-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of BklynMagus
> You've misunderstood. I categorically distinguish between *studying
religion* and *practicing religion*.
I understood. I am just disagreeing. For me to study religion and its history is to study its philosophy.
** I'm not being clear. I agree that it is necessary to study religious practices and religious philosophy in order to understand and explain religious behaviour. But let me exaggerate: is there a difference between attending a funeral, getting drunk, and then ritually sacrificing an outside who just happened to be attending the funeral as an expression of anger against the divine powers... and reading about this in a library? That's the difference between studying religion and practicing religion. I study Buddhist doctrine and philosophy... but I don't debate with Buddhists about its validity. If you say to me: But Ken, you must recognise the validity of the Four Noble Truths... I cannot but respond, "It doesn't matter, when Jesus returns you'll all be drown is a sea of blood." If we argue about Dharma that's an insider debate, and I'm not an insider. If we argue about how a particular 16th c. scholar understands Dharma, that's a debate about understanding the text.
>> (that's why when you want to know about Buddhism you don't read Hegel,
although Hegel was foundational for shaping how many western scholars
received Buddhism).
>Right you read Buddhism. And it is only by reading Buddhism and the
different forms it has taken that you can write/create its history. As a
consequence you have to write about the Four Noble Truths, the 8-Fold Path
-- in other words its philosophy (whether you agree with it or not).
** Of course. Primary sources are excellent sources of good scholarship. But you don't have to be a practicing Buddhist to understand or explain Buddhism. Perhaps this is where we disagree? I don't think experience leads to epistemology.
> I am interested in figuring out what Augustine thinks and writes about in
terms of theodicy...
Well, maybe you are studying what people say about something (Buddhism, e.g.) rather than the thing itself.
** I'm not a Buddhist scholar, so I tend to rely on secondary sources rather than original texts. That makes me a hack when it comes to Buddhism... But I've been trained to recognise certain problems that can emerge in theoretical writings because of unwarranted methodological assumptions.
> Did not say it wasn't true. I only say it is a possible version of the
truth. Like electrons were once thought to be the smallest elements of
matter until quarks came along (which had been there all along).
** Actually, quarks didn't exist until someone invented the concept "quark." Existence is "for us" - that's what I learned from Hegel's philosophy of mind. If something doesn't exist "for us" then it doesn't exist. Now... we can conceptually posit something as having existed all along... but we all know that's just a rationalisation for our own ignorance. : )
> Wislon presents her work as part of a theoretical claim - suggesting that
her framework is an accurate way to
understand this kind of literature.
But there are other frames. And how do you measure the accuracy of a frame? Isn't how we know something a moral as well as an espitemological question?
** The accuracy of a frame is measured by its consistency, its persuasive power, its potential to explain similar or like phenomena, and its explanatory power relative to other analyses. "Buddhism is a religious tradition that worships the Christ" is a bad theory. "Buddhism is a religious tradition that worships the Buddha" is also a bad theory. No evidence to support such things. 1+3=77 is bad math. And sure it is a moral question - but I wouldn't want to confuse morality with epistemology. A bad man can still produce excellent research.
> It is well argued and supported - and ultimately she does present it as
'factual' which is to say 'an
interpretation.'
Huh? How can something be a fact and an interpretation? Like me cheating on my boyfriend and being monogamous at the same time.
** All facts are interpretations, see my remark about quarks above. There is this thing call the universality of hermeneutics (Gadamer, Truth and Method).
> But interpretations can be good or bad.
Agreed. But facts are not good or bad. They are true or false.
** All interpretations can be reduced to claims which can be evaluated as "true" or "false" (and in principle subject to revision if new insights emerge).
> Interpretations of this literature that argue that it is proto-feminist
are bad interpretations, they lack merit and cannot be substantiated as well
as alternative explanations.
I got that. But how is the criteria set up? Who is the judge?
** Anyone who wants to be a judge can be the judge. Some judges are better than others. It is decided by the community. Ultimately I'd say the consensus of the community, although that won't be forthcoming real soon. Nevertheless, claims are made such that all could potentially agree to them. That's the power of reason. I say in principle, this is clearly counter-factual. The criteria usually used is the force of the better denunciation rather than the force of the better argument.
> If there is a hostility to scholars it has nothing to do with how or what
they present. If arrogance was a sin of scholarship there wouldn't be
anything to read.
Why? Are you saying scholars have no humility?
** Scholars have no humanity, not humility. :)
> Most scholarship is elitist, technical, jargonistic, and specialised. I'd
wager that most people don't have the
skill or discipline to be able to read Faure's work, for example.
Please. I have a basic education and can read Faure. He ain't that deep (though sometimes he writes as if he thinks he is LOL).
** I said most people don't have the skill or discipline to be able to read Faure. Clearly you have both. If more people had the skill, his book would have been a best-seller.
cheers, ken