jools posted:

AVE_MARIA_GRATIA_PLENA posted:

the other thing is that nearly all of these questions you're talking about - the Big Questions in life that liberal scholarship tells us all religions set out to answer - when divorced from the context of the axiomatic "answers" that religions provide, are fundamentally solipsistic and the only "answers" that can, in turn, be given are infinitely individuo-pluralistic, where pluralism is in direct opposition to religion, which is communal

it's like wittgenstein's private language question - just as a private language would be literally meaningless, communicating nothing, and is therefore impossible - a private religion means nothing whatsoever. talking about Big Questions that have to be answered voluntarily by individuals obscures all material existence of religion and at best you get sola scriptura, which either represents some kind of personal manifesto and should not be read at all or means infinitely many things to infinitely many people and that meaning is completely incommunicable

either way you have a total denial of meaning, of communication and of social relations. goethe's famous for saying "individuum ineffabile est" - the individual is unspeakable - and i think that pretty much sums up the problem with a hyperpluralist view of religion as Big Questions that we all have to answer in our own way: the "answers" you're describing just don't exist except as a liberal-idealist construct. the terms "question" and "answer" are inherently dialogic and a "libertarian socialist," voluntarist or otherwise solipsistic approach to dialogue is incoherent because you're trying to prove that 2=1 in purely idealist, atemporal terms

agreed. this is also why i believe in state mandated atheism.

peepaw posted:

babyfinland posted:

about 13 years ago i got into an email argument with that guy in the semi-official melvins listserv and he got so mad he ragequit a mailing list

did you ever post on bunglefever

Lessons posted:

i dont know whether roseweird is right, but the people she's arguing against are definitely Wrong

I have no idea what anyone is trying to say in this thread.

Lessons posted:

babyfinland posted:

Lessons posted:

i dont know whether roseweird is right, but the people she's arguing against are definitely Wrong

I have no idea what anyone is trying to say in this thread.

i had jools explain it to me and it was some weird misreading/appropriation of wittgenstein's philosophical investigations.

IS THIS TRUE JULIAN

gyrofry posted:

although if ted kaczynski or john zerzan want to post here thats cool

i believe you'll find john zerzan already posted here under the pseudonym "shennog"

tpaine posted:

tom did you hear they said the secret chiefs 3 album would be out in may but then nothing happened

apt band name.