ellen@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/27/85)
[for all you do, this bugs for you] i do not take the dictionary as the ultimate source of information on meanings of words. it's a good place to start, but would you limit the totality of your knowledge of physics, buddhism, or art to what the DICTIONARY says ?!? besides, as i mentioned in a previous posting, dictionary writers are under cultural/religious/sexual/racial biases, as we all can be. HERE IS THE ONE IN MY OFFICE DICTIONARY. if rich insists... Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, 1984. re.lig.ion (re.lij'en) n. 1. The beliefs, attitudes, emotions, behavior, etc., constituting man's relationship with the powers and principles of the universe, esp. with a deity or deities. 2. An object of conscientious devotion or scrupulous care: His work is a religion to him. obviously, what we are dealing with here is the 1st definition. while it includes deities, the powers & principles of the universe are not necessarily deities, even by this definition. it does sound, however, like the other side of physics to me - the "feeling" flip-side of the science/study of the powers & principles of the universe (actually, my dictionary defines "physics" as the science that treats of motion, matter, and energy, and of their interactions.) perhaps, rich is positing HIS DICTIONARY as the ONE TRUE BOOK OF KNOWLEDGE! move over BIBLE, here comes THE REAL THING! again, my dictionary says that Buddhism is A mystical and ascetic religious faith of eastern Asia, founded in northern India by Buddha in the sixth century B.C., and teaching that the ideal state of nirvana is reached by right living and believing, and peace of mind through meditation. of course, maybe rich's dictionary is the one that came about of divine- intellectual-rational inspiration, and mine is but a poor shadow of it. again, rich is as selective as he accuses others of being of their own GOOD BOOKS, that is, the definition of religion in his dictionary is THE WORD, but the definition of Buddhism is flawed (perhaps written by a false prophet). to continue beating the dead horse, my dictionary defines Hinduism as a religion (though this is one that indesputably has deities) (do note that Buddhism does not and still fits the definition of religion, Rich). again, Taoism (which has no deities, but does deal with the powers & principles of the universe: One of the principal religions or philosophies of China, founded by Lao-tse, who taught that happiness could be acquired through obedience to the requirements of man's nature in accordance with the Tao,, of Way, the basic principle of all nature. now, i know that rich is arguing that some of those systems which are called religions are not, but are, perhaps, philosophies (do you want this discussion to switch over to net.philosophy?). it seems to me that there is a parallel here between the relationship of religion to philosophy, just as there is between superstition & religion. other peoples's beliefs, if you have no respect for them, are superstitions; your own similar beliefs are religions. rich questions the validity of the religious experience. perhaps rich has a bit more respect for systems such as Buddhism & Taoism and doesn't want to tar them with the brush of "religion" (which seems to equal superstition in rich's book). these non-deistic systems can move over to philosophy...hang on while i check the definition... 1. The inquiry into the most comprehensive principles of reality in general, or of some sector of it, as human knowledge or human values. 2. The love of wisdom, and the search for it. (i confess i'm skipping defs. 3, 4, & 5, since i think they have no more bearing on this run around in intellectual circles.) i think that most religious people, whatever their particular persuasion, believe that their system deals in the principles of reality, but what determines reality is the subject of discussion. i cannot define it, for i am convinced that the perception of reality is quite subjective - scientists may be able to quantify & analyze small parts of it, but i do not believe that anyone will ever be able to see/define the whole thing, especially in a "rational" way. as humans are but a tiny part of the whole infinity what- ever, the perception of the larger whole can not be experienced in a totally rational way - someone was discussing a new theory in net.books, which posits (i think) 17 demensions, of which humans can only perceive/experience 3 or 4. this falls into the realms of both physics & philosophy. at certain points, the dividing lines are rather tenuous. rich, drop THE BOOK, you're beginning to sound like a dictionary-thumper, a holy-word roller. even my poor dictionary sees fit to define "religion" as dealing with matters beyond mere deities. you've narrowed the universe down into a very narrow & shallow corridor in which you are pacing like a caged animal. why are you clinging so desparately to the "rational?" are you afraid that maybe there really IS SOMETHING OUT THERE beyond logic?
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (03/30/85)
> Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, Harper & Row, > Publishers, New York, 1984. > > re.lig.ion (re.lij'en) n. 1. The beliefs, attitudes, emotions, > behavior, etc., constituting man's relationship with the powers > and principles of the universe, esp. with a deity or deities. > 2. An object of conscientious devotion or scrupulous care: His > work is a religion to him. > > obviously, what we are dealing with here is the 1st definition. while it > includes deities, the powers & principles of the universe are not necessarily > deities, even by this definition. it does sound, however, like the other side > of physics to me - the "feeling" flip-side of the science/study of the powers > & principles of the universe (actually, my dictionary defines "physics" as > the science that treats of motion, matter, and energy, and of > their interactions.) > > perhaps, rich is positing HIS DICTIONARY as the ONE TRUE BOOK OF KNOWLEDGE! > move over BIBLE, here comes THE REAL THING! Meanings of words do not constitute knowledge about the physical universe at large, but they do constitute knowledge about the way human beings (that's us) use words (representations of concepts/things using aural/visual symbols). It exists, not in a vacuum, but in relation to the way human beings use words. I haven't seen the definition change in regard to the definition above, so I assume people are still using the word that way. And I think examination of the usage would prove me out. Not if you ask "Is Buddhism a religion?" (which might get you the same answer as "Is a tomato a vegetable?", but that doesn't change the definition of vegetable), but if you ask "What is a religion?" Chances are more than just strong that notions of deities (or powers---which to me still implies some directed force of will though you may not call it a deity) will be present in the answers. > of course, maybe rich's dictionary is the one that came about of divine- > intellectual-rational inspiration, and mine is but a poor shadow of it. > again, rich is as selective as he accuses others of being of their own > GOOD BOOKS, that is, the definition of religion in his dictionary is > THE WORD, but the definition of Buddhism is flawed (perhaps written by a > false prophet). Funny, your dictionary concurs with all the definitions I've already cited, by your own admission. You've neglected to mention the "tomato/vegetable" factor. Frankly, your snotty remark above indicates to me that you're not really interested in discussion of this issue, but rather in opportunities to make snotty remarks. Please refrain if that's not what you had in mind. > to continue beating the dead horse, my dictionary defines Hinduism as a > religion (though this is one that indesputably has deities) (do note that > Buddhism does not and still fits the definition of religion, Rich). Again, "Buddhism does not and still IS LABELLED a religion"!!!!! > now, i know that rich is arguing that some of those systems which are > called religions are not, but are, perhaps, philosophies (do you want this > discussion to switch over to net.philosophy?). it seems to me that > there is a parallel here between the relationship of religion to philosophy, > just as there is between superstition & religion. other peoples's beliefs, > if you have no respect for them, are superstitions; your own similar beliefs > are religions. rich questions the validity of the religious experience. > perhaps rich has a bit more respect for systems such as Buddhism & Taoism > and doesn't want to tar them with the brush of "religion" (which seems to > equal superstition in rich's book). While it may be true that I have less respect for superstitions than I have for reasoned philosophies, my motive is not disdain for one group and praise for the other, but rather accurate classification for both. Is existentialism a religion? On what basis are you making that judgment? > philosophy: > 1. The inquiry into the most comprehensive principles of > reality in general, or of some sector of it, as human knowledge > or human values. > 2. The love of wisdom, and the search for it. > (i confess i'm skipping defs. 3, 4, & 5, since i think they have > no more bearing on this run around in intellectual circles.) > > i think that most religious people, whatever their particular persuasion, > believe that their system deals in the principles of reality, but what > determines reality is the subject of discussion. i cannot define it, for > i am convinced that the perception of reality is quite subjective - scientists > may be able to quantify & analyze small parts of it, but i do not believe > that anyone will ever be able to see/define the whole thing, especially in > a "rational" way. as humans are but a tiny part of the whole infinity what- > ever, the perception of the larger whole can not be experienced in a totally > rational way - someone was discussing a new theory in net.books, which posits > (i think) 17 demensions, of which humans can only perceive/experience 3 or 4. > this falls into the realms of both physics & philosophy. at certain points, > the dividing lines are rather tenuous. Yup, how true. So what makes a philosophy into a religion? Read the dictionary, see how the word is used, and find out. Remember, there's nothing magical about the word "religion", it's just a word used to categorize certain things. Just as a tomato is not a vegetable, it's also not a religion. (Or does someone want to argue that point!!!) Because "religion" is simply a word which hhas a certain meaning, and certain other things may be placed into the category called "religion". Some erroneously so. There's nothing worse or better about such things; they're just different!!! So they deserve their own label. > you've narrowed the universe > down into a very narrow & shallow corridor in which you are pacing like > a caged animal. why are you clinging so desparately to the "rational?" > are you afraid that maybe there really IS SOMETHING OUT THERE beyond logic? Or have you narrowed your perspective to the shallow corridor of wishful thinking? Are you clinging desperately to the irrational? (I was not clinging to anything last time I looked.) Are you convinced that there must be SOMETHING OUT THERE beyond logic, solely because logic doesn't satisfy your preconceptions of the world? (At least we're, in a small way, getting back to the original article.) -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr