>Me>Reason is not the same thing as Abstract Thought or Philosophy.
> >I can reason that the Black Oaks stole my cows or that what the
> >dragonpriests say about Orlanth Dragonfriend is wrong, but such
> >does not confer the ability to wonder about what it means for
> >Orlanth to have a transcendent portion.
>I'm in agreement with Mr. Dunham here -- you vastly underestimate
>the need and ability of people to speculate about things.
How exactly is this meant to refute my distinction between Abstract Thought and Reason? That the Orlanthi speculate? This is a given. What is in dispute is whether they do so with the philosophical vocabulary of the Greeks or reason in fairly mundane terms (c.f. the examples I just gave above).
> >Your _original_ point was that abstract thought was necessary
> >to improving the potency of their religion (i.e. turning a God
> >into a Great God IIRC), and you adduced the Dara Happans (based
> >on a notion that the insights of their philosophers are
> >transmitted to the Lodrili and Shargashi alike). I pointed out
> >the Orlanthi to disprove this.
>As I recall, my point was that philosophical development might be
>one part of "improving" a religion and the magic gained from it.
You adduced it as a reason why Yelm [Great God] was better than Elmal [God]. That was your point at the time. I refuted it using the Orlanthi. Your current suggestions that the Orlanthi _could_ benefit from philosophical speculation don't do anything to negate the fact that the Orlanthi worship a Great God despite the lack of philosophical development in their religion.
>And that, even if Orlanthi didn't do it (as a culture), that says
>nothing about whether they would benefit if they did.
That the magic available to the entire culture would benefit as a result of the philosophical speculations of a few? Unless these speculations are widely understood, the culture as a whole will not benefit from them.
>Perhaps more elaborate religious philosophies give the Dara Happa
>an edge over the Orlanthi.
I do not believe the potency of gloranthan magic depends on how well its philosophers can split hairs. For a philosophy to enhance one's magic, it should at least be relevant. Secondly, no amount of philosophical speculation will ever turn Elmal into the equal or superior of Yelm.
> >Now unless you can show that the standard Orlanthi religious
> >practice as presented in Thunder Rebels incorporates the
> >philosophical speculations from the EWF and the Bright Council,
> >then your original point does not have much to support it.
>Since we don't know that much about the philosophical speculations
>of those cultures, that's fairly impossible. Anyway, it's hardly
>necessary for me to prove that.
If you want your original point to stand (that philosophical speculation is what makes a god great), it is necessary for you to prove it.
> >Because I never thought it. What I did say was "abstract thought"
> >and "philosophical speculation" were alien to their culture.
> >There is a major difference between that and Harmast wondering
> >about how Orlanth saved the cosmos.
>And I'm saying that "abstract thought" and "philosophical
>speculation" are universal human attributes (although more obvious
>in some people and peoples than others). Without them, the Orlanthi
>might as well be their cows.
So cows can reason how Orlanth saved the cosmos, can they?
Powered by hypermail