From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 23:19:31 GMT
Sam and all:
Whew! I think it would take 8 full length books to properly answer these 8
questions, but I'll at least give you some clues.
1. Do you think theology has to be about God? (In other words, there is no
such thing as Buddhist theology, because Buddhism doesn't talk about God?)
Yes. Theos is the root word. Its all about God. If theology is or has ever
been about anything other than the divine, that would be news to me.
(Buddhism doesn't believe in a personal or anthropomorphic god. I think its
safe to say that Buddhism is a religion.) Reminds me of an anecdote that
Campbell tells. An Eastern Indian was visiting the US and in an effort to
understand the culture picked up a copy of the bible and read it. Perplexed,
he went to Joe for some help and complained that he couldn't find any
religion in it.
2. If so, where would you put the language of Buddhist teachings; at what
level?
Its aim is to go beyond all static forms and so is beyond all the levels. It
is a mystical religion. Unlike non-mystical Christianity, where identifying
yourself with god is the ultimate heresy, Buddhism says this identification
is the whole point and purpose of religion.
3. How do you distinguish Buddhist thought from Christian thought (aside
from the blatantly obvious)?
Beyond what I just said, Christianity demands that the members be brought
into a particular system of sentiments, into a certain set of social values,
while the purpose and point of Buddhism is precisely the opposite; to
transcend all that.
4. Is it your view that theology is inevitably and irrevocably social level
thinking?
Inevitably and irrevocably? Never say never. But as generalizations go, yes,
its at the social level.
5. Do you think there exists something which can legitimately be called
'Christian philosophy' (eg Aquinas) which operates at the fourth level?
There is alot of Plato and Aristotle in Christianity, so I suppose one could
make a case. But I think that mostly this is a case of using philosophy for
religious purposes, putting intellect in the service of social
organizations, which is immoral in the Pirsigian sense.
6. Can you justify your comment "philosophically speaking, these notions
have no meaning", referring to traditional Christian language? (Are you a
logical positivist in disguise?) In other words, what are your criteria for
philosophical meaning?
The particular notions I refered to were "the fall" and "the trinity". All I
meant to say was that, outside of the specific theological system, these
doctrines don't mean anything. To a muslim or a jew, the idea that god has
three parts is sheer blasphemy. To a Buddhist it is a profound
misunderstanding and to science it is a fairy tale. These things only make
sense within Christianity. Don't get me wrong. I was raised as a Christian
and have a good idea what they're supposed to mean. But as a philosopher,
even as an amateur and a hack philosopher, I think such things are kind of
childish and absurd. One this question, I'd turn the tables and ask you a
question. What philosophical meaning does the trinity or the fall have?
7. Is it possible to be committed to any substantive values while operating
at the philosophical (ie 4th) level? In other words, is there something
philosophically legitimate about embracing a particular intellectual
conception, whether it be Stoic, Wittgensteinian, Kantian, Modernist,
Rortian, Epicurean, whatever?
Committed to substantive values? Embrace a particular intellectual
conception? I'm really not sure what you're asking. How about this; when
operating at the philosophical level, it is not only possible, but one OUGHT
TO be committed to intellectual values. I guess there's nothing illegitimate
about embracing a particular philosopher or philosophy as long as those
intellectual values aren't violated. I mean, it would be wrong to adopt any
of these as a matter of faith. Philosophical views are supposed be derived
from lots of thinking about thinking.
8. If so, how are those philosophical positions distinguished from religious
ones (Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh et al)?
The same way one distinguishes intellectual values from social values, and
since you include the Eastern religions, the way we distinguish social
static quality from Dynamic quality.
9. What criteria are available for distinguishing between alternative
philosophical conceptions, eg systems of metaphysics?
This is much tougher because they are all at the same level. But that pretty
much what we are here to do; to make and sort out distinctions.
10. Do you have a hierarchy of philosophical disciplines (eg relating
epistemology, logic, metaphysics, aesthetics etc)?
No. I think they relate horizontially, not hierarchically.
DMB said: "a rejection of the seperation of church and state, has dominated
the conservative "intellectuals" since world war two. I suppose this offers
little consolation, but I was thinking of guys like Scalia, Buckley and
Bozell."
Sam replied:
I'm exploring the issues here at the moment, so my views might change
following an examination of evidence and argument, but my basic position is
an acceptance of the church/state division, for straightforward Christian
(and Lockean) reasons. Just so you know!
DMB says:
Glad to hear it. Please tell me. What are the "straightforward Christian
reasons" for accepting the division?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 09 2003 - 23:20:41 GMT