The story of Purim.... why did they kill Haman(boo!)'s sons?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


. Religions need followers - a religion which encourages wrestling probably won't last very long.

"religion" isnt our word. Religious is a medieval(?)christian word to distinguish monks and nuns from other clergy. We know Am Israel, Torah, and Emunah Israel. We speak of a "Jewish religion" out of deference to concepts foreign to our civilization.


Ergo a priori syllogisms derived from general rules about "religions" dont apply.

[KrazyHorse]

Just because the concept of religion might not have a place in Jewish society does not mean that outsiders can't classify some aspects of Jewish life as religious and therefore apply general rules learned by studying other religions.

Native tribes in Papua New Guinea might not have a concept of a standard deviation, but it doesn't prevent us from applying statistical methods to study their physiology, psychology and behaviour.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Just because the concept of religion might not have a place in Jewish society does not mean that outsiders can't classify some aspects of Jewish life as religious and therefore apply general rules learned by studying other religions.

You give yourself away. That should be "Just because the concept of religion might not have a place in Jewish society does not mean that outsiders can't classify some aspects of Jewish life as religious and therefore apply general rules learned by studying other societies or civilizations that also have religious aspects"

I would agree that a serious student of anthropology or sociology could do that(though I would also note that some important anthropoligists find even that problematic) . But in fact in reality most lay folks who do so make the same mistake you just did, which is almost unconsciously and without subtlety applying the categories of one civilization to another one.

[KrazyHorse]

It's not a mistake. It's deliberate.

You break away bits of the functioning of a society and label them. Reductionism might not work very well when it comes to sociology, but I find it absurd to say that it has no place whatsoever.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's not a mistake. It's deliberate.

You break away bits of the functioning of a society and label them. Reductionism might not work very well when it comes to sociology, but I find it absurd to say that it has no place whatsoever.

But if it leads you to mistake the roles and categories within that society, and assume that they fit in the way they do in another society, youre bound to be led astray.

All mammals have fur or hair. the females of all mammals give milk. All mammals give birth live.

The Platypus. Has fur and hair. females give milk.
Doesnt give birth live. Fine. You can discuss its hair or milk. You can even call it a mammal, if thats useful. But if you say that since its a mammal it must give birth live, and assert that syllogism against someone whos actually seen it lay eggs, and is intimately familiar with its reproduction - well theres a word for what you are. And IMO thats what Sandman was doing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's not a mistake. It's deliberate.

You break away bits of the functioning of a society and label them. Reductionism might not work very well when it comes to sociology, but I find it absurd to say that it has no place whatsoever.

But if it leads you to mistake the roles and categories within that society, and assume that they fit in the way they do in another society, youre bound to be led astray.

All mammals have fur or hair. the females of all mammals give milk. All mammals give birth live.

The Platypus. Has fur and hair. females give milk.
Doesnt give birth live. Fine. You can discuss its hair or milk. You can even call it a mammal, if thats useful. But if you say that since its a mammal it must give birth live, and assert that syllogism against someone whos actually seen it lay eggs, and is intimately familiar with its reproduction - well theres a word for what you are. And IMO thats what Sandman was doing.

And what Westerners speaking about non-Western "religions" and civilizations often do. I note it especially wrt to Jewish civilization.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's not a mistake. It's deliberate.

You break away bits of the functioning of a society and label them. Reductionism might not work very well when it comes to sociology, but I find it absurd to say that it has no place whatsoever.

Actually I think youre doing the opposite. Reductionism would identify certain behaviors and beliefs that are "religious" Youre positing the existence of an entity called a "religion". Reification, I think, not reductionism.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



But if it leads you to mistake the roles and categories within that society, and assume that they fit in the way they do in another society, youre bound to be led astray.

All mammals have fur or hair. the females of all mammals give milk. All mammals give birth live.

The Platypus. Has fur and hair. females give milk.
Doesnt give birth live. Fine. You can discuss its hair or milk. You can even call it a mammal, if thats useful. But if you say that since its a mammal it must give birth live, and assert that syllogism against someone whos actually seen it lay eggs, and is intimately familiar with its reproduction - well theres a word for what you are. And IMO thats what Sandman was doing.

I personally think Sandman's claim was ridiculous. I was reacting to your reasons for dismissing it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I personally think Sandman's claim was ridiculous. I was reacting to your reasons for dismissing it.

His syllogism was A. All "religions" indoctrinate, and ergo, dont "wrestle" B. Judaism is a religion C. Ergo, Judaism doesnt "Wrestle"

I take issue with B. You take issue with A, I presume (esp that nasty "all")

Well, Im not sure there arent some viable, and useful, definitions of "religion" that make A true. In fact I rather suspect there are. But by such a definition Judaism isnt a "religion". Now there are certainly some useful definition of "religion" by which there is a Jewish religion which may be called Judaism (though its only one part of Jewish Civilization)

Personally I find that the use of the word "religion" wrt to Judaism, by gentiles or by Jews whove been raised with non-Jewish categories, tends to lead to more confusion than usefulness. (D'oh, how come you can be born a Jew, how come you can be a Jewish atheist, what does this biz about pork hav ta do wit religion, why should a religion get a country, why shouldnt two people of different religions marry cause like religion is between a person and God, arent Reform and Orthodox like two different religions, etc, etc, etc) Net net, i prefer a narrower use of religion that makes B false, rather than A.

[Sandman]

It's a fascinating cop-out argument. Claiming religion (from the Latin for reverance [of the gods]) is an alien concept, and therefore meaningless. It's absolute, it could apply to anything and it's rooted in apparently fundamental civilization differences. Wrestling indeed.

It can be turned around easily enough though. Civilizations as you describe them (eternal, with impermeable barriers to ideas) don't exist. Ergo a priori syllogisms derived from general rules about "civilizations" dont apply.

I personally think Sandman's claim was ridiculous.

Yeah, it probably was.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Actually I think youre doing the opposite. Reductionism would identify certain behaviors and beliefs that are "religious" Youre positing the existence of an entity called a "religion". Reification, I think, not reductionism.

Not quite reification, I don't think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification

Reductionist postulate: that Jewish society can be explained by the functioning and interaction of several smaller components.

Additional postulate: that these components are analogous to the components present in other societies.

I don't know what to call this additional postulate.

[KrazyHorse]

Reification would mean that I believed in the concrete existence of religions rather than simply using the concept as a holding pen for a large class of behaviour...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


His syllogism was A. All "religions" indoctrinate, and ergo, dont "wrestle" B. Judaism is a religion C. Ergo, Judaism doesnt "Wrestle"

I take issue with B. You take issue with A, I presume (esp that nasty "all")

Of course. I doubt I would ever apply a universal when studying sociology (or, for that matter, biology)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman

It can be turned around easily enough though. Civilizations as you describe them (eternal, with impermeable barriers to ideas) don't exist. Ergo a priori syllogisms derived from general rules about "civilizations" dont apply.

Ive never described civs like that. I certainly havent described Jewish civ like that. Its existed for 3000 years - thats not eternal in my book. And its evolved and changed throughout that period. And impermeable barriers to ideas is a joke. Judaism has often absorbed ideas from other civilizations. For ex, Judaism prior to the encounter with Islam, was far less strict about use of images.

The particular concept of "religion" is of course one thats used by most Jews - we use lots of foreign concepts. However its one that doesnt fit Jewish civilization all that well, and that leads to much confusion - largely, IMO, because it is a foreign concept.

Where Judaism has successfully taken outside concepts, it has tended to transform them, and give them new names, which avoids confusion with the way the concept is used elsewhere. Kabbalah, for example, may hisotircally owe much to the doctrines of the Sufi mystics - but to call Kabbalists "Jewish Sufis" would only lead to confusion.

[Tattila the Hun]

How about Ananias and Safira? A couple in the new testament, who were going to sell all they had and join the christians. Only, they didn't gave all of it to charity, but kept some of it, but didn't tell Peter of it. So God smit them. For lying to Peter, and him. "These men have just come back from burying your husband, and they shall bury you, too."

Nasty bugger, up to his old tricks.