Orthodoxy, postmodernity and the Emerging Church
Steve Hayes
He spoke on the miracles associated with the relics of St Basil (Vassilje),
the founder of the Ostrog monastery.
It was difficult to follow what he was saying, because the interpreter was not
very good, and I found that even I knew when he was mistranslating (using
"religion" when the bishop meant "faith", for example). It comes of the
communist education many Serbs had, I suppose.
Later I got an opportunity to talk to Bishop Jovan, and to clarify some of the
things he had said. Among other things he had spoken about the contrast
between the emphasis in Western theology on intellectual knowledge and
rationalism, and the Orthodox emphasis on life. He spoke of the danger of
trying to intellectualise and rationalise things like the healings that had
taken place at Ostrog, and the temptation to use these to try to "prove" the
existence of God. Miracles of healing can easily become idolatrous if we fail
to realise that the biggest miracle is the incarnation. What is important is
not education, but holiness. Book religion is not enough: the Western church
may have holy books, but the Orthodox Church has holy people, like St Basil.
As an Anglican friend, John Davies, once wrote to me, what we need is not more
good men, but more holy men.
On thinking about this, it seems to me that the core of this is the difference
in anthropology. Western anthropology sees the individual and the collective.
In the West there may be debates about which is more important, the individual
or the collective. But Orthodox anthropology sees persons in community.
On the way to see Bishop Jovan I was listening to a talk show on the radio,
and the host, Xolani Gwala, was interviewing the author of a book called "I am
an African" (unfortunately I have forgotten the name of the author). One of
the points made by the author of the book was that European (Western) thought
saw people primarily as individuals, whereas in African thought community is
more important. The contrast he made was almost exactly the same as that made
by Bishop Jovan and other Orthodox Christians when comparing Orthodox
anthropology with Western anthropology.
Both African and Orthodox anthropology tend to see man in terms of persons in
community rather than in terms of individual or collective. The individual is
like a monolith, a single stone. The collective is like an aggregate, a pile
of stones. But the person in community is like a building; in biblical
imagery, like living stones built into a temple. As a Zulu proverb puts it:
umuntu ungumuntu ngabantu -- a person is a person because of people.
What Orthodox and African anthropology have in common is that both are
premodern, and therefore contrast with the modernity of Western anthropology.
Western anthropology is "European" in the sense that modernity arose out of
certain cultural movements that took place in Western Europe, especially the
Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment. But there is nothing
intrisically "European" about it, any more than the "person/community" model
is intrinsically "African". I believe the author of "I am an African" errs in
associating it too much with geography, though he does make the point that it
is primarily a matter of values.
Before the Renaissance Europe was premodern too. Christian mission in
Anglo-Saxon England, in Solomonic Ethiopia, and in Kievian Rus used
essentially the same methods and were based on the same values, and the same
anthropological assumptions. It was modernity that made the difference, and
modernity is not confined to Western Europe, but is spreading throughout the
world; the process is usually called globalisation.
It is one aspect of modernity, reason, that was the subject of Roman Pope
Benedict XVI's controversial Regensburg address. The media focused their
attention on its alleged anti-Islamic content, but the deeper implication has
gone largely unremarked: that Christianity is fundamentally "Western" or
"European", and that there is no place in it for "African" or other
non-Western insights.
Orthodox Christianity, as Bishop Jovan remarked, does not altogether reject
modernity. We make use of modern technology, like air travel and the internet.
We can accept the scientific method, based on empirical research and reason,
to better understand the natural world. But what we can learn by using these
methods is not all that we need to learn, and exalting them into ideologies,
such as rationalism, empiricism or positivism, becomes idolatry.
Postmodernity in the West is a reaction against modernism. Among other things
it is a recognition that what we can know through reason and empirical
investigation is not all we need to know, and that what we can learn through
the scientific method can tell us nothing about values. In addition, the
notion that the scientific method makes researchers objective and their
findings "value-free" is a delusion.
To that extent, Orthodoxy can empathise with Western postmodernity. And
Orthodoxy can also empathise with the "emerging church" movement that is
trying to come to grips with postmodern society in the West.
In the last few months I've been trying to find out what this "emerging
church" movement is about, and something of its missiological significance.
I've tried to read and listen and ask questions, but have said little. But now
I think I can say something about the emerging church movement from the point
of view of Orthodox missiology.
Several people who have identified themselves as part of the "emerging church"
movement have said things like "Orthodoxy has much to teach us about
spirituality". And it is here that I wish to make a distinction.
As an Orthodox Christian, I am suspicious of words like "spirituality". It is
a Western word, and denotes and connotes a Western concept -- "spirituality"
tends to be divorced from "materiality". Yes, Orthodoxy has terms like
"dushevnost", which can be translated as "spirituality", but a better
translation would be "Life in the Spirit", because it denotes a specific
relationship with the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds
from the Father.
In Orthodoxy, "spirituality" cannot be divorced from "materiality". And so
here is another point of difference between Orthodoxy and the West, even the
postmodern West: Orthodox theology is holistic, whereas Western theology, even
(or especially) emerging or postmodern theology, is eclectic.
It could be said that eclecticism is a characteristic of postmodernity, and
that may well be true, but it is a characteristic that arises from modernity.
Western (ie modern) thought is analytic. In studying something, it breaks it
down into its separate components and examines each one separately. And this
is not necessarily a bad thing. If you want to find out what is wrong with a
car engine, you might need to dismantle it to replace the worn-out main
bearings, for example. But that tells you nothing about what a car is for, or
the effect that it has on society or the environment.
For Orthodoxy, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Isolating
aspects of Orthodoxy, like "spirituality" loses something essential. So, if
there is to be dialogue between Orthodoxy and the emerging church movement,
the holistic/eclectic difference is one of the things that needs to be looked
at. Not in isolation, of course.
----
PS: I am posting this in various places. For the sake of communicating with
the emerging church movement, the main one is my blog at
That is because emerging church people seem to communicate mainly through the
blogosphere, rather than through mailing lists or newsgroups, but I'm posting
it in mailing lists and newsgroups as well, where there are others whose views
and opinions I value.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://people.tribe.net/hayesstw
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Peter H.M.Brooks
>
> Orthodox Christianity, as Bishop Jovan remarked, does not altogether reject
> modernity. We make use of modern technology, like air travel and the internet.
> We can accept the scientific method, based on empirical research and reason,
> to better understand the natural world. But what we can learn by using these
> methods is not all that we need to learn, and exalting them into ideologies,
> such as rationalism, empiricism or positivism, becomes idolatry.
>
them as ideologies.
Rationalism is the use of reason to establish truth. This was
Aristotle's method and is rejected by the scientific method in favour of
experiment.
Empiricism involves the proposition that the only source of true
knowledge is experience. Search for knowledge through experiment and
observation. Denial that knowledge can be obtained a priori. This is the
opposite of Rationalism, and not an ideology, but a method used by any
tradesman, cook, scientist, banker or businessman as a pragmatic
recognition of how the world works.
Positivism, as in logical positivism, was (for there aren't any logical
positivists any more, it is an historically interesting, but extinct
position) the rejection of the metaphysical in favour of the observable
and factual. In analytical philosophy today, the metaphysical is
recognised as important. Wittgenstein famously wrote a book proving
himself wrong when he, after claiming that you can't talk about things
that you cannot know, wrote an entire book (the Tractatus) on the
subject. So there is no ideology of positivism.
Who do you think is exalting these things into ideologies?
>
> Postmodernity in the West is a reaction against modernism. Among other things
> it is a recognition that what we can know through reason and empirical
> investigation is not all we need to know, and that what we can learn through
> the scientific method can tell us nothing about values. In addition, the
> notion that the scientific method makes researchers objective and their
> findings "value-free" is a delusion.
>
Post-modernism is tied to relativism, which is a rejection of values
and, as such, a form of nihilism. Though it is true that nihilism, of
various forms, is a reaction to the modern world, it would seem odd for
anybody with a religious bent to see this as a good thing, or something
to be embraced.
Nobody has ever claimed that the scientific method makes researchers
objective! If researchers were objective then there wouldn't be that
much need for such a rigorous framework which is a way of trying to deal
with the evident subjectivity of researchers. The whole reason for, for
example, the double-blind in research studies is exactly the
understanding that researchers are subjective!
Nobody has claimed that scientific findings are 'value free' either. So
I don't know who you think has that delusion - here it looks like a
strawman.
john
I am Roman Catholic myself, and have been recently pondering issues
similar to the ones you address--partly as a result of reading Pope
Benedict's Regensberg speech (which, as you correctly note, was
concerned with the role of Reason.)
I believe that beneath the surface of the speech is a fundamental
grappling of Roman Catholicism--and Western culture--with Rationalism.
My belief is also based on Pope Benedict's encyclical, Deus Caritas
Est, in which--of all things--he mentions Nietzche and seems to allude,
indirectly, to the tension between what Nietzche called the Apollonian
(rational) and Dionysian (nonrational) elements of human nature.
To make a long story short, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church
is in a phase of "reconciling" rational and certain nonrational
elements of human nature.
> not education, but holiness. Book religion is not enough:
> the Western church may have holy books, but the Orthodox Church
> has holy people, like St Basil.
I agree with this general characterization--but, of course, there are
plenty of exceptions. The Marianist movement in the West has been seen
by some as serving to compensate for the rationalistic tendencies. I
could also mention, say, St. Francis of Assisi, as another definite
example of a counterbalancing tendency to the excessive Rationalism.
> On thinking about this, it seems to me that the core of this
> is the difference in anthropology. Western anthropology sees the
> individual and the collective.
I think you might be correct about there being something distinctive
about how the West positively evaluates the individual ego. Several
psychologists have remarked on this, in fact. Your idea that this
leads to a difference between views of "community" or "collective"
seems new and interesting.
My own basic hypothesis here is that God, working through history,
wished for Western society to evolve--culturally and
psychologically--it's unique personality structure. But this is also
part of larger process which involves eventual reunion and
reintegration. It's like two wandering tribes who reach a crossroads
and say: "Let's split up. You go this way, we'll go the other way.
Then we'll return and share what we've learned." Evolutionarily, it's
a pretty sensible long-term strategy.
> umuntu ungumuntu ngabantu -- a person is a person because of people.
That is an excellent thought. Now, in support of my above hypothesis,
I might offer another to balance it:
"a community is a community because of the person"
That is, a community that does not celebrate the uniqueness and value
of a single individual--well, that's what atheistic communism is all
about. And in some tribal societies I think you see something
similar--though of course in a much more positive way. (What I'm
referring to is a tendency towards despondency, malaise, and apathy
which I believe strongly community-oriented cultures are more prone
to).
> Western anthropology is "European" in the sense that modernity arose
> out of certain cultural movements that took place in Western Europe,
> especially the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment.
I agree, but think the process was already well underway before the
Renaissance--e.g., in Scholasticism, or even Roman culture.
> Several people who have identified themselves as part of the
> "emerging church" movement
Your comments about "emerging church" and the not-yet-modern
world trigger some thoughts.
Yesterday, coincidentally, I was reminded of something told to me by a
man from a third-world country. I asked if he believed in Jesus--his
face became animated and he said, of course! Then he added something
like, "I keep my feet planted on Mother Earth and my head in Father
Sky." He definitely meant this as an amplification of his assenting to
his belief in Jesus.
What I find significant is that this expresses a common, perhaps
universal "indigenous" view of religion. And it is a beautiful, and
"unifying" attitude. It aligns the emotional, instinctive, rational,
and spiritual elements, if you will.
At some point Christianity (both Eastern and Western) became separated
from this "naive" view. The Sky/Father/Spirit/Logos/Ethos element(s)
became opposed to the Earth/Mother/Feeling/Matter/Eros element(s).
So my working premise is that somehow in the postmodern world,
Christianity must again unify these two poles. And the "missionary"
growth of Catholicism in the not-yet-modern world might both
necessitate and promote this.
All the best,
--
John Uebersax PhD
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/religion.htm
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>> Orthodox Christianity, as Bishop Jovan remarked, does not altogether reject
>> modernity. We make use of modern technology, like air travel and the internet.
>> We can accept the scientific method, based on empirical research and reason,
>> to better understand the natural world. But what we can learn by using these
>> methods is not all that we need to learn, and exalting them into ideologies,
>> such as rationalism, empiricism or positivism, becomes idolatry.
> >
>Those three words end in 'ism', which is, I suppose why you think of
>them as ideologies.
Not really. That would be as silly ans simplistic as equating "National
Socialism" with "socialism" because it has the word "socialism" in the name.
While ideologies are often denoted by words ending in -ism, not every word
ending in -ism denotes an ideology -- astigmatism, for example.
>Rationalism is the use of reason to establish truth. This was
>Aristotle's method and is rejected by the scientific method in favour of
>experiment.
>Empiricism involves the proposition that the only source of true
>knowledge is experience. Search for knowledge through experiment and
>observation. Denial that knowledge can be obtained a priori. This is the
>opposite of Rationalism, and not an ideology, but a method used by any
>tradesman, cook, scientist, banker or businessman as a pragmatic
>recognition of how the world works.
Fair enough.
>
>Positivism, as in logical positivism, was (for there aren't any logical
>positivists any more, it is an historically interesting, but extinct
>position) the rejection of the metaphysical in favour of the observable
>and factual. In analytical philosophy today, the metaphysical is
>recognised as important. Wittgenstein famously wrote a book proving
>himself wrong when he, after claiming that you can't talk about things
>that you cannot know, wrote an entire book (the Tractatus) on the
>subject. So there is no ideology of positivism.
Comte thought otherwise.
>Who do you think is exalting these things into ideologies?
>> Postmodernity in the West is a reaction against modernism. Among other things
>> it is a recognition that what we can know through reason and empirical
>> investigation is not all we need to know, and that what we can learn through
>> the scientific method can tell us nothing about values. In addition, the
>> notion that the scientific method makes researchers objective and their
>> findings "value-free" is a delusion.
>>
>Post-modernism is tied to relativism, which is a rejection of values
>and, as such, a form of nihilism. Though it is true that nihilism, of
>various forms, is a reaction to the modern world, it would seem odd for
>anybody with a religious bent to see this as a good thing, or something
>to be embraced.
>
>Nobody has ever claimed that the scientific method makes researchers
>objective! If researchers were objective then there wouldn't be that
>much need for such a rigorous framework which is a way of trying to deal
>with the evident subjectivity of researchers. The whole reason for, for
>example, the double-blind in research studies is exactly the
>understanding that researchers are subjective!
>
>Nobody has claimed that scientific findings are 'value free' either. So
>I don't know who you think has that delusion - here it looks like a
>strawman.
Well, let me add another -ism -- scientism.
You asked who exalts such things into ideologies.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:15:59 +0200, "Peter H.M.Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
> wrote:
>
> >Steve Hayes wrote:
> >>
> >> Orthodox Christianity, as Bishop Jovan remarked, does not altogether reject
> >> modernity. We make use of modern technology, like air travel and the internet.
> >> We can accept the scientific method, based on empirical research and reason,
> >> to better understand the natural world. But what we can learn by using these
> >> methods is not all that we need to learn, and exalting them into ideologies,
> >> such as rationalism, empiricism or positivism, becomes idolatry.
> > >
> >Those three words end in 'ism', which is, I suppose why you think of
> >them as ideologies.
>
> Not really. That would be as silly ans simplistic as equating "National
> Socialism" with "socialism" because it has the word "socialism" in the name.
>
their intent, socialist and they made this clear in both what they said
and what they did. The evil of Nazism was partly the evil of socilaism
- the view that the state knows best and has the right to determine how
people conduct themselves.
>
> While ideologies are often denoted by words ending in -ism, not every word
> ending in -ism denotes an ideology -- astigmatism, for example.
>
>
> >
> >Positivism, as in logical positivism, was (for there aren't any logical
> >positivists any more, it is an historically interesting, but extinct
> >position) the rejection of the metaphysical in favour of the observable
> >and factual. In analytical philosophy today, the metaphysical is
> >recognised as important. Wittgenstein famously wrote a book proving
> >himself wrong when he, after claiming that you can't talk about things
> >that you cannot know, wrote an entire book (the Tractatus) on the
> >subject. So there is no ideology of positivism.
>
> Comte thought otherwise.
>
sensible point to make in contradiction to my point, why not make it?
Argument from authority (even if not, as in this case, a dubious
authority, is always suspect).
>
> >Who do you think is exalting these things into ideologies?
>
> >> Postmodernity in the West is a reaction against modernism. Among other things
> >> it is a recognition that what we can know through reason and empirical
> >> investigation is not all we need to know, and that what we can learn through
> >> the scientific method can tell us nothing about values. In addition, the
> >> notion that the scientific method makes researchers objective and their
> >> findings "value-free" is a delusion.
> >>
> >Post-modernism is tied to relativism, which is a rejection of values
> >and, as such, a form of nihilism. Though it is true that nihilism, of
> >various forms, is a reaction to the modern world, it would seem odd for
> >anybody with a religious bent to see this as a good thing, or something
> >to be embraced.
> >
> >Nobody has ever claimed that the scientific method makes researchers
> >objective! If researchers were objective then there wouldn't be that
> >much need for such a rigorous framework which is a way of trying to deal
> >with the evident subjectivity of researchers. The whole reason for, for
> >example, the double-blind in research studies is exactly the
> >understanding that researchers are subjective!
> >
> >Nobody has claimed that scientific findings are 'value free' either. So
> >I don't know who you think has that delusion - here it looks like a
> >strawman.
>
> Well, let me add another -ism -- scientism.
>
The definition that I find from google is:
"
The term scientism is a relatively newly coined word that refers to
certain epistemologies based on science. The word has several different
meanings: * Scientism is used to refer to the attitude and method of
the typical natural scientist and/or to refer to the belief that all
fields of inquiry should be subject to (and can ultimately be
understood by) standard scientific methods of investigation. ...
"
It seems a term of prejudice - not examining the value of science, but
trying to portray it, wrongly, as an ideology. Exactly the sort of
dishonest avoidance of argument that you'd expect from a pinko.
Why not be honest and state your objections to the scientific method?
You're not stupid, surely you could manage that.
>
> You asked who exalts such things into ideologies.
>
Indeed and it is the ideology that is the problem - you haven't made
your case about the things you claimed to be ideologies.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Who do you think is exalting these things into ideologies?
Sorry about the interruption, but my keyboard stopped working.
Consider the word you often use: plebvision.
Think of the target audience for ads that say things like "clinical tests
prove".
That's who.
Not necessarily the only ones.
Steve Hayes
>Thank you for your very relevant and interesting comments.
>
>I am Roman Catholic myself, and have been recently pondering issues
>similar to the ones you address--partly as a result of reading Pope
>Benedict's Regensberg speech (which, as you correctly note, was
>concerned with the role of Reason.)
>
>I believe that beneath the surface of the speech is a fundamental
>grappling of Roman Catholicism--and Western culture--with Rationalism.
>My belief is also based on Pope Benedict's encyclical, Deus Caritas
>Est, in which--of all things--he mentions Nietzche and seems to allude,
>indirectly, to the tension between what Nietzche called the Apollonian
>(rational) and Dionysian (nonrational) elements of human nature.
Have you ever read a book by John Ralston Saul, "Voltaire's bastards: the
dictatorship of reason in the West"?
Not exactly a great philosopher, but he makes some interesting points none the
less.
>
>To make a long story short, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church
>is in a phase of "reconciling" rational and certain nonrational
>elements of human nature.
>
>> not education, but holiness. Book religion is not enough:
>> the Western church may have holy books, but the Orthodox Church
>> has holy people, like St Basil.
>
>I agree with this general characterization--but, of course, there are
>plenty of exceptions. The Marianist movement in the West has been seen
>by some as serving to compensate for the rationalistic tendencies. I
>could also mention, say, St. Francis of Assisi, as another definite
>example of a counterbalancing tendency to the excessive Rationalism.
Perhaps an early example of postmodern revolt!
>> On thinking about this, it seems to me that the core of this
>> is the difference in anthropology. Western anthropology sees the
>> individual and the collective.
>
>I think you might be correct about there being something distinctive
>about how the West positively evaluates the individual ego. Several
>psychologists have remarked on this, in fact. Your idea that this
>leads to a difference between views of "community" or "collective"
>seems new and interesting.
Not new, old -- premodern, in fact!
>My own basic hypothesis here is that God, working through history,
>wished for Western society to evolve--culturally and
>psychologically--it's unique personality structure. But this is also
>part of larger process which involves eventual reunion and
>reintegration. It's like two wandering tribes who reach a crossroads
>and say: "Let's split up. You go this way, we'll go the other way.
>Then we'll return and share what we've learned." Evolutionarily, it's
>a pretty sensible long-term strategy.
>
>> umuntu ungumuntu ngabantu -- a person is a person because of people.
>
>That is an excellent thought. Now, in support of my above hypothesis,
>I might offer another to balance it:
>
>"a community is a community because of the person"
A community is persons in relationship. As opposed to a collective, which is
like a bus queue or cinema audience. They may have a common intention (to
catch a bus, or watch a film) but they do not have a common purpose4.
>
>That is, a community that does not celebrate the uniqueness and value
>of a single individual--well, that's what atheistic communism is all
>about. And in some tribal societies I think you see something
>similar--though of course in a much more positive way. (What I'm
>referring to is a tendency towards despondency, malaise, and apathy
>which I believe strongly community-oriented cultures are more prone
>to).
>
>> Western anthropology is "European" in the sense that modernity arose
>> out of certain cultural movements that took place in Western Europe,
>> especially the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment.
>
>I agree, but think the process was already well underway before the
>Renaissance--e.g., in Scholasticism, or even Roman culture.
And Augustine -- greatly influenced the West, hardly influenced the East at
all.
torresD
http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm
'If these are released to the public,
obviously it's going to make matters worse,'
Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
'I mean, I looked at them last night,
and they're hard to believe.'
A federal judge ruled today that
graphic pictures of detainee abuse
at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must
be released over government claims
that they could damage America's image.
Last year a Republican senator
conceded that they contained
scenes of "rape and murder"
and Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld said they included acts
that were "blatantly sadistic."
But wait-how could it be any
worse than the pictures we
already SAW?!
'If these are released to the public,
obviously it's going to make matters worse,'
Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
'I mean, I looked at them last night,
and they're hard to believe.'
"The embattled defense secretary
fielded sharp and skeptical questions
from lawmakers as he testified about
the growing prisoner abuse scandal.
A military report about that abuse
describes detainees being threatened,
sodomized with a chemical light and
forced into sexually humiliating poses.
The military later screened some
of the images for lawmakers,
who said they showed,
among other things,
attack dogs snarling
at cowed prisoners,
Iraqi women forced to expose their breasts,
and naked prisoners forced to have sex
with each other.
In the same period,
reporter Seymour Hersh,
who helped uncover the scandal,
said in a speech before an ACLU
convention:
"Some of the worse that happened
that you don't know about, ok? Videos,
there are women there.
Some of you may have read
they were passing letters,
communications out to their men ... .
The women were passing messages
saying 'Please come and kill me,
because of what's happened.'
"Basically what happened is that
those women who were arrested with
young boys/children in cases that
have been recorded.
The boys were sodomized
with the cameras rolling.
The worst about all of
them is the soundtrack of
the boys shrieking that
your government has.
They are in total terror
it's going to come out."
Ouch. THats definately worse.
But this quote gets me the most....
Gen. John Abizaid, commander
of U.S. Central Command,
said Thursday that releasing
the photos would hinder his
work against terrorism.
"When we continue to pick at
the wound and show the pictures
over and over again it just
creates the image--a false image--
like this is the sort of stuff that
is happening anew, and it's not," Abizaid said.
Steve Hayes
<Peter.H....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:15:59 +0200, "Peter H.M.Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Steve Hayes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Orthodox Christianity, as Bishop Jovan remarked, does not altogether reject
>> >> modernity. We make use of modern technology, like air travel and the internet.
>> >> We can accept the scientific method, based on empirical research and reason,
>> >> to better understand the natural world. But what we can learn by using these
>> >> methods is not all that we need to learn, and exalting them into ideologies,
>> >> such as rationalism, empiricism or positivism, becomes idolatry.
>> > >
>> >Those three words end in 'ism', which is, I suppose why you think of
>> >them as ideologies.
>>
>> Not really. That would be as silly ans simplistic as equating "National
>> Socialism" with "socialism" because it has the word "socialism" in the name.
>>
>That would indeed be simplistic. However, the Nazis were certainly, in
>their intent, socialist and they made this clear in both what they said
>and what they did. The evil of Nazism was partly the evil of socilaism
>- the view that the state knows best and has the right to determine how
>people conduct themselves.
But socialism is not "the view that the state knows best and has the right to
determine how people conduct themselves".
Socialism is the view that cooperation is a better basis for the economic
ordering of society than competition.
>> While ideologies are often denoted by words ending in -ism, not every word
>> ending in -ism denotes an ideology -- astigmatism, for example.
>>
>Perfectly true.
>>
>> >
>> >Positivism, as in logical positivism, was (for there aren't any logical
>> >positivists any more, it is an historically interesting, but extinct
>> >position) the rejection of the metaphysical in favour of the observable
>> >and factual. In analytical philosophy today, the metaphysical is
>> >recognised as important. Wittgenstein famously wrote a book proving
>> >himself wrong when he, after claiming that you can't talk about things
>> >that you cannot know, wrote an entire book (the Tractatus) on the
>> >subject. So there is no ideology of positivism.
>>
>> Comte thought otherwise.
>>
>As have may people, many of whom have been wrong. If Compte had a
>sensible point to make in contradiction to my point, why not make it?
>Argument from authority (even if not, as in this case, a dubious
>authority, is always suspect).
It's not an argument from authority. It is an example of someone who made
positivism an ideology, which you appeared to be disputing.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:15:59 +0200, "Peter H.M.Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
> wrote:
>
> >Who do you think is exalting these things into ideologies?
>
> Sorry about the interruption, but my keyboard stopped working.
>
> Consider the word you often use: plebvision.
>
> Think of the target audience for ads that say things like "clinical tests
> prove".
>
> That's who.
>
> Not necessarily the only ones.
>
argument - no doubt you are comfortable with that level of dishonesty.
Your response above seems peculiarly gnomic. It would appear, despite
the croppings, that you are attempting to suggest that I have been
responsible for turning rationalism, empiricism or positivism into
ideologies.
Now this is dishonest (again, but, hey, you're into this dishonesty
lark, aren't you, Steve) because your initial suggestion wasn't that it
was me, but a general, unidentified group. Furthermore, you're
suggesting, in the above that, by using the term plebvision, I'm also
responsible for turning rationalism, empiricism or positivism into
ideologies.
But, Steve, of course, you're trying to avoid responsibility for these
accusations. You're being deliberately gnomic in the hope that those
following the thread might not remember that these were your initial
accusations, but, rather, think that you're being clever in linking me
to them.
Look at yourself, Steve. I don't think that you like to think of
yourself as a dishonest person - I could be wrong, and I'd be happy to
get your confirmation that you do. You are, though, apparently, going
out of your way to be dishonest here.
Why not consider why you're so tempted to dishonesty. Isn't it that
you've made claims that you know to be false? Ah honest person would
simply admit as much and loose little in the confession.
The ball is in your court.
FreeSpirit_uk
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <Peter.H....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161972454....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:15:59 +0200, "Peter H.M.Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Steve Hayes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Orthodox Christianity, as Bishop Jovan remarked, does not altogether
>> >> reject
>> >> modernity. We make use of modern technology, like air travel and the
>> >> internet.
>> >> We can accept the scientific method, based on empirical research and
>> >> reason,
>> >> to better understand the natural world. But what we can learn by using
>> >> these
>> >> methods is not all that we need to learn, and exalting them into
>> >> ideologies,
>> >> such as rationalism, empiricism or positivism, becomes idolatry.
>> > >
>> >Those three words end in 'ism', which is, I suppose why you think of
>> >them as ideologies.
>>
>>
>> Well, let me add another -ism -- scientism.
>>
Hmmm.... How about rheumatism? ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snipped>>>>>>>
Peter H.M.Brooks
No problem, be honest, ask me and I'll be happy to help.
Peter H.M.Brooks
>
>>> Well, let me add another -ism -- scientism.
>>>
>
> Hmmm.... How about rheumatism? ;-)
>
invisible to the pinkos themselves ) is an excellent way of revealing
their pathetically close minds to other people.
Athanasius
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Thank you for those interesting words brother.
Peace and grace.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>I see, so you don't understand what 'positivism' means.
>
>No problem, be honest, ask me and I'll be happy to help.
I'd prefer to look for help from a more reliable source than someone who
doesn't know what "socialism" means.
--
Terms and conditions apply.
Steve Hayes
haye...@hotmail.com
Steve Hayes
<Peter.H....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:15:59 +0200, "Peter H.M.Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Who do you think is exalting these things into ideologies?
>>
>> Sorry about the interruption, but my keyboard stopped working.
>>
>> Consider the word you often use: plebvision.
>>
>> Think of the target audience for ads that say things like "clinical tests
>> prove".
>>
>> That's who.
>>
>> Not necessarily the only ones.
>>
>You haven't responded to my remark about the dishonesty of your
>argument - no doubt you are comfortable with that level of dishonesty.
>
>Your response above seems peculiarly gnomic. It would appear, despite
>the croppings, that you are attempting to suggest that I have been
>responsible for turning rationalism, empiricism or positivism into
>ideologies.
>
>Now this is dishonest (again, but, hey, you're into this dishonesty
>lark, aren't you, Steve) because your initial suggestion wasn't that it
>was me, but a general, unidentified group. Furthermore, you're
>suggesting, in the above that, by using the term plebvision, I'm also
>responsible for turning rationalism, empiricism or positivism into
>ideologies.
Are you paranoid, or is it Bodie resorting to identity theft, and posting in
your name?
The rest of your mindless ad hominems deleted.
Peter H.M.Brooks
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 01:22:02 +0200, "Peter H.M.Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
> wrote:
>
>> I see, so you don't understand what 'positivism' means.
>>
>> No problem, be honest, ask me and I'll be happy to help.
>
> I'd prefer to look for help from a more reliable source than someone who
> doesn't know what "socialism" means.
>
dishonest argument you squeal like a stuck pig - but make no rational
defence whatsoever. On the other, up there, you have no reply, but a
direct, undefended ad hominem.
There's be a little credibility to your comments, Steve, if you tried to
add the odd tiny bit of substance to them here and there. Also, try to
be consistent, if you, for example, believe that somebody has been
guilty of an ad hominem and you can't spot the argument itself, at least
try to be consistent and not resort to ad hominem, argument free, posts
yourself!
Steve Hayes
wrote:
I'm suggesting nothing of the kind.
My karma just ran over your dogma.
>>
>> The rest of your mindless ad hominems deleted.
>>
>I didn't think you'd be able to reply to rational points - nor to
>understand that pointing out a dishonest argument is not an ad hominem.
"You're into this dishonesty lark" is "pointing out a dishones argument"?
Tell me another -- perhaps it's "socialism"?
>Obviously you're so used to dishonest argument that you aren't even
>aware when you use it. Don't feel too ashamed, it is a frequient problem
>with those who've been exposed to it to early in youth themselves
>without any counterbalancing exposure to rationality - it's a sort of
>child abuse.
That mindless ad hominem allowed to stand. Perhaps if you look at it long
enough, you'll see it for what it is.
Or perhaps you call it "dogma" or "socialism" or "momentarility".
Peter H.M.Brooks
'argument', but at least you claim that you didn't mean it.
Maybe, one day, you'll say what you thought you meant to say. I shan't
hold my breath though.
CMOP
yu.forum.religija.
Celu diskusiju mozete videti na dole navedenim grupama.
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5kc3k2hh7plkcn1hs...@4ax.com...