On the other hand, some philosopher I read somewhere claimed there is nothing new under the sun. Note: NOT trying to proselytize; just thought it might make an interesting discussion.
I pretty much had this thought in disgust in the climactic scene of The Grey, where in a move that Hollywood seems to think is so profound, the main character starts bellowing demands of God and going to the asinine argument that "God is not Aladdin's genie, therefore there is no such thing as god!" These ideas are usually presented as some sort of rebellious individualistic statement or free thinking, when all it is is mindless adolescent drivel, that old religious and philosophical traditions dealt with and dismissed ages ago. But in the current era, mainstream culture has preferred to cut itself off from tradition, so they think they are coming up with something new, because they are too ignorant to realize how old, tired and sad their "new" thing really is.
In "Small Gods" Terry Pratchett has his religious character start questioning his beliefs, but in the narrative frankly admits the character is merely reiterating the same old Gnostic mindset. As a Christian heresy, it was first widely promulgated by Cerinthus during the lifetime of St John the Apostle. Or maybe I'm thinking of another heresy. But the point is, the same ideas keep recurring, and from my perspective they're all a form of lowercase 'i' iconoclasm - lashing out at traditional or widely held beliefs.
So even if that is not the point you were making, I think we more or less agree on a certain operating principle, even if we perceive it differently. Or at least what you are describing, would appear to me to be a accurate summation of a recurring philosophical concept, in slightly different guises. Kind of like the Zoroastrians to the Manicheans to the Bogomils to the Albigensians. New time, new place, same general idea. The Iconoclasm of the Greeks or the iconoclasm of the modern humanist = all the same thing in spirit.
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Atheism: The Iconoclasm of the West?
10/03/2012 05:42:56 AM
- 1297 Views
I think about as highly of athiesm as I do of christianity. *NM*
10/03/2012 05:54:20 AM
- 357 Views
I would chide you on that basis for having a love/hate relationship with God, but who does not?
10/03/2012 06:05:11 AM
- 527 Views
If the divine made men...
10/03/2012 06:27:42 AM
- 522 Views
True, but by the same token, in denying our nature we deny the divine.
10/03/2012 06:57:40 AM
- 537 Views
I was actually just saying in Skype this is the first post you've made in a long time I've enjoyed.
10/03/2012 07:02:56 AM
- 556 Views
But you do comparable things all the time!
10/03/2012 08:35:31 AM
- 751 Views
You've made this analogy before and it's still a bad one, those aren't comparable
10/03/2012 03:43:08 PM
- 635 Views
You said what I was thinking far more respectfully than I probably would have.
11/03/2012 12:14:55 AM
- 601 Views
You're right and wrong.
10/03/2012 05:09:32 PM
- 947 Views
Re: You're right and wrong.
11/03/2012 12:28:25 AM
- 855 Views
Nope, Buddhists are explicitly atheist and also explicitly Ontologically engaged
11/03/2012 01:39:20 AM
- 853 Views
Actually, Buddhists are not explicitly atheist in the conventional sense of the world.
11/03/2012 02:42:36 AM
- 653 Views
I guess it is that old impersonalism that seems the great disappointment in most Eastern religions.
11/03/2012 04:48:54 AM
- 756 Views
What you talkin' 'bout, Willis? *NM*
10/03/2012 06:29:35 PM
- 280 Views
I think he's saying that most arguments used on behalf of Atheism actually come from the Bible.
10/03/2012 06:58:50 PM
- 643 Views
Basically what Dan said; atheism as iconoclasm sans icons (unless we count religion as symbolism.)
11/03/2012 12:46:52 AM
- 657 Views
What exactly do you mean by "The irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism"?
10/03/2012 07:57:59 PM
- 724 Views
That Byzantiums iconoclasm was one of the many wedges between it and Rome that led to the Schism.
11/03/2012 12:27:05 AM
- 646 Views
Bull. Shit.
11/03/2012 01:54:07 AM
- 718 Views
I did not say it was decisive, but that it did irreparable damage to the relationship.
11/03/2012 04:23:43 AM
- 734 Views
Bull. Shit.
11/03/2012 04:30:08 AM
- 602 Views
It is not like I just pulled it out of my rear, any more than my HS history text or Wikipedia did.
11/03/2012 04:57:31 AM
- 677 Views
Bull. Shit.
11/03/2012 05:14:01 AM
- 752 Views
Irreparable damage is damage that cannot be repaired, not necessarily serious or fatal.
11/03/2012 10:34:57 AM
- 822 Views
Mierda.del.Toro
11/03/2012 12:36:59 PM
- 702 Views
1969 may be "sometime back" in Roman Catholic history,but is ~a millenium after the time in question
12/03/2012 05:47:11 PM
- 954 Views
You really must get steamed by anyone calling you out on your hyberbolic comments
12/03/2012 06:55:06 PM
- 816 Views
On the contrary, I am not the one screaming "bullshit" in as many languages as possible.
13/03/2012 12:07:54 AM
- 856 Views
ο κοπρος. του ταυρου.
11/03/2012 02:19:11 PM
- 783 Views
Very edifying; can you do Mandarin or Swahili next?
12/03/2012 05:47:23 PM
- 689 Views
No. Even English seems to be beyond your grasp.
12/03/2012 06:29:50 PM
- 596 Views
Citing scripture does not justify telling me to kill myself.
13/03/2012 12:08:02 AM
- 733 Views
Give it up already. You are wrong.
12/03/2012 12:53:37 AM
- 902 Views
I will do the former at least; pretty sure this "discussion" has reached rock bottom.
13/03/2012 12:12:46 AM
- 546 Views
More or less your last line
11/03/2012 01:37:42 AM
- 622 Views
That is a broader argument, but more consistent with iconoclasms established meaning.
11/03/2012 05:12:12 AM
- 734 Views
Would you include the iconoclasm that Joel cites in the canonical Judeo-Christian tradition as well?
11/03/2012 12:44:49 PM
- 601 Views