Marc,
The argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to (false) authority is an example of the exercise of brute force; at least that's how I have taught it in critical reasoning classes. By the same token, in the argumentum ad batulum , that stick is a false authority, as is the insult in the argumentum ad hominem, wouldn't you agree?
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Last edited by Sarajevo071; 11-14-2007 at 01:23 AM.
There also sometimes called the Qumran Library and, yes, quite controversial. I've read most of them and, to me at least, they don't appear to be Christian (I'm not an expert, and I've only read them in translation). If you are more interested in the Christian (influenced) books, I would go for the Nag Hamadi Library.
If you are interested in the general topic of early Christian writing, and some of it is very good, you might want to track down Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo Regis (way too prolific for my taste and I have his philosophy - still, very interesting in understanding the later development of Christianity).
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
THANK you marct on you responses and reading recommendations. You will keep be busy for some time.
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Generally speaking (we are speaking generally, right?) it will depend who is in question, where, when and why? But I would say not before killings are stooped, invasions are halted, fair reparations are made and respect and trust is gain back... Without that you will have just bunch of people screaming on each others, accusing them for this and that, defending they of guilty sides and spiting on opposites.
This is just my personal opinion from top of my head this night. For something more precise or deeper (!?) I will need to get back to you. Sorry.
Yup - I think we are best off using the general right now. Hmm, okay, I can see why you would say that. I was thinking that it has been used during actual conflicts (I'll try and get the refs, but a couple of places in Africa and Northern Ireland come to mind) as a way to stop the conflict.
No worries - I'm pretty much done for the night myself (too much work, too little sleep), Take care,
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
No need to go far like Africa. Stay closer. Bosnia? Or, since you mention Northern Ireland... Didn't they need for talks to start (and results to shown) new people in charge, different mentalities and let down in fighting (attacks)? IMO, generally speaking something need to really change so people will start thinking about peace and not about revenge for they killed and wrongs they suffer. Do you believe that one can have talks/conversations about peace and mutual understanding while attacks/invasion/war is still going strong?! I am not so sure.
It's in the eye of the beholder, comparisons and analogies, with any of the major religious texts. The real bright spot in Islamic thinking are the Sufis, many of whom will accomodate broad interpretation and application but we are ignoring some basics in this discussion. Assuming monotheistic orientation and with no taint of agnosticism/healthy skepticism, it is the ritual and manner said texts are approached, handled and read that imparts the real message. Lustration is the key, the ritual most ignore, part our missing 'juju'. Pecking the keyboard to read Al Qu'ran or the Upanishads or the Bible in no way compares to ritual application of the real thing. We in the West have blended the spiritual and the intellectual for some time now but at what cost is better addressed in other threads.
In the same vein regarding early Christian writing, I heartily suggest a long look through the contents of this website. Some big names to consider besides those provided by MarcT are Irenaeaus, Justin Martyr, Polycarp of Smyrna, Tertullian, and Jerome. IMO, the later (post 3rd C AD) writers are much less interesting in their broad content and much more interesting because of the minuteness of what they dispute. You might also try a read of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea's history of the early church.
I do agree with Skiguy that that is when they have to start (if not earlier). Over the years, I've done a fair bit of research on how one group stigmatizes another - usually with little or no basis in reality. For example, 2nd century ce Roman authors accused Christian cultists of exactly the same things that later Christian groups accused other groups of - e.g. stealing children to sacrifice hem and drink their blood, casting evil spells (malleficium in Roman Law), seducing youths away from what is "right and proper" (i.e. the official religion), etc.
These types of accusations are really simple to make against almost any group but, when aimed by one religious group against another, they tend to heighten the emotional divide while, at the same time, portraying each other in line with the "demonic" of their own conceptions. BTW, this shows up much more in monotheistic religions than in others - not surprising since their are Manichean elements in all of the major monotheistic religions.
I suspect that Bosnia is, in many ways, a particular type of a special case. Bear with me for a moment, because I know that it is a very personal case for you .
Most mountainous areas tend to hold groups that "lost" in their bids to get better land. In some ways, the areas tend to contain an incredible number of different ethnic groups - think about the Caucuses, the Balkans, the Highlands of Scotland before the Highland clearances. Even when you have only a single ethnic group, it is usually because they "lost" (e.g. Ethiopia, Swaziland). This is one strand that plays out in the creation and maintenance of very strong ethnic identities.
The second strand that tends towards the creation and maintenance of strong ethnic identities is the very nature of most mountainous areas. Think about how food is produced and, also, what other economic activities are followed (e.g. mining, lumber, etc.). All of these activities require both strong teamwork and control over access to scarce resources - a situation that tends to promote strong lineage systems which, in turn, leads to the development of feud cultures with honour systems based around blood vengeance and long memories. Even in the US you can see this in the rather infamous Hatfield-McCoy feud.
This gives us a situation where the social structure and the economic base of the cultures in mountainous areas, such as the Balkans, are predisposed towards conflict and, also, to the use of any symbol system that allows for a) justifications for feuds and b) differentiation between ethnic groups.
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
we are starting to shake the Sephirothic tree here methinks
Hi Goesh,
Hmm, I'm not sure about another thread being the best place for it since it is a key in the comparison and understanding between religions. You have certainly raised a key point, though - the intellectual examination of a symbol system is a pale shadow of the practice of that symbol system, and there are significant differences between the academic ritual of examining a text and that of a believer examining the same text.
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
In which world ? Well, I spent a couple of years working with the QBL in a variety of its forms and, having done that, I can say that it is a pretty powerful collection of ritual sequences. What is fascinating to me at least is that the power of the technology is not dependent on the particularity of the symbol system used. Which leads to all sorts of things...
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Hi Sarajevo,
My question is less theological and more in the IO arena. In the past, I have read the quote you posted, the one about no person being superior to other persons. This is often quoted as an example of how Islam is inclusive and tolerant. However, I have always disagreed with this text as an example because is it not true that it is referring to Muslims not being superior to one another? In other words, those outside Islam, so called infidels, are not included in this message. In laymen's terms, one could paraphrase and say, "No Muslim black is superior to a Muslim arab and no Muslim arab is superior to a Muslim black." If one reads the entire text that you posted, it seems to be good to be a Muslim, but non-Muslims are not covered, at least in the text you provided.
I ask because I am looking for texts within Islam that discourage terrorism against non-Muslims. I know of the ones which discourage the killing of noncombatants; however, is there anything more powerful? Just as an example, Christian theology, as an ideal too often not realized, goes beyond not killing an enemy but demands that its adherents actually love the enemy. Is there any text like this in Islam in which the enemy (non-Muslims, infidels, people of the book, etc.) are to be so fully embraced?
If we can find these texts, perhaps we could use them to more effectively counter violent salafists' call to combat the "far enemy" in a defensive jihad, a term I know is justified in the Koran. Thanks in advance for your help!
Very respectfully,
Jerry
Last edited by invictus0972; 11-14-2007 at 06:48 PM.
Bookmarks