> >What _is_ necessary and unnecessary in Orlanthi religion? I do
> >not get the understanding in Thunder Rebels that the Orlanthi
> >religion is cluttered up by unnecessary things that impede the
> >understanding of their god.
>I have no idea what's exactly necessary or unnecessary in Orlanthi
>religion
Then why bother claiming that abstract thinking can show you how to improve your connection with a god by showing you what is necessary and what is not? So far for it to work, we have to introduce an alien concept to Orlanthi religion.
> >So my example of Uroxi religion being improved by abstract
> >speculation is now extreme and thus useless as a rebuttal.
> >Rightio. So how about telling us how the aspects of Orlanth,
> >Yinkin and Odayla are improved by abstract speculation? An
> >example of it in action might be nice too...
>I didn't say useless, but I will point out that Urox is about as
>"gut and body" oriented as an Orlanthi diety can get. His worship probably
>has virtually no intellectual component (Conan's prayer to Crom at the end
>of the John Milius film comes to mind), little in the way of theology and
>ritual -- it's pretty basic. Uroxi can hardly be held up as an example of
>Orlanthi culture in general, so, yeah, they are extreme, and yes, they are
>not particularly good support for your argument.
And this answers the question that I asked in what way?
> >Secondly just what is it about feats that philosophy has to deal with them?
> Not "has to," _can_.
_How_ does philosophy deal with feats? You asserted this twice in the last post as it were clearly relevant but without examples or even expostulation, the point does not have any visible substance.
>As I keep saying, abstract thought and
>philosophy are tools for aproaching your god, in the same way that
>heroquesting, ernest devotion, practicing the clan rites for decades, and
>all other kinds of religious practice are.
You keep saying this, but without examples, simple repetition is nothing. In any case abstract thought and all these other things are not tools for approaching your god. The basic means of speaking to the deity is one of sacrifice - sharing the self with the deity (TR p61). By sharing more or even refraining from acting contrary to your deity, you draw closer to it. Philosophy as a magical method belongs to the sorcerous worldview.
>When Obduran
>proves that Orlanth is not necessarily opposed to dragons, that had an
>immense effect on the Orlanthi of his area, some of whom (at least),
>learned new magics.
But Obduran did not use abstract reasoning in his proof. He simply showed the Orlanthi how to sacrifice to Orlanth without getting stomped on by the agents of reprisal.
> >You have been arguing for something stronger than that. That a
> >god's power be dependent on his worshippers is more than a matter
> >of influence IMO.
>Certainly the power of a religion, including the benefits it offers
>its adherents, depends as much on the worshippers and their
>understanding of their gods than on the gods themselves. If you
>don't know the myths of Dar or Vingkot, your clan is going to have
>trouble with leadership.
And how does this supports your original position (that the gods power is dependent on his worshippers)?
> >The "average Orlanthi" engaged in abstract thought during
> >the Bright Empire and the EWF? Please.
>Maybe, maybe not. But some Orlanthi did, which is my point.
But I _asked_ for examples of "average Orlanthi". Pointing out to the examples of "some Orlanthi" does nothing to address _my_ point that the average Orlanthi do not engage in abstract thought.
>It's one thing to say that these things are not part of regular
>Orlanthi culture and another thing to say that they are completely
>alien to the Orlanthi mind.
So why do you interpret my statements about philosophy not being part of the regular Orlanthi culture as being statements that it is completely alien to the Orlanthi mind? Furthermore I have been reacting to your position to the effect that the average Orlanthi do engage in philosophy.
> >But religious speculation is far from the same thing as abstract
> >thought. Could you at least recognize this?
>If you mean formal logical systems, sure (or rather, they are two
>different things that may or may not overlap).
If you are capable of recognizing it, then why have you seen fit to make silly statements about how I believe the Orlanthi do not engage in religious speculation?
> >I am denying that the Orlanthi think about their gods in terms
> >of abstract thought, platonic dialogues and any other such
> >philosophical tools. I have repeatedly distinguished between
> >using reason and using abstract thought even to the extent of
> >providing examples of such. For some reason, this distinction
> >continues to evade you.
>No, I don't think the Orlanthi are a hotbed of platonic thought.
What definition of philosophy are you using then?
Powered by hypermail