Originally posted by Bosse de NageBut if you agree, then you must agree that the belief must have a qualifier! I used "beliefs about a non-chaotic supernatural". Which qualifiers would you use?
I don't maintain that there are no expressions of non-religious belief systems. Forgive me if by asking you for examples I gave you that impression. I asked you for examples for the sake of discussing something concrete rather than launch into the abstract at forty-five degrees.
That being said, is advertising a belief system?
No, I don't think advertising is a belief system as it is not a set of beliefs, but manifestation (or cause) for sets of beliefs. I don't put manifestations of belief systems and the belief systems themselves in the same sack.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI disagree. I think many people hold contradictory sets of beliefs and they all shape their worldview and their actions without necessarily being consistent. If that is true, then there is no (necessary) irreducibility to any essential set.
A Weltanschauung (excuse me) predicated on some essential set of premises that logically determines the believer's way of being in the world.
For example, belief in Xenu is a seed crystal of the Scientological matrix. Remove that belief and the edifice crumbles.
I don't think a belief system is necessary for a person to function in the world. I have a belief system myself. Rather I have a strategy.
I hope this is sufficiently clear.
Originally posted by PalynkaOK, I'd say a belief system is a machine for creating a consistent worldview. Think of people who take their religion seriously. A person brought up within a given cultural milieu but who has never thought to think through what they believe at all, at all, is not a person to whom a belief system can be attributed at all, at all, I think -- just a vague 'worldview' (as opposed to a virile Weltanschauung) that takes on the colour of its surroundings.
I disagree. I think many people hold contradictory sets of beliefs and they all shape their worldview and their actions without necessarily being consistent. If that is true, then there is no (necessary) irreducibility to any essential set.
As the word implies, the parts of a system (like a steam locomotive) must all relate or it breaks down; of course you can adorn the locomotive with ribbons, figureheads, wooden dolls, hats and so on, but these do not form part of the system.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI understand what you mean, but I think you describe an exception, not the norm... I doubt there is a single institution out there that is based on a belief system (as defined by you here). I don't think that's a useful definition for this discussion.
OK, I'd say a belief system is a machine for creating a consistent worldview. Think of people who take their religion seriously. A person brought up within a given cultural milieu but who has never thought to think through what they believe at all, at all, is not a person to whom a belief system can be attributed at all, at all, I think -- just a vague ...[text shortened]... ribbons, figureheads, wooden dolls, hats and so on, but these do not form part of the system.
Originally posted by PalynkaI'd just say 'beliefs about x'.
But if you agree, then you must agree that the belief must have a qualifier! I used "beliefs about a non-chaotic supernatural". Which qualifiers would you use?
No, I don't think advertising is a belief system as it is not a set of beliefs, but manifestation (or cause) for sets of beliefs. I don't put manifestations of belief systems and the belief systems themselves in the same sack.
I like your comments on advertising.
What manner of latent belief systems or sets (I like the idea of 'belief sets'😉 manifest in the form of advertising? Conversely, what belief systems or sets has advertising caused?
Just for the hell of it, would you say that German National Socialism could be seen as a form of state religion?
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaNot? Surely Judaism, Islam, Calvinism etc are predicated on a single essential belief (namely: God created the world). The rest follows logically enough.
I understand what you mean, but I think you describe an exception, not the norm... I doubt there is a single institution out there that is based on a belief system (as defined by you here). I don't think that's a useful definition for this discussion.
I don't see that the incoherence of institutions is relevant to the nature of a belief system ... In many cases there is only the appearance of a belief system; the cracks have to be filled with -- advertising ...
Originally posted by Bosse de NageLOL, this is why discussions about definitions are never fruitful. If you don't agree about the definitions of the premises, then no meaningful discussion is possible! 😵
I'd just say 'beliefs about x'.
I like your comments on advertising.
What manner of latent belief systems or sets (I like the idea of 'belief sets'😉 manifest in the form of advertising? Conversely, what belief systems or sets has advertising caused?
Just for the hell of it, would you say that German National Socialism could be seen as a form of state religion?
To answer your questions, I'd have to use my definitions which would make the answer uninteresting!
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, I'd be interested to hear your answers from your definitions nonetheless.
LOL, this is why discussions about definitions are never fruitful. If you don't agree about the definitions of the premises, then no meaningful discussion is possible! 😵
To answer your questions, I'd have to use my definitions which would make the answer uninteresting!
I regard discussions like these as entertainment rather than agonistic debates; I hope to have my views corrected, if anything. Also, advertising fascinates me.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaA palpable hit.
But if it followed logical from the premises, then it could only follow for one or none!
I have recourse only to my earlier statement, that the belief system is founded on a particular set of beliefs (plural), and admit that claiming that belief in a creator God alone doesn't account for the various religions. But that doesn't support your claim that there are no institutions founded on a rigorous belief system (as defined by me).
I think that it is useful to distinguish between belief systems (rigorously coherent, consequently rare, possibly unavailable in pure form) and belief sets (present in every person with a functioning brain).
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI knew this guy that was one of those little kids with their head shaved except for the little tuft that sticks out the back. His parents were Hare Krsna's. Boy did he turn out nothing like a typical devotee would normally be like. "Devils advocate" would be a better description for that guy. (Not to say he's not spiritual, far from it, its just that he turned out nothing like his parents expected hom to.)
OK, I'd say a belief system is a machine for creating a consistent worldview. Think of people who take their religion seriously. A person brought up within a given cultural milieu but who has never thought to think through what they believe at all, at all, is not a person to whom a belief system can be attributed at all, at all, I think -- just a vague ribbons, figureheads, wooden dolls, hats and so on, but these do not form part of the system.
You know what I mean? Sometimes hippy parents have conservative-business like children and sometimes vice versa? Who knows how your children will turn out-you can only HOPE to convert them to your beliefs/religon.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell, any time someone changes their belief about the product/belief that is being advertised then the set of beliefs where that belief is contained also changes.
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.
You see, for me, these sets of beliefs exist only within individuals. One can try to formalize any given one in abstract, but that's for conversational purposes only.
As for German National Socialism, then I'd have to say no as in its core (of its abstract representation - see above) I don't see any beliefs about a non-chaotic supernatural.
Originally posted by PalynkaBut I was ultra specific when I offered my idea!
The existence of some political belief systems that are religious at their core is not contradictory with my definition. The existence of political belief systems that are not religious is, however, contradictory with yours.
Giving examples of political belief systems that are religious is then a poor argument against my definition.
If you read again the fourth paragraph of my third post at the first page of this thread you will see I assumed that “…when I trade the orthodox religious concept of the sacred supernatural existence and of the supernatural realm of reality (that they have to be worshipped by the believers) with the radical collective Stalinist and Maoist etc ideals that they are fixed deep into the “revolutionary societies” as the essence of the “revolution”, then the fundamentalist believers, the fundamentalist revolutionaries become extremely powerful and they mutate into Inquisitors, Nazis, Maoists, Stalinists, radical Islamists, radical Christians etc.”. Well, my idea is that this exact outcome is religious at its core; I did not expressed the idea that there is not such a thing as "...the existence of political beliefs that they are not religious".
Clear?
😵
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt was a bold claim, as are most claims that contain "all" or "none", and unprovable. You can, however, falsify it by finding me an institution which is founded on a perfectly non-contradictory belief system.
But that doesn't support your claim that there are no institutions founded on a rigorous belief system (as defined by me).