User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Did Human Sacrifice Help People Form Complex Societies?

  1. #11
    Points: 44,063, Level: 51
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 1,187
    Overall activity: 32.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranRecommendation Second ClassTagger First Class25000 Experience Points
    HawkTheSlayer's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    10348
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Acadiana
    Posts
    7,123
    Points
    44,063
    Level
    51
    Thanks Given
    22,259
    Thanked 10,344x in 5,058 Posts
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45 View Post
    If human sacrifice brought about complex societies we should be one of the most complex societies in the history of the world considering all the human sacrifices Planned Parenthood has been responsible for.
    And the south side of chicago, New Orleans, Detroit, or LA.

  2. #12
    Points: 4,113, Level: 15
    Level completed: 13%, Points required for next Level: 437
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Vision's Avatar Junior Member
    Karma
    14
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    18
    Points
    4,113
    Level
    15
    Thanks Given
    5
    Thanked 4x in 4 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Much of the counter-Enlightenment, from Kant and Hume on, was an attempt to restore religion and faith and the rest of the pre-modern social order.
    That would be fictitious, given the false conflation of pre-modern and trans-modern religion. None of the "Enlightenment" ideals were completely original, but were merely religious concepts which had always existed in some form historically, such as Confucius' concept of meritocracy which inspired Enlightenment thinkers - or Buddha's objections to the rigidity of the Vedic status quo and attempt to remove the hegemony from it, Jesus' Christ's objection to the Pharisaic status quo, and so on.

    So there was no "restoration of religion or faith", since the Western Enlightenment, like its Eastern counterpart, was merely an exercise of religion and faith, albeit of a more novel variety.

    I see that you use solipsistic and non-academic definitions of "religion", "faith", and otherwise, which makes your argument rather vulnerable to deconstruction.

    It sounds like you're conflating the word "faith" with "mythic-level" thinking, or acceptance of a belief or source of authority without question.

    This of course, has nothing to do with whether the belief is arbitrarily defined as "religious" or not - but rather the psychological level of the individual in question in relation to their cultural context.

    A 7 year old, for example who hasn't matured beyond mythic-level thinking would believe "evolution is true" if told so by a parent or teacher, however if asked to explain why, they would be unable to and would merely defer to an authority figure.

    So a 7 year old's belief in the theory of evolution is one based on "blind faith" or pre-modern "religiousity" - as opposed a scholar's belief who has actually studied the theory academically.

    Your error seems to be falsely equating all levels of belief as created equal merely on the basis of what the belief itself is - when in reality, a 7 year old's belief in evolution, is much closer to a pre-modern belief in Zeus, than it is to an evolutionary scholar's belief in the same theory.

    Following Rousseau, however, others, like Hegel, argued their way into undermining the past and rebuild society, perfect man and create heaven on earth. It didn't work out too well.
    Attempting to bring about "Enlightened Individualism" is attempting to perfect man and create one's personal definition of "heaven on earth" - given that one's idea of a "perfect man" is an enlightened individual, and one's idea of a perfect society is one which embraces that ideal.

    The only difference would be the particular definition of heaven or the ideal, or the degree of 'perfectibility' which one realistically believes is achievable.

    Some thinkers may have fanatically believed that mankind was "completely perfectible", which would be the aberrant extreme - given that it is not physically possible to draw a perfect circle, but merely move closer and closer in that direction.
    Last edited by Vision; 06-08-2018 at 10:57 AM.
    Mankind is posed midway between the Gods and the Beasts - Plotinus

  3. #13
    Points: 665,289, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,553
    Points
    665,289
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vision View Post
    That would be fictitious, given the false conflation of pre-modern and trans-modern religion. None of the "Enlightenment" ideals were completely original, but were merely religious concepts which had always existed in some form historically, such as Confucius' concept of meritocracy which inspired Enlightenment thinkers - or Buddha's objections to the rigidity of the Vedic status quo and attempt to remove the hegemony from it, Jesus' Christ's objection to the Pharisaic status quo, and so on.

    So there was no "restoration of religion or faith", since the Western Enlightenment, like its Eastern counterpart, was merely an exercise of religion and faith, albeit of a more novel variety.

    I see that you use solipsistic and non-academic definitions of "religion", "faith", and otherwise, which makes your argument rather vulnerable to deconstruction.

    It sounds like you're conflating the word "faith" with "mythic-level" thinking, or acceptance of a belief or source of authority without question.

    This of course, has nothing to do with whether the belief is arbitrarily defined as "religious" or not - but rather the psychological level of the individual in question in relation to their cultural context.

    A 7 year old, for example who hasn't matured beyond mythic-level thinking would believe "evolution is true" if told so by a parent or teacher, however if asked to explain why, they would be unable to and would merely defer to an authority figure.

    So a 7 year old's belief in the theory of evolution is one based on "blind faith" or pre-modern "religiousity" - as opposed a scholar's belief who has actually studied the theory academically.

    Your error seems to be falsely equating all levels of belief as created equal merely on the basis of what the belief itself is - when in reality, a 7 year old's belief in evolution, is much closer to a pre-modern belief in Zeus, than it is to an evolutionary scholar's belief in the same theory.


    Attempting to bring about "Enlightened Individualism" is attempting to perfect man and create one's personal definition of "heaven on earth" - given that one's idea of a "perfect man" is an enlightened individual, and one's idea of a perfect society is one which embraces that ideal.

    The only difference would be the particular definition of heaven or the ideal, or the degree of 'perfectibility' which one realistically believes is achievable.

    Some thinkers may have fanatically believed that mankind was "completely perfectible", which would be the aberrant extreme - given that it is not physically possible to draw a perfect circle, but merely move closer and closer in that direction.

    Sure, Enlightement individualism has it's roots in lassical Greek thinking and especially Christianity. Enlightend individual is an attempt to perfect or abstract that concept out of community and to do so on a basis of reason and science. Reactions to that did reject that and attempt to restore religious roots.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  4. #14
    Points: 4,113, Level: 15
    Level completed: 13%, Points required for next Level: 437
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Vision's Avatar Junior Member
    Karma
    14
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    18
    Points
    4,113
    Level
    15
    Thanks Given
    5
    Thanked 4x in 4 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Sure, Enlightement individualism has it's roots in lassical Greek thinking and especially Christianity. Enlightend individual is an attempt to perfect or abstract that concept out of community and to do so on a basis of reason and science. Reactions to that did reject that and attempt to restore religious roots.
    That's not entirely true, when you say "religious" you're referring to blind or authoritarian acceptance of a religious hierarchy without question, such as in the Medieval Catholic church.

    However, the use of reason or scientific inquiry to challenge status quos and advance society in a less primitive direction - or a way of understanding the Kosmos - has been an element of most religious traditions historically at higher levels, such as in the Advaita school of Hinduism dating back to the BC era, or the Protestant reformation, which I believe in some ways was a precursor to the Western Enlightenment.

    So while in the modern sense, scientific inquiry wouldn't be considered a "religious" institution - it is based on rational "faith" in a higher cosmic ideal or purpose.

    As opposed to "blind", unquestioning faith in a specific religious authority on one hand, or materialistic nihilism on another hand, in which life is viewed as essentially meaningless beyond the basest survival level.
    Last edited by Vision; 06-08-2018 at 11:23 AM.
    Mankind is posed midway between the Gods and the Beasts - Plotinus

  5. #15
    Points: 665,289, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,553
    Points
    665,289
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vision View Post
    That's not entirely true, when you say "religious" you're referring to blind or authoritarian acceptance of a religious hierarchy without question, such as in the Medieval Catholic church.

    However, the use of reason or scientific inquiry to challenge status quos and advance society in a less primitive direction - or a way of understanding the Kosmos - has been an element of most religious traditions historically at higher levels, such as in the Advaita school of Hinduism dating back to the BC era, or the Protestant reformation, which I believe in some ways was a precursor to the Western Enlightenment.

    So while in the modern sense, scientific inquiry wouldn't be considered a "religious" institution - it is based on rational "faith" in a higher cosmic ideal or purpose.

    As opposed to "blind", unquestioning faith in a specific religious authority on one hand, or materialistic nihilism on another hand, in which life is viewed as essentially meaningless beyond the basest survival level.

    Well, no, when I say religious I don't mean that. I mean religion in the same sense I mean reason and science, all of which make some basic axiomatic assumptions.

    I have no issue with reason and science, only the use of them to separate us from our nature and communities.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts