Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:Actually, the very idea that there *was* a period known as"The Dark Ages" is under very serious attack from historians today. Apparently scholars of the period have long been insisting that there was little "dark" about those years -- they were full of energy, innovation, art, architecture and learning. H

Now, I have no desire to defend Medieval Catholicism, for sure. But I think even a casual reader can detect that to characterize a whole time of human history as simply "dark" is absurdly prejudicial. It depends on a romanticizing of the late Roman Empire and a denigrating of late Latin literature, with that reputation spreading to all aspects of life in the period. Apparently Petrarch started that business.

Here's a short vid http://www.prageruniversity.com/History ... M6YlsYmVWh

Yeah, this is a fairly fascinating area of research. I wasn't aware that it's "long been insisted," but even if not, the stuff I've read certainly does a good job of problematizing the whole idea. Still, until it's had a bit more time in the academic wringer, I'm OK with attributing the "Dark Ages" to the fall of the Roman Empire rather than the absurd notion that it was because Xians believed their history was real and not myth.

I think we can both smell the stench of myth-making on that idea, can't we?

As for the "long insisted," it's been the cry of Medieval scholars since time immemorial. Anyone who actually studied the period, rather that merely accepting the politically-correct gloss on it, knew the characterization of them as merely "dark" was mythical. And in fact, there's always been plenty of evidence to that effect; it's just that the detractors of the period have no interest in recognizing any of it. It doesn't fit the secular "enlightenment" myth, which is one they are extremely passionate to see vindicated.

Hatred makes very bad historians.

But your comment on literalism does raise a good point. May I explore it?

Perhaps we should ask ourselves this: would the world be a better place if...

...people helped neighbours or took care of Number One?
...people told the truth or lied?
...people loved their enemies or hated them?
...people respected marriage or slept with each others' spouses?
...people celebrated each other's triumphs or became envious?

And so on.

If your answer to all or any of the above is "the former," then one would have to concede that at least in some ways the world would be a better place if Jews and Christians were MORE literalistic, not less. And if that's true, then the question with which this strand starts is also, perhaps, a bit simplistic and in need of revision. It cannot then be as simple as "relativism = good," and "literalism = bad."

A more intelligent treatment would be to ask, "When is X better," and "When is Y better?" For it is now clear there is nothing strange in saying there are cases in which literalism has every advantage over the alternatives.

Immanuel Can wrote:Actually, the very idea that there *was* a period known as"The Dark Ages" is under very serious attack from historians today. Apparently scholars of the period have long been insisting that there was little "dark" about those years -- they were full of energy, innovation, art, architecture and learning. H

Now, I have no desire to defend Medieval Catholicism, for sure. But I think even a casual reader can detect that to characterize a whole time of human history as simply "dark" is absurdly prejudicial. It depends on a romanticizing of the late Roman Empire and a denigrating of late Latin literature, with that reputation spreading to all aspects of life in the period. Apparently Petrarch started that business.

Here's a short vid http://www.prageruniversity.com/History ... M6YlsYmVWh

Methinks Esolen protests too much. i don't think anyone is saying the whole period was in darkness. This time period could hardly be called 'brilliant". There was no science and there was no human rights, unless you are prepared to include the 1400s. That would be a fudge in my view.

Ginkgo wrote:Methinks Esolen protests too much. i don't think anyone is saying the whole period was in darkness.

At least in popular usage, this is appears to be exactly what is meant when referring to the Dark Ages. Wikipedia works it out pretty well.

Ginkgo wrote:This time period could hardly be called 'brilliant". There was no science and there was no human rights, unless you are prepared to include the 1400s. That would be a fudge in my view.

I believe this is exactly what Immanuel Can is saying historians have been pushing back against. I'm not well-versed in the literature on the topic, so I'll won't do more than dip a toe in the water, but my sense of the emerging scholarship is that it is no longer tenable to hold that science and human rights were somehow placed on pause from the 5th to 15th centuries.

Immanuel Can wrote:If your answer to all or any of the above is "the former," then one would have to concede that at least in some ways the world would be a better place if Jews and Christians were MORE literalistic, not less. And if that's true, then the question with which this strand starts is also, perhaps, a bit simplistic and in need of revision. It cannot then be as simple as "relativism = good," and "literalism = bad."

A more intelligent treatment would be to ask, "When is X better," and "When is Y better?" For it is now clear there is nothing strange in saying there are cases in which literalism has every advantage over the alternatives.

If the argument is that literalism per se is somehow bad, then I think you're quite right here—it isn't. However, I believe the original application was in the context of religion. In this sense, I'm inclined to agree with the basic proposition that mixing literalism and religion is often problematic, if not outright dangerous. The literal application of texts written under vastly different cultural circumstances is fraught with complications, not least of which is the inability to understand the context for such writings. This is not to say that scripture should be tossed out, but a dose of humility with respect to our ability to know exactly what was meant by this or that passage is welcome, if not outright necessary.

Immanuel Can wrote:Minus the needlessly emotional language, you do have a sort of point in that Constantine was not a nice man. I would also agree with you that uniting politics with religion is never a good thing. But neither is uniting atheistic ideology with politics. Yet Constantine never killed anywhere near as many as Stalin and Mao did. So we need to ask, "When Constantine, or Torquemada, or whoever, killed people, did he do so *as* a Christian, or in doing it was he actually acting unchristianly?" So before condemning the innocent with the guilty, ought we not to think more carefully?

Let's settle on this: anyone who sets out to empower their ideology using the machinery of political control is bound to be bad. History would seem to support that.

But an atheist does not have to be a Marxist despot: he can be a pacifist too. And a Christian doesn't have to be a Catholic Inquisitor -- he could be a follower of the dictum, "Pray for your enemies, and do good to those who abuse you," and "turn the other cheek." In fact, I think you would have every reason to challenge the authenticity of any so-called "Christian" who did not follow those rules, since they were the explicit instruction of the Leader of his faith. We need to ask, how could a person be a "Christian" while insisting on doing exactly the opposite of what his faith frankly enjoined him to do?

I think the answer is obvious. Whatever evils befell humanity in the Middle Ages or any other time were not produced by obedience to the principles of Christian morality, but by those who disregarded them.

Well thought out and put, --- Hogwash.

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

Christianity is a vile religion who will not allow freedom of though and would use violence against works criticizing them.

Christianity and Islam both have misogynous homophobic tenets that deny women and gays equality and that shows that they are internally evil.

Listen to the pope for the first time.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... expression

It seems strange that he would advocate violence against words and then try to restrict the freedom of speech that society has worked so hard to bring to all nations and peoples.

This was insulting enough to this blogger, who is usually quite civil and funny and never curses, to act out of character.

https://richarddawkins.net/2015/01/the- ... -the-pope/

Regards
DL

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:If your answer to all or any of the above is "the former," then one would have to concede that at least in some ways the world would be a better place if Jews and Christians were MORE literalistic, not less. And if that's true, then the question with which this strand starts is also, perhaps, a bit simplistic and in need of revision. It cannot then be as simple as "relativism = good," and "literalism = bad."

A more intelligent treatment would be to ask, "When is X better," and "When is Y better?" For it is now clear there is nothing strange in saying there are cases in which literalism has every advantage over the alternatives.

If the argument is that literalism per se is somehow bad, then I think you're quite right here—it isn't. However, I believe the original application was in the context of religion. In this sense, I'm inclined to agree with the basic proposition that mixing literalism and religion is often problematic, if not outright dangerous. The literal application of texts written under vastly different cultural circumstances is fraught with complications, not least of which is the inability to understand the context for such writings. This is not to say that scripture should be tossed out, but a dose of humility with respect to our ability to know exactly what was meant by this or that passage is welcome, if not outright necessary.

I agree that to just start to toss out scriptures would throw the baby out with the bath water.

Perhaps I will amend my use of the term Dark ages, even thought I think it accurate to Dark Ages of freedom of thought.

Regards
DL

I believe the original application was in the context of religion.

But of course. I know. This changes nothing in what I suggested, since every single axiom above was a specifically religious axiom, all drawn from Judaism or Christianity.

In this sense, I'm inclined to agree with the basic proposition that mixing literalism and religion is often problematic, if not outright dangerous.

This would also be too hasty a statement. We need to ask, "Which religion?" For they are by no means the same: nor does obeying "literally" issue in the same kinds of behaviours or understandings regardless of the text in question.

...a dose of humility with respect to our ability to know exactly what was meant by this or that passage is welcome, if not outright necessary.

Of course. But this is a general virtue of sound interpretation, and does not impinge on whether one settles on literalism or figurativism in reference to a specific case. One can be a "humble" literalist very easily.

Take that precept, "Love your enemies." A "humble" interpretation is that it refers to *all* enemies, regardless of how opposed or why they are opposed. That is also the most "literal" interpretation, and also the very least dangerous. Or take, "Thou shalt not murder," from Judaism. A "humble" interpretation would extend the protection of life to the widest possible group of people, and would be "literal," and would produce the very least number of homicides of any kind.

See? Literalism isn't automatically bad. You can't say whether a particular literalism is good or bad until you say, "Literally WHAT?"

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

This is dishonest, I'm afraid. You've neglected to mention this is a line attributed to a ruler within one of the parables of Jesus, which is presented as a specifically fictive illustration, not a commandment. There is nothing in this line that indicates that it implies some action incumbent upon Christians (p.s. no Christian thinks it does, not even the most "literal" ones, and none has made anything bad happen based on it, historically speaking). You want to contrast this against the explicit teaching of Jesus, framed in an actual commandment to His followers to "love" and to "pray for" enemies, and imply that Christians follow the ruler's dictum rather than Christ's -- which historically, they simply have not. Some of that interpretive humility is just what is required here.

It would seem that you're trying so hard to slander them that you are interpreting in a way that is neither humble nor trustworthy. But hey, let me be charitable to you -- let me grant , merely as a fiction, of course -- that you found something worrisome here. You would still not win your point: for it is not necessary for my point about literalism that *all* the precepts of a given religion should be harmless when taken literally; only that *some* should. For that would be sufficient to warrant my simple claim that one must discern among commandments and religions, not damn them all . That seems to me to be about the most common-sensical and fair thing a person could possibly do. Why you would think otherwise, I cannot imagine.

Christianity is a vile religion who will not allow freedom of though and would use violence against works criticizing them.

Historically untrue, actually. Catholicism has used some violence, but much more limited than you may imagine. Secular atheists are far and away the most homicidal group ever to inhabit the planet. Religion is a cause of a maximum of 7% of the war violence in history -- 3.5% by Islam, and 3.5% by ALL OTHER RELIGIONS COMBINED, including everything from polytheism to pantheism to Buddhism to Hinduism and Sikhism, to Animism and to any Christian groups. But in fact, many of these have never historically been implicated in ANY such violence at all...and often these are the most literalist sects! In contrast, self-declared secular atheists killed 148 million in the last century. I think it's pretty clear where the real danger lies.

The truth is this: "freedom of thought" as a human right develops very specifically from John Locke, and on a specifically religious basis. Locke spells it out very frankly. Go read his passage on "life, liberty and property." I fear that the only reason you wouldn't know that is not having read it, and having taken your view of human rights from some mere propagandist. But cheer up...some facts will soon set you back on the right track.

ReliStuPhd:

I'm interested in your pseudonym here: where are you studying, and what's your program? What's your interest in the topic?

If you want to preserve anonymity on the main board, just send me a private message.

Immanuel Can wrote:

In this sense, I'm inclined to agree with the basic proposition that mixing literalism and religion is often problematic, if not outright dangerous.

This would also be too hasty a statement. We need to ask, "Which religion?" For they are by no means the same: nor does obeying "literally" issue in the same kinds of behaviours or understandings regardless of the text in question.

Insofar as religions are cultural products (or so I hold), the application of archaic culture to modern culture has, as I said, often proved problematic and/or dangerous.

Immanuel Can wrote:

...a dose of humility with respect to our ability to know exactly what was meant by this or that passage is welcome, if not outright necessary.

Of course. But this is a general virtue of sound interpretation, and does not impinge on whether one settles on literalism or figurativism in reference to a specific case. One can be a "humble" literalist very easily.

Take that precept, "Love your enemies." A "humble" interpretation is that it refers to *all* enemies, regardless of how opposed or why they are opposed. That is also the most "literal" interpretation, and also the very least dangerous. Or take, "Thou shalt not murder," from Judaism. A "humble" interpretation would extend the protection of life to the widest possible group of people, and would be "literal," and would produce the very least number of homicides of any kind.

See? Literalism isn't automatically bad. You can't say whether a particular literalism is good or bad until you say, "Literally WHAT?"

Right, but I've already assented to this proposition. You've not presented a case that undermines my contention that "mixing literalism and religion is often problematic..." [emphasis added]. I'll admit that there's more there to be fleshed out, so I'm perfectly willing to "get at it," but I think we'll have to qualify the use of "literalism" first.

Immanuel Can wrote:ReliStuPhd:

I'm interested in your pseudonym here: where are you studying, and what's your program? What's your interest in the topic?

If you want to preserve anonymity on the main board, just send me a private message.

I'm a PhD candidate in a Religious Studies program. My focus is on Islamic Studies/Religious Fundamentalism (i.e. where the two intersect). Where I argue for/defend Christianity (even if I myself do not hold to it), my training comes from two masters degrees (M.Div. and Th.M.).

As for the where, I'm not inclined to give that away, even by PM.

Immanuel Can wrote:I think we can both smell the stench of myth-making on that idea, can't we?

As for the "long insisted," it's been the cry of Medieval scholars since time immemorial. Anyone who actually studied the period, rather that merely accepting the politically-correct gloss on it, knew the characterization of them as merely "dark" was mythical.

It's relative. Medieval scholars wouldn't bother if there were nothing to study, but the millennium between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance were sluggish compared to the epochs that bookend them. There is no politically correct gloss, you are making things up.

Immanuel Can wrote:And in fact, there's always been plenty of evidence to that effect; it's just that the detractors of the period have no interest in recognizing any of it. It doesn't fit the secular "enlightenment" myth, which is one they are extremely passionate to see vindicated.

There was lots of good work done in the Middle and Far East in Chemistry (albeit Alchemy) and maths. While there was some advances in logic in Christendom, scientifically not much happened until the Dutch started playing around with lenses. Suddenly, whole new worlds became visible and the beliefs of the ancient Greeks that 'Dark Age' theologians had spent a thousand years turning into dogma could be seen to be untrue.
I don't know what you mean by the ""enlightenment" myth" and cannot imagine who the detractors of the period are that wish to see it vindicated. Could you name one, so that I might see what you are on about?

Immanuel Can wrote:Hatred makes very bad historians.

So too confirmation bias.

Immanuel Can wrote:But your comment on literalism does raise a good point. May I explore it?

Perhaps we should ask ourselves this: would the world be a better place if...

...people helped neighbours or took care of Number One?
...people told the truth or lied?
...people loved their enemies or hated them?
...people respected marriage or slept with each others' spouses?
...people celebrated each other's triumphs or became envious?

And so on.

If your answer to all or any of the above is "the former," then one would have to concede that at least in some ways the world would be a better place if Jews and Christians were MORE literalistic, not less.

None of those qualities are exclusive to MORE literalistic Jews and Christians.
...It is, I think, an absurdly narcissistic fancy to believe that a supernatural being will preserve you, because of your good behaviour. I can't off the top of my head, think of a more fatuous example of looking after Number One.
...I'm an atheist. Just what lies do you think I tell?
...I think you are pompous and trivial. Do you really love me, therefore?
...I have been married for nearly 21 years and haven't slept with anyone else. I can only speak for myself, but it is at least possible for an atheist to respect marriage in the banal way you suggest.
...go to any sport stadium, theatre, music venue, gallery and see people celebrate others' triumphs; if you think they are all literal Jews or Christians, you are mental.

Immanuel Can wrote:And if that's true, then the question with which this strand starts is also, perhaps, a bit simplistic and in need of revision. It cannot then be as simple as "relativism = good," and "literalism = bad."

A more intelligent treatment would be to ask, "When is X better," and "When is Y better?" For it is now clear there is nothing strange in saying there are cases in which literalism has every advantage over the alternatives.

That would be obvious to anyone who understands cherry picking.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Take that precept, "Love your enemies." A "humble" interpretation is that it refers to *all* enemies, regardless of how opposed or why they are opposed.

Humble. Pfft.

A person would be rather stupid to love an enemy. We are to love and care for those who believe in reciprocity. If you love you enemy as you love those who deserve it, then the ones who deserve it are no better to you than those who do not so you reduce the status of your loved ones by elevating those who do not deserve it.

Would you have told the Jews to love the Germans as the S S pushed them into the ovens?

Your saying is useless rhetoric that only fools would follow.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Take that precept, "Love your enemies." A "humble" interpretation is that it refers to *all* enemies, regardless of how opposed or why they are opposed.

Humble. Pfft.
A person would be rather stupid to love an enemy. We are to love and care for those who believe in reciprocity. If you love you enemy as you love those who deserve it, then the ones who deserve it are no better to you than those who do not so you reduce the status of your loved ones by elevating those who do not deserve it.
Would you have told the Jews to love the Germans as the S S pushed them into the ovens?
Your saying is useless rhetoric that only fools would follow.
Regards
DL

You seem to be confusing 'Love" and 'Trust', Just because you are to Love your enemies does not mean you should turn your back on them and let them do what they want. You are told to Love them but still resist when they seek to harm you, at least that's my understanding.