Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2017, 02:42 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(21-03-2017 02:29 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Sure, but you can't exactly blame that one on Mao -- he'd been dead nearly a decade and a half before the internet went public. Yes

I always keep saying China combines the worst of both worlds. Unchained capitalism with a totalitarian system. What's not to like?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like abaris's post
21-03-2017, 02:50 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(21-03-2017 02:42 PM)abaris Wrote:  I always keep saying China combines the worst of both worlds. Unchained capitalism with a totalitarian system. What's not to like?

You forgot to mention extreme over-population.

Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
21-03-2017, 03:45 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2017 05:13 PM by Dr H.)
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(21-03-2017 02:32 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  They wouldn't call it such but how much communism differs from paradise? It was always in future too, just like one in traditional religions.
I agree on that point, but submit that it's true of a good many things other than traditional religions.

Don't we hear this about capitalist philosophy, as well? Prosperity is always "just around the corner". If the wealthy prosper, the benefits will "trickle down" to the poor -- eventually. If we can just get rid of enough pesky regulations (designed to protect workers and the environment), then we will start to experience renewed growth, and everyone will be better off -- someday. The underlying assumption that constant growth is necessary (or even possible), without any acknowledgment that perpetual growth amounts to cancer.

Should we, then, characterize capitalism as a religion?

Quote:Stretch the definitions, sure. Reverence in which Lenin was held means nothing, same with Stalin cult.
A cult of personality is not the same thing as a religion.

Quote:Party looking for heretics and creating accepted cannon of it's history [History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks): Short Course] stretching the definition too I guess.
"Heretics" or scapegoats -- which every political movement seeks or creates?

You're taking a non-religious phenomenon and salting the descriptions over with religious terms -- "heretic"; "saint"; "paradise"; "canon"; "reverence". But just overlaying something with religious terminology doesn't magically make it into a religion.

Or, if it does, then one can do the same thing with capitalism, democracy, and all the other "isms" aforementioned. As already noted, the arguments fails on reductio ad absurdum -- if everything is a religion, then it makes as much sense to say that nothing is religion, and "religion" becomes a word empty of meaning.

Quote:You do realize that no every definition of religion speaks about something mystical element? Look at Frazer one: Religion is a belief in powers superior to man which are believed to direct and control the course of nature of human life and remember m-l laws of history.
If you're referring to J.G. Frazer, his full definition of religion states that sympathetic magic comes first, and when that fails, people turn to the concept of superior beings or powers which control and direct their lives: "Religion assumes the operation of conscious or personal agents, superior to man, behind the visible screen of nature. Obviously the concept of personal agent is more complex than a simple recognition of the similarity or contiguity of ideas.... The very beasts associate the ideas of things that are like each other or that have been found together in their experience.... But who attributes to the animals a belief that the phenomena are worked by a multitude of invisible animals or by one enormous and prodigiously strong animal behind the scenes? (Frazer; The Golden Bough, 2nd ed., p. 70)

"conscious or personal agents, superior to man, behind the visible screen of nature, ... invisible animals..."

You don't find that mystical? Sounds pretty darn mystical to me.

Quote:You take most primitive of fables and judge something to not be religion cause it was slightly less stupid.
I judge it not to be religion, because it lacks one of the necessary primary qualities to define it as a religion.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:
"religion -- the service and worship of God or the supernatural"

American Heritage Dictionary:
"religion -- belief in and reverence for a supernatural power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe"

Oxford Dictionary:
"religion -- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"

Random House Dictionary:
"religion -- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs"

Dictionaries reflect contemporary usage, more or less.
"God"; "supernatural"; "superhuman" -- these all say "mystical", to me.


Quote:If one is against idea that m-l was religion from the start then one certainly can. This does not mean that such examples would be convincing.
If I am "against" anything, it's what I see as a misuse of the term "religion".

Quote:I would go with functional one: if your belief system plays some particular role either in your social life, in your society, or in your psychological life, then it is a religion; otherwise, it’s something else.
That is helpful, thanks.

I would argue that he has made an artificial distinction between "functional religion" and "philosophy". What he calls 'functional religion', I would simply call philosophy. I have no problem with considering m-l to be a philosophy.

This points to a fundamental disagreement in our positions, which I don't see us reconciling.
I am using a more colloquial, dictionary-supported definition of religion, and you are using a more esoteric, philosophical definition.

I agree that, given your definition for "religion", a case can be made for m-l as a religion, in that sense.

However, I disagree with your definition of 'religion' itself. And I daresay that the average person on the street (at least here in the US), upon hearing the word 'religion', is far more likely to understand it in the more colloquial sense in which I use it.

Without a survey, though, we may never know. Yes

Quote:In shorter words it could be definition wrote by Włodzimierz Pawluczuk - "religion constitutes such form of cohabitation among people, in which they found in fair way road to salvation". May be somewhat clunky sounding in English.
I think you first link says it better, because, again, I see "salvation" as a mystical concept.

Quote:I think that you just can't accept that m-l could be religion so you generously throw reductios ad absurdum around. Like the one above.
reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical argument. If an argument can be reduced to the absurd, without begging the question, then one or more premises of the argument are suspect.

But -- see above -- I think we have determined that the point of contention rests on our differing definitions of "religion", in which case this particular reductio ad absurdum is moot, and I withdraw it.

For now. Wink

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2017, 05:09 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2017 05:17 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(21-03-2017 03:45 PM)Dr H Wrote:  I agree on that point, but submit that it's true of a good many things other than traditional religions.

Don't we hear this about capitalist philosophy, as well? Prosperity is always "just around the corner". If the wealthy prosper, the benefits will "trickle down" to the poor -- eventually. If we can just get rid of enough pesky regulations (designed to protect workers and the environment), then we will start to experience renewed growth, and everyone will be better off -- someday. The underlying assumption that constant growth is necessary (or even possible), without any acknowledgment that perpetual growth amounts to cancer.

I don't know what you hear but I don't hear capitalism being hailed as mean of achieving utopia. True, it has not so rational proponents here, but their rhetoric's looks like: less regulation would be better for me and fuck everybody else. No philosophy, just greed and lack of care about others.

Quote:Should we, then, characterize capitalism as a religion?

You again trying reducing my point to absurd and yet again you fail at this. M-l promised ending of alienation, ending of subservience to blind powers of the market, jump from realm of necessity to realm of freedom - it was paradise by other name. Capitalism promises better life. And in comparison with reality of life under former regime (at least in Poland) delivers it.

Quote:A cult of personality is not the same thing as a religion.

Cult of Lenin and Stalin clearly shows how much "secular" Soviet state was.

Quote:"Heretics" or scapegoats -- which every political movement seeks or creates?

Heretics disputing the one, true interpretation of m-l made by mother party and prophet Stalin.

Quote:You're taking a non-religious phenomenon and salting the descriptions over with religious terms -- "heretic"; "saint"; "paradise"; "canon"; "reverence". But just overlaying something with religious terminology doesn't magically make it into a religion.

Unable to found good rebuttal you just disagree. Your lack of acceptance of specific context of Soviet usage of above mentioned terms does not transform them into secular words.

Quote:Or, if it does, they one can do the same thing with capitalism, democracy, and all the other "isms" aforementioned. As already noted, the arguments fails on reductio ad absurdum -- if everything is a religion, then it makes as much sense to say that nothing is religion, and "religion" becomes a word empty of meaning.

Not everything is religion. You just can't accept that m-l could have been so you try to discredit this notion with silliness like if m-l was religion then everything can. It's amusing but hardly convincing.

Quote:If you're referring to J.G. Frazer, his full definition of religion states that sympathetic magic comes first, and when that fails, people turn to the concept of superior beings or powers which control and direct their lives: "Religion assumes the operation of conscious or personal agents, superior to man, behind the visible screen of nature. Obviously the concept of personal agent is more complex than a simple recognition of the similarity or contiguity of ideas.... The very beasts associate the ideas of things that are like each other or that have been found together in their experience.... But who attributes to the animals a belief that the phenomena are worked by a multitude of invisible animals or by one enormous and prodigiously strong animal behind the scenes? (Frazer; The Golden Bough, 2nd ed., p. 70)

"conscious or personal agents, superior to man, behind the visible screen of nature, ... invisible animals..."

You don't find that mystical? Sounds pretty darn mystical to me.

It may be that quote, but I found only cited fragment and I didn't delved deeper. And in full it not seems mystical, just strange.

Quote:I judge it not to be religion, because it lacks one of the necessary primary qualities to define it as a religion.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:
"religion -- the service and worship of God or the supernatural"

American Heritage Dictionary:
"religion -- belief in and reverence for a supernatural power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe"

Oxford Dictionary:
"religion -- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"

Random House Dictionary:
"religion -- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs"

Dictionaries reflect contemporary usage, more or less.
"God"; "supernatural"; "superhuman" -- these all say "mystical", to me.

So you judge that it wasn't religion cause it don't fit with definitions of religion you favor. Well I'm doing same thing so maybe I shouldn't cast the stone.

Though as a side point one could make the case that Oxford definition fits with m-l and it's guiding laws of history.

Quote:That is helpful, thanks.

I would argue that he has made an artificial distinction between "functional religion" and "philosophy". What he calls 'functional religion', I would simply call philosophy. I have no problem with considering m-l to be a philosophy.

I would disagree with you about artificial distinction.

As for m-l being philosophy I think that it is assessment far from accurate as I see it as a religion.

Quote:This points to a fundamental disagreement in our positions, which I don't see us reconciling.
I am using a more colloquial, dictionary-supported definition of religion, and you are using a more esoteric, philosophical definition.

We see things so differently that possibility of reconciliation is less than slight.

I would like to point that functional definitions aren't some kind of fringe nor they are "wrong".

Quote:I agree that, given your definition for "religion", a case can be made for m-l as a religion, in that sense.

Given definition of religion that I used case was successfully made for m-l being religion. Imos was pretty convincing in his book.

Quote:However, I disagree with your definition of 'religion' itself. And I daresay that the average person on the street (at least here in the US), upon hearing the word 'religion', is far more likely to understand it in the more colloquial sense in which I use it.

You're free to do so, just as any average person is. I'm willing to point them to sources that would dispel their notions Wink

Quote:I think you first link says it better, because, again, I see "salvation" as a mystical concept.

I see it as fitting within context of m-l theology.

Quote:reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical argument. If an argument can be reduced to the absurd, without begging the question, then one or more premises of the argument are suspect.

I would say that you're trying to play reductio ad absurdum card cause you have no good rebuttal.

Quote:But -- see above -- I think we have determined that the point of contention rests on our differing definitions of "religion", in which case this particular reductio ad absurdum is moot, and I withdraw it.

For now. Wink

Contention is more than likely to continue. Can't really see two different perspectives coming to agreement.


ETA: After re-reading my post I came to conclusion that it might seem hostile and at least in part it is true, as I was reading and answering one fragment at a time. I decided not to change the wording though, even if it would make me sound less dickish.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2017, 05:56 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(21-03-2017 05:09 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  I don't know what you hear but I don't hear capitalism being hailed as mean of achieving utopia. True, it has not so rational proponents here, but their rhetoric's looks like: less regulation would be better for me and fuck everybody else. No philosophy, just greed and lack of care about others.
I am aware that you are not in the US; I am in the US, and here capitalism is most certainly sold to us by its proponents as the solution to every problem.
You want religious trappings? "Free market" is the mantra of corporate America and the wealthy here. I hear it chanted daily, and offered as the solution for everything from education, to healthcare, to the prison system.

Quote:You again trying reducing my point to absurd and yet again you fail at this. M-l promised ending of alienation, ending of subservience to blind powers of the market, jump from realm of necessity to realm of freedom - it was paradise by other name.
I am pointing out that your claim has consequences beyond that of simply anointing m-l as another religion. That is: it opens wide the door for claiming other non-religious systems to be "religions", as well. You have not refuted this point; you seem to think you can simply brush it away by defining the argument method involved.

Quote:Heretics disputing the one, true interpretation of m-l made by mother party and prophet Stalin.
Again, you neither support your term, nor refute mine; you simply insist that yours is correct.

Sure, you can call a political scapegoat a "heretic" or a "martyr", or any other religious-weighted term you like, but that doesn't make the political system a religion. It amounts to simple hyperbole.

Quote:Unable to found good rebuttal you just disagree. Your lack of acceptance of specific context of Soviet usage of above mentioned terms does not transform them into secular words.
In fact I have presented a rebuttal: calling something by religious terms is not sufficient to define its context as a "religion". I can call Donald Trump "the new Messiah", but that doesn't make the Republican party into a religion.

Since you are the one making the claim for your chosen terms, I rather think the burden of proof falls on you, for this one.

Quote:Not everything is religion. You just can't accept that m-l could have been so you try to discredit this notion with silliness like if m-l was religion then everything can. It's amusing but hardly convincing.
I'm glad you're amused. But so far, you're not convincing, either.

The only support you've given for calling m-l a religion, is to appeal to a non-standard definition of 'religion', and substitute a bunch of religion-laden terms for more standard political descriptions.

I've no big problem with you doing that, but, as I've tried to show, it does have other consequences. Namely, if we allow this approach as valid when applied to m-l, then it will also, necessarily be valid when applied to certain other things.

Quote:It may be that quote, but I found only cited fragment and I didn't delved deeper. And in full it not seems mystical, just strange.
I'll grant you that. A lot of people -- including other anthropologists -- didn't really care for Frazer's definition much.

Quote:So you judge that it wasn't religion cause it don't fit with definitions of religion you favor. Well I'm doing same thing so maybe I shouldn't cast the stone.
That's kind of the conclusion I reached.

Quote:Though as a side point one could make the case that Oxford definition fits with m-l and it's guiding laws of history.
Perhaps.

Quote:I would disagree with you about artificial distinction.
Then maybe we now need to find out how each of us defines "philosophy".

When I think of philosophy -- small "p" -- as in "philosophy of life", to me that means: an overall view or vision of, or attitude towards life, its purpose, and a general guide for one's actions.

His description of "functional religion: is : 'a belief system that plays some particular role either in your social life, in your society, or in your psychological life.'

Really, I don't see much difference between the two, other than the wording.

Quote:As for m-l being philosophy I think that it is assessment far from accurate as I see it as a religion.
Yes, I think we've pretty much established that. Smile

Quote:We see things so differently that possibility of reconciliation is less than slight.
That's OK -- I don't expect everybody to agree with me. Wink

Quote:I would like to point that functional definitions aren't some kind of fringe nor they are "wrong".
I didn't say they were "wrong". Sometimes they are fringe, but I wasn't saying that here, either.

Your definition is non-standard, though, and thus less common. In a philosophical context I've already agreed that you have a valid point.

Quote:You're free to do so, just as any average person is. I'm willing to point them to sources that would dispel their notions Wink
I don't know if it will dispel any notions, but it does provide food for thought.

Quote:I would say that you're trying to play reductio ad absurdum card cause you have no good rebuttal.
I would say that reductio ad absurdum is a good rebuttal in this case. It reveals consequences of your position that you don't like, which might be considered good reason to examine the basis for that position more closely.

Quote:Contention is more than likely to continue. Can't really see two different perspectives coming to agreement.
So long as we're aware of what we're in contention about, I've no problem with that. If we agreed about everything, there would be nothing to argue about, and what fun would that be? Big Grin

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2017, 06:16 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(21-03-2017 05:09 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  I don't know what you hear but I don't hear capitalism being hailed as mean of achieving utopia. True, it has not so rational proponents here, but their rhetoric's looks like: less regulation would be better for me and fuck everybody else. No philosophy, just greed and lack of care about others.

I’m really enjoying this conversation, learning a thing or two.

I tried to make the point to FH that our human instincts don’t play well into communism; altruism can’t be dictated by decree. Capitalism fits better into our survival instincts, that is taking care of the self, then family, then close friends. At each degree of separation the individual seems to exponentially lose the feelings of responsibility for the other.

Are any of you familiar with Dunbar’s number?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
“Dunbar’s number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person.” The number is 150 in case you’re wondering.

I bring this up because outside of this limit close social contracts* break down. One thing is living in a small commune where everyone is related and everything is shared equally, quite another to be forced to do so with 7.5 billion other human beings.

While Capitalism is not a perfect solution by any means, it doesn’t stifle individual human drive the way Communism does. One only need to compare the per capita output between nations under both political systems to see what I mean. An even better comparison is the Human Development Index, “a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income per capita indicators. A country scores higher HDI when the life expectancy at birth is longer, the education period is longer, and the income per capita is higher.”

Countries with capitalist democracies score the best as can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...ment_Index. China is tied for 50th place despite having one of the oldest societies, abundant natural resources and largest human capital on the planet. What has held them back has been their political structure, chiefly communism.

Hard to argue with results.

*Social Contract Theory http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/eco...Helium.pdf deals with Equality of need, Scarcity of resources, Equality of human power and Limited altruism.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. ~ Winston Churchill

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
21-03-2017, 07:36 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
Quote:7.5 billion

That's the real problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2017, 07:55 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(21-03-2017 02:02 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(20-03-2017 10:34 PM)Fred Hampton Wrote:  Psych "science" doesn't work so well, is what I'm saying: bad outcomes.

Are you unaware that there is more to psychology than the psychiatric care of the profoundly mentally ill? That we have learned more about how the brain functions in the past 20 years, than in the past 2000? You do know that we're no longer drilling holes in people's skulls to let out the evil spirits, right?
Oh, they still do electroshock, that thing that killed so many, including Hemmingway. I think some of those sadistic fools want to bring drilling back, or already have.

Neuroscience is a different animal than your basic Jungian/Freudian/Pavlovian stuff, which(the latter) is fairy useless info, in my experience. Pavlov had some things right. People like pleasure and dont like pain, wow, what an insight...like 100,000 yrs ago.

I'm not a fan of shrinks and "shrinkage" and the biggest flaw in their "science" is they take nearly zero account of the socioeconomic pressures and damages the dog eat dog System does to human beings. They dont question the System at all. It's their job to get you plugged back into the System, even though they System is probably killing you. Most psychotherapists just sit on their asses and collect big paychecks, doing next to nothing for their money.

Psych wards are horror chambers. Go visit one sometime.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2017, 08:01 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
Dr H gets mad props, biggy ups for the effort put into his last 2 posts. Big "E" for effort.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2017, 02:59 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2017 04:11 AM by Szuchow.)
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(21-03-2017 05:56 PM)Dr H Wrote:  I am aware that you are not in the US; I am in the US, and here capitalism is most certainly sold to us by its proponents as the solution to every problem.
You want religious trappings? "Free market" is the mantra of corporate America and the wealthy here. I hear it chanted daily, and offered as the solution for everything from education, to healthcare, to the prison system.

That's not the case in Poland and capitalism being hailed as solution to every problem is not the same as m-l promises which you ignore. No ending of the so called alienation and no jumping from realm of necessity to realm of freedom.

Capitalism is answer to earthly problems and it can be shown that it fails as an answer (private prisons would be good example I guess). M-l promises had religious bent: Man will make it his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent, to extend the wires of his will into hidden recesses, and thereby to raise himself to a new plane, to create a higher social biologic type, or, if you please, a superman.

It is difficult to predict the extent of self-government which the man of the future may reach or the heights to which he may carry his technique. Social construction and psycho-physical self-education will become two aspects of one and the same process. All the arts – literature, drama, painting, music and architecture will lend this process beautiful form. More correctly, the shell in which the cultural construction and self-education of Communist man will be enclosed, will develop all the vital elements of contemporary art to the highest point. Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.


What Trotsky describes above is nothing more than heaven on earth.

Quote:I am pointing out that your claim has consequences beyond that of simply anointing m-l as another religion. That is: it opens wide the door for claiming other non-religious systems to be "religions", as well. You have not refuted this point; you seem to think you can simply brush it away by defining the argument method involved.

You may think that it is some kind of slippery slope but I don't ascribe to such views; calling religion (m-l) a religion won't make "identifying" atheism as religion any easier. People deluded enough to conflate the two will do it regardless. M-l held multitude of promises, atheism is just lack of belief and it promises nothing. So anyone trying to argue that atheism is religion cause m-l was one is just a fool.

Quote:Again, you neither support your term, nor refute mine; you simply insist that yours is correct.

Maybe it cause term heretic is fitting when it comes to USSR and rigid adherence to party line? You offer no serious argument, it's only stretching the term, nonsense like drinking beer religiously and it seems fear of some slippery slope where calling m-l religion will bolster theists "argument" that "atheism is religion".

Quote:Sure, you can call a political scapegoat a "heretic" or a "martyr", or any other religious-weighted term you like, but that doesn't make the political system a religion. It amounts to simple hyperbole.

You could try to deny that use of terms like heretic is sensible in context of Soviet history but your tries does not make said terms invalid. Look for the quote from Trotsky for example We can only be right with and by the Party, for history has provided no other way of being in the right... And if the Party adopts a decision which one or other of us thinks unjust, he will say, just or unjust, it is my party, and I shall support the consequences of the decision to the end. It's from Speech at the XIIIth Party Congress (May 1924).

Quote:In fact I have presented a rebuttal: calling something by religious terms is not sufficient to define its context as a "religion". I can call Donald Trump "the new Messiah", but that doesn't make the Republican party into a religion.

You offered just your disagreement supported by nothing. You may find yourself convinced by your so called rebuttal but I'm not.

Quote:Since you are the one making the claim for your chosen terms, I rather think the burden of proof falls on you, for this one.

I doubt that you can be convinced. I try to translate relevant fragments from Imos book but without lack of grounding in form of earlier chapters it probably wont amount to much.

Soviet myth is similar to mythology of tribal societies, which means it gives complete explanation of world, nature and social phenomenon, meaning and goals of events[...]prophet is made by given to him mission and mandate for saying truth. He judges the social and moral reality from perspective of well known past and he knows how to interpret future: prophet thanks to depths of his perception see world in light of it's final destination*. Eschatology plays big role in prophet-ism. Said characteristics fit with activities of Marks, Engels, and Lenin[...]Prophets don't do spectacular things, their superhuman qualities are part of their message. [Rafał Imos, Faith of the Soviet Man. The Soviet's Institutionalized Myth, p. 289, 293 300 of 2007 edition].


Quote:I'm glad you're amused. But so far, you're not convincing, either.

It's hard to be convincing in discussion with someone who don't want to be convinced.

Quote:The only support you've given for calling m-l a religion, is to appeal to a non-standard definition of 'religion', and substitute a bunch of religion-laden terms for more standard political descriptions.

Which is way more than you did, mr. let's not call it religion cause it will give theists more arguments. You just disagree, even when one of definitions (Oxford one) you provided can be used to make argument about m-l being religion.


Quote:I've no big problem with you doing that, but, as I've tried to show, it does have other consequences. Namely, if we allow this approach as valid when applied to m-l, then it will also, necessarily be valid when applied to certain other things.

It has no consequences and your insistence on that won't change this. And there is nothing that you can allow here as this approach went through peer review and wasn't found wanting. No matter how much you disagree with it and what are your fears about it such approach is valid.

Quote:Perhaps.

Perhaps? Can't bring yourself to agree that m-l seem to be religion even in light of definition your provided?

Quote:Then maybe we now need to find out how each of us defines "philosophy".

When I think of philosophy -- small "p" -- as in "philosophy of life", to me that means: an overall view or vision of, or attitude towards life, its purpose, and a general guide for one's actions.

His description of "functional religion: is : 'a belief system that plays some particular role either in your social life, in your society, or in your psychological life.'

Really, I don't see much difference between the two, other than the wording.

When I think about philosophy of life I think about words life's shit and then you die or There is only one good, knowledge and only one evil, ignorance so there is no mistaking religion for philosophy for me.

Quote:Your definition is non-standard, though, and thus less common. In a philosophical context I've already agreed that you have a valid point.

So you agree but disagree?

Quote:I don't know if it will dispel any notions, but it does provide food for thought.

It probably won't dispel any notions.

Perhaps you could try Czesław Miłosz The Captive Mind who too likens m-l to religion. Civil one if I recall correctly.

Quote:I would say that reductio ad absurdum is a good rebuttal in this case. It reveals consequences of your position that you don't like, which might be considered good reason to examine the basis for that position more closely.

I would disagree as I see you using reductio instead of good rebuttal. By trying (and failing) to reduce notion to absurd you just try to dismiss it.

*Check again quote from Aron The Opium... in my earlier post. Maybe it will looks differently now.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: