myth of the cave.
. Background
debate:
SPIRITUAL FREEDOM
REPLY CHURCH CASEY WEAVER
http://laicismoypolitica.blogspot.com/ 2009/12/replica-de-cesar-tejedor.html
.
After requesting authorization, the Dec. 7 posted on this blog your reply to my reflection (24 November) on Lay Anthology, a book recently published in Spain and that you co-author. On this question the notion of "spiritual freedom" as appropriate to understand and disclose what is secularism. Today I would like to respond
to the replica, in the belief that a calm discussion may help to clarify our respective positions, and, come to an agreement or not, it is worth making them known in secular circles.
However, before I express my thanks for paying attention to my concerns terminology and have had the courtesy to respond to them in a manner so cordial, neat and teaching. Because, in fact, I share with you the feeling that our differences are more than lexical content, but we both know that language is never innocent and that the language can betray our intentions and lead to political consequences
unwanted ... I have argued that the "spiritual freedom" sets in motion a restrictive reasoning parallels that of the so-called religious freedom (and even exacerbated it), almost indistinguishable from the claim of "autonomy of the spiritual realm" voceada from the Vatican Curia and, ultimately, puts on the shirt secular thought in theological language, which in no way serves the understanding and dissemination of our project. In my opinion, confuses and hinders.
Given these statements, you reason that being chosen as the drive shaft the notion of "spiritual freedom" responds to the demands of philosophical rigor that must be free prejudice and bigoted thinking of those raised on Franco, associate "spirit" and "spiritual" to meanings imposed by the rules. In short, if I understand correctly, it is restoring their original meaning.
Well, if I must be frank, that does not silence my concerns. As far as antiquity is concerned (and you quoted me the example of Epicurus as "spiritual option"), "spirit" Greek words translated as "nous" and "pneuma", sometimes associated with notions such as psyche, mind, intellect and others as being located at a different level and above. The term "spiritus" Latin for "breath", "breath" ... In short, this is a term so many meanings and so controversial that most scholars of ancient thought rejects the translation, simply repeated words "nous" and "pneuma", explaining its precise meaning in each context footnotes. Moreover, an author as close to analytic philosophy (and, therefore, particularly sensitive to the rigor of terminology) as Ferrater Mora, adds to the requirement that the term "spirit" is banished from the philosophical debates. Should be reserved only exposure systems of thought which acquires a precise meaning, as in the case of Scholastic, to its meaning in all subsequent idealism of Descartes (which is synonymous with "soul") to Kant, or, more recently, in the Phenomenology of Spirit Hegel.
If we use "spiritual freedom" in the name of philosophical rigor, we are resigned to accept the role of "handmaiden of theology" assigned to the intellectual discipline to which you ascribe. Or, from Descartes to Kant, to put God as the sole guarantee of truth and / or ethical foundation. As Hegel and the "immanence" of the spirit is concerned, ending a dualism (false dualism, as our poor world has only one really sensitive surrogate) which dates back to Plato, well do you know which is founded on the incarnation of God in Christ. The reasoning is quite religious, although not linked to any particular Christian church. Not surprisingly, for Feuerbach, is a streamlined theology (I prefer to say "secular", but my personal choice is closer to the political discourse, religious and sociological as a linguist, found that the "philosophy", from the point of view academic, not just the yoke platonic).
In short, philosophical rigor you would lead to the choice of "spiritual freedom" to discuss policy proposals (specifically, the proposal secularist), I philological rigor leads me to face directly into the language of each proposal, without preconceptions terminology foreign to them.
But anyway, these short walks philosophy (yours and mine) in the case under discussion, there are plenty full. The notion that "spiritual freedom" straightjacket secular thought in theological language, the book we discussed (Anthology Lay) is something that is completely explained in the introduction to it, without leaving their pages. There reads:
"Some men believe in God. Others do not. And still others are agnostics. These are the three major types of spiritual options. And such is the reality that we can start to outline the problem of the relationship between the temporal and spiritual life. "
is, the intent of the book is addressing the issue of the relationship between the temporal and ... If speaking of "temporal power" the most elementary hermeneutic of language tells us that implicitly accepts a power that is not an eternal power, spiritual power, and this, I present on behalf of what you will, is approach called ecclesiastical approach theological ... Because you will agree with me, the notion of "temporal power" is coined in the early Middle Ages by the Augustinians. Y "temporal power" is not synonymous with "political power", but a very particular and tendentious way of conceiving the latter.
The theological foundation of the "temporal power" is based on the Gospel statement addressed to the apostle Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. "
Thus, the political power emanating from God, lies the successor of Peter as Pope. In principle, the "temporal power" refers to the power of the Pope in his domain, with its own currency, its government, its army ... Where the papacy does not come so directly, it tries to recreate the moral monopoly achieved in the Roman Empire under Theodosius the Great. That dream comes true Roman curia with the coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor. And here comes into play paraphernalia that has remained until very recent times: the "alleged" Emperor gives up his crown, symbolizing the so-called "temporal power", the Pope, as the only rightful recipient of the same, who, in time, returns to the Emperor for that, as secular arm, becomes the defender of the Church and its interests, thus establishing a special relationship of allegiance.
The formation of powerful kingdoms, which no longer are grouped under the aegis of an empire, makes the so-called political Augustinism renew their proposals, negotiating the exercise of surrogate time with each of them. This is something that is generalized from the XIII century, without fundamentally changing the "philosophical theology" deep, and lasts until the liquidation of the ancien regime and in regimes such as Franco ("Caudillo of Spain the grace of God "), virtually until today.
Well, walking through the historical reality (and not a spiritualized reality), would you still find so lacking in rigor terminology which states that the introduction to the book we talk and the thread of the same language in a straitjacket ecclesiastical and theological?
I think that policy proposals (and in particular the proposal secular) has its own language, and that a rule-based methodology is to analyze them as such, without a priori conceptual.
Another thing reminds me a little humor Benjamin Farrington cool to talk about Plato. As you know, to learn astronomy, it should be noted the stars and then translate, as far as possible, such comments to mathematical or geometric terms (which, fortunately, did the sailors of his day). No, as the stars are "have" to move as the geometric models, prohibits the direct gaze. You also aware that, at this point, Aristotle remained faithful to his master, and thus we have the intellectual heritage that we have had in our historical fate.
But Plato was not limited in his delirium to astronomy. During his stay in Syracuse, where Dionysius I allowed to spread their policy proposals, he taught geometry to the ruling classes (And also, apparently, political practices must reflect the geometric models). The dust raised (the figures were drawn with sticks on the dirt floor) was such that, due to protests, almost kicked out of Sicily ...
Today, there are no observable policy proposals that claim of "autonomy spiritual ", the" spiritual power ", the" spiritual life ", except those from the major religions, especially the Catholic ... I do not mean the policy as meaning" narrow "the term (government or games), but in the broad sense in organizations such as Amnesty International or the Association itself Secular Europe try to influence public opinion for the vindication of certain human rights as priorities.
In this regard, I invite you to read our charter program, our plan of actions and campaigns, and our latest Proposition Law on Freedom of Conscience:
http://www.europalaica.com/
The " autonomy of the spiritual realm, "as the" religious freedom ", it serves the interest of the Catholic Church and other religions to operate in and from the government and thus higher of laws. To avoid further trouble, we also invite you to read the article "The political considerations of unbelief" (2007), which attempt to deploy these observations:
http://www.europalaica.com/colaboraciones/LA_CONSIDERACION_POLITICA_DE_LA_INCREENCIA_DICIEMBRE_2007.pdf
hope that these lines express the reason for my concern, and thanks again for the attention and deference that has had me, you are greeted cordially.
Juan Francisco González Barón, founding member of the European Association Lay.
After requesting authorization, the Dec. 7 posted on this blog your reply to my reflection (24 November) on Lay Anthology, a book recently published in Spain and that you co-author. On this question the notion of "spiritual freedom" as appropriate to understand and disclose what is secularism. Today I would like to respond
to the replica, in the belief that a calm discussion may help to clarify our respective positions, and, come to an agreement or not, it is worth making them known in secular circles.
However, before I express my thanks for paying attention to my concerns terminology and have had the courtesy to respond to them in a manner so cordial, neat and teaching. Because, in fact, I share with you the feeling that our differences are more than lexical content, but we both know that language is never innocent and that the language can betray our intentions and lead to political consequences
unwanted ... I have argued that the "spiritual freedom" sets in motion a restrictive reasoning parallels that of the so-called religious freedom (and even exacerbated it), almost indistinguishable from the claim of "autonomy of the spiritual realm" voceada from the Vatican Curia and, ultimately, puts on the shirt secular thought in theological language, which in no way serves the understanding and dissemination of our project. In my opinion, confuses and hinders.
Given these statements, you reason that being chosen as the drive shaft the notion of "spiritual freedom" responds to the demands of philosophical rigor that must be free prejudice and bigoted thinking of those raised on Franco, associate "spirit" and "spiritual" to meanings imposed by the rules. In short, if I understand correctly, it is restoring their original meaning.
Well, if I must be frank, that does not silence my concerns. As far as antiquity is concerned (and you quoted me the example of Epicurus as "spiritual option"), "spirit" Greek words translated as "nous" and "pneuma", sometimes associated with notions such as psyche, mind, intellect and others as being located at a different level and above. The term "spiritus" Latin for "breath", "breath" ... In short, this is a term so many meanings and so controversial that most scholars of ancient thought rejects the translation, simply repeated words "nous" and "pneuma", explaining its precise meaning in each context footnotes. Moreover, an author as close to analytic philosophy (and, therefore, particularly sensitive to the rigor of terminology) as Ferrater Mora, adds to the requirement that the term "spirit" is banished from the philosophical debates. Should be reserved only exposure systems of thought which acquires a precise meaning, as in the case of Scholastic, to its meaning in all subsequent idealism of Descartes (which is synonymous with "soul") to Kant, or, more recently, in the Phenomenology of Spirit Hegel.
If we use "spiritual freedom" in the name of philosophical rigor, we are resigned to accept the role of "handmaiden of theology" assigned to the intellectual discipline to which you ascribe. Or, from Descartes to Kant, to put God as the sole guarantee of truth and / or ethical foundation. As Hegel and the "immanence" of the spirit is concerned, ending a dualism (false dualism, as our poor world has only one really sensitive surrogate) which dates back to Plato, well do you know which is founded on the incarnation of God in Christ. The reasoning is quite religious, although not linked to any particular Christian church. Not surprisingly, for Feuerbach, is a streamlined theology (I prefer to say "secular", but my personal choice is closer to the political discourse, religious and sociological as a linguist, found that the "philosophy", from the point of view academic, not just the yoke platonic).
In short, philosophical rigor you would lead to the choice of "spiritual freedom" to discuss policy proposals (specifically, the proposal secularist), I philological rigor leads me to face directly into the language of each proposal, without preconceptions terminology foreign to them.
But anyway, these short walks philosophy (yours and mine) in the case under discussion, there are plenty full. The notion that "spiritual freedom" straightjacket secular thought in theological language, the book we discussed (Anthology Lay) is something that is completely explained in the introduction to it, without leaving their pages. There reads:
"Some men believe in God. Others do not. And still others are agnostics. These are the three major types of spiritual options. And such is the reality that we can start to outline the problem of the relationship between the temporal and spiritual life. "
is, the intent of the book is addressing the issue of the relationship between the temporal and ... If speaking of "temporal power" the most elementary hermeneutic of language tells us that implicitly accepts a power that is not an eternal power, spiritual power, and this, I present on behalf of what you will, is approach called ecclesiastical approach theological ... Because you will agree with me, the notion of "temporal power" is coined in the early Middle Ages by the Augustinians. Y "temporal power" is not synonymous with "political power", but a very particular and tendentious way of conceiving the latter.
The theological foundation of the "temporal power" is based on the Gospel statement addressed to the apostle Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. "
Thus, the political power emanating from God, lies the successor of Peter as Pope. In principle, the "temporal power" refers to the power of the Pope in his domain, with its own currency, its government, its army ... Where the papacy does not come so directly, it tries to recreate the moral monopoly achieved in the Roman Empire under Theodosius the Great. That dream comes true Roman curia with the coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor. And here comes into play paraphernalia that has remained until very recent times: the "alleged" Emperor gives up his crown, symbolizing the so-called "temporal power", the Pope, as the only rightful recipient of the same, who, in time, returns to the Emperor for that, as secular arm, becomes the defender of the Church and its interests, thus establishing a special relationship of allegiance.
The formation of powerful kingdoms, which no longer are grouped under the aegis of an empire, makes the so-called political Augustinism renew their proposals, negotiating the exercise of surrogate time with each of them. This is something that is generalized from the XIII century, without fundamentally changing the "philosophical theology" deep, and lasts until the liquidation of the ancien regime and in regimes such as Franco ("Caudillo of Spain the grace of God "), virtually until today.
Well, walking through the historical reality (and not a spiritualized reality), would you still find so lacking in rigor terminology which states that the introduction to the book we talk and the thread of the same language in a straitjacket ecclesiastical and theological?
I think that policy proposals (and in particular the proposal secular) has its own language, and that a rule-based methodology is to analyze them as such, without a priori conceptual.
Another thing reminds me a little humor Benjamin Farrington cool to talk about Plato. As you know, to learn astronomy, it should be noted the stars and then translate, as far as possible, such comments to mathematical or geometric terms (which, fortunately, did the sailors of his day). No, as the stars are "have" to move as the geometric models, prohibits the direct gaze. You also aware that, at this point, Aristotle remained faithful to his master, and thus we have the intellectual heritage that we have had in our historical fate.
But Plato was not limited in his delirium to astronomy. During his stay in Syracuse, where Dionysius I allowed to spread their policy proposals, he taught geometry to the ruling classes (And also, apparently, political practices must reflect the geometric models). The dust raised (the figures were drawn with sticks on the dirt floor) was such that, due to protests, almost kicked out of Sicily ...
Today, there are no observable policy proposals that claim of "autonomy spiritual ", the" spiritual power ", the" spiritual life ", except those from the major religions, especially the Catholic ... I do not mean the policy as meaning" narrow "the term (government or games), but in the broad sense in organizations such as Amnesty International or the Association itself Secular Europe try to influence public opinion for the vindication of certain human rights as priorities.
In this regard, I invite you to read our charter program, our plan of actions and campaigns, and our latest Proposition Law on Freedom of Conscience:
http://www.europalaica.com/
The " autonomy of the spiritual realm, "as the" religious freedom ", it serves the interest of the Catholic Church and other religions to operate in and from the government and thus higher of laws. To avoid further trouble, we also invite you to read the article "The political considerations of unbelief" (2007), which attempt to deploy these observations:
http://www.europalaica.com/colaboraciones/LA_CONSIDERACION_POLITICA_DE_LA_INCREENCIA_DICIEMBRE_2007.pdf
hope that these lines express the reason for my concern, and thanks again for the attention and deference that has had me, you are greeted cordially.
Juan Francisco González Barón, founding member of the European Association Lay.
.
HENRI SEE THE REPLY OF ROCK-RUIZ:
0 comments:
Post a Comment