[lit-ideas] Re: Roman Superstitions
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 16:44:22 +0200
The story of Abraham and Isaac in the Bible obviously deals with the issue
of human sacrifice (possibly because it had been practiced in earlier
times). When Abraham is made to believe that God expects a human sacrifice,
he is prepared to sacrifice Isaac. We are not supposed to conclude that
Abraham is acting irrationally at this point. It is only God's mercy in not
demanding the sacrifice that makes it unnecessary.
O.K.
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hm... I am not sure that 'irrational' and 'superstitious' are exact
> synonyms. If the Aztecs believed in gods that demand human sacrifices, then
> their practices might be said to have been rational, in relation to their
> beliefs. But we may still think that these beliefs were superstitious.
>
> O.K.
>
>
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
> DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Were the Aztecs superstitious? (by Roman standards, that is).
>>
>> In a message dated 5/23/2014 7:51:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>> Next, having lectured everyone who has ever used a phrase like
>> "irrational
>> superstition" that they are guilty of otiosity, we will be told that the
>> Bible's "It rained for forty days and forty nights" is otiose.
>>
>> Indeed. The problem however is Aramaic in nature.
>>
>> It may be that in Geary's idiolect, 'That was a fine day' DOES NOT entail,
>> "and night too".
>>
>> Similarly, Cole Porter's song, "Night and day" is possibly otiose, but
>> surely "Day" does not scan.
>>
>> McEvoy:
>>
>> >having lectured everyone who has ever used a phrase like "irrational
>> superstition" that they are guilty of otiosity
>>
>> This may amount to Moore's paradox.
>>
>> "It is raining but I don't believe".
>>
>> It may do to look for examples of first-person 'superstition'
>> ascriptions:
>>
>> "I know it is superstitious, but I do believe that p."
>>
>> "I am superstitious when I think that p, but I can't say I'm ashamed of
>> that."
>>
>> I.e. it would seem the ideal Kantian rational 'ego' of apperception would
>> deny superstition _in principle_. Walter O. does, too.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Speranza
>>
>>
>> >It rained for forty days and forty nights.
>>
>> versus
>>
>> >It rained for forty days (nights included).
>>
>> If the 'implicature' is that the rain never stopped, then, the utterer
>> indeed does not need to be more informative than is required.
>>
>> Note, however:
>>
>> It rained for forty days and forty nights, but not successively.
>>
>> --- REFERENCES:
>> ------ Biblical accounts of the divine flood, and the new film with R.
>> Crowe ("We thought of having a voice over repeating the Aramaic lines, "It
>> rained for forty days and forty nights" but we found it otiose -- given
>> the
>> digital imagery we were displaying.").
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
