another significant gift form Luther ....
taoannie
simm...@luther.edu
i agree that philosophy is not more about gods or religion than anything
else, but i'm uneasy about the claim that loving wisdom has nothing at all
to do with supposed and/or real divinities, if such there be, or with the
religious impulse or even the institutions that humans develop from and/or
inspite of these impulses. a lot depends, of course, on what gets counted
as gods and what gets counted as religion. almost universally, for
example, sex and the sexual impulse has been honored as divine. could
philosophy fail to address sex and still claim to be involved in loving
wisdom? insofar as religion has been a major component of community,
could philosophy fail to address the way we organized ourselves and still
claim to be involved in loving wisdom? in the measure in which religion
aims at discerning the meaning of life, however well or ill its claims
about such meanings, would not philosophy need to address religion, if for
no other reason than because its claims and/or practices vie with
philosophy in this arena?
in any event, i'm eager to learn more about how you wish to develop this
claim, since i suspect you wouldn't, as anthropologist/sociologist deny
most of what i have said.
kent
Kari
exploring any topic one would want to explore. The tool/process has
been used to explore the question of god, religion, sprituality, the
institutions of these things...
I also think that my ability to love unconditionally (Philio) is a
divine gift, not a human trait. So to love Sophia, wisdom, knowlege
unconditionally (without judgement or rigidity) is one thing that
allows humans evolve in their divinity. At least it sets us apart from
the other animals on this Earth.
But you are quite right if you mean that philosophy is not the same as
an institutionalized religion because philosophy is by it's own
definintion a relationship in process and institutionalized religion
has decided what it is and wants to look like in the world. This is
one reason I have never fit into this type of intentional community.
taoannie
human animal? it seems the evolution/survival (not progress, but
process) of this species has found believing in "loving wisdom" and/or
religion one of mechanism for strong group cohesiveness .... hence
survival. and yes .... philosophy is to question/address religion, or
any aspect of the human experience. however, philosophy is not for the
purpose of gods or religion. am i making any sense here, Plato? it's
been a long time since i've entered into this type of dialogue.
simm...@luther.edu
i believe it is many voices--some larger, some smaller--asking what, if
any, good philosophy serves toward human well-being.
i don't know in what measure meaning-making serves to unite or to divide
humans. while it seems undeniable that humans are social animals and that
genes have developed brains that require a great deal of socialization
from nurture rather than genetic mechanism, it seems also quite likely
that making meanings--formulating purposes and evaluating patterns of
behaviors and thinkings--is no recent phenomenon among humans, but extends
from the earliest hominids. it seems that some sort of divinity or
sacredness is attached to these meanings from the beginning, but this
hardly excludes from many millenia ago firm dispute regarding the
existence and nature of divinity and/or sacredness. in any event, it
seems indisputable that many persons of great profundity not only have
questioned the soundness of claims about divinity, sacredness, and even
meaning-making itself, but have even produced significant counter-claims.
the fact that some cultures have not significantly distinguished between
religion and philosophy does not contradict the fact that many cultures
have produced elaborate views that argue the importance of not conflating
or confusing philosophic inquiry with religious seeking. i am inclined to
think that both religion and philosophy are meaning-making activities, but
this does not require me to think that there are no differences between
religion and philosophy. at the very least that difference consists in
philosophy allowing full legitimacy to agnosticism regarding not only
particular religious traditions, but regarding religion, the sacred, the
divine itself. as i usually put this in the context of western
traditions, religion typically assumes divine or sacred existence;
philosophy poses this as query. in the west, greek philosophy proved a
superior meaning-making to greek religion. some claim that greek
philosophy has now in its best form become modern science. in the west,
hebrew religion proved a super meaning-making to hebrew philosophy. some
claim that hebrew religion has now in its best form become modern religion
and/or philosophy and/or science. perhaps this is helpful. does this get
us any further? have i understood you?
kent
Kari
definition of human. Having the capacity for rational thought
(physically ie. brain development) is necessary for human ensoulment in
the Aristotelan and Thomistic model. The matter of human being must be
able to house a human soul. A human sould can not reside within matter
to which it is unsuited as the soul informs the matter.
This was the argument used to deny the possibility of reincarnation as
a non human.
It is also the way I argued successfully in my Catholic Institution
that abortion in the first trimester is not killing a human as the
brain development allowing the capacity for rational thought does not
happen until (at the earliest) the fourth month of growth.
I argued that the matter during the first trimester must go through
ensoulment non-human in order to cohere. This, then, is how our human
bodies recognize totem plants and animals, having had them used
spiritually as place markers in our human body's development towards
holding a human soul once the capacities for rational thought have been
developed.
It was sound argumentation, though somewhat uncomfortable for my
colleagues at St. Thomas.
Note, however, that while rational capacity predicates human
ensoulment, the engagement of rational capacity does not. (this is why
humans whose rational capacity is impaired or undeveloped are still
humans in this line of philosophy...teenagers included!)
simm...@luther.edu
i haven't explored this argument in this way. it seems to me a plausible
and at least viable way to begin developing a coherent life-ethic. i
certainly agree that philosophy as it is understood in most cultures is
not necessary for humanness, though as meaning-making it might be both
common to all language users [though, of course, there are many
non-linguistic ways of making meanings] and required for living humanly
well.
i'm also not persuaded that aristotle and thomas have adequately
understood any difference there might be regarding soul and matter. that
is, i'm not persuaded of any dualism, however helpful it might be to
distinguish between that which occupies space and that which appears to
exist in some independence from space. whatever matter is, it seems to me
considerably more complex than aristotle/thomas seem to think; whatever
psyche is, it seems to me considerably more complex than aristotle/thomas
seem to think. but i'm a long way from providing any better account of
the universe and its inhabitants.
kent