Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Dumai wrote (edited )

i could ask the same question about the marxian humanism most anarchists seem to believe in but anyway

the answer to your question is that the divisions between religion, philosophy, and politics are not as stable as most assume. is religion a metaphysical trick to fool the poor into believing their lot in life is part of some pre-ordained divine order? or is it the poetics of our consciousness, the way in which we symbolise and engage with the universe and in turn, allow it to engage with us, in response to a call of something that can't be defined, encapsulated in discourse, or abolished (even this feels too human-centred and deliberate to me but i don't really have the right theological language yet to express what i'm getting at. i hope you understand what i mean)

religion, like politics, like philosophy, has had a role to play in the forms of oppression that face us now, sure. but like the others it is always concerned with something that can't be boiled down to a set of objects, myths, and laws. if you don't get that you'll never understand what the quakers, diggers, sufis, and kabbalists, to name a few examples from the abrahamic traditions, have tried to do.


mofongo wrote

That's a huge non-answer.


kore wrote (edited )

I think the point that Dumai was trying to make is that there's a huge difference between religious experience and organized religion and so-called religious anarchists find value in the former more than the latter.


Dumai wrote (edited )

more than that - religion doesn't necessarily have to treat the abstract as concrete, so it doesn't have to be alienating and is not inherently oppressive

in fact imo christianity has a better shot at overcoming its metaphysical trappings than atheistic materialism b/c it isn't as hard for it to admit that the categories it employs are not pre-discursive

not that it's easy for christians by any means


kore wrote

right, and I also think that by not treating the abstract as concrete you accept that pre-discursive experience can never be explained, and often religions do well by being unapologetic about that ineffability.


Dumai wrote

well what would you like me to go into more detail with?

it's tricky getting too detailed when talking about "religion" because that label is nowhere near a cultural universal and is actually pretty christian-centric, so if you want me to be more specific about christianity then i will.