#religious philosophy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

adragonsfriend · 5 months

Text

Do or Do Not, There is No Try

I have seen, I think, the full gamut of misinterpretations of this phrase, so, I'm going to take a crack at breaking down its meaning, and also look a little at its impact on Luke, because someone once tried to tell me that Sidious couldn't've conquered the galaxy without Yoda, and I'm here to say that that's *so funny*, because actually Luke couldn't've saved Anakin without Yoda's teachings.

Let's look at another, simpler example first, to establish my method of analysis. Pretty much, it's about context. Lets take the sentence,

"Hey, don't cry, don't cry."

Let's ask some key questions:

Who would might be saying this and who might they be saying this to? An adult or older child might say this to a young child.

When might this be said? When the child is distressed, and either crying or potentially about to start crying.

What might the older person's intention be in this scenario? Comforting the child.

What is the cultural context? Crying can be caused by a wide variety of intense emotions, but (in modern western culture at least) it is most strongly associated with sadness or pain, negative emotions. There are sometimes negative attitudes about crying being a sign of weakness, but that's not a uniformly held idea, and young children generally get a pass on this.

We can debate about whether saying "Hey, don't cry, don't cry," is the best way to comfort someone who is crying and whether it does or doesn't reenforce negative ideas about crying, but phrased the way I've phrased it, and said in a generally comforting tone and accompanied by other comforting actions, it doesn't literally mean, "I command you to stop crying immediately."

It means, "I see that you're sad/hurting. I wish that you weren't experiencing those negative emotions that are causing you to cry, because I care about you and how you feel. You're going to be okay and this is a situation that we can handle."

(If anyone has, like, specific trauma around this phrase, please note I'm not saying you're not valid for having whatever feelings you have about it, I'm looking at it in the situation described above where intentions are all around pretty positive)

See? Context.

Now let's look at our phrase,

Do or do not, there is no try.

First, a list of common misinterpretations, some of which (I believe) come from people trying really hard to make sense of this phrase but coming at it from the wrong lens, some of which take it very literally, and some of which are cop outs:

it's not just advice about how to use the Force

it's not saying that effort doesn't exist, or that trying really hard is stupid

it's not saying that putting in your best effort is worthless if you don't succeed

it's definitely not saying to only do things you already know you can succeed at

it's not a meaningless platitude, and it's not totally open to any interpretation you'd like

So, context questions:

Who is saying this? Yoda, a life-long teacher of the Force, of lightsaber dueling, and of philosophy. Also a life-long leader, humanitarian, and warrior. He is also a Jedi.

Who is Yoda saying this to? Luke, his student, who aspires to face defeat a terrible evil--the empire--and generally help people where ever he goes. He intends do so by becoming a Jedi.

What is Luke doing when Yoda says this? He is talking about how he really needs his X-wing to not sink into the swamp so he can get off the planet, at the same time as he's saying, "But I don't really know if I can do anything about that so I'm gonna half-try and then give up," and, "My X-wing is very important but I can't have it but I need it so I'm not going to seek out any other solutions to my problem either." In this moment, Luke is whining, and not facing up to his problems (he got it from his dad).

What is Yoda doing when he says this? He's lifting Luke's X-wing out of the swamp with the Force, thereby solving Luke's most obvious outward problem--his dependence on his ship for transport. He's a teacher showing his student the capabilities of the Force, addressing another of Luke's outward problems--his lack of knowledge of the Force. He's also, because this is how both movies and teaching work, addressing Luke's main inward problem: his lack of perseverance and conviction. In this moment, Yoda is helping, and teaching.

So it's a phrase that, along with Yoda's demonstration, is meant to teach Luke something about conviction and effort. Well, we probably already knew most of that, so let's ask some more questions:

Is there a larger context of this phrase? Yes, this phrase is being said in a movie, and so Luke isn't it's only intended audience, and Yoda isn't the only one saying it. The other audience is us, the literal audience, and the writer is George Lucas. All the cues in the movie tell us the audience that Yoda saying this is an important moment we should be paying attention to.

What are his opinions of/intentions for Yoda and the Jedi? Extremely positive. He does not say they are perfect--the conclusion of RotJ says that Yoda and Obi-Wan were wrong about something--but he does say that Jedi are people striving very actively to help others and to be their best selves. These are characters through whom a lot of his beliefs about what goodness is and how people should live are being transmitted. So as this idea of Yoda's is not the one challenged by the conclusion of RotJ, we can assume it is meant to be interpreted positively.

What were George Lucas' cultural inspirations for Jedi culture that relate to this phrase? A combination of christianity, buddhism, and his own unique ideas. To oversimplify: Christianity gives us the light vs. dark, true evil and true good both exist and we should strive for goodness part, buddism gives us the mastery of self, non-attachment, and meditation parts. I am not an expert in any religion, and definitely not in buddhism--I was at least raised christian--but even I know enough to know I'm about to make some sweeping generalizations, so grain of salt, if you please. But disclaimers aside, I believe his phrase, and the way it is phrased, are and indication it is being inspired more by the buddhism side of things. The way christian texts, specifically the Bible, are written typically goes "here is a story/parable about some people doing something, and here is how big G god and/or Jesus reacted to that." There are plenty of metaphors sprinkled in, but they are mainly there to clarify points for readers. Buddhist texts on the other hand (and lots of other easter belief systems as well, like daoism, hinduism, etc. It's an important note that these belief systems don't necessarily conform to the western idea of what a religion is, and often their original languages don't even have a word which is equivalent in meaning to "religion") use metaphor and poetic language in often deliberately contradictory ways, to both express and make the reader/listener (lots of these "texts" were (and still are) oral traditions before they were written down) think about things which are considered impossible to fully express in words and which defy description in other ways as well. The ongoing, unresolved struggle to reconcile contradictory descriptions is the point. Importantly, this doesn't mean those texts can be interpreted however a reader would like. There may be more than one right interpretations, but there can also be wrong, or lacking, interpretations.

Our phrase has a positive/useful message (you can debate whether you agree with that message later, if you'd like), it can't just be about the Force since a very non-Force having audience it meant to gain something from hearing it, and it's not meant to be taken entirely literally.

From here, it's me taking the context and running.

Do or do not, there is no try.

Yoda is making a statement about being decisive, about commitment, and about the unexpected power that can be found when you really put all your effort towards a goal.

Yoda is giving a lesson much more important than 'How to lift things 101,' and much more relevant than how to use the Force.

He's telling Luke to stop whining and make a decision about what it is that he really wants to do, and telling him that when he does know that that is, he needs to put all his effort behind that goal.

Star Wars is telling all of us to stop whining. To decide what we believe in and to act on it.

(If there are any Doctor Who fans who've made it this far, there is a really similar theme across Doctor Who, especially for the 12th Doctor--my personal favorite. Yoda and the Doctor would make wonderful chaos friends.)

And guess what? Luke takes this advice to heart. He decides he's going to redeem his father and he puts aside all doubt, all hesitation, everyone--Yoda, Obi-Wan, Leia, all of rebel leadership--who would tell him it's impractical or foolish or not worth his time.

Do or do not?

Luke is going to do this.

He's not going to say, "Eh I'd really like it if my father redeemed himself, but I don't know if I can do it or if I should try or how I should go about trying."

He makes the decision that he's committed to that path and then stakes his life on succeeding.

He may be going against Yoda's specific opinion on Vader, but he's absolutely doing so in accordance with the commitment which Yoda helped to teach him.

#star wars #sw rant #luke skywalker #yoda #do or do not #jedi philosophy #religious philosophy #literary analysis #star wars yeeteth

14 notes · View notes

unravelingwires · 4 months

Text

Beguilement

In the old tag yourself memes, I always picked pride as my deadly sin, but I kind of assumed the issue was just that you’re setting yourself up for a third act breakdown. I thought highly of myself, so I was more likely to fall into the trap of thinking I’m better at something than I am and getting cartoonishly walloped by the consequences. By now, I’ve realized over time what all the stupid Hindu philosophy was trying to tell me. Pride isn’t the problem; it’s ego. Both excessive self-deprecation and self-aggrandizing prevents you from transcending material desire, which is the only way you can commit yourself wholly to duty– or God, or community, or the betterment of humanity. However you want to phrase it is fine.

This is actually part of the reason I don’t like the seven deadly sin framework. Pride, gluttony, greed, sloth, envy, and lust– in its original definition– all grow from the same cardinal problem, which is ego.

#To beguile is to hoodwink #so uh. I don't know how this snippet connects to the prompt #and I also don't know why I was writing about simple philosophy like it was a revelation #I guess I was just on something that day #religious philosophy #my writing #creative writing #library of babel #unedited

1 note · View note

jtoddring · 4 months

Text

Cutting Through The Chaff

A brief metaphysical musing on the nature of enlightenment, being and reality There are indeed many paths up the mountain. Sectarianism is juvenile and problematic at best; and dogmatism is confirmed blindness, confirmed delusion. Being is non-dual, all-pervasive, infinite, stainless, primordially awake; yet, there remain many viable paths to realizing what we already and always, eternally…

View On WordPress

#analysis #buddhism #enlightenment #freedom #philosophy #Pop gurus #religious philosophy

0 notes

monotheistreal · 4 months

Video

Discover the diverse world of divine beliefs in "Polytheism: The Diversity of Divine Beliefs." 🌐 Unlike monotheism (belief in one God), polytheism embraces many deities. Explore ancient roots in Egyptian and Middle Eastern religions, uncovering early polytheistic expressions. Contrasting with monotheism in religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, polytheism weaves a rich tapestry of worship practices. In polytheism, various gods bring unique perspectives to spirituality. Join us as we explore the differences between polytheism and monotheism, unraveling the complexities of these contrasting beliefs. Subscribe for a nuanced journey into religious diversity! 🌍✨ #monotheist #Polytheism #Monotheism #DiverseBeliefs #Spirituality #ReligiousDiversity #DivinePerspectives #CulturalHeritage #AncientBeliefs #WorshipTraditions #GodsAndGoddesses #GlobalSpirituality #SacredRituals #BeliefSystems #ReligiousExploration #ComparativeReligion #Mythology #GodlyDiversity #DeityWorship #FaithJourney #MonotheismVsPolytheism #GodsAndGoddesses #Spirituality101 #CulturalHeritage #WorshipTraditions #trending

0 notes

thespiritualparrot · 4 months

Text

Ancient Wisdom: Spiritual Meanings in Historical Texts

Welcome to a journey through time and spirit! In this article, we’re going to explore the rich tapestry of wisdom woven into ancient historical texts. These texts are not just relics of the past; they are living documents that continue to offer profound insights into our spiritual journey. From the cryptic symbols etched on temple walls to the profound verses of sacred scriptures, every line and…

View On WordPress

#Ancient wisdom #cultural insights #historical texts #modern interpretations #mystic teachings #Personal development #Personal Growth #religious philosophy #Self-discovery #Spiritual Growth #Spiritual Guidance #Spiritual Insights #spiritual meanings #Spiritual Significance #Spiritual wisdom #Spirituality #Symbolism #The Spiritual Parrot

1 note · View note

great-book-review · 6 months

Text

An Intellectual Journey through Evolution and Spirituality

Piet D. Botha's work, titled "Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Evolution and the Noosphere," extensively explores the intricate relationship among science, evolution, and spirituality. This thoroughly researched piece offers readers an enlightening journey through these challenging themes and introduces a fresh perspective on their potential harmonious coexistence.

Piet D. Botha, as an author, showcases a profound comprehension of the topics he addresses, referencing notable figures like Charles Darwin, Teilhard de Chardin, and Stephen Hawking. This extensive array of sources not only reinforces his assertions but also furnishes readers with a robust groundwork for delving into the intricacies of these profound subjects.

The book is meticulously divided into chapters that explore different aspects of spirituality, evolution, and the noosphere. It begins by outlining the progression of evolutionary theory throughout history, giving a succinct and understandable synopsis of important ideas. It is admirable how Botha can translate difficult scientific concepts into understandable words.

This book's examination of the peaceful coexistence of evolution and faith is one of its best features. Botha makes a strong case for the possibility that spirituality and science may coexist and perhaps strengthen one another. He invites readers to adopt an outlook that values mutual enrichment between religion and scientific knowledge, promoting harmony rather than conflict. With this method, conventional dichotomies are questioned, and readers are encouraged to think about how these two worldviews may coexist peacefully.

The author's writing often reflects an academic tone, which is suitable for readers with a keen interest in the topics discussed. However, this academic style might pose a challenge for a broader audience seeking a more accessible narrative. Despite this, Botha's arguments are well-researched and meticulously documented, providing a sturdy foundation for his thesis.

Still, there are some issues with the book. It might occasionally be difficult for readers to follow the author's argument consistently due to the lack of structural coherence. An improved organization of content could enhance the overall reading experience.

In conclusion, the book "Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Evolution and the Noosphere" invites readers to delve deeply into intricate issues pertaining to faith, science, and evolution. It offers a valuable opportunity to reconsider how we perceive the intersections of these subjects. While it has its strengths, such as intriguing perspectives and rich references, it is hindered by structural incoherence and editing issues. However, for those willing to delve into these challenging themes, the book provides an intellectually rewarding experience.

I would rate this book 4/5 for its invaluable insights and the author's audacious attempt to harmonize seemingly contrasting worldviews, despite deductions for structural and editing issues that impact the overall reading experience.

0 notes

starry-ace · 7 months

Text

Whatever you want to consider the force that compels existence- let’s call him god with the loosest connotation of religion possible (but still some religion and, therefore, non-religion)- it is quite literally the end and beginning of existence. The consciousness of self implies not self which implies not humans yadda yadda implies atoms implies existence, implies something, implies nothing, implies everything, implies already existing in creation. That’s god. That’s the answer at what exists at the beginning and end of the universe. That the Big Bang and the quiet whimper.

#philosophy #heidegger #modernism #god #religion #atheist #christianity #religious philosophy #dark academia #alan watts

1 note · View note

robdogrbs · 7 months

Text

sermon , semen……

hmmm

#religious studies #theology #religious philosophy #catholocism #christianity

0 notes

seraphim-eternal · 28 days

Text

A little while, and you will see me no longer. Again in a little while, and you will see me.

John 16:16

1K notes · View notes

wisteria-grows-here · 1 month

Text

Free Will is my girlfriend

#ex jehovah's witness #ex jw #ex jehovahs witness #cult survivor #pimo #exmormon #jehovahswitnesses #exmo #exjw.org #exjw support #exjw #freethinker #free will #freedom #friedrich nietzsche #religious philosophy #philosophy

10 notes · View notes

iguanalysis · 1 year

Text

Getting through Meditation 2 of Being and Event, I am brought to wonder about my personal relationship to religion, and my characteristic aporia between atheism and Judaism. I’m basically trying to bring this aporia into relation with a contemplation of prehistoric genocide, which was probably widely and commonly committed by early humans towards other, similar-looking primates who are now extinct. (Orangutans might be the closest living relatives of these.)

Thus: are we children of God, or sons of Man? What is the collective consensus around this idea?

It seems at a first glance that humans deserve no such right, or privilege, at all. Yet, I have no trouble believing that Badiou uses Parménides (and not Heidegger) as his point of departure for a reason that likely relates to this idea.

What is this right, or privilege, precisely? It is the intrinsic and eternal world-inheritance of the laws that were inscribed in the Ten Commandments. I believe that the Jewish laws ought to guide our species on these issues: those of the Parmenidean impasse of an articulable epistemology, Plato’s reworking of that epistemology into notions and ideas about number and quantity, Hegel’s intervention into the philosophies of history, law, and politics, the Lacanian formalization of the vestiges of quantum theory found in Freud’s critique of dream interpretation, and finally, the teaching of Alain Badiou on the facts of conditioning in order to cognize axiomatic ontologies which can embrace the Ten Commandments as our universal and eternal inheritance after all.

I will say that I have been aiming at this basic idea for several years, I’m just very enthused that Badiou gives us these intellectual capacities quite tangibly with his philosophy, it seems.

#Judaism #Alain Badiou #being and event #political philosophy #religious philosophy #anthropology

1 note · View note

noosphe-re · 4 months

Text

The first thing the intellect does with an object is to class it along with something else. But any object that is infinitely important to us and awakens our devotion feels to us also as if it must be sui generis and unique. Probably a crab would be filled with a sense of personal outrage if it could hear us class it without ado or apology as a crustacean, and thus dispose of it. “I am no such thing, it would say; I am MYSELF, MYSELF alone."

William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature

#quote #William James #psychology #James #human nature #The Varieties of Religious Experience #classification #individuality #philosophy #mind #intellect #identity

497 notes · View notes

mymagpienest · 20 days

Text

#nihilism #literature #sylvia plath #sylvia plath poetry #sylvia plath journals #art #poetry #poetry quotes #quotes #philosophy #religion #religious trauma #confessional poetry #confessionalism #classic literature #mymagpienest

113 notes · View notes

creekfiend · 1 year

Text

I think a lot of this 'religion is necessarily oppressive' stuff honestly is kind of like the confusion about ppl thinking that like, slavery and scientific racism and etc came about BECAUSE OF beliefs that Black people etc were not fully human rather than those beliefs -- those ARGUMENTS, really -- being JUSTIFICATIONS that were invented to allow white ppl to continue to engage in slavery which was at its core about economic exploitation. Like that most systemic bigotry serves a Useful Purpose to those in power and that's why it exists; the policies aren't put in place because of the beliefs. The cart isn't pulling the horse. Christian stuff was used to justify the same things that later, "scientific progress" was used to justify in the west (e.g. scientific racism, eugenics, etc. Very very very much rooted in the idea of certain beliefs and cultures as inherently more rational and forward thinking because BEING RATIONAL AND VALUING SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS WERE CULTURAL VALUES AT THE TIME.) (This does not say anything about Science. It says things about Institutes and power and oppression.)

Similarly, you see a lot of people saying "well religion is used to justify oppression by the people in power" and its like yes. Religion is not unique. Beliefs about what is true about the world -- ideology -- can always be used to do this and frequently is.

When there are common beliefs held by a majority of people in a given culture those beliefs will be used by the people in power to explain and justify the things they do to maintain power and control in society.

This isn't a function of religion. It's a function of power.

When people say "well, this religious rhetoric is/was used to justify misogynistic legal standards in this society" the answer is yep. And if it wasn't that it would be something else because that society had an investment in that specific kind of oppression of women. We have seen this morph into 'rational' 'scientific' explanations for women's inferiority and justifications for making women second class citizens once the cultural values swing more towards rationality and science, as well. Thats... regular.

Like... love to have a good faith convo about this with someone who doesn't get weird and reactionary about "Religious People" but sure not seeing much of that going on. Weirdly.

Anyway.

#jewish #i think this can be a tough pill to swallow bc it necessarily involves #accepting that your secular ideology and philosophy can be exploited just as easily for violence and harm #as religious ideology can #because thats humans babey #fascinating also to me is the phenomenon of people believing that bc they do not subscribe to any beliefs that they see as #''religious'' or ''spiritual'' they are immune to magical thinking of any sort.#i promise you that is not true in the slightest.#and also the things that we each identify as SILLY AND OBVIOUSLY UNTRUE FAIRY TALE SHIT is... culturally determined hee hee #im sorry to tell u that no one is objective about reality. thats rough buddy!

489 notes · View notes