![Hundie Jo [Dot] Com](http://www.hundiejo.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache2/7d6a910bbe08845c0836a517a70936d5.png){kind=small}
Archive for September, 2006
Friday Random 10
Henry Imler September 29th, 2006
- Send A Message To Her (bonus) - Beck - Guero
- Heart Shaped Box - Nirvana - Legacy Of Noise
- Brahms, No1, Op68 - Un Poco So - Beethoven - Beethoven, Brahms, Ravel - Leo
- Complainte De La Butte - Moulin Rouge
- Farewell Ride - Beck - Guero
- Lightning Crashes - Live - Throwing Copper
- By Starlight - Smashing Pumpkins - Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness: Twilight To Starlight
- Sexy Sadie - The Beatles - The Beatles (White Album)
- Killer (Acoustic Version) - Seal - Best 1991-2004
- That Old Pair Of Jeans - Fatboy Slim - The Greatest Hits: Why Try Harder
Thoughts on Durkheim
Henry Imler September 29th, 2006
On the whole, I found Durkheim’s theory on religion fascinating. This mainly stemmed from my lack of exposure to his idea. It was very interesting to see that his youth parallels some other major thinkers. I believe that Newton, Galileo and several major philosophers shared several aspects with him. I don’t remember many of the specifics, but in reading or in class, or listening to tapes on the lives of influential philosophers and scientists, there were similar themes to be found.
First of all, many were very bright youths that came from religious backgrounds. Several of them were Jewish, which considering their position in Europe I can see where they would develop a distaste for the establishment. Next they all went to good schools, but found themselves to either bored or at odds with the established methods. I think it was either Newton or Galileo that thought the Aristotelian method and ideas that the European schools were teaching was terrible and did most of his productive study on his own.
The comparisons aside, I also found his theories on the natural development of religion fascinating in the sense that they were a departure from what I had read and that they made wonderful sense in his case study. I especially liked the idea of the totem not being magical or animalistic in nature, but a social construct that served to promote the continuance of the tribe. Once he established that, his other conclusions flow easily. For instance, once the idea that the totem is a symbol of the personification of the clan is established, it is easy to see how the soul originally was seen as “fragment of the ‘clan within.’” Once one sees where the idea of the soul comes from, it is a simple inference to see that since the clan continues on through time irrespective of its members, the soul also continues on through time after the death of its member. Similarly, since the clan is immortal it is easy to see how the personification of the clan can be immortal and there are other clans with immortal personifications that are already being projected onto their totems, it is not a stretch to see how this lead to the development of gods.
However, in the course of reading about Durkheim’s theory, a few things did come up as objections or qualifications to his theory. The first one was the accuracy of the study that he used. If Spencer and Gillen had flaws in their reporting, then it would follow that Durkheim’s analysis would also be flawed. This is not to criticize his method, just his results. Next was his assumption that there is a single cause of religion. I liked that he did not try to reverse the evolution of the religions we see now, as he accused Müller and Taylor had. I liked his seemingly scientific approach to the study of his data. However, it might be the case that there are independent reasons for the rise of independent religions. There might be an answer to that question, but in the short survey I have done, I have not come across it.
Google New RSS Look
141st Christian Carnival
Henry Imler September 28th, 2006
The 141st Christian Carnival is up at A Penitent Blogger. Check it out!
Chomsky
Henry Imler September 27th, 2006
Latest from Filibuster Cartoons:
During his address to the UN General Assembly last week
Venezeulan strongman Hugo Chavez waved a book around in the air,
telling everyone to go read it. The book was “Hegemony or Suvival” by
Noam Chomsky, a radical far-left author from the US.Mr. Noam Chomsky has written about a billion books in his long
lifetime (he is currently 77, Chavez apparently assumed he was dead by
now). All of them usually say some variation on the same thing,
however, namely that the United States is an evil, imperialistic
warmongering nation, and its so-called “enemies” are actually just
well-meaning progressives. Of course, history has shown that his
assumptions are often disturbingly wrong.Chomsky was apparently flattered by Chavez’ praise, and would like
to meet him. Most of Chavez’s policies are “quite constructive” quipped
Noam.
More: Who Is Noam Chomsky? by Roger Scruton:
Noam Chomsky’s popularity owes little or nothing to the
eminent place that he occupies in the world of ideas. That place was
won many years ago in the science of linguistics, and no expert in the
subject would, I think, dispute Prof. Chomsky’s title to it….Prof. Chomsky is an intelligent man. Not everything he says by way
of criticizing his country is wrong. However, he is not valued for his
truths but for his rage, which stokes the rage of his admirers. He
feeds the self-righteousness of America’s enemies, who feed the
self-righteousness of Prof. Chomsky. And in the ensuing blaze
everything is sacrificed, including the constructive criticism that
America so much needs, and that America–unlike its enemies, Prof.
Chomsky included–is prepared to listen to.
Craziest Search so Far
Henry Imler September 27th, 2006
I know I just listed like 10 crazy searches, but I just say this one and it takes the cake:
how long does it take to starve a cat to death found Category: Ethics.
Starving a cat to death? Honestly? Who would want to starve a cat to
death. Why even qualify that death is the reason for the starving. Why
else would you starve a cat? Anyway I am glad that they found my
“ethics” category. I hope that they decided to not go through with it.
Kerry negates himself.
Henry Imler September 27th, 2006
I just received an email from John Kerry. It is a great example of
why I hate politics. I don’t think Republicans are getting the job
done; but when I listen to the Democrats they sound worse than the
Republicans! Anyway, to the letter:
This is the introduction:
Dear Adolph, (hehe, yeah, I signed up as Adolph Hitler during the campaign.)
This isn’t a time for rhetoric. The johnkerry.com community has been working and building towards the 2006 elections for almost two years now. You know what this is all about…
Ok, I like that Kerry does not want to wage a rhetorical election. Then I come to this part:
The amount of money our candidates have on hand by
midnight on September 30 will determine how well-prepared they are for
the stretch-run — the final six weeks of these elections.Will they be ready to drive to victory, or will they fall prey to the relentless October attacks of the Rove Republicans? Your decision to act now can answer that crucial question.
Bam. In a letter saying that this is no time for rhetoric and not 300 words later the use of rhetoric.
