söndag 31 oktober 2010

Zoroastrianism: The Differences between Philosophy, Religion and Science

Not true.
Jafarey's version of Zoroastrianism was never very popular in Scandinavia.
I had not even heard of it until I came to America and met the wonderfully sweet Ali Jafarey himself, who I dearly love but also disagree with on the basic tenets of Mazdayasna.
The version of Mazdayasna discussed here on Ushta is the mainstream version within at least European Zoroastrianism.
And in any case, none of this affects the defnitions of Philosophy, Religion and Science and the differences between the three. Philosophy is an art form, Religion a social practice tied to certain beliefs, and Science is the social evaluation of hypotheses in relation to physical experiments that can be repeated and verified.

2010/10/31 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alexander and Dino,

Alex says that Zarathustra is a great philosopher because he invented Mazda, Asha, Ahoora, etc..etc.. But what IS Mazda, Asha, Ahoora, ..etc.? They are what meaning we mortals give these words depending on who we are and how our minds are working at any particular time. The meanings of these words shifts depending on who is using the word, why, and when. Ostad Jafarey is honest when he says that Mazda means a BIG WISE GUY who sits outside His creation and creates and maintains it just as a shoe maker makes a shoe (we being the shoe and the BIG WISE ONE being the shoe maker). He says this because most (%99.9999) of those who get involved with Zoroastrianism have to work with this GIVEN definition of MAZDA, so he is being honest in saying that this is what you get when you join. Alex, you joined a religion in which this was a given at the time you joined it, are you still staying with the same solemn wows that you undertook when you joined the religion? I do not think so, I think you have moved out of living under the shadow of the BIG ONE being a shoe maker and you being a shoe.

The same is true of Sophia, Sophia is what YOU and I make of it, and when I say "I am a lovers of Sophia", I want My Sophia to love and not any Sophia which is pushed on me down the street. A Philosopher is a Lover of Sophia, a name I equate with Mazda. I live by my definition of what Sophia is to ME, I do not care what Sophia means to the guy who lives next door to me. If you do not get to the level of defining every key word of the school of thought you want to be a teacher in, and stick to that key definition the way you want it, it is best not to pretend to have anything deep to say and just dance with the crowed and have a fun party.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Sat, 10/30/10, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: [zoroastrians] What is NOT philosophy! 2
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, October 30, 2010, 11:49 AM

I agree with Alexander.
Dear Parviz, the problem with your anti-Jinnism is that, from a philosopher's point of view, it's not really important whether such concepts can be examined and measured scientifically. And I guess that the URGE behind religion is the same as behind philosophy. So rather than oppose philosophy to religion, we should see the difference religion/philosophy and science.

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Sa, 30.10.2010:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Re: [zoroastrians] What is NOT philosophy! 2
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
CC: zoroastrians@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Samstag, 30. Oktober, 2010 20:22 Uhr

Philosophy in a contemporary sense is defined as THE INVENTION OF CONCEPTS. It is an artistic rather than a scientific endeavor. Philosophers are authors of creatuve texts, just like writers and poets. What they do is literary work and not science.

This is the definition that people as varied as Derrida, Habermas, Deleuze, Rorty and Heidegger have all been following.
Whether these concepts are then functional or not is up to users such as artists and scientists to decide.
But this is what philosophers do. As I believe Zarathushtra did very much too. Concepts like "ahura", "mazda", "haurvatat"., "asha" and even "mazdayasna" itself are his innovations and should be seen as such. Linguistic tools!

2010/10/30 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Dino,

I respect very much what you have to say usually, so I read over and over what you had written below and I think I am getting your point. However, Calvin influenced many lives with his teachings and so did Spinoza. Yet I feel that Calvin does not deserve to be called a philosopher while Spinoza does. There must be something in Sophia that connotes clarity of rational thinking. If we abdicate this link to clarity and rationality, then we may as well talk about the great philosopher Gangizkhan! I get your point, but do you get mine? I think all those who try to enter the realm of Philo-Sophia or Mazda-Yasna through the back door of calling their hocus pocus mental masturbations Philo-Sophia deserve to be thrown out on their ears (as far as our school of Mazda-Yasna is concerned). What says you?

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Sat, 10/30/10, Parviz Varjavand wrote:

From: Parviz Varjavand
Subject: [zoroastrians] What is NOT philosophy!
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: zoroastrians@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, October 30, 2010, 1:16 AM

Dear Dino,

I am saying something new here, please stay with me. I am saying that if someone is preoccupied with the Jinns all his or her life and talks and writes about Jinns and their behavior extensively, can we ever call him/her a "Philosopher" of Jinns? Now I want to expand that to the realm of religion and say that when religious person preach and teach all their lives about what will happen to our souls after we die, can we call such persons "Philosophers"? I say NO, what says you?


--- On Sat, 10/30/10, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: AW: [Ushta] Re: [zoroastrians] What is NOT philosophy!
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, October 30, 2010, 12:06 AM

Dear Parviz,

I don't share their belief in Jinnism, either. But please let me get a few things straight.
Radical positivism is no proper understanding of modern science. Ontologically speaking, we can't make a difference between the "realness" of solid mountains and the "realness" of fleeting ideas that we have already forgotten about. Only the effects of such mountains and ideas can be measured scientifically.
That is, such Jinns can be real in the sense that the unshakeable belief in such spooky entities will inspire someone to undertake certain actions that will influence their surroundings in one way or the other. It is the effects of their words and actions that are scientifically real. But we still don't know anything about the "reality" of their underlying beliefs.


--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am Fr, 29.10.2010:

Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: [Ushta] Re: [zoroastrians] What is NOT philosophy!
An: "Park East Security" , ushta@yahoogroups.com, zoroastrians@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Freitag, 29. Oktober, 2010 07:50 Uhr

Yes Ron, as usual you are right,

And there is a branch of philosophy that exclusively deals with the realm of the fairies. (not that kind! the kind that have wings and live under mushrooms). Also the branch of philosophy called Jinnology that concerns itself with the realities that exist in the world of Jinns.


--- On Thu, 10/28/10, Park East Security wrote:

From: Park East Security
Subject: Re: [zoroastrians] What is NOT philosophy!
To: "Parviz Varjavand"
Date: Thursday, October 28, 2010, 11:35 AM

Ushta PV

As ussal you are wrong,. philosophy is the Love of Wisdom and many philosophers discuss religion. In fact there is a recognized branch of philosophy called Religious Philosophy which is even taught and discussed at the university level.



Inga kommentarer: