3 ms·
It is not always possible to qualify every single word, especially in an Internet forum comment, so I might argue that the trap lies with the reader. As when on
by bmitc 4y ago
It is not always possible to qualify every single word, especially in an Internet forum comment, so I might argue that the trap lies with the reader. As when one encompasses a generality, one should consider that it rarely applies to the totality of the categorical word. While the anecdote presented in the article involves a presumably particular sect of Judaism, I don't think one would be hard pressed to find similar analogs in most of the other major religions in the world. It's no surprise because the foundations of these religions were developed thousands of years ago, in which humanity's understanding of the world beyond itself was still infantile, at least more infantile than today's juvenile understanding. So I don't think it's much of a leap to generalize to religions rather than single out this particular one. Religion is more about culture and control than it is about searching for understanding, the latter of which you might find more in spirituality, art, and science.
- threads2 4y agoI like something Schopenhauer said about a lot of errors coming from either defining a concept too generally or too specifically. Something like that