With regards to Science and religion it depends on what relgion we are concerned with. The Qu\’ran does not oppose scientific evidence, on the contrary, it is in agreement. In the days when the Qu\’ran was first translated, some parts were not understood. It was only when language and scientific knowledge emerged that the interpretations of the Qu\’ran could be identified as scientific revelations. Islam is the most misunderstood religion as sadly, some people who profess to be believers of God and followers of Islam perceive certain relgious conducts as they want and not how they should be. Killing people is strictly forbidden in Islam, unless during a religious war (and may I stress, in defence). Suicide bombers will not go to heaven. Proper Muslims are not people who should force religion upon anybody. They are told to live amongst people, whatever their religion and help people. Women are not opressed. Men are told to treat them like \’precious diamonds\’. The wearing of headscarves (hijabs) are not a symbol of oppression, but a protection of a male attention which should not be required if you are married. Islam protects from all the social ills of the world – extravagence, obsession about money, insecurity about looking good at all times. Islam permits you to just be and be happy from within. Alcohol is banned because it can alter the mind and make one do things that can cause regret. People should read more about Islam instead of listening to the media and extremists who portray the religion in totally the wrong light. I myself have come from a non-muslim background and felt like most people, that the religion was restrictive. After reading and talking to scholars I now know two sides of the story. Islam is the most tolerant religion and is also concerned with enjoying life, however, emphasis is in the hereafter.
I read this article on the hijab, and was impressed with its emotion. It intertwines so many issues, it is difficult to formulate a response.
A general reaction is to notice its emphasis on \”rights,\” with no discussion of what a \”right\” is, their source, how they are constituted within a society, how they are protected, and how they might find expression in a particular society. It\’s not clear if the author is using the term in a legal sense, a strictly humanitarian sense, or merely as a rhetorical device. She seems to assume that, once a \”right\” is identified, all other interests must not only retreat, they must evaporate. I think the article would be more helpful if the at least some of the nuances surrounding the notion of \”right\” were addressed, then applied to this particular situation.
It is interesting to note, that because the author takes such an absolutist position on \”rights,\” she is forced to take absolutist positions on other issues as well, such as the \”separation of church and state\” and \”secularism.\” As an aside, it is also not clear what the author means by the term \”secularism,\” and it would be helpful to have clarification on that as well.
It is also not clear if the author grounds her conclusions on the principle of \”rights,\” or if the notion of \”rights\” is invoked — as in a ritual — to justify a position already received. To simply shout \”rights!\” is hardly an argument, particularly in a situation like this where several rights and interests conflict. It\’s clear the author believes strongly in certain rights, and that therefore those rights should prevail in a conflict with other interests. But why? Is it because those rights are \”more fundamental?\” Of more interest to the author? Of more importance in the long haul? Promote a more peaceful polity? Are more consistent with a secular state? And if the answer to any of these question is \”Yes,\” why should anyone else agree with that assessment.
In deciding between conflicting claims between competing rights (for example, the rights of parents and the rights of children), it is not enough to say, merely, that certain rights exist, or should exist. At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to see a more extended discussion of the notion of \”right,\” and the various ways competing claims between rights can be adjudicated.
This dispute is occurring in France. France has it own particular history as a secular state, dating from 1789. Its identity as a secular state differs, for example, from that of Britain or the United States. Does this make any difference? Is French secular culture or law more sensitive to religious expression like the hijab than that of other Western democracies? And, if so, why? I suspect that it is, but I\’m not sure.
Ophelia Benson adds another article on \”bad writing.\” It\’s good and perceptive. Where is Orwell when we need him?
The simple reason that bad writing is pervasive is that good writing is hard work. Some writers can write well \”off the top of their heads,\” so to speak, but they are rare. Most good writing takes time and effort.
Good writing is also, as night follows day, the consequence of clear thinking. Muddled thinking rarely erupts into good writing (although some very bad thoughts have, from time to time, been expressed beautifully).
Those who write poorly (in a published piece) invariably have failed in effort or failed in thinking.
I agree with Benson that much of the so-called \”theory\” writing is \”bad,\” and laughably so. The common defense is that such writing is not bad, it is merely incomprehensible because it is \”difficult,\” the implication being that the writer is dealing with concepts that are, in their nature, difficult, profound, and resistant to clear expression.
This is nonsense. So-called \”theory\” consists primarily of watered-down concepts from Continental idealistic philosophy (mixed incredibly enough with various doses of pedestrian Marxism), which any college freshman in Introductory Philosophy can easily absorb and manipulate (and even write about in clear sentences). There isn\’t the slightest thing \”difficult\” about them. The \”difficulty\” in the writing typically arises from (1) the author\’s failure to comprehend those concepts and the proper limits of their application, and (2) their inept application to literature and art.
There is also, of course, the (seemingly irresistible) temptation of imitation and the cultishness common to \”theory\” writing. Martha Nussbaum comments cogently on this in her critique of Judith Butler\’s writings.
And one should not discount vanity. The urge to \”show off,\” particularly when the work is not subject to any rigorous peer review, is more than some can withstand.
There is, finally, the oft-repeated syllogism of \”theory\” writing: 1. \”Theory\” is profound;
2. Profound thought is necessarily \”difficult;\”
3. Ergo, \”theory\” is difficult, and, the First Corollary, its expression through writing is therefore necessarily \”difficult.\”
Socrates would have a heday with that reasoning, and with its premises.
When I run across writing in which definitions are not provided, or in which definitions contradict each other, premises are strewn throughout the piece without acknowledgement, competing theories are ignored, various philosophical texts are arbitrarily cherry-picked, conclusions are stated or assumed before premises are either described or defended, the reader\’s acquiescence is assumed in advance, vocabulary is either careless, repetitive, or pretentious, I generally conclude, not that I have wandered inadvertently into the unedited essays of a fourth grade classroom, but that I have again found some \”theory.\”
I believe that all religions go through stages. Firstly, religions are born out of turmoil, it begins with macro turmoil, or in other words, the turmoil of a whole society (war, civil-war, famine, disease, a major natural disaster, extreme poverty, massive discrimination of certain groups, etc.) This Macro turmoil begets (to use a biblical term) micro turmoil; turmoil within the heart of an individual(Bhudda, Moses, Mohammed) that sends him on a supernatural journey. He(or she) desperately searches for the \”why\” to the turmoil he has experienced in his life. His
spiritual awakening is accompanied by some kind of physical ascetism. He willingly seperates himself from all things material in search of the divine. (the whole \”man cannot live by bread alone\” bit seems necessary).
Secondly, an answer! After all the fasting and praying and exalting, voila! God answers his \”prophet.\” In their conversing he sets down strict, absolute (sometimes cruel) rules, practices and guidelines to be followed and carried out by the new prophet and all his converts.
The \”enlightened one\” now ends his solitude and goes back into his community to bring his fellow man to the straight and narrow path, the only path that leads to exaltation; this strictness is necessary at the beginning stages of all religions. It helps to give the new believers a unique identity from all others, a sense of community, a sense that they are special. It is this sense of specialness that sustains and helps the growth of the religion. It is the \”p.r.\” that gets new converts.
Thirdly comes the \”apostates\” and a new enlightenment. This usually happens many generations later,long after the founder or first prophet of the religion is dead,and the relgion is well established. This is when people start complaining enmasse. They start talking about how tired they are of the strict rules, they start asking themselves questions like:\”Do I really have to all these rituals to get closer to god?\” and
\”Why do I need to be in a certain place to praise god?\” Their religiosity takes on a more abstract form. They create a kinder,simpler, customer friendly version out of the old religion of their ancestors.
This is where my opinion of islam comes in. Islam simply hasn\’t bred any \”apostates\” yet. Islam seems perpetually stuck in stage two. Stuck in that place where absolutism rules the day and there is simply no room for nuance. Why is this?
This is the question muslims must ask of and answer for themselves. But I have two suggestions A: Muslims believe in the strict tenet that Mohammed was the last real prophet; therfore anyone with a new take on Islam, claiming to be getting directives from god is simply dismissed as a heretic, and B: Islam unlike other religions does not distinguish between religion and government.
As a layman, I would wish that linguists/etymologists would try to distinguish between invented simulcra of paradigm shifts and the real thing.
Would suggest that some of your colleages might find it instructive to go back to Aristotle and his discussion of identity in change.
Much of the disputatiousness in this area seems to be simply due to differences of opinion as to whether/how/when something keeps its identity while changing.
To put not too fine a point on it: 1000348 is a changling of 1000384 perhaps, but surely not of 976221.
It is that Uruk really is the name \”rk\” and this has been such for at least 5000 years (Uruk, Erech, Warka), so why is it that the etymologists speak of \”disintegration\” when the that partucular name \”Uruk\” has had no trouble perpetuating itself for lo these many millenia?
\”It is generally considered impossible to make inferences involving languages about times much earlier than about 6000 BC\” – well, let us see: maybe there was, MOST PROBABLY THERE WAS, a Uruk or Airroikau even earlier than this. Consonants survive floods and world wars and the march of time. But you already knew this.
Christopher Orlet claims that critics of Whig history assume that modern man is more morally advanced than his ancestors. He denies this assumption, and rightly so. But this saves neither presentism nor Whig history, ideas which Orlet both misrepresents and conflates. The principal characteristic of Whig history is its belief in moral and political progress, a belief which skews its interpretation of history in order to fit history to a prefabricated epic structure. Thus the assumption Orlet attributes to critics of Whig history is in fact the assumption of the Whig. On the other hand, Orlet is right that critics of presentism are generally moral relativists, who assume that historical figures should not be judged according to standards not operative in their own time. But the advocate of presentism is likewise a moral relativist who holds nevertheless that our standards are right because they are ours. In rejecting moral relativism Orlet is not therefore advocating presentism but rejecting its possibility. Thus, his belief in the universality of moral standards means that when he criticises Jefferson for being a slave-owner, he is not engaging in presentism but in condemnation according to those objective standards. In fact in suggesting, again rightly, that Jefferson either knew or should have known that slave-keeping was wrong, he is denying the validity of presentism by supposing that the moral standards of our day are largely continuous with those of earlier times. It is not his critic but the Whig who, if he favours Jefferson, would cover over the lacunae in Jefferson\’s moral integrity in order to emphasise his contribution to the progress of humanity. Historians are right to urge, against the Whig, that objectivity in one\’s interpretation of the past is essential to proper history, and to this extent, one should not let one\’s moral judgements cloud one\’s interpretation. If one also then wishes to judge (after one has explained, not before) then of course one must do so according to one\’s own moral standards. But this is not presentism unless one is a moral relativist. As a final note, Orlet appears to neglect the difference between the objectivity of moral principles and the way and extent to which such principles are differently expressed in different times and places. To this extent it is quite plausible to see Jefferson as a largely moral man who believed slavery not to be wrong according to objective moral standards, while from our perspective his belief was mistaken.
Your article: This Should Be the Last Straw for Anyone certainly sheds lots of light on the horrendous murder of the children in Beslan; and I fully agree with the issues brought out in the article; But wouldn’t have been better not to use the term “Islamic terrorists.” Rather shouldn’t it have been better to say “radical (or fanatic) Islamic terrorists – or something similar. The same could be said about the term “”The Islamic movement” used in the text. Wouldn’t it have been better to use the term “The radical (or fanatic) Islamic movement?” Not all Muslims support the atrocities of the fanatical, radical Islamic terrorists! A better choice of words, in my view, would not have put all Muslims in the same grape bunch.
You annoy me – although, admittedly, I was rather annoyed already by the fact that it seems your position is in fact taken over by a great many into policy.
Who ever said that Russian actions were not the last straw for anyone?
Whether they were or not, what bleeding hell does that have to do with analysis of the barbarity of these Islamists?
As if there could be even a shimmer of justification (or even explanation) of the killing of children which unique & only relation to the criminals is that they happened to be defenseless.
Blame it all on Putin! Or Bush for that matter. It makes life so easy & ever so comfortable.
But being outraged by Beslan is easy – even the Russians committing crimes against the Chechens share that feeling.
If the Russians had simply left Chechnya alone when it declared its independence along with Lithuania, Latvia etc then there would be nothing to discuss here.
The crimes of the Russians are feeding the fires of Islamicist hatred. The argument being pushed is that Beslan is part of the overall Islamicist terror campaign. That is correct but misses the point that the only reason Russia is being targeted is because of its crimes in Chechnya, and the war there started as a simple struggle for national liberation. If Russia had done the right thing at the start, then it would not be the target for these crimes.
And I do not like being a target for Islamicists driven to murderous madness by a Russian policy I oppose as much as I oppose theirs.
Even the Chechnyans themselves will be outraged by what happened in Beslan. Or so I\’d hope in any case.
The point is that there is no proper or valid justification from any crime to a crime like Beslan. There simply isn\’t.
It might well be the case the Chechnyan resistance grew because of some Russian strategy in Chechnya & it even may well be that criminals found it easier to be recruiting other criminals. But that is merely the assesment of Russian tactics in Chechnya. It has naught to do with a type of crime like Beslan.
Responsibility for the latter cannot be (certainly not by mere implication) be transferred to others. Such a biblical eye-for-an-eye indeed would encourage criminals.
As to Latvia & Chechnya: not quite the same. If things would be that easy we\’d have settled the Basque & Irish problem in no time (& no secession war would´ve taken place in the US).
I am not an expert on Russian politics, but isn\’t it a bit odd that if Putin or Russia are involved, Putin or Russia are wrong (both as to substance & as to tactics). It\’s really a Hollywood view, I want to be safe so Putin has to do as I would do otherwise he\’s to blame.
JoB
PS: you\’ll be happy to hear that Grozny has qualified for the UEFA cup (soccer)
Congratulations! Look how many words you have written about Chechnya without condemning Russian crimes, or even showing you know anything about the history of Russian oppression of the Chechens.
You are correct: nothing justifies Beslan. But then nothing justifies Russian rule of Chechnya.
Thanks for commending me on what I set out to do. Thanks also for agreeing.
You´ll appreciate that my not writing a condemnation does not mean that I´m in agreement with Russian policy. I´d be surprised if it did given I didn´t condemn a whole lot of damnable things in the letter which were entirely not to the point.
As to Russian politics: are you final in your expertise? Do you believe all secessionary actions are justified by definition?
\”Scientifically based (falsifiable, peer-reviewed, empirical, etc) psychology ignores Freud, but in the humanistic and to some extent in the social scientific branches of inquiry, Freud remains, intact, indeed possibly more influential than ever.\”
I didn\’t know that scientifically based, empirical research was the same as cherry picked research exlusively among the anti-Freudian club, among whom we find, not a neurologist, but a literary critic. Ah, those laboratory roaming literary critics. Interesting. If y0ou were doing a post on Pasteur, would you use Gerald L. Geison \’s book on him without reference to any of the other literature?
In the philosophy of science literature, we\’ve already had comparisons of Freud\’s methods and, say, Robert Milikan\’s, the Nobel winning physicist, who did a nice job of fuzzing and skewing his results to get to what he wanted. WSince your post projects a laughable image of how science, as in biology, physics and the rest of it, proceeds.
But let\’s look at the finding of Freud that was most ridiculed, and is still held up for ridicule by the likes of Frederick Crewes — that dreams are mainly motivated by sexual wishes. Gee, that sounds stupid. Except that in 1944, it was discovered that males have an average of four erections a night, and femailes typically experience an engorged clitoris about the same number of times per night. Well, is that information ever provided in a book of Frederick Crewes? Of course not. And, of course, the anti-Freudians tell us immediately, those are merely physiological reactions that have nothing, nothing to do with sex. Gee, but isn\’t it funny that Freud made those wild claims about the sexual basis of dreams before this was discovered? Isn\’t that, well, theory and discovery?
Those who chose to claim an acquaintance with science as an empirical enterprise without looking into any sciences for comparison\’s sake, and then go on to diss the ever mystical Freud, are promotiing a science as cargo cult imago — to use the pychoanalytic term. Other theory and discovery parts of the Freudian legacy? His predictions, for instance, about the limbic system turned out to be right on the money. Go to Israel Rosenfeld\’s The Invention of Memory for that story. Unless, of course, it is unscientific to check out your prejudices.
Speaking of making errors, Richard Webster\’s book is full of them. For example, he tries to refute what he assumes to be Freud\’s theory of \’unconscious emotions\’ without referring to what Freud wrote on the subject. I don\’t think this is a very scholarly approach. Freud\’s rare references to \’unconscious emotions\’ show that he was well aware of the problems involved in using this expression and meant something different by it from what Webster thinks.
Webster does get some things partially right – the psychoanalytic view of human nature is similar to \’original sin\’, yes. Unfortunately, Webster\’s myopic focus on Christianity makes him jump to the conclusion that this similarity shows psychoanalysis to be \’Judeo-Christian\’. He shows no awareness that belief in something like \’original sin\’ was a feature of ancient Greek religions such as Orphism, before Christianity even existed.
Incidentally, the expression \’Judeo-Christian\’ is rather off-putting, since it collapses Christianity into Judaism and is thus a sly way of attacking Freud as a Jew.
Equally off-putting is Webster\’s repeated insistence on his own originality when all he does is recycle the already existing critical literature on Freud (some of which, however, he misses even though it is directly relevant to his argument – Paul Vitz\’s 1986 book Sigmund Freud\’s Christian Unconscious is missing from his bibliography.)
Anyone who calls Webster\’s book \’brilliant\’ or \’original\’ does not know what they are talking about. I think it is only an example of the failure of liberal or \’skeptical\’ thinkers to understand religion or pose an alternative.
That is indeed the underlying issue in the crusade against Freud. The hostility of anti-Freudians to drawing any kind of inspiration from traditional thought is the reason why they are slowly but steadily losing the struggle against religious fundamentalism. It will take time, but this will eventually become all too obvious to everyone.
With regards to Science and religion it depends on what relgion we are concerned with. The Qu\’ran does not oppose scientific evidence, on the contrary, it is in agreement. In the days when the Qu\’ran was first translated, some parts were not understood. It was only when language and scientific knowledge emerged that the interpretations of the Qu\’ran could be identified as scientific revelations. Islam is the most misunderstood religion as sadly, some people who profess to be believers of God and followers of Islam perceive certain relgious conducts as they want and not how they should be. Killing people is strictly forbidden in Islam, unless during a religious war (and may I stress, in defence). Suicide bombers will not go to heaven. Proper Muslims are not people who should force religion upon anybody. They are told to live amongst people, whatever their religion and help people. Women are not opressed. Men are told to treat them like \’precious diamonds\’. The wearing of headscarves (hijabs) are not a symbol of oppression, but a protection of a male attention which should not be required if you are married. Islam protects from all the social ills of the world – extravagence, obsession about money, insecurity about looking good at all times. Islam permits you to just be and be happy from within. Alcohol is banned because it can alter the mind and make one do things that can cause regret. People should read more about Islam instead of listening to the media and extremists who portray the religion in totally the wrong light. I myself have come from a non-muslim background and felt like most people, that the religion was restrictive. After reading and talking to scholars I now know two sides of the story. Islam is the most tolerant religion and is also concerned with enjoying life, however, emphasis is in the hereafter.
I read this article on the hijab, and was impressed with its emotion. It intertwines so many issues, it is difficult to formulate a response.
A general reaction is to notice its emphasis on \”rights,\” with no discussion of what a \”right\” is, their source, how they are constituted within a society, how they are protected, and how they might find expression in a particular society. It\’s not clear if the author is using the term in a legal sense, a strictly humanitarian sense, or merely as a rhetorical device. She seems to assume that, once a \”right\” is identified, all other interests must not only retreat, they must evaporate. I think the article would be more helpful if the at least some of the nuances surrounding the notion of \”right\” were addressed, then applied to this particular situation.
It is interesting to note, that because the author takes such an absolutist position on \”rights,\” she is forced to take absolutist positions on other issues as well, such as the \”separation of church and state\” and \”secularism.\” As an aside, it is also not clear what the author means by the term \”secularism,\” and it would be helpful to have clarification on that as well.
It is also not clear if the author grounds her conclusions on the principle of \”rights,\” or if the notion of \”rights\” is invoked — as in a ritual — to justify a position already received. To simply shout \”rights!\” is hardly an argument, particularly in a situation like this where several rights and interests conflict. It\’s clear the author believes strongly in certain rights, and that therefore those rights should prevail in a conflict with other interests. But why? Is it because those rights are \”more fundamental?\” Of more interest to the author? Of more importance in the long haul? Promote a more peaceful polity? Are more consistent with a secular state? And if the answer to any of these question is \”Yes,\” why should anyone else agree with that assessment.
In deciding between conflicting claims between competing rights (for example, the rights of parents and the rights of children), it is not enough to say, merely, that certain rights exist, or should exist. At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to see a more extended discussion of the notion of \”right,\” and the various ways competing claims between rights can be adjudicated.
This dispute is occurring in France. France has it own particular history as a secular state, dating from 1789. Its identity as a secular state differs, for example, from that of Britain or the United States. Does this make any difference? Is French secular culture or law more sensitive to religious expression like the hijab than that of other Western democracies? And, if so, why? I suspect that it is, but I\’m not sure.
Ophelia Benson adds another article on \”bad writing.\” It\’s good and perceptive. Where is Orwell when we need him?
The simple reason that bad writing is pervasive is that good writing is hard work. Some writers can write well \”off the top of their heads,\” so to speak, but they are rare. Most good writing takes time and effort.
Good writing is also, as night follows day, the consequence of clear thinking. Muddled thinking rarely erupts into good writing (although some very bad thoughts have, from time to time, been expressed beautifully).
Those who write poorly (in a published piece) invariably have failed in effort or failed in thinking.
I agree with Benson that much of the so-called \”theory\” writing is \”bad,\” and laughably so. The common defense is that such writing is not bad, it is merely incomprehensible because it is \”difficult,\” the implication being that the writer is dealing with concepts that are, in their nature, difficult, profound, and resistant to clear expression.
This is nonsense. So-called \”theory\” consists primarily of watered-down concepts from Continental idealistic philosophy (mixed incredibly enough with various doses of pedestrian Marxism), which any college freshman in Introductory Philosophy can easily absorb and manipulate (and even write about in clear sentences). There isn\’t the slightest thing \”difficult\” about them. The \”difficulty\” in the writing typically arises from (1) the author\’s failure to comprehend those concepts and the proper limits of their application, and (2) their inept application to literature and art.
There is also, of course, the (seemingly irresistible) temptation of imitation and the cultishness common to \”theory\” writing. Martha Nussbaum comments cogently on this in her critique of Judith Butler\’s writings.
And one should not discount vanity. The urge to \”show off,\” particularly when the work is not subject to any rigorous peer review, is more than some can withstand.
There is, finally, the oft-repeated syllogism of \”theory\” writing: 1. \”Theory\” is profound;
2. Profound thought is necessarily \”difficult;\”
3. Ergo, \”theory\” is difficult, and, the First Corollary, its expression through writing is therefore necessarily \”difficult.\”
Socrates would have a heday with that reasoning, and with its premises.
When I run across writing in which definitions are not provided, or in which definitions contradict each other, premises are strewn throughout the piece without acknowledgement, competing theories are ignored, various philosophical texts are arbitrarily cherry-picked, conclusions are stated or assumed before premises are either described or defended, the reader\’s acquiescence is assumed in advance, vocabulary is either careless, repetitive, or pretentious, I generally conclude, not that I have wandered inadvertently into the unedited essays of a fourth grade classroom, but that I have again found some \”theory.\”
ISLAM THE \”UNFINISHED RELIGION\”
I believe that all religions go through stages. Firstly, religions are born out of turmoil, it begins with macro turmoil, or in other words, the turmoil of a whole society (war, civil-war, famine, disease, a major natural disaster, extreme poverty, massive discrimination of certain groups, etc.) This Macro turmoil begets (to use a biblical term) micro turmoil; turmoil within the heart of an individual(Bhudda, Moses, Mohammed) that sends him on a supernatural journey. He(or she) desperately searches for the \”why\” to the turmoil he has experienced in his life. His
spiritual awakening is accompanied by some kind of physical ascetism. He willingly seperates himself from all things material in search of the divine. (the whole \”man cannot live by bread alone\” bit seems necessary).
Secondly, an answer! After all the fasting and praying and exalting, voila! God answers his \”prophet.\” In their conversing he sets down strict, absolute (sometimes cruel) rules, practices and guidelines to be followed and carried out by the new prophet and all his converts.
The \”enlightened one\” now ends his solitude and goes back into his community to bring his fellow man to the straight and narrow path, the only path that leads to exaltation; this strictness is necessary at the beginning stages of all religions. It helps to give the new believers a unique identity from all others, a sense of community, a sense that they are special. It is this sense of specialness that sustains and helps the growth of the religion. It is the \”p.r.\” that gets new converts.
Thirdly comes the \”apostates\” and a new enlightenment. This usually happens many generations later,long after the founder or first prophet of the religion is dead,and the relgion is well established. This is when people start complaining enmasse. They start talking about how tired they are of the strict rules, they start asking themselves questions like:\”Do I really have to all these rituals to get closer to god?\” and
\”Why do I need to be in a certain place to praise god?\” Their religiosity takes on a more abstract form. They create a kinder,simpler, customer friendly version out of the old religion of their ancestors.
This is where my opinion of islam comes in. Islam simply hasn\’t bred any \”apostates\” yet. Islam seems perpetually stuck in stage two. Stuck in that place where absolutism rules the day and there is simply no room for nuance. Why is this?
This is the question muslims must ask of and answer for themselves. But I have two suggestions A: Muslims believe in the strict tenet that Mohammed was the last real prophet; therfore anyone with a new take on Islam, claiming to be getting directives from god is simply dismissed as a heretic, and B: Islam unlike other religions does not distinguish between religion and government.
As a layman, I would wish that linguists/etymologists would try to distinguish between invented simulcra of paradigm shifts and the real thing.
Would suggest that some of your colleages might find it instructive to go back to Aristotle and his discussion of identity in change.
Much of the disputatiousness in this area seems to be simply due to differences of opinion as to whether/how/when something keeps its identity while changing.
To put not too fine a point on it: 1000348 is a changling of 1000384 perhaps, but surely not of 976221.
sincerely,
John Helmick
I have another comment to make, gosh darn it!
It is that Uruk really is the name \”rk\” and this has been such for at least 5000 years (Uruk, Erech, Warka), so why is it that the etymologists speak of \”disintegration\” when the that partucular name \”Uruk\” has had no trouble perpetuating itself for lo these many millenia?
\”It is generally considered impossible to make inferences involving languages about times much earlier than about 6000 BC\” – well, let us see: maybe there was, MOST PROBABLY THERE WAS, a Uruk or Airroikau even earlier than this. Consonants survive floods and world wars and the march of time. But you already knew this.
Sincerely,
John Helmick
Christopher Orlet claims that critics of Whig history assume that modern man is more morally advanced than his ancestors. He denies this assumption, and rightly so. But this saves neither presentism nor Whig history, ideas which Orlet both misrepresents and conflates. The principal characteristic of Whig history is its belief in moral and political progress, a belief which skews its interpretation of history in order to fit history to a prefabricated epic structure. Thus the assumption Orlet attributes to critics of Whig history is in fact the assumption of the Whig. On the other hand, Orlet is right that critics of presentism are generally moral relativists, who assume that historical figures should not be judged according to standards not operative in their own time. But the advocate of presentism is likewise a moral relativist who holds nevertheless that our standards are right because they are ours. In rejecting moral relativism Orlet is not therefore advocating presentism but rejecting its possibility. Thus, his belief in the universality of moral standards means that when he criticises Jefferson for being a slave-owner, he is not engaging in presentism but in condemnation according to those objective standards. In fact in suggesting, again rightly, that Jefferson either knew or should have known that slave-keeping was wrong, he is denying the validity of presentism by supposing that the moral standards of our day are largely continuous with those of earlier times. It is not his critic but the Whig who, if he favours Jefferson, would cover over the lacunae in Jefferson\’s moral integrity in order to emphasise his contribution to the progress of humanity. Historians are right to urge, against the Whig, that objectivity in one\’s interpretation of the past is essential to proper history, and to this extent, one should not let one\’s moral judgements cloud one\’s interpretation. If one also then wishes to judge (after one has explained, not before) then of course one must do so according to one\’s own moral standards. But this is not presentism unless one is a moral relativist. As a final note, Orlet appears to neglect the difference between the objectivity of moral principles and the way and extent to which such principles are differently expressed in different times and places. To this extent it is quite plausible to see Jefferson as a largely moral man who believed slavery not to be wrong according to objective moral standards, while from our perspective his belief was mistaken.
Your article: This Should Be the Last Straw for Anyone certainly sheds lots of light on the horrendous murder of the children in Beslan; and I fully agree with the issues brought out in the article; But wouldn’t have been better not to use the term “Islamic terrorists.” Rather shouldn’t it have been better to say “radical (or fanatic) Islamic terrorists – or something similar. The same could be said about the term “”The Islamic movement” used in the text. Wouldn’t it have been better to use the term “The radical (or fanatic) Islamic movement?” Not all Muslims support the atrocities of the fanatical, radical Islamic terrorists! A better choice of words, in my view, would not have put all Muslims in the same grape bunch.
Your article \”This Should Be the Last Straw for Anyone\” contained the following assertion, re the perpetrators of the Beslan outrage:
\”They have shown the depth of their barbarity by actually killing so many children\”.
How many children have the Russians killed in Chechnya? According to one figure, 35,000. Why is this not the last straw for anyone?
Excellent weblog ! It\’s just the thing this stunned , somewhat confused leftist -rethinking – what the left means , kind of guy . Thank you
Paul Power,
You annoy me – although, admittedly, I was rather annoyed already by the fact that it seems your position is in fact taken over by a great many into policy.
Who ever said that Russian actions were not the last straw for anyone?
Whether they were or not, what bleeding hell does that have to do with analysis of the barbarity of these Islamists?
As if there could be even a shimmer of justification (or even explanation) of the killing of children which unique & only relation to the criminals is that they happened to be defenseless.
Blame it all on Putin! Or Bush for that matter. It makes life so easy & ever so comfortable.
JoB
JoB:
I am sorry I annoyed you.
But being outraged by Beslan is easy – even the Russians committing crimes against the Chechens share that feeling.
If the Russians had simply left Chechnya alone when it declared its independence along with Lithuania, Latvia etc then there would be nothing to discuss here.
The crimes of the Russians are feeding the fires of Islamicist hatred. The argument being pushed is that Beslan is part of the overall Islamicist terror campaign. That is correct but misses the point that the only reason Russia is being targeted is because of its crimes in Chechnya, and the war there started as a simple struggle for national liberation. If Russia had done the right thing at the start, then it would not be the target for these crimes.
And I do not like being a target for Islamicists driven to murderous madness by a Russian policy I oppose as much as I oppose theirs.
Paul,
Even the Chechnyans themselves will be outraged by what happened in Beslan. Or so I\’d hope in any case.
The point is that there is no proper or valid justification from any crime to a crime like Beslan. There simply isn\’t.
It might well be the case the Chechnyan resistance grew because of some Russian strategy in Chechnya & it even may well be that criminals found it easier to be recruiting other criminals. But that is merely the assesment of Russian tactics in Chechnya. It has naught to do with a type of crime like Beslan.
Responsibility for the latter cannot be (certainly not by mere implication) be transferred to others. Such a biblical eye-for-an-eye indeed would encourage criminals.
As to Latvia & Chechnya: not quite the same. If things would be that easy we\’d have settled the Basque & Irish problem in no time (& no secession war would´ve taken place in the US).
I am not an expert on Russian politics, but isn\’t it a bit odd that if Putin or Russia are involved, Putin or Russia are wrong (both as to substance & as to tactics). It\’s really a Hollywood view, I want to be safe so Putin has to do as I would do otherwise he\’s to blame.
JoB
PS: you\’ll be happy to hear that Grozny has qualified for the UEFA cup (soccer)
JoB:
Congratulations! Look how many words you have written about Chechnya without condemning Russian crimes, or even showing you know anything about the history of Russian oppression of the Chechens.
You are correct: nothing justifies Beslan. But then nothing justifies Russian rule of Chechnya.
Paul,
Thanks for commending me on what I set out to do. Thanks also for agreeing.
You´ll appreciate that my not writing a condemnation does not mean that I´m in agreement with Russian policy. I´d be surprised if it did given I didn´t condemn a whole lot of damnable things in the letter which were entirely not to the point.
As to Russian politics: are you final in your expertise? Do you believe all secessionary actions are justified by definition?
JoB
\”Scientifically based (falsifiable, peer-reviewed, empirical, etc) psychology ignores Freud, but in the humanistic and to some extent in the social scientific branches of inquiry, Freud remains, intact, indeed possibly more influential than ever.\”
I didn\’t know that scientifically based, empirical research was the same as cherry picked research exlusively among the anti-Freudian club, among whom we find, not a neurologist, but a literary critic. Ah, those laboratory roaming literary critics. Interesting. If y0ou were doing a post on Pasteur, would you use Gerald L. Geison \’s book on him without reference to any of the other literature?
In the philosophy of science literature, we\’ve already had comparisons of Freud\’s methods and, say, Robert Milikan\’s, the Nobel winning physicist, who did a nice job of fuzzing and skewing his results to get to what he wanted. WSince your post projects a laughable image of how science, as in biology, physics and the rest of it, proceeds.
But let\’s look at the finding of Freud that was most ridiculed, and is still held up for ridicule by the likes of Frederick Crewes — that dreams are mainly motivated by sexual wishes. Gee, that sounds stupid. Except that in 1944, it was discovered that males have an average of four erections a night, and femailes typically experience an engorged clitoris about the same number of times per night. Well, is that information ever provided in a book of Frederick Crewes? Of course not. And, of course, the anti-Freudians tell us immediately, those are merely physiological reactions that have nothing, nothing to do with sex. Gee, but isn\’t it funny that Freud made those wild claims about the sexual basis of dreams before this was discovered? Isn\’t that, well, theory and discovery?
Those who chose to claim an acquaintance with science as an empirical enterprise without looking into any sciences for comparison\’s sake, and then go on to diss the ever mystical Freud, are promotiing a science as cargo cult imago — to use the pychoanalytic term. Other theory and discovery parts of the Freudian legacy? His predictions, for instance, about the limbic system turned out to be right on the money. Go to Israel Rosenfeld\’s The Invention of Memory for that story. Unless, of course, it is unscientific to check out your prejudices.
Speaking of making errors, Richard Webster\’s book is full of them. For example, he tries to refute what he assumes to be Freud\’s theory of \’unconscious emotions\’ without referring to what Freud wrote on the subject. I don\’t think this is a very scholarly approach. Freud\’s rare references to \’unconscious emotions\’ show that he was well aware of the problems involved in using this expression and meant something different by it from what Webster thinks.
Webster does get some things partially right – the psychoanalytic view of human nature is similar to \’original sin\’, yes. Unfortunately, Webster\’s myopic focus on Christianity makes him jump to the conclusion that this similarity shows psychoanalysis to be \’Judeo-Christian\’. He shows no awareness that belief in something like \’original sin\’ was a feature of ancient Greek religions such as Orphism, before Christianity even existed.
Incidentally, the expression \’Judeo-Christian\’ is rather off-putting, since it collapses Christianity into Judaism and is thus a sly way of attacking Freud as a Jew.
Equally off-putting is Webster\’s repeated insistence on his own originality when all he does is recycle the already existing critical literature on Freud (some of which, however, he misses even though it is directly relevant to his argument – Paul Vitz\’s 1986 book Sigmund Freud\’s Christian Unconscious is missing from his bibliography.)
Anyone who calls Webster\’s book \’brilliant\’ or \’original\’ does not know what they are talking about. I think it is only an example of the failure of liberal or \’skeptical\’ thinkers to understand religion or pose an alternative.
That is indeed the underlying issue in the crusade against Freud. The hostility of anti-Freudians to drawing any kind of inspiration from traditional thought is the reason why they are slowly but steadily losing the struggle against religious fundamentalism. It will take time, but this will eventually become all too obvious to everyone.