Collaboration Between Artist and Audience

[huckelberry]

Gadianton' some years ago I read a book called Montaillou.It is a social description of life in a early 14th century village in southern France. It is based upon detailed records of interviews made by the inquisition which was hunting Catharism. I found striking the comments of a shepherd there who clearly was an atheist. He believed in nothing but the natural physical world. The inquisition was not terribly concerned about him, they were hunting a religious movement. It would also matter that this shepherd was not teaching or creating an atheist movement. He was not a scholar. His presence did make me wonder whether there have not been many atheists down the ages who minded there own business about it not to create a fuss.

[honorentheos]

Hey huckelberry, I think you may find this interesting when it comes to the subject of language relativism:

https://neurosciencenews.com/color-perc ... age-21650/

[huckelberry]

Hey huckelberry, I think you may find this interesting when it comes to the subject of language relativism:

https://neurosciencenews.com/color-perc ... age-21650/

Hi honorentheos, when I a made the comment above about language being invented to fit new ideas styles or awareness it did cross my mind that there is a counter current. Words clue the well established lines of thought and awareness that a person has. They may contribute to ignoring variations and details that words are not readily available for. Inventing new ideas needing new words doesn't happen without some real pressure from some sort of need or recognition of problems.

The color question is interesting and fits here. It has been brought up several times. Blixa presented information about the idea that language in a culture shapes the perception of color. I also remember a discussion about whether folks BC and Greek could see blue. Iliad has ships sailing the wine dark sea not the deep blue sea. I think the color of the sea depends upon the weather and Homer saw troubled weather. But the question is tricky. Our vision is an image created in the mind using data from the eyes and what we know and expect. Words might influence how the data from the eyes is put together into an image.

[Gadianton]

Huck, your story is a good one. I read a summary of it. I don't have a great answer. Maybe you're right.

[honorentheos]

I'm hopeful the reverend will stop by and share his thoughts. Some of the somewhat difficult uses of God that comes to mind in ancient contexts include Plato telling us Socrates referred to God and gods in different ways. Many Socratic writings reference God and gods in ways that suggest the former was something more than an anthropomorphic deity, akin to Providence in enlightenment writings. But I'm curious how it actually reads.

I also had to revisit Spinosa to confirm how he referred to the topic. I had an apocryphal idea he was a known atheist but had misremembered. He appears to fall in the camp already referenced when he was accused of being an atheist in reference to his skeptical writings but not due to being what we today would consider an atheist.

[Some Schmo]

I really don't like the term atheist, and refuse to assume that label. It's partly due to the wide misunderstanding of it's modern use, but the main reason is why should I assume a label that describes something I'm not? I wouldn't assume any other label which told someone else what I'm not, because that list is endless. I'm not an afairyist, or an aflatearthist, or any number of other things I assume to be unlikely until proven otherwise. I'm also not a dentist. Should I call myself "not a dentist?"

The other problem with the word is that it is reactionary. People are taught about this abstract god, and those who question that "lesson" should assume a label describing their skepticism? It makes no sense. The default position is no knowledge of a god, not the other way around.

There are regular people, and then there are those who have assumed this layer of belief they can't validate or prove. They deserve a label for having taken part in building an unprovable story. Those who don't simply don't. We don't need a name for that. Giving non-believers a label validates the dubious position, not the rational one.

[Gadianton]

I'm hopeful the reverend will stop by and share his thoughts. Some of the somewhat difficult uses of God that comes to mind in ancient contexts include Plato telling us Socrates referred to God and gods in different ways. Many Socratic writings reference God and gods in ways that suggest the former was something more than an anthropomorphic deity, akin to Providence in enlightenment writings. But I'm curious how it actually reads.

I also had to revisit Spinosa to confirm how he referred to the topic. I had an apocryphal idea he was a known atheist but had misremembered. He appears to fall in the camp already referenced when he was accused of being an atheist in reference to his skeptical writings but not due to being what we today would consider an atheist.

When I make some time to do so, I'll go back and find references to some of the key examples that got me thinking about it. I have zero language talent or skills, I'm just going by the difficulty in comprehending what was meant when referring to the gods, or wisdoms in Greek philosophy, such as in the case of Socrates and his alleged impiety. It's not cut and dry like reading a translation of Anselm.

Speaking of Anselm, since I mentioned I'd say more later and I still don't have a proper formulation, but the main point is that I've always said that even if you think his ontological argument is bad, it's the basis for understanding what is meant by God as we mean it today as in, God as the supreme being; or the being of which no greater can be thought. That's a profound idea even before getting to the more controversial part, even though it seems trivial and silly now. On the one hand, it's fallacious -- what's the greatest prime number? And maybe on those grounds, our concept of "supreme being" is illogical -- yet, the greatest conceivable being makes a good superficial bucket in the abstract and the question becomes, what fills that bucket, if anything. My main point about Anselm is that it doesn't appear anyone had yet thought about a single deity that way. There is a deity in the abstract who must be greater than all other deities, just as some horse out there must be the fastest horse, and we'll label this deity as God.

Obviously, that kind of definition leaves plenty of room for polytheism, but it's a creative way around just assigning the best predicates to your guy and saying he has them but the other guys don't. There must be some guy who has better predicates, whatever they are, than all the other guys. That "some guy" concept is a good place holder.

[Imwashingmypirate]

So in the commandments, (my knowledge isn't great), is it that God says thou shalt have no other god than me, I'm jealous. Kind of thing. Don't worship idols. Does that mean that it is being said that there are NO other gods or is it saying don't worship other gods?

[Dr. Shades]

Don't worship idols. Does that mean that it is being said that there are NO other gods or is it saying don't worship other gods?

The latter: It's instructing the Israelites to not worship any of the other available gods.

[Imwashingmypirate]

Don't worship idols. Does that mean that it is being said that there are NO other gods or is it saying don't worship other gods?

The latter: It's instructing the Israelites to not worship any of the other available gods.

That was my thinking.