Originally posted by black beetle
It is not a problem because we both know that we know well the definition of the word "priest" -but I have no problem to offer it right now: a priest is a person authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God.
So, why do you think that my definition of religion is circular?
😵

Religion(priest(religion(priest(religion(...)))))

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No, not at all. It's easy to read into it (especially from a Western perspective) but it's just as easy to read out of it (especially from an Eastern perspective (I saw an Eastern perspective in a magazine once (the view was amazing))).

I have no intention of teaching you about karma, man. I'm no kind of yogi. I knew bringing Buddhism into it would ...[text shortened]... any fruitful discussion; we literally see things differently, and I can't lend you my eyes.

So be it. It was interesting, though, despite the fact none of us seemed to budge.

Originally posted by Palynka
So be it. It was interesting, though, despite the fact none of us seemed to budge.

There are other points to discuss. The impossibility of representing chaos has got me particularly excited.

Originally posted by Palynka
Religion(priest(religion(priest(religion(...)))))

Oh here you are, I will now prove you that my definition is not circular!

Since we all accept that a religion is also understood as "the practice of religious beliefs and the ritual observance of faith", why is it circular to define religion as “...a plexus of symbols, rites, temples, persons that have the ritual observance of faith (priests/ religious personages) and worshipping of supernatural existences”?

😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Oh here you are, I will now prove you that my definition is not circular!

Since we all accept that a religion is also understood as "the practice of religious beliefs and the ritual observance of faith", why is it circular to define religion as “...a plexus of symbols, rites, temples, persons that have the ritual observance of faith (priests/ religious personages) and worshipping of supernatural existences”?

😵

Ok, that's a better one. Still, that excludes political systems which do not concern the supernatural, no matter how dogmatic. Does that mean we agree?

Originally posted by Palynka
Ok, that's a better one. Still, that excludes political systems which do not concern the supernatural, no matter how dogmatic. Does that mean we agree?

It doesn't, since the object of faith may be the historical mission of the State, the manifest destiny of the People, the unquestionable superiority of the Leader ...

Originally posted by Palynka
Ok, that's a better one. Still, that excludes political systems which do not concern the supernatural, no matter how dogmatic. Does that mean we agree?

It is not a better one, it is the same one slightly rephrased; and it does not mean that we agree because of the reason mentioned by our friend Bosse de Nage. But anyway, debating with you is always fine and your arguments are sharp, so I am capable of learning out of your theories
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
It is not a better one, it is the same one slightly rephrased; and it does not mean that we agree because of the reason mentioned by our friend Bosse de Nage. But anyway, debating with you is always fine and your arguments are sharp, so I am capable of learning out of your theories
😵

Mmm... If I'm allowed to diverge into what a circular definition is...

It's better because the rephrasing removes the circular elements in it. A circular definition is never 'wrong', so (if a non-circular definition is possible) then by a process of reduction one can dig deeper and remove the circularity without changing the structure. It may seem like rephrasing, but it helps to bring out the irreducibility in it.

And thanks for the compliments, but they're underserved as I'm making this all up as I go. Part of what I like in the forums is that I can expose a thought and let it be kicked from all sides until it forms into a solid shape. You are the one making them sharper by forcing me to rethink!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It doesn't, since the object of faith may be the historical mission of the State, the manifest destiny of the People, the unquestionable superiority of the Leader ...

So the "and" is not the logical AND but the grammatical one that is the logical OR?

Originally posted by Palynka
So the "and" is not the logical AND but the grammatical one that is the logical OR?

Sorry, I'm departing from these words: "the practice of religious beliefs and the ritual observance of faith". But hey, we can count dialectical materialism as a supernatural force, why not?

Originally posted by Palynka
Mmm... If I'm allowed to diverge into what a circular definition is...

It's better because the rephrasing removes the circular elements in it. A circular definition is never 'wrong', so (if a non-circular definition is possible) then by a process of reduction one can dig deeper and remove the circularity without changing the structure. It may seem like re ...[text shortened]... it forms into a solid shape. You are the one making them sharper by forcing me to rethink!

It is not better because the rephrasing did not remove any circular elements due to the fact that there were not any circular elements at firstplace; the rephrasing merely eased us both to bring up an accurate analogy and to conduct another cross-check over my idea.

Compliments? No compliments. We all have to examine and to cross-check everything by means of precise elenchus, otherwise our variations could be proven false at some level. And a solid opposition along with pure honesty is all we need -I hold myself fully responsible: I know nothing, thus I am forced to use common sens🙂


Maybe tomorrow, my dear Western Yogi, I would be able to finish a basic preparation in order to back up in full Bosse de Nage's argument, ie that the nature of Karma is solely the law of Cause-Effect and nothing more nothing less (in my opinion every other supplement is a religious element that derives from this idea and not the vice versa).

Be well and best regards Palynka😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Well, I'd be interested to hear your answers from your definitions nonetheless.

I regard discussions like these as entertainment rather than agonistic debates; I hope to have my views corrected, if anything. Also, advertising fascinates me.

Why does advertising fascinate you, because you are being asked to
believe claims, or accept the notion if you X your life will be thus and
so?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why does advertising fascinate you, because you are being asked to
believe claims, or accept the notion if you X your life will be thus and
so?
Kelly

Social engineering generally interests me.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Sorry, I'm departing from these words: "the practice of religious beliefs and the ritual observance of faith". But hey, we can count dialectical materialism as a supernatural force, why not?

But that's not in his last version, to which I was commenting on...

Originally posted by black beetle
It is not better because the rephrasing did not remove any circular elements due to the fact that there were not any circular elements at firstplace; the rephrasing merely eased us both to bring up an accurate analogy and to conduct another cross-check over my idea.

Compliments? No compliments. We all have to examine and to cross-check everything by ...[text shortened]... ment that derives from this idea and not the vice versa).

Be well and best regards Palynka😵

All the best, bb.