Philosophy Now Forum

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... aders.html

Why do you think communists embalm some of their leaders for public display?

For the same reason 'some' philosophers do I guess.

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/1864509_f260.jpg

Wheres his real head gone? PC gone mad!?

Don't be coy Tom, tell us why you think it is?

can't convince the liberated people to build a pyramid?

-Imp

For the same reason people build tombes for their own relatives. They want to honour them. They may want a mourning place, I mean, I think a lot of the mourning is unnatural, some people might find their own destiny entwined with Hugo and for that sake get sad when he passes as he is a man of the people having fought for the wealth and prosperity of the masses, but most people don't know him personally, he's not the same as a relative, and in that regard it's a bit absurd.

But in the end, if some people wants it, why stop them? Whether you liked him or not, he was a great man, an icon of our age throughout the world, and many people are gonna be emotional about his passing, and let them have their opportunity I say, to mourn and to honour what in their eyes may be their hero.

Arising_uk wrote:For the same reason 'some' philosophers do I guess.

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/1864509_f260.jpg

Wheres his real head gone? PC gone mad!?

Don't be coy Tom, tell us why you think it is?

It is an expression of the human need to worship, to idolize, a person or thing.

tbieter wrote:It is an expression of the human need to worship, to idolize, a person or thing.

Thanks Tom.

Bentham shows thats not necessarily the case.

I'm human and find no such need so not quite "the human need to worship, to idolize, a person or thing."

In the case of the Communists I think it a political act that subverts and uses for its own purposes religious indoctrination.

tbieter wrote:It is an expression of the human need to worship, to idolize, a person or thing.

A truly insightful message... NOT.

1 + 1 = 2 is an expression of mathematics. Oh god I'm a genius! Seriously, some sentences are so stripped of actual insight that their entire purpose seems to be looking up in the dictionary after a definition to a word everybody already knows. That sentence of your tbieter really says nothing about anything, as the words "expression of the human need" tells nothing about reality and facts, which is not the same as saying it's a lie or false, it just means it gives the same degree of meaning as saying "sheep have wool" or "lamas spit". It is so extremely common knowledge that one just have to /facepalm when faced with it.

Now an interesting thing would've been if your sentence had gone like: "human beings have (insert claim of degree) need to worship, to idolize...", for instance, claiming all human beings have such a need, saying some human beings have it, saying anybody in particular have it, etc. It's the old matter of metaphysical nonsense versus discourse on nature, the former only transferring meaning between abstract terms, the later saying something about the actual things about us, that which is here and now or at some specific time or place at some specific degree.

The Voice of Time wrote:

tbieter wrote:It is an expression of the human need to worship, to idolize, a person or thing.

A truly insightful message... NOT.

1 + 1 = 2 is an expression of mathematics. Oh god I'm a genius! Seriously, some sentences are so stripped of actual insight that their entire purpose seems to be looking up in the dictionary after a definition to a word everybody already knows. That sentence of your tbieter really says nothing about anything, as the words "expression of the human need" tells nothing about reality and facts, which is not the same as saying it's a lie or false, it just means it gives the same degree of meaning as saying "sheep have wool" or "lamas spit". It is so extremely common knowledge that one just have to /facepalm when faced with it.

Now an interesting thing would've been if your sentence had gone like: "human beings have (insert claim of degree) need to worship, to idolize...", for instance, claiming all human beings have such a need, saying some human beings have it, saying anybody in particular have it, etc. It's the old matter of metaphysical nonsense versus discourse on nature, the former only transferring meaning between abstract terms, the later saying something about the actual things about us, that which is here and now or at some specific time or place at some specific degree.

If I understand you correctly, you agree that there is a "human need to worship, to idolize, a person or thing" /quote]
_____________________________________________________________

" But no embalming stops decomposition; it only slows it,” he said.

The time it takes a body to deteriorate varies on the health and weight of the deceased and other environmental factors, including whether the body was refrigerated immediately after death. Regardless, the key is to embalm as soon as possible after death.

Ideally, a body would be embalmed “the very day or next morning, rather than three or five or six days down the road,” Fountain said. “But it’s not impossible. I have embalmed bodies that have been refrigerated for six months.”

Confronted with such a never-ending and unsavory task, why do countries such as Russia, China, Vietnam, and now Venezuela, go to such lengths to preserve their leaders’ remains?

“The decision to embalm Chavez is an attempt to include him in a pantheon of communist deities,” said Nina Tumarkin, a professor of history at Wellesley College and the author of “Lenin Lives! The Lenin Cult in Soviet Russia.”

“It’s a throwback to Soviet, communist times, and it might seem obsolete, but it might be the only pantheon where he belongs. Better to belong to the wrong club than none at all.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03 ... hat-works/

The Voice of Time wrote:For the same reason people build tombes for their own relatives. They want to honour them. They may want a mourning place, I mean, I think a lot of the mourning is unnatural, some people might find their own destiny entwined with Hugo and for that sake get sad when he passes as he is a man of the people having fought for the wealth and prosperity of the masses, but most people don't know him personally, he's not the same as a relative, and in that regard it's a bit absurd.

But in the end, if some people wants it, why stop them? Whether you liked him or not, he was a great man, an icon of our age throughout the world, and many people are gonna be emotional about his passing, and let them have their opportunity I say, to mourn and to honour what in their eyes may be their hero.

This is an early expression of a budding cult of Hugo. Worship on, Voice of Time!

http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Lives-Sovie ... 0674524314

http://new.wellesley.edu/history/faculty/tumarkin

tbieter wrote:This is an early expression of a budding cult of Hugo. Worship on, Voice of Time!

I suspect you view this with scorn Tom but I thought you a Christian? As such cult is your preference.

Although the irony is that this is not always the best way to go if you wish to form a successful cult. Take Lenin, would Stalin have allowed this if he thought it would undercut his rule? No, but he made sure Trotsky was well dead and out of the way, but Lenin needed to be negated. Its actually useful for the next leader as it gives the followers a touchstone but also disarms the actual persona.

If you really wish to form a cult then no body appears to be the ideal. Now who can I think of recently who was charismatic, inspired devotion in his followers and has died but with no body to display? I think the Americans made a big mistake here.

Of course it may just be as simple as the people in the countries concerned having iconographic religions.

Say what you like about Chavez but he did appear to inspire the poor and downtrodden to vote.

tbieter wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote:For the same reason people build tombes for their own relatives. They want to honour them. They may want a mourning place, I mean, I think a lot of the mourning is unnatural, some people might find their own destiny entwined with Hugo and for that sake get sad when he passes as he is a man of the people having fought for the wealth and prosperity of the masses, but most people don't know him personally, he's not the same as a relative, and in that regard it's a bit absurd.

But in the end, if some people wants it, why stop them? Whether you liked him or not, he was a great man, an icon of our age throughout the world, and many people are gonna be emotional about his passing, and let them have their opportunity I say, to mourn and to honour what in their eyes may be their hero.

This is an early expression of a budding cult of Hugo. Worship on, Voice of Time!

http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Lives-Sovie ... 0674524314

http://new.wellesley.edu/history/faculty/tumarkin

“Discuss the religious overtones to the veneration of Lenin after his death.
There were decidedly religious overtones to the veneration of Lenin. After all, the "Cult of Lenin" had a gospel -- the idealized biography of Lenin. It had an iconography -- the ubiquitous portraits and busts of Lenin. It had sacred writings -- Leninism, the writings of the leader. And it had a shrine, which was the body of Lenin that drew so many pilgrims to actually see him lying in state.
Very soon, within weeks really, of his death the Lenin Corner was instituted, which had actually indeed started before his death, during his illness. This is a direct counterpart to the icon corner. Every Russian home before had a corner in the home that had a shelf in which there had been icons displayed. Now there was a Lenin corner where there would be portraits of Lenin, the writings of Lenin. Clearly, this was meant to be a civil religion that would mobilize popular loyalty and devotion to the memory of the leader and to the values and to the regime that he embodied. And, therefore, it was supposed to translate to his heirs and his successors.”
http://www.pbs.org/heavenonearth/interv ... arkin.html

I have little to no relations with Huge Chavez either as a symbol or as a person, nor Lenin for that sake. I just know he's important for other people, a person elected for his importance in fact.

Arising_uk wrote:For the same reason 'some' philosophers do I guess.

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/1864509_f260.jpg

Wheres his real head gone? PC gone mad!?

Don't be coy Tom, tell us why you think it is?

With regard to Jeremy Bentham having his body put on permanent display, I just wanted to mention that in Philosophy Now Issue 96 (ie the May/June 2013 issue, appearing in a couple of months from now) we will be publishing an article by Tim Madigan which explains exactly why Bentham wanted to do that. It makes a lot of sense so I really expect Tim is right about Bentham's motivation. However, I'm not going to spoil the surprise.

RickLewis wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:For the same reason 'some' philosophers do I guess.

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/1864509_f260.jpg

Wheres his real head gone? PC gone mad!?

Don't be coy Tom, tell us why you think it is?

With regard to Jeremy Bentham having his body put on permanent display, I just wanted to mention that in Philosophy Now Issue 96 (ie the May/June 2013 issue, appearing in a couple of months from now) we will be publishing an article by Tim Madigan which explains exactly why Bentham wanted to do that. It makes a lot of sense so I really expect Tim is right about Bentham's motivation.

However, I'm not going to spoil the surprise.

Rick,
I hope that you will post Tim Madigan's article here when published so that we don't miss it. Thanks

RickLewis wrote:With regard to Jeremy Bentham having his body put on permanent display, I just wanted to mention that in Philosophy Now Issue 96 (ie the May/June 2013 issue, appearing in a couple of months from now) we will be publishing an article by Tim Madigan which explains exactly why Bentham wanted to do that. It makes a lot of sense so I really expect Tim is right about Bentham's motivation. However, I'm not going to spoil the surprise.

Will he tell us where his real head went?