kein mensch ist ohne religion.
heidegger: "kein mensch ist ohne religion." science too is a system of knowledge founded on principles (such as: the law of non-contradiction) that are fundamentally irrational, but merely regarded rational by virtue of their widespread acceptance and apparent functionality. this certainly doesn't mean they are imaginary and can easily be ignored - what it does imply is one must recognize the belief in rationality.
of course, psychological religious propensities did not just disappear with the demise of religion - they were sublimated. it doesn't seem credible that 200 years ago, nobody liked going to church, but everybody went in order not to piss off god. it seems more likely man tends to tell himself he really likes doing what he does. before, this was going to church; now, for many, church has been replaced by sports, ecology, art, parties, etc. ((("jeder mensch steigt in gewisser weise über sich hinaus; das heisst, jeder mensch ist verrückt."))) all of these cultural phenomena have their rituals, their laws and conventions, their relics and their idols and their bliss. also, in all of these cases, these spectra are grounded not on reason, but on belief - which is why they can hardly be criticized with logic - one prays or parties just the way one has to. (make no mistake: party is religion. counter-argument: religion strove for happiness in the after-life, parties are meant to bring happiness now. refutation: what causes happiness is based not on innate desires, but constituted in relation to the law.)
two differences, however (there are more):
1. the new mythologies (in the traditional, non-barthessian sense of the term; historically constituted narratives) appear rather bleak compared to the traditional religious ones. the legendary drug use of villalobos seems hardly comparable to the legendary strength of samson.
2. particularly partying bears an aspect of rebelliousness, which appears absent from religious doxa. due to the rapid development of our world, generation gaps play a significant role - probably more so than before - and the younger generation is interpellated as rebellious clubber by the older - in a way that is superficially derisive, but only to be acceptant on a deeper level. ("you guys shouldn't drink so much" means: "we already accepted that you do.") there is an interplay between this explicit rejection/implicit acceptance and the ambiguity of terms that denotate wildness/craziness; explicitly derisive, but there is a positive element in them, most likely added by the younger generation (which may be due to the same process of reappropriation that turned terms like queer and nigger into a means of self-empowerment). us wild kids are interpellated as rebels, but the rebelliousness allowed for always remains marginal, for it is forced upon the rebels, and never defined in relation to itself. (of course, this is so by definition.) (the spatial metaphor implied by the word marginal may be a simplification and deserves further investigation.)
of course, psychological religious propensities did not just disappear with the demise of religion - they were sublimated. it doesn't seem credible that 200 years ago, nobody liked going to church, but everybody went in order not to piss off god. it seems more likely man tends to tell himself he really likes doing what he does. before, this was going to church; now, for many, church has been replaced by sports, ecology, art, parties, etc. ((("jeder mensch steigt in gewisser weise über sich hinaus; das heisst, jeder mensch ist verrückt."))) all of these cultural phenomena have their rituals, their laws and conventions, their relics and their idols and their bliss. also, in all of these cases, these spectra are grounded not on reason, but on belief - which is why they can hardly be criticized with logic - one prays or parties just the way one has to. (make no mistake: party is religion. counter-argument: religion strove for happiness in the after-life, parties are meant to bring happiness now. refutation: what causes happiness is based not on innate desires, but constituted in relation to the law.)
two differences, however (there are more):
1. the new mythologies (in the traditional, non-barthessian sense of the term; historically constituted narratives) appear rather bleak compared to the traditional religious ones. the legendary drug use of villalobos seems hardly comparable to the legendary strength of samson.
2. particularly partying bears an aspect of rebelliousness, which appears absent from religious doxa. due to the rapid development of our world, generation gaps play a significant role - probably more so than before - and the younger generation is interpellated as rebellious clubber by the older - in a way that is superficially derisive, but only to be acceptant on a deeper level. ("you guys shouldn't drink so much" means: "we already accepted that you do.") there is an interplay between this explicit rejection/implicit acceptance and the ambiguity of terms that denotate wildness/craziness; explicitly derisive, but there is a positive element in them, most likely added by the younger generation (which may be due to the same process of reappropriation that turned terms like queer and nigger into a means of self-empowerment). us wild kids are interpellated as rebels, but the rebelliousness allowed for always remains marginal, for it is forced upon the rebels, and never defined in relation to itself. (of course, this is so by definition.) (the spatial metaphor implied by the word marginal may be a simplification and deserves further investigation.)
posted by dennis at
8:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home