The “emphasis on the emotions” was especially significant; the idea that knowledge can come from emotion. Knowledge has only 6 sources: the five senses, (sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste;) and the 6th; reason (or logic.) Starting at birth our brains continuously use the input from the senses to build synapses between our brain cells, accumulating knowledge and building a picture in our mind of reality. The more synapses the more data available for our reason to build a picture and understanding of reality. There is no guarantee that the view of reality that our brains build is true reality, but the input from our senses and the analysis of that input by our reasoning is the only source we have of what reality is. The emotions can NEVER be a source of knowledge or a way of determining what reality is. Yet the emotions can be and frequently are used as a way of validating ideas that have no basis in our sensory knowledge and can not stand up to logic. For example our parents used emotions (excitement [at the prospect] , joy [at the discovery] , and maybe a little fear [at the beginning]) to get us to ignore the lack of sensory data and accept the really of the Tooth Fairy. When the first tooth was placed under the pillow because we were told the Tooth Fairy would come in the night and change it into a coin, there may have been some doubt about this happening. (Even children’s minds depend upon sensory data and logic [limited tho it maybe] to understand reality.) If we woke during the night we checked to see if it’d happened; still some doubt. But when morning came, and the tooth was gone, the coin was there, the emotions became the force that convinced our minds to accept the reality of the Tooth Fairy in spite of the lack of any sensory or logic evidence of this knowledge. The same use of emotion applies to children’s belief in Santa and the Easter Bunny. Parents may not (and probably aren’t) conscious of what is being done.

A good (and by good I mean only successful) orator does exactly the same thing. By presenting ideas while stimulating the audiences emotions, the orator gets the audience to accept ideas as valid that have no basis in the five senses and that a non-emotional consideration by the minds reasoning powers would reject BECAUSE there is no such basis.

Mythic Past

Faith, Religion Comments Off
Nov 282010

 

I have had Thomas L. Thompson’s Mythic Past Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel on my book shelf for years and finally got around to reading it last month. Dr. Thompson’s rejects the generally accepted idea that the Israelites arrived in Biblical Israel as invaders of an already existing civilization, conquered and replaced it. (A stand that caused him much opposition in his field and was detrimental to his career.) Thompson basically asserts a gradual evolution of already existing cultural elements.  It is a little hard to dismiss the idea of “barbarian” invasions of the “cross roads” of the middle east yet Thompson’s reasoning is convincing.  Perhaps reality lies somewhere in-between.

Overall this was a book well worth reading and I recommend it to everyone.  BUT (there’s always a BUT) it’s not easy reading.  It’s kind of like reading a semester of lectures.  Dr. Thompson is a professor so that makes sense but he could learn a few things from Hawking or Clark about writing for the masses.
One last comment on the writing.  The book would be much easier to read if the chapters at the end were at the beginning.  You see they are much easier to read. The bad thing about the book is the difficulty of getting through the first few chapters which struck me as more an opening statement for a debate within the discipline than an introduction to the thesis of the book.
I guess the most remarkable effect the book had was to make me consciously aware of the obvious influence of societal structure on belief systems.  I’m referring to the  continuously reiterated patrons and clients references which characterized the social structure of the time.  That’s not new knowledge for anyone, but what the book did was make me see the trees in the forest, a slowly dawning  ”AHHH”  moment.  God (or gods) now are seen in a whole different light and that makes reading and understanding the Bible a totally new experience.  I can’t believe I was blind to this for so long.
Thompson also  provides the answer to the eternal question of  ”Why does God allow evil things to happen?”  The question as Thompson states it in chapter 1 on page 18 is:  ” … how can God be good and still have created the world we live in?  The problem is the existence of evil in a world created by God. … Each day of the creation is marked with a reiteration of the summarizing statement ‘And God saw that it was good’ (Gen. 1: 4) … ‘God saw everything he had made, that it was very good’ (Gen. 1: 31).”  And then he ties this to the whole patrons and clients concept with “… a fundamental motif of patronage, the creator is … absolute benefactor.  He establishes all that is good … Good is what he sees as good.  In fact, it is good because he sees it that way.”  Later  in chapter 14 on page 360: “What is good is good as God sees it.  That is what makes it good.”
So evil is only evil in the judgement of man.  Eating the apple didn’t give wisdom, it only gave the knowledge of good and evil, not the ability to actually know which was which.  The foundation of the patrons and clients paradigm is that the patron is the source of all good. Throughout the book Thompson points out this contrast and emphasizes that man’s ideas of what is good and what is evil are irrelevant to the Bible’s purpose and content.
OK, enough then.  Over all 5 stars.  Highly recommended.
Russ

GOD

Confessions, Faith, Sins Comments Off
Oct 302010

Of all the sins perhaps the worst in any faith is to question GOD.  So maybe my thoughts on this subject have damned me but I have been thinking and if you’d like to know what I’ve been thinking it’s here at my home site.

Let’s see now, a bunch of incompetent, greedy multi-millionaires and billionaires spent the  last 8 years spending millions of dollars lobbying a bunch of millionaires called the Congress of the United States to let them do anything they wanted to our economy and succeeded  in destroying it, and now a lying incompetent multi-millionaire President of the United [...]

Feb 232007

It is not the worst of sins, but I will confess, it is one to which I am highly susceptible.  Were it not so I would be posting to this blog on a regular bases and keeping the Gallery up to date. So I have taken the time and worked all day on the Gallery and [...]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."- George Santayana (1863-1952)
"History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme a lot."- Mark Twain
"We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare;
now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true."-Robert Wilensky
Copyright ©2000...2010 Russ Perry, All Rights Reserved Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha