I'm halfway through reading an article in Slovak about "Pussy-Riot"....
I am by no means perfectly competent as a reader of Slovak, however, my impression is that the author is mainly complaining that PR is vulgar.
Hmmmm.
What is vulgarity? How about remote-controlled air gunships controlled by Obama--gunships which murder innocent people?
Anyway, that's not my main point just now.
Religion?
So, it seems this big (showy, maybe vulgar?) cathedral in which PR recently put on a sort of show was dedicated to the defeat of Napoleon......
Well, that's what I want---just for a moment----to think about. and I want to say that this showy cathedral is an insult to religion. No, I'm not religious---I am an atheist---- but if you think religion shouldn't be a mere commercial transaction.....bartering....then you might wonder whether that cathedral represents the best of religion.
Let's back up. People in Russia fought, and died, and suffered in order to keep out a foreign invasion.
The French were successfully driven out.---And, a cathedral was built to thank a non-existent being.--But, put the non-existence of god to one side: How about the soldiers? Did they get pensions or medical care? What thanks did they get? And, I hasten to add, non-soldiers must have suffered too.
The French were successfully driven out.---And, a cathedral was built to thank a non-existent being.--But, put the non-existence of god to one side: How about the soldiers? Did they get pensions or medical care? What thanks did they get? And, I hasten to add, non-soldiers must have suffered too.
But, consider this: Plato's "Euthyphro"............Socrates has a conversation with an expert in religion.
Socrates seems to think that offering sacrifices is not the essence of piety......In other words, religion is not about bartering with the gods, not a commercial relationship. ( --And, if not that, what might it be?)
So, I guess that the creators of the great flashy cathedral in Russia either never read Plato's "Euthyphro", or they disagreed with it.......
Socrates was, as you know, regarded as offensive in his day.....in fact, offensive to religion.
Incidentally, there's some evidence that Socrates himself thought that you cannot be pious without being just........And, I doubt whether building a showy cathedral has much to do with justice.......But justice would mean, let's say, providing adequate pensions, medical care....and not just for retired soldiers.......Justice would not mean a system in which some people lived with comforts and privileges unknown to the majority. Justice would mean no separate ruling class......
(And, you may ask: If I'm relying upon Platonic texts, how can I say that? In brief, the superiority of the ruling class in Plato's "Republic" depended upon two claims which I reject: first, that there is an irrational part of the soul, and secondly that only a small group of people could understand how things really work. My view at present is that the notion of an irrational source of motivation won't do the work Plato wants it to do and that no one understands how things really work. No one is qualified to be a "philosopher-king".) As for the so-called "unity of virtue" (justice=piety=courage=temperance), I think it's pretty plausible. (Have I given you an argument? No! But I'm impressed by work in the psychology of emotion which sees a tough interconnection between various emotions. And how can emotions fit with so-called "Socratic intellectualism"? Actually, I'm thinking about that and have no definite views of yet.)
Incidentally, there's some evidence that Socrates himself thought that you cannot be pious without being just........And, I doubt whether building a showy cathedral has much to do with justice.......But justice would mean, let's say, providing adequate pensions, medical care....and not just for retired soldiers.......Justice would not mean a system in which some people lived with comforts and privileges unknown to the majority. Justice would mean no separate ruling class......
(And, you may ask: If I'm relying upon Platonic texts, how can I say that? In brief, the superiority of the ruling class in Plato's "Republic" depended upon two claims which I reject: first, that there is an irrational part of the soul, and secondly that only a small group of people could understand how things really work. My view at present is that the notion of an irrational source of motivation won't do the work Plato wants it to do and that no one understands how things really work. No one is qualified to be a "philosopher-king".) As for the so-called "unity of virtue" (justice=piety=courage=temperance), I think it's pretty plausible. (Have I given you an argument? No! But I'm impressed by work in the psychology of emotion which sees a tough interconnection between various emotions. And how can emotions fit with so-called "Socratic intellectualism"? Actually, I'm thinking about that and have no definite views of yet.)
No comments:
Post a Comment