Saturday, December 15, 2007

in response to kiddo

awww,, it is quite difficult to answer since i am an agnostic by choice.but i have a proposal, i could discuss the probable argument that could be thrown against you. then from that you could just try formulating a rebuttal.in reference with taylor and morgan(anthropologist), they argued that primitive religion, being the earliest and source of all forms of religion, was basically brought about to answer questions of events and phenomena in nature that could not be answered by primitive minds. furthermore, the creation of deities or god could be held extremely illusional because early societies have formulated beings beyond our senses to answer absolutely anything. following the logic, to respond to an unknown is to answer an unknown. as time passed by, rationality began to flourish. although men are still enclosed on the concept of religion, since his knowledge is still limited, they have began to concretized images of gods at the very least with the aid of arts and literature (which was probably at that point was just beginning). in a way, the illusion had materialized. but come to think of it, these images were still mere representations of men's naive illusions. although they were embossed with social values, veneration and importance, it is still a lifeless object.on the other hand, marx(sociologist) stated that religion is the opium of a society and this was supported by weber when he said that religion was used to sustain the status quo by propagating the doctrine that the oppressed will be blessed. suppressing them from revolting against the oppressive order. making men (specifically in the lower class) passive against the hostilities that are being brought to them by society (or the status quo) for the promise of paradise in the after life. to conclude, illusion is simply define as something to make somebody to believe for the existence of absence. regardless of the purpose, men should live in the reality to survive. they need to believe to themselves in order to acquire knowledge and survive his ever changing society.

15 comments:

Anino said...

Sino si Kiddo?Ang ganda ng artikulo. KUng ako ay isang guro, bibigyan ko siya ng 8/10.Hindi perpektong 10 dahil bagsak sa gender sensitivity.Salamat sa pagdaan sa blog ko.
May ateista akong karakter dun.

Bino/Geno said...

agnostic. Hmm... Isn't it too safe to say that?

Marocharim said...

Ewik:

Natawa ako sa "marx (sociologist)." ;)

I think that it was Frazer who tackled the topic of religion in "The Golden Bough," not necessarily Morgan (perhaps Tylor, di ko na maalala actually ang 190). Of course, you can't go wrong with Durky (Durkheim).

Anyway, the view on religion can also be doctrinal: you can't escape questions of doctrine when you're talking about God/god. I won't agree wholly with Marx (the sociologist, rotfl) na "religion is the opiate of the masses," because in the first place, religion is not materialist. I wouldn't agree with religion being illusional (recall W.I. Thomas: "If men define their situation as real, they are real in their consequences."). Religion is a living presence. Just because we deem things to be "absent" doesn't mean that it does not merit inquiry.

I would corroborate your argument in invoking Barthes: religion exists at the level of connotation (or "illusion"). Religion needs to exist, pero it needs to be re-defined as an "existence" for me rather than a "mode of existence." You can't phase out God.

Anyway, interesting arguments. ;)

kiddo said...

uy kuya wanderer. salamat at may entry ka para sakin.. makakatulong tlga to.. salamat.. tsup..

wanderingcommuter said...

anino: paano mo naman nasabing bagsak sa gender sensitivity.

bino: i'd rather be in the safe side than be on the extreme sides. i still believe in the doctrine of religion. but i shy away from its institutions. that's why i chose to be agnostic rather than being an aetheist.

marx: hahaha. ayokong masyadong maging hardcore---i might end up saying the great MARX.
i haven't read frazer yet. but i remember tylor and morgan discussing religion in anthro113. primitive religion and stages of religion....uhm--- okay, confuse na rin ako.
oo nga naman bakit hindi ko naisip si durkheim.
haay marx, you're bringing me back to my good ol college years and im missing it! thanks! longing to have a conversation with you.

kiddo: try refering marocharim's comment as well. it would be a great help. look for theorists like W.I thomas, rolande barthes, mostly post-structuralist/post modernist theories...:)
goodluck!

Anino said...

Gender insensitive dahil panay "men" at "his" ang ginamit mo. Nasaan ang kababaihan na mas maraming bilang kaysa sa kalalakihan?\
Ang isang tao ay maaaring maging ispiritual ng hindi nagiging relihiyoso.
Ako ay ispiritual ngunit hindi relihiyoso.

elayas said...

basta ang alam ko ang mga tao ay parang mga garapata na nagtatalo kung may aso nga bang nabubuhay o wala...

[galing kay bob ong ang simpleng pilosopiyang panrelihiyon na yan...]

*why there is something?
*its beacuse there is someone...

we can be religious without being qouted as tabooed doctrine follower. how? simple, turn to creation see how beautiful damn old god made things. regardless of faith, we are still of one maker and one pursuit; and that is to find that paimportangteng someone. there must be room for understanding diversity and capacity rather than arguements. matagal nang naghahanap ang mga ninuno kong sila marx, lenin, mao, locke, aquinas, agustine, humes, at plato...

hayaan ninyo, darating ang araw na may malalaman din ako sa argumentong ito.

[bubot na pilosopo]

wanderingcommuter said...

anino: hindi ako ang gender insensitive kundi ang linguaheng ginamit ko. ang pantukoy na men ay ginamit upang ipantukoy sa lahat ng indibidwal lalaki, babae, bakla, tomboy, bisexual, ambisexual at sa lahat ng kasarian na maari pang maimbento. hindi layon na ipantukoy lamang ang salita sa iisang kasarian. subalit naisip ko kung gagamitin ko ang she, her at women sa lahat ng mga terminong panukoy sa bawat indibidwal, lalaki(nasa unang syllable ang stress nito--hehehe) lamang ang pagmamarginalisa at sensalisasyon sa iba pang kasarian sa isang hinid gender neutral na wika tulad ng ingles.
subalit salamat na rin sa puna---makakatulong ito sa sususnod na mga post.

wanderingcommuter said...

elyas: subalit hindi rational na beings ang mga garapata. hehehe. at tingin ko alam din nilang may aso, dahil mayroon silang opsyon na pumunta rin sa mga pusa, daga, kabayo at iba pang hayup na may makapal na balahibo...subalit dahil dito maari rin naman silang maging rasyunal dahil meron silang kakayahang magdesisyon at mamili. tama ba???! hehehe. naguluhan na ako.

elayas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
elayas said...

yan ang sinasabi nating kaguluhang rasyunal mga yabadoodles!
hindi lahat ng hindi kayang i-concieve at intindihin ng utak ay mali! sa gayon, ang totoong paniniwala ay ang estado ng kamalayan sa gitna ng paniniwala sa mga "rasyonal" at "hindi rasyonal". ang ibig sabihin, mapa agnostic ka man, proud catholic[tulad ko... ;)], muslim, pagano, rizalista o sumasamba ka sa mga batong hugis tao o isdang nagsasalita, ang mahalaga ay:

1. ashteeg ka.
2. isa kang nilalang na marunong lumagpas sa limitasyon ng mga nalalaman
3. ashteeg ka at;
4. naniniwala kang minsan sa buhay, may mga taong sadyang nagpapansin tulad ko.

[peace out!]

*yas

wanderingcommuter said...

semi-rasyunal na mga garapata. asteeg., hahaha. ang labo ko na. pero natatawa ako sa sarili ko. hahaha...

ashteeg tayo, parang inuman lang, yas!

hahaha

elayas said...

halata ko nga.

tagay pa nga.

Anino said...

Sa ngayon, may mga paraan para maging gender-sensitive:
1.Use gender-neutral terms e.g. human instead of men.
2. Alternate the gender of pronouns throughout the text.
3. Use both sexes.
4. Using plurals (to avoid his)
Hindi ako eksperto ha.Suhestiyon lang.

Carl said...

one word: WOW