Religion and Individualism - Page 5

inked · 01-24-2005, 10:49 AM

All, IR makes good points on the broadness and levels of usage of the word "love" in English. This is a defect in the language. The Greek uses 4 different words for which love may be a translation.

THE FOUR LOVES by CS Lewis addresses this difficulty at some length. For clarification I note the Greek words and the differentiations they allow. (There are quite possibly more as in there being in Eskimo cultures some 32 words for which "snow" could be inadequately used as a translation, for instance.)

storge - affection or love of family or the familiar as in persons and objects

eros - the passions, not limited to sexuality, but including it

philia - the love between individuals based on identity of interests and
concerns, freely chosen; friendship

agape - disinterested love which desires the best for the object and flows
from the Lover to the Beloved as gift; the King James Version
used "charity" for this distinction and it is most eloquently known
in I Corinthians 13

The point of this is that we use love in English to cover these concepts which are clearly differentiated. So we often add modifiers to attempt the distinction we mean to employ. No couple in the throws of infatuation really means by "we are in love" what a married couple of 20 years duration means, nor what the child means when saying "I love hot dogs and pizza" nor what the artist means by "I love this piece". So, we have to exercise care in the use of the word in English.

Beren3000 · 01-24-2005, 10:54 AM

Thanks for the linguistic info., inked

I think the Lewis books will be the next on my list

Insidious Rex · 01-24-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Not if you ask me. Bombadillo explains this as "communication"; it's their way of talking. When we talk, that's not art, is it?[/i].

when we make art are we not communicating?

BeardofPants · 01-24-2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Nice definition there. But why does that rule out our superiority as a species? You're saying art is about beauty and communication not about intellect and therefore it's not superior. But how? This "communication" is a communication of ideas, of feelings, of your soul: art is an expression of the soul....

What about whale-song? Could that not be construed as an expression of art? Truth is, we don't know what goes on in the minds of other animals, and until we do, I think it's kinda presumptuous to presume any sort of superiority over other animals.

jerseydevil · 01-24-2005, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

What about whale-song? Could that not be construed as an expression of art? Truth is, we don't know what goes on in the minds of other animals, and until we do, I think it's kinda presumptuous to presume any sort of superiority over other animals.

You may think it's presumptuous - but humans do think we are superior. I don't give the same feelings for an animal that I do for a fellow human being. If there was a boat sinking - who would you save first - the human or the dog?

brownjenkins · 01-24-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You may think it's presumptuous - but humans do think we are superior. I don't give the same feelings for an animal that I do for a fellow human being. If there was a boat sinking - who would you save first - the human or the dog?

that all depends on the particular human and the particular dog

Starr Polish · 01-24-2005, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that all depends on the particular human and the particular dog

Hear, hear.

I like animals more than I like most people (though I don't wish torture on either...despite my meat-eating habits...meep).

***Earniel*** · 01-24-2005, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

If there was a boat sinking - who would you save first - the human or the dog?

Most likely the dog can save itself. I'd probably be the one who would need saving.

Beren3000 · 01-24-2005, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

when we make art are we not communicating?

Of course we are! But we wouldn't be communicating basic stuff like mating calls or territorial limits. We would be communicating "soul" stuff such as love (the Greek agape, thanks again, inked

) and fear and other emotions like that. It's different than everyday communication, and that's what makes it beautiful (depending on the viewer of course).

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

What about whale-song? Could that not be construed as an expression of art?

But aren't these songs a sort of mating call or something? If that's the case, I wouldn't call them art because that would still be basic communication not "transcendental" communication.

Bombadillo · 01-24-2005, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beren3000

I beg to differ. What you're saying here about the meekrats is that they can communicate. Big deal! Most animals have been shown to have some sort of communication system, but they use that for the survival of the species. But you wouldn't find a fish (for example) talking to its friend about how it's frustrated in life and how it thinks that it deserves better, etc...
Only humans do that, because humans have a soul.

Well, I guess you're right here, although there's no way to detect a soul in any being. I see what you mean. The thing is, I think this is too unsteady to be the distinction between humans and animals. That lies in our abilities of reason, foresight, and most advanced psychology on Earth, IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

I am a creationist, but not in that sense. I believe that science and spirituality (not necessariy Christianity) can easily go hand in hand. I don't think most people would consider me Christian anymore, although I do follow many of the basic teachings.

Please elaborate. Despite what other people think, do you consider yourself a Christian? And based on that answer, do you believe religion has allowed for your individualism?

brownjenkins · 01-24-2005, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beren3000

But aren't these songs a sort of mating call or something? If that's the case, I wouldn't call them art because that would still be basic communication not "transcendental" communication.

we can't really know for sure... they may be more complex than we realize

Beren3000 · 01-24-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

we can't really know for sure... they may be more complex than we realize

Very well, so there's no evidence either way. These "songs" can be equally complex or simple. Since they seem the only instance of the kind in the animal kingdom, doesn't that make it safe enough to consider that they're actually as simple as the other communication systems we have detected so far?

brownjenkins · 01-24-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Very well, so there's no evidence either way. These "songs" can be equally complex or simple. Since they seem the only instance of the kind in the animal kingdom, doesn't that make it safe enough to consider that they're actually as simple as the other communication systems we have detected so far?

there are quite a few animals on our planet (whales, dolphins, monkeys) that display communication (not always vocal) in a way that may rival our own... i'd say that if we can't be sure, it'd be better to assume the other case until proven otherwise

Insidious Rex · 01-24-2005, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Of course we are! But we wouldn't be communicating basic stuff like mating calls or territorial limits. We would be communicating "soul" stuff such as love (the Greek agape, thanks again, inked

) and fear and other emotions like that. It's different than everyday communication, and that's what makes it beautiful (depending on the viewer of course).

well id say bird calls are beautiful. and anyway you dont think most pop songs arent about mating calls and territorial limits?

There you go assuming humans are superior to animals when Ashlee Simpson and Britany Spears rule the airwaves with their lusty mating calls.

And frankly, who are we to say what the songs are all about. I think they can be highly complex. the fact that a caged bird will sing beautiful songs when there is no one around to hear their songs tells us something. that just like humans the bird is doing it for the sake of doing it. because they feel some need to. just like art! the INSTINCT to communicate. Whether that communication is what you consider "deep" or simple its still all communication. And if you analyze it deeper then that it is brain excercise really. But everyone does it differently. Of course we humans think we do it best. Because we are human. It fits for us. Im guessing the bird would disagree.

Beren3000 · 01-25-2005, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

and anyway you dont think most pop songs arent about mating calls and territorial limits? There you go assuming humans are superior to animals when Ashlee Simpson and Britany Spears rule the airwaves with their lusty mating calls.

Lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And frankly, who are we to say what the songs are all about. I think they can be highly complex. the fact that a caged bird will sing beautiful songs when there is no one around to hear their songs tells us something. that just like humans the bird is doing it for the sake of doing it. because they feel some need to. just like art! the INSTINCT to communicate. Whether that communication is what you consider "deep" or simple its still all communication. And if you analyze it deeper then that it is brain excercise really. But everyone does it differently. Of course we humans think we do it best. Because we are human. It fits for us. Im guessing the bird would disagree.

I see what you're saying, but the belief that animals don't have a soul is religious for me, so I can't change my stand on that, it's just that I can find no better evidence at the moment.

inked · 01-25-2005, 11:23 AM

Good conversation is an art form as well as communication. In fact, the 'Moot is a salon of culture and intellectual aspirations and intelligence! Rivalling no doubt the great salons of France in the 1700's!

***Rían*** · 01-25-2005, 01:25 PM

Reminds me of Lizzy's admonition to Darcy when he said he wasn't good at talking to people!

Beren3000 · 01-25-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inked

Good conversation is an art form as well as communication. In fact, the 'Moot is a salon of culture and intellectual aspirations and intelligence! Rivalling no doubt the great salons of France in the 1700's!

Yes, but what would you call "good conversation" exactly? Good conversation around here in the Moot for instance is intellectual. Other good conversation could be the social ability to be able to get personal with people, get to know them really well on an emotional level, etc... The point: none of these "conversations" are found among animals (with the exclusion of whale-songs which we're not sure about

).

Insidious Rex · 01-25-2005, 05:14 PM

1. How do you know?
2. If true, how does that make us superior to all animals?

Beren3000 · 01-25-2005, 05:39 PM

1-As I've said before, because the communication systems we detected so far seem to stem from basic instincts only: hunger, survival, reproduction, etc...
2-Because that would prove that we have a soul and animals don't, are capable of differentiating good and evil (whatever our definition of them is) and animals are not, are capable of being individuals and animals are not and finally are able to have this kind of conversation in the first place.

01-24-2005, 10:49 AM	#81
inked Elf Lord Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol Posts: 3,114	All, IR makes good points on the broadness and levels of usage of the word "love" in English. This is a defect in the language. The Greek uses 4 different words for which love may be a translation. THE FOUR LOVES by CS Lewis addresses this difficulty at some length. For clarification I note the Greek words and the differentiations they allow. (There are quite possibly more as in there being in Eskimo cultures some 32 words for which "snow" could be inadequately used as a translation, for instance.) storge - affection or love of family or the familiar as in persons and objects eros - the passions, not limited to sexuality, but including it philia - the love between individuals based on identity of interests and concerns, freely chosen; friendship agape - disinterested love which desires the best for the object and flows from the Lover to the Beloved as gift; the King James Version used "charity" for this distinction and it is most eloquently known in I Corinthians 13 The point of this is that we use love in English to cover these concepts which are clearly differentiated. So we often add modifiers to attempt the distinction we mean to employ. No couple in the throws of infatuation really means by "we are in love" what a married couple of 20 years duration means, nor what the child means when saying "I love hot dogs and pizza" nor what the artist means by "I love this piece". So, we have to exercise care in the use of the word in English. __________________ Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 Last edited by inked : 01-24-2005 at 10:50 AM.

01-25-2005, 11:23 AM	#96
inked Elf Lord Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol Posts: 3,114	Good conversation is an art form as well as communication. In fact, the 'Moot is a salon of culture and intellectual aspirations and intelligence! Rivalling no doubt the great salons of France in the 1700's! __________________ Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941

01-25-2005, 01:25 PM	#97
*Rían* Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!) Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Not where I want to be ... Posts: 15,254	Reminds me of Lizzy's admonition to Darcy when he said he wasn't good at talking to people! __________________ . I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva!

01-25-2005, 05:14 PM	#99
Insidious Rex Quasi Evil Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Maryland, US Posts: 4,634	1. How do you know? 2. If true, how does that make us superior to all animals? __________________ "People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

01-24-2005, 10:54 AM	#82
Beren3000 Fëanorophobic Join Date: May 2004 Location: Between the pages of a book Posts: 1,417	Thanks for the linguistic info., inked I think the Lewis books will be the next on my list

01-25-2005, 05:39 PM	#100
Beren3000 Fëanorophobic Join Date: May 2004 Location: Between the pages of a book Posts: 1,417	1-As I've said before, because the communication systems we detected so far seem to stem from basic instincts only: hunger, survival, reproduction, etc... 2-Because that would prove that we have a soul and animals don't, are capable of differentiating good and evil (whatever our definition of them is) and animals are not, are capable of being individuals and animals are not and finally are able to have this kind of conversation in the first place.