Funny I wouldn’t have thought a statement derived from the ideas that:
a) Religious conversion often causes a massive re-evaluation and shift in beliefs
b) Memeplexes associated with a religion (a larger memeplex host) can be pretty darn successful.
c) Theological writing has been historically more often than the rest of philosophy intellectual dynamite that inspired action and change.
d) Theology can be easily bended like law to accommodate pragmatic new strategies and tactics for its own preservation
e) Theology is often basically philosophy and philosophy was often theology.
f) LW has cultish tendencies, as do all movements. Cults actually meet the description of the OP pretty well, except for the whole mapping to reality thing.
...would be controversial. Wasn’t expecting the downvotes. Updating my model of fellow LWers.
f) LW has cultish tendencies, as do all movements. Cults actually meet the description of the OP pretty well, except for the whole mapping to reality thing.
Regardless of whether this is true, what relevance does it have to theology being an efficient producer of philosophical ideas (which it is)?
Cults/sects ect. are examples of where theological ideas have attracted a very dedicated and dynamic following. The OP list a number of similar (feel free to dispute this) features that are evidence in favour of us being a “reliably transmittable well oiled” philosophy machine. Point f) was about how surprisingly well those features map to the features of cults/sects/religions.
Why apply different standards for LW and a random sect when it comes to determining if they are a notable school of philosophy?
Also perhaps I brought it up because it wanted to signal that us being an awesome school of theology/philosophy is not strong evidence in favour of our awesomeness with epistemic rationality and no more evidence of our instrumental rationality than the success of a sect.
Also perhaps I brought it up because it wanted to signal that us being an awesome school of theology/philosophy is not strong evidence in favour of our awesomeness with epistemic rationality
This is a good point, which comes back to a comment I and some other people have made. Just because LW can produce philosophy, doesn’t mean it can produce true philosophy. Therefore we need an objective metric.
Funny I wouldn’t have thought a statement derived from the ideas that:
a) Religious conversion often causes a massive re-evaluation and shift in beliefs
b) Memeplexes associated with a religion (a larger memeplex host) can be pretty darn successful.
c) Theological writing has been historically more often than the rest of philosophy intellectual dynamite that inspired action and change.
d) Theology can be easily bended like law to accommodate pragmatic new strategies and tactics for its own preservation
e) Theology is often basically philosophy and philosophy was often theology.
f) LW has cultish tendencies, as do all movements. Cults actually meet the description of the OP pretty well, except for the whole mapping to reality thing.
...would be controversial. Wasn’t expecting the downvotes. Updating my model of fellow LWers.
Regardless of whether this is true, what relevance does it have to theology being an efficient producer of philosophical ideas (which it is)?
Cults/sects ect. are examples of where theological ideas have attracted a very dedicated and dynamic following. The OP list a number of similar (feel free to dispute this) features that are evidence in favour of us being a “reliably transmittable well oiled” philosophy machine. Point f) was about how surprisingly well those features map to the features of cults/sects/religions.
Why apply different standards for LW and a random sect when it comes to determining if they are a notable school of philosophy?
Also perhaps I brought it up because it wanted to signal that us being an awesome school of theology/philosophy is not strong evidence in favour of our awesomeness with epistemic rationality and no more evidence of our instrumental rationality than the success of a sect.
This is a good point, which comes back to a comment I and some other people have made. Just because LW can produce philosophy, doesn’t mean it can produce true philosophy. Therefore we need an objective metric.