4 ms·

Book by Aaron W. Hughes about the use of the term "Abrahamic religions" Oxford University Press, 2012: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/abrahamic-reli

by acqq 6y ago

Book by Aaron W. Hughes about the use of the term "Abrahamic religions" Oxford University Press, 2012: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/abrahamic-religions-9780199934645 https://global.oup.com/academic/product/abrahamic-religions-... From the description: "Directly proportionate to the rise of religious exclusivism, perhaps best epitomized by the attacks of 9/11 and the problems now plaguing the Middle East and Afghanistan, there has been a real desire both to find and map a set of commonalities between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is often done, however, for the sake of interfaith dialogue, rather than scholarship." "Like our understanding of Abraham, the category "Abrahamic religions" is vague and nebulous. Usually lost in contemporary discussions is a set of crucial questions: Whence does the term "Abrahamic religions" derive? Who created it and for what purposes? What sort of intellectual work is it perceived to perform? In order to answer these and related questions, Aaron Hughes examines the creation and dissemination of this category in Abrahamic Religions." Quotes from the book: "There is no historical precedent for reading the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim myths that deal with the figure of Abraham or Ibrahim together in the ways that many want to align them today." "Those interested in reclaiming this Abraham for interfaith dialogue are not motivated by historical study, even though they may try to make certain appeals to it. Rather they imagine variously constructed romanticized and pristine periods of interfaith interaction. They subsequently create a set of words and categories based on their own contemporary concerns and desires, and then read these into various historical and textual sources."

quietbritishjim 6y ago
Any term can get vague at the borders. For example, you can imagine vehicles for which it's ambiguous whether the term "car" applies or not, but that doesn't mean the word "car" is useless. Similarly, clearly Christinity and Islam include some fairly direct reference to the same story of Abraham in a way that Norse mythology or ancient Greek mythology didn't. The term is useful despite not having a mathematically rigorous definition.
- JNRowe 6y ago
  Perhaps it was the example you were thinking of, but Christopher Danielson really brings home the extreme ambiguity of terms using vehicles and children. I keep coming back to that every time I'm trying to have one of these conversations with people, especially when the question is deeper than whether a salad is a vehicle(as if that were possible). https://talkingmathwithkids.com/blog/vehicle-chat-invitation/ https://talkingmathwithkids.com/blog/vehicle-chat-invitation... or discussed in audio form https://aperiodical.com/2020/08/mathematical-objects-a-vehicle-with-christopher-danielson/ https://aperiodical.com/2020/08/mathematical-objects-a-vehic...
  - quietbritishjim 6y ago
    My original point was really meant to be that I don't think any of this is deep, and that article seems to (acidentally) back that up. I spent a fair amount of time with philosophy students when I was at university and they would often waste time getting tangled up in semantics having discussions that sounded deep but really weren't. The solution is: accept that words have meanings that are fuzzy around the edges and don't let it worry you. There are contexts where you actually must let it worry you (e.g. determining if someone broke the law) but come up with a tighter definition in any circumstance like that, while accepting that the word will still be used more loosely in other contexts. I hadn't seen that article before and didn't mean to refer to it. In fact the author is making an exceedingly simple mistake confusing two totally different things. The first is that a word that has a fuzzy meaning, and you notice that by looking at the edges of its meaning (e.g. is something still a vehicle if it doesn't transport people?). As I said, that is expected and not worth dwelling on. The second is using it as an analogy: is a salad a vehicle for dressing? Is a film a vehicle for an actor? Getting mixed up with the first question is a pretty basic mistake. When Forrest Gump says "life is like a box of chocolates" (technically a simile because of use of the word "like" but similar idea) you might think it's silly but not because the box of chocolates doesn't satisfy the literal meaning of "life". As with salads and films, that's not the edge of the meaning of the word; it's the very core meaning of the word used in a different context.
    - JNRowe 6y ago
      I think we're in agreement, and the misunderstanding is my fault for attempting humor in my reply. I believe the linked piece is in agreement too, it even concludes with: > this is a social game of negotiating meaning, and of noticing that language which seems so precise is often not that at all.
vmception 6y ago
Bold claims of theirs, but no, there is nothing romanticized about this conversation and “Abrahamic” here is simply used for brevity. You figured out what we were talking about which is the point of language. Being part of a family of religions that use the same source material does not suggest interfaith in any way.
- acqq 6y ago
  I don't doubt that you intended to use the term "for brevity." But I still suggest you become informed about the term, and posted the whole book about its construction. It's ahistorical and very recent, made with very specific agendas. I won't go into details, there's that whole book.

by acqq 6y ago

quietbritishjim 6y ago

Any term can get vague at the borders. For example, you can imagine vehicles for which it's ambiguous whether the term "car" applies or not, but that doesn't mean the word "car" is useless. Similarly, clearly Christinity and Islam include some fairly direct reference to the same story of Abraham in a way that Norse mythology or ancient Greek mythology didn't. The term is useful despite not having a mathematically rigorous definition.

JNRowe 6y ago
Perhaps it was the example you were thinking of, but Christopher Danielson really brings home the extreme ambiguity of terms using vehicles and children. I keep coming back to that every time I'm trying to have one of these conversations with people, especially when the question is deeper than whether a salad is a vehicle(as if that were possible). https://talkingmathwithkids.com/blog/vehicle-chat-invitation/ https://talkingmathwithkids.com/blog/vehicle-chat-invitation... or discussed in audio form https://aperiodical.com/2020/08/mathematical-objects-a-vehicle-with-christopher-danielson/ https://aperiodical.com/2020/08/mathematical-objects-a-vehic...
- quietbritishjim 6y ago
  My original point was really meant to be that I don't think any of this is deep, and that article seems to (acidentally) back that up. I spent a fair amount of time with philosophy students when I was at university and they would often waste time getting tangled up in semantics having discussions that sounded deep but really weren't. The solution is: accept that words have meanings that are fuzzy around the edges and don't let it worry you. There are contexts where you actually must let it worry you (e.g. determining if someone broke the law) but come up with a tighter definition in any circumstance like that, while accepting that the word will still be used more loosely in other contexts. I hadn't seen that article before and didn't mean to refer to it. In fact the author is making an exceedingly simple mistake confusing two totally different things. The first is that a word that has a fuzzy meaning, and you notice that by looking at the edges of its meaning (e.g. is something still a vehicle if it doesn't transport people?). As I said, that is expected and not worth dwelling on. The second is using it as an analogy: is a salad a vehicle for dressing? Is a film a vehicle for an actor? Getting mixed up with the first question is a pretty basic mistake. When Forrest Gump says "life is like a box of chocolates" (technically a simile because of use of the word "like" but similar idea) you might think it's silly but not because the box of chocolates doesn't satisfy the literal meaning of "life". As with salads and films, that's not the edge of the meaning of the word; it's the very core meaning of the word used in a different context.
  - JNRowe 6y ago
    I think we're in agreement, and the misunderstanding is my fault for attempting humor in my reply. I believe the linked piece is in agreement too, it even concludes with: > this is a social game of negotiating meaning, and of noticing that language which seems so precise is often not that at all.

vmception 6y ago

Bold claims of theirs, but no, there is nothing romanticized about this conversation and “Abrahamic” here is simply used for brevity. You figured out what we were talking about which is the point of language. Being part of a family of religions that use the same source material does not suggest interfaith in any way.

acqq 6y ago
I don't doubt that you intended to use the term "for brevity." But I still suggest you become informed about the term, and posted the whole book about its construction. It's ahistorical and very recent, made with very specific agendas. I won't go into details, there's that whole book.