but the whole question, dearest, is wtf "religion itself" is. i have yet to hear anyone but wojtek offer a coherent attempt at a definition, and i don't find eliade workable.
as for the stuff about the last 400 years, this medievalist begs to differ with you. such ways of considering the question have been around for a while, and i myself, would argue that people like dionysius the areopagite (whoever he was) are pretty close to it. which is why i wrote a longish piece on him and derrida.
>
> *shudder* sorry. that site makes me completely grossed out.
>
huh. i really liked the manifesto. i've barely even touched the rest of the site.
but then, i'm smack in the post-modern religious tradition, i think. caputo, marion, and that ilk. again, dionysius and derrida. if THAT doesn't make you shudder, i suspect nothing will. and btw, i was working on that thing way back in like 1991. it only got published late.
but anyway i guess ymmv.
my main point is that there are different ways of being religious and of thinking about religion, so that all this crap about how something called "religion" (whatever the f--- it is) does or doesn't do *anything* is pretty much that: crap. and it reeks, too.
smooch,
j
-- Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
- Alfred North Whitehead