Anthropomorphism

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:48 pm

Simple Minded wrote:
Parodite wrote:Jesus made quite some effort to emphasize it was not about him but about us. That point was kinda lost from the get go.


About 30 years ago, I encountered The Imitation of Christ by Thomas A' Kempis.

I still remember thinking given the choice to imitate Christ (small r, personal internal religion/philosophy) or to worship Christ (big R, Religion/philosophy for public display and marketing), it is interesting to see what one chooses.

What to practice versus what to preach........

[Mat 6:5-7 ESV] 5 "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. 7 "And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3985
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Parodite » Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:43 pm

Simple Minded wrote:
Parodite wrote:Jesus made quite some effort to emphasize it was not about him but about us. That point was kinda lost from the get go.


About 30 years ago, I encountered The Imitation of Christ by Thomas A' Kempis.

I still remember thinking given the choice to imitate Christ (small r, personal internal religion/philosophy) or to worship Christ (big R, Religion/philosophy for public display and marketing), it is interesting to see what one chooses.

What to practice versus what to preach........


Will confess I need to re-read the new testament lest I be corrected on the spot by Nonc...but Jesus himself never suggested he should be worshipped nor imitated.

The deification of Jesus into Christ as an object of worship, as "the only door through which one can connect with the Father", as "the way, the truth and life", "who died for our sins so that we can live", "our savior"... etc... etc.. are all features and attributes Jesus got dressed up with by others.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4177
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Mon Nov 09, 2015 11:34 pm

You are off base, Parodite, but back to anthropomorphism. We have God in the Tanach appearing in anthropomorphic aspects several times, but never in an imitable way. Jesus identifies himself as God in John 8:58, and is the most anthropomorphic religious ideation of God around.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3985
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Parodite » Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:07 pm

Nonc Hilaire wrote:You are off base, Parodite, but back to anthropomorphism. We have God in the Tanach appearing in anthropomorphic aspects several times, but never in an imitable way. Jesus identifies himself as God in John 8:58, and is the most anthropomorphic religious ideation of God around.


I think you are confusing two things. Again the definition of anthropomorphism:

Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

What you speak about with John 8:58 as an example, is more like:

Attribution of divine motivation, characteristics, behavior, i.e. attributing God-like qualities to a human being. Maybe there is a word for that, divinomorphism?
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4177
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:43 pm

Parodite wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:You are off base, Parodite, but back to anthropomorphism. We have God in the Tanach appearing in anthropomorphic aspects several times, but never in an imitable way. Jesus identifies himself as God in John 8:58, and is the most anthropomorphic religious ideation of God around.


I think you are confusing two things. Again the definition of anthropomorphism:

Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

What you speak about with John 8:58 as an example, is more like:

Attribution of divine motivation, characteristics, behavior, i.e. attributing God-like qualities to a human being. Maybe there is a word for that, divinomorphism?

I'm still not clear as to why you brought this subject up. I'm free associating until a focus emerges.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3985
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Parodite » Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:46 pm

Free association is a fertile force in a discussion and can add to the focus.

You asked in the beginning what I'm heading at. Maybe it is exploring the question what it means that we can only observe and experience the world as a human being.

I suggested that seeing an intelligent Creator in nature (or creative intelligent force) is as anthropomorphic as seeing random process without intent. Which would mean that they both do not say much about the nature of reality as it exists independent of the necessarily anthropomorphic representations that arise in our human body-brains. What if it is neither intelligent nor random?

An easy way out is to just accept that there is no way out of the anthropomorphic human brain-box, that the only language left that comes close to describing the non-anthropomorphic experience-independent world is mathematics and its application in physics.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4177
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby manolo » Tue Nov 10, 2015 11:46 pm

Parodite wrote:An easy way out is to just accept that there is no way out of the anthropomorphic human brain-box, that the only language left that comes close to describing the non-anthropomorphic experience-independent world is mathematics and its application in physics.


Parodite,

May I add formal logic?

Alex.
User avatar
manolo
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby kmich » Wed Nov 11, 2015 2:47 am

Human beings utilize a variety of conventions to understand and predict the world around them, and, as Kant discussed, phenomena and noumena are not the same. Nevertheless, human conventions and their related appearances are not “anthropomorphic.”

For example, Swifts’s Houyhnhnms, horses in Gulliver’s Travels, were governed entirely by logic and reason. The act of attributing logic and reason to horses was anthropomorphic, but logic and reason are not “anthropomorphic” in themselves. Anthropomorphism is the process of attributing human characteristics to animals, deities, etc, typically for religious and mythological purposes. It is the attribution of human qualities that constitute anthropomorphism, not the nature of human qualities and conventions themselves.

The best source I am aware of to discuss the limitation of human conventions and attributions has already been dissected by Hume, in his "Of the Understanding" in A Treatise of Human Nature. In my opinion is the best discussion on that subject.
User avatar
kmich
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby manolo » Wed Nov 11, 2015 9:55 am

kmich wrote:Human beings utilize a variety of conventions to understand and predict the world around them, and, as Kant discussed, phenomena and noumena are not the same. Nevertheless, human conventions and their related appearances are not “anthropomorphic.”

For example, Swifts’s Houyhnhnms, horses in Gulliver’s Travels, were governed entirely by logic and reason. The act of attributing logic and reason to horses was anthropomorphic, but logic and reason are not “anthropomorphic” in themselves. Anthropomorphism is the process of attributing human characteristics to animals, deities, etc, typically for religious and mythological purposes. It is the attribution of human qualities that constitute anthropomorphism, not the nature of human qualities and conventions themselves.

The best source I am aware of to discuss the limitation of human conventions and attributions has already been dissected by Hume, in his "Of the Understanding" in A Treatise of Human Nature. In my opinion is the best discussion on that subject.


kmich,

Hume even challenged causation as a form of projection which had become conventional understanding, although this would not be a mere 'human' projection.

Alex.
User avatar
manolo
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Parodite » Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:41 pm

kmich wrote:The best source I am aware of to discuss the limitation of human conventions and attributions has already been dissected by Hume, in his "Of the Understanding" in A Treatise of Human Nature. In my opinion is the best discussion on that subject.


Thanks for the tip, I'll take a shot at that.

http://people.rit.edu/wlrgsh/HumeTreatise.pdf
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4177
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby noddy » Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:09 pm

manolo wrote:
Parodite wrote:An easy way out is to just accept that there is no way out of the anthropomorphic human brain-box, that the only language left that comes close to describing the non-anthropomorphic experience-independent world is mathematics and its application in physics.


Parodite,

May I add formal logic?

Alex.


formal logic, pure maths are about the only non anthropomorphic techniques we have - they are very difficult and only of interest to a small percentage of the population, they may or may not have anything todo with reality (tm)

back on the god topic, take the anthrophorphic, human centric aspects away from the christian popular interpretations and you are left with the horrid thought that we are as irrelevant to the wider universe as the ants that we walk on and thats not very comforting to most people.

it seems to be only grumpy intellectuals who like the terrible and unknowable version of the god concept, its not for the general public.
noddy
 
Posts: 5423
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Parodite » Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:23 pm

noddy wrote:formal logic, pure maths are about the only non anthropomorphic techniques we have - they are very difficult and only of interest to a small percentage of the population, they may or may not have anything todo with reality (tm)


Given that also math and formal logic are cooked up in/by the human bodybrain box.. indeed it may, but as well may not have anything to do with reality (tm). The jury will probably be out forever. But reality (tm) intrigues me till no end.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4177
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Miss_Faucie_Fishtits » Thu Nov 12, 2015 8:05 pm

Off the wall question here, but can rationalism be considered anthropomorphic? If the measure of all things is human sense data, logic and perception; when does it if it does happen, that the human becomes conflated with the universal. Rationality may not merge the physical with the metaphysical, but when it rules it out what is left but the human - and isn't that anthropormorphic?......'>........
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
 
Posts: 892
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Thu Nov 12, 2015 9:09 pm

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:Off the wall question here, but can rationalism be considered anthropomorphic? If the measure of all things is human sense data, logic and perception; when does it if it does happen, that the human becomes conflated with the universal. Rationality may not merge the physical with the metaphysical, but when it rules it out what is left but the human - and isn't that anthropormorphic?......'>........
h
Back to Noddy & logic. I would say rationalism is anthropomorphic for immateriality but not for materiality where it is simply factual.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3985
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby manolo » Thu Nov 12, 2015 9:28 pm

noddy wrote:.... take the anthrophorphic, human centric aspects away from the christian popular interpretations and you are left with the horrid thought that we are as irrelevant to the wider universe as the ants that we walk on and thats not very comforting to most people..


nod,

Very true. Irrelevance is the most perfect individualism that we have. Not easy, but why should it be?

Alex.
User avatar
manolo
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby kmich » Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:11 pm

noddy wrote:back on the god topic, take the anthrophorphic, human centric aspects away from the christian popular interpretations and you are left with the horrid thought that we are as irrelevant to the wider universe as the ants that we walk on and thats not very comforting to most people.

it seems to be only grumpy intellectuals who like the terrible and unknowable version of the god concept, its not for the general public.


My Christian faith, at least in my limited experience, is not about resolving meaninglessness as much as it is about having the trust to face the abyss of the cruel pointlessness of life with an open mind and heart: ""Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?... " God cannot be known and can be terrifying.

Christian faith is not about comfort, at least for me, it is about the trust and courage to not know, to be willing to open the spaces of ones soul through standing confidently before the terror, power, and unfathomable experience of being this strange, mortal creature through the sense that God loved us enough to participate in the worst and meaningless cruelties of life through his Son. Maybe I am just another deluded mystic. Perhaps. I am often confused. It just seems true to me.
User avatar
kmich
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Parodite » Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:28 am

Nonc Hilaire wrote:I would say rationalism is anthropomorphic for immateriality but not for materiality where it is simply factual.


How you define immateriality? Is it part of human experience, like feelings, thoughts, beliefs and just labeled "immaterial" to contrast it with things/objects around you like furniture, planets etc that you then call "material"?

Roughly, is the immaterial what you locate to happen within yourself in-here and the material that which you locate to exist out-there in the world?

Or... do you consider the immaterial neither of these and fundamentally unknown and outside any experience at all?

IMHO these questions need a focussed answer before what you say there can make any sense.. well at least to me. ;)

CAVEAT: the material-versus-immaterial is an old hat discussion here on OTNOT, I know.... and to me the most debilitating one where people to whome this distinction is important.. are totally unable to explain themselves in any coherent way. :oops:
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4177
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby kmich » Fri Nov 13, 2015 1:28 pm

Human understanding is guided by conventions, and these gain their meaning through their capacity to predict, to explain, and to provide clarity to the world and not through their internal consistency or relationship. Abstractions exist, but can only be objectified in the world of temporal processes. “Materiality” and “immateriality” are, at best, fuzzy terms to imperfectly express relative qualities of sensory tangibility when applied to real events. What is the "material" vs. “immaterial” nature of the quantum state of a physical system, information in a system, a photon, or a gravitational singularity? Who knows?

In any case, what this has to do with “anthropomorphism,” the attribution of human characteristics to animals, gods, deities, etc, I am not really clear on that. That is a very specific and much narrower application of conventions of human understanding.
User avatar
kmich
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby noddy » Fri Nov 13, 2015 1:42 pm

1 + 1 = 2, its a brilliant thing, its never changed by emotions, fairness, politics, mood or hornyness.

that be facts.

your missus has had a bad day, facts are meaningless.

material world, immaterial world 101.
noddy
 
Posts: 5423
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby noddy » Fri Nov 13, 2015 2:18 pm

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:Off the wall question here, but can rationalism be considered anthropomorphic? If the measure of all things is human sense data, logic and perception; when does it if it does happen, that the human becomes conflated with the universal. Rationality may not merge the physical with the metaphysical, but when it rules it out what is left but the human - and isn't that anthropormorphic?......'>........


not really, or atleast, if thats true, then all words are back to meaningless ;)

our limitations are many, our ability to rationalise is limited to those limitations (boom tish) but the rules of maths and logic and pure rational systems are independendant of them, even if we arent

those rules could (will?) go on to develop super computers with super sensors that breakthrough all our human feebleness, maths and logic have a structural life of their own, already the most advanced computer systems are beyond the grok of any one human, the layers upon layers of structured logic are too much for a single persons puny brain to hold all the infomation at once.



spengler likes using music for this problem space, its a nice blend of the maths and the bits that dont quite fit in the maths :)
noddy
 
Posts: 5423
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby kmich » Sat Nov 14, 2015 3:53 am

noddy wrote:1 + 1 = 2, its a brilliant thing, its never changed by emotions, fairness, politics, mood or hornyness.

that be facts.

your missus has had a bad day, facts are meaningless.

material world, immaterial world 101.


Hey, if that works for you, that's cool. 8-)
User avatar
kmich
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby noddy » Sat Nov 14, 2015 3:56 am

who said anything about working.

i was just amusing myself with a simplification of material/immaterial.

maybe emotions and instincts can be reduced to a logic system... maybe they cant, we as individuals certainly cant operate on those levels and this to me is the area of grey in these arguments.
noddy
 
Posts: 5423
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby noddy » Sat Nov 14, 2015 6:31 am

kmich wrote:
noddy wrote:back on the god topic, take the anthrophorphic, human centric aspects away from the christian popular interpretations and you are left with the horrid thought that we are as irrelevant to the wider universe as the ants that we walk on and thats not very comforting to most people.

it seems to be only grumpy intellectuals who like the terrible and unknowable version of the god concept, its not for the general public.


My Christian faith, at least in my limited experience, is not about resolving meaninglessness as much as it is about having the trust to face the abyss of the cruel pointlessness of life with an open mind and heart: ""Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?... " God cannot be known and can be terrifying.


mayhaps you fit into the grumpy intellectual grouping (atleast some of the time);)

kmich wrote:Christian faith is not about comfort, at least for me, it is about the trust and courage to not know, to be willing to open the spaces of ones soul through standing confidently before the terror, power, and unfathomable experience of being this strange, mortal creature through the sense that God loved us enough to participate in the worst and meaningless cruelties of life through his Son. Maybe I am just another deluded mystic. Perhaps. I am often confused. It just seems true to me.


to my mind that bit is the anthrophorphic bit writ large.
noddy
 
Posts: 5423
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Typhoon » Wed Nov 18, 2015 7:36 pm

God loved us enough to participate in the worst and meaningless cruelties of life through his Son.


As an atheist, my first question is "Why bother?"

What is the point of an all powerful deity creating a universe full of "meaningless cruelties of life"?

Any way I look at it, if our universe is premeditated, then such an act is indescribably cruel and sadistic.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 14584
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby kmich » Thu Nov 19, 2015 1:07 am

Typhoon wrote:
God loved us enough to participate in the worst and meaningless cruelties of life through his Son.


As an atheist, my first question is "Why bother?"

What is the point of an all powerful deity creating a universe full of "meaningless cruelties of life"?

Any way I look at it, if our universe is premeditated, then such an act is indescribably cruel and sadistic.


Yes. That is the theodicy problem which there is no coherent or credible answer for if you understand “God” as a hypothetical being that directs everything from the rise of mountains to the flight of the tiny sparrow. I don’t believe in that God either, so I am also an atheist in that sense.
User avatar
kmich
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest