I definitely and readily admit I can't tell the difference between real philosophy and pseudo-philosophy. Sure, I get hunches but I can't always intellectualize what I'm reading into proper context. If you're like me, you're likely to pick up New-Age stuff like Ken Wilber, read it, put it down and say, "Meh."
I recently read over at the conservative site World Net Daily an article by Ellis Washington exploring the malady of liberalism and how it deals with terrorism in light of Mumbai. In it he refers to Islam as a pseudo-religion. Is this a social conservative thing or does it come from other places of thought? My feeling is that he's right about out obsession with "root causes" of terrorism. We know the who's and the why's. Next!
But about Islam I'm not sure. I'm simply not prepared to go that far for two reasons. 1) There's a shit load of people who follow it and 2) Islam's history and contribution to it is substantial - at least for a period of time. Even here we have to be careful, prior to Islam societies that roamed the Middle-East were advanced but not religious. I'll stop here.
It's either I don't get it - at which point I need to be taught and spanked - or I instinctively know that it's all dressed up nonsense. Besides, my brain simply doesn't function in any coordinated or specific way so as to be peer reviewed. I'm too aloof. I suck that way. That's why I blog. Capiche?
In a past post, I wrote about what I felt was unnecessary jargon in the investment world. No one seems capable of giving a damn presentation without speaking lucidly with straight forward answers. Instead, it's always complex schemes and "down the roads" and "future value" rubbishness.
I tend to apply this to history and philosophy - even in everyday life. That way, it helps determine what is (plus ou moins) real history and alternative history (I define this as interesting points of views with less facts), real ideas and bull shit. If I see a person on TV over and over it raises my suspicion. For many, Oprah, Dr. Phil and all that jazz help "educate" people. To bring "issues" in the public consciousness. Maybe but I take a difference stance. They just feed empty talk and thoughts to people who don't know any better. It's all smoke and mirrors - intellectually speaking of course.
I can go on and on but I shall stop here.
It's a never-ending if not frustrating journey but this pseudo-blog is willing to do it.
To answer your question about whether your blog is "pseudo" or not would depend more on your definition of blog and blogging than anything else.
ReplyDeleteFor Islam as a pseudo religion, would you say that any religion becomes useless as soon as it turns into nothing more than dead letters? I think anything that becomes so bastardized over time as religion does is pretty much par for the course.
Ok.
ReplyDeleteHow 'bout pseudo-commentator?
Well, I don't know what qualifies as dead letters but given how religious texts are "interpreted" I would think it's alive and well - just in another form.
For such a small book the Koran sure leaves itself open to massive interpretation.
Let's use my hockey pool as an example. We have a set of rules and policies that have evolved and been amended over time. Never does a day go by where someone doesn't interpret the rules (despite our best intentions to weed out any misunderstandings)differently from someone else.
As we speak we're embroiled on a technicality.
This is where diplomacy and "spirit of the rules" come in. Some people are more lenient and nuanced whereas some are more by the book.
Sometimes some swing both ways.
The pool leads to many heated debates and discussions.
Imagine RELIGION AND POLITICS!
So the pool rules can lay dormant for a while and appear dead but words never die.
Not sure if any of this makes sense.
There's a lot of smoke, mirrors and vain talk around, a problem one faces when trying to think with his/her own brain.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand this thing about pseudo-religions. I didn’t read that article, but, simply said, to me a religion is such if it has a set of beliefs regarding ultimate truths, conduct etc. and if it succeeds in having sufficient followers who really believe in all the things said by such religion, its books and so on.
Now, as you say, there's a shit load of people (more than a billion!) following the Islamic faith, and these people seem to be very intense believers. How can this be a pseudo religion? Or maybe I got it all wrong?
Same thing with pseudo-blogs. If a blog is a sort of diary with words and thoughts, with one writer and one or more readers who read and interact, I think your blog is no pseudo. I find it thought provoking plus informative on things I do not know. This is why I read you. Hence I am a reader. Hence yours is a real blog.
Or maybe I got it all wrong again and I left my brain in the fridge (which I do often: I stole this from my dear Hindu reader Ashish).
All the best
from this side of the West
Grazie, signor MOR!
ReplyDeleteI don't think your head is in the "fridge."
I think Islam qualifies. Scientology on the other hand...