|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted June 26, 2013 09:14 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 09:21, 26 Jun 2013.
|
You are the first person I've seen that dates Protestantism back to 12th century. From general high-school knowledge to university material, everybody I've ever met or read, no matter their theoretical background dates it to 16th century, Martin Luther and reform movements etc etc.
Britannica
wiki
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 10:44 AM |
|
|
Waldensians who had very similar beliefs to later protestants were chased by Inquisition in 1170s, so I think that's what JJ had in mind.
Back to the topic: is it me or sola gratia et fide is actually opposed to the capitalism?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 12:52 PM |
|
|
The Catholic Church was very strict in their division between "clergy" and "laymen". ONLY the CLERGY was even allowed to READ the Bible and to be a minister of religious rituals and so on. The first "protestants" were those at the end of the 12. century who wanted to experience religion first-hand, to study the Bible themselves (those that were able to due to better education) and to be able to "be religious" outside of the Roman-Catholic pomp.
That was the start of it - and that's what the inquisition was supposed to suppress. If you compare that with politics, it was nothing less than a revolution of the people.
Capitalism is something that got apparent only in the 19th century (it's easy to see something start in hindsight). Strenuous and industrious work and pursuit of knowledge was the Protestant way of life - and wealth came more or less automatically with it, which led them to declare that it was God's reward for doing God's work, completely ignoring that the Catholic Church was wealthy beyond all measure, although Protestantism existed because people were thinking that THEY did NOT God's work (anymore).
I also think that before Protestantism people wanted to be wealthy for material reasons, that is, having money was only a means to an end: life style, luxury, pleasure, fun, safety, power.
With Protestantism, being rich suddenly became an end in itself - they HOARDED the money or used it to expand their business, but they didn't squander it for big and costly mansions, jewels, costly festivities, clothing, valets, coaches, horses, mistresses and whatnot. You can see that with the Monarchs as well: the squandering, absolute Monarchs were all Catholics. 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 01:17 PM |
|
|
|
Well, when I think of the relation between protestantism and capitalism I (naturally) mainly think of the famous work of Weber, and what he means by protestantism is definitely the 16th century movement. Like many things, I hardly think it's a one way street, but the way I look at historical progress, it seems much more logical, in terms of priority, that the early stages of capitalism lead to protestantism rather than protestantism (the 16th century movement) gave birth to capitalism.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 01:39 PM |
|
|
There are two problems with that:
1) Religion is a somewhat autonomous factor when it comes to economic conditions as objective driving forces of history (I suppose you - like myself - tend to a somewhat Marxist explanation of history). You can find many examples; that is, one a religion has been in place in pre-capitalist times, it has their own dynamics that may not always be in line with economical necessity. An easy example would be hunger, India and cattle - or the complete wasting of productive forces via church building.
2) Capitalism cannot exist without accumulation. Initial accumulation starts in the 16. century. The Reformation, however, marks already the END of a process - Luther did only finish or "finalize" what had been brewing and developing for 300 years already.
The development of capitalism isn't a NECESSARY development. Feudal structures were working fine and could have worked longer. Accumulation needs a shift in perspective, because it's not an automatic development. Colonization on the other hand, needs people willing to leave the "safety" of the old world to start anew under vague conditions - that needs a motivation. That motivations wasn't "becoming rich", but escape the turmoil of European religious squabbling and wars and being able to "do what you want".
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 02:48 PM |
|
|
1- Yes, and as you put it yourself, it's a tendency not a dedication to the the doctrine. Although, I kind a think your point is self-contradicting here since according to (especially orthodox) Marxism, relations of production (which includes economic infrastructure) determines the superstructure (which includes religion). There are cases that I take the Weber model of social stratification more convenient to Marx's social class (the latest events in Istanbul for example) but in this case, I think it would be not just accurate but also Marxist to say that Weber read the situation backwards.
2- Well, you know what they say, with proper references you can tie WW2 to Stone Age. However, again in this specific study of protestantism and capitalism, Weber argued something that happened in the 15th century lead to developments in capitalism for the centuries yet to come. So, 15th century protestantism was not finalizing things, on the contrary, it was leading the way to something new. Now, if you have an alternative theory regarding the relationship between protestantism and capitalism, involving the 12th century and so on, I don't know what that exactly is, but it's Weber's work that is the canon, so anybody will naturally take the terms and vocabulary with his references, if you don't elaborate your alternative.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 04:17 PM |
|
|
1) For me the mistake of Marxist history is to simply take religion into the superstructure. Religion is something much more ... primal (than Marx would have liked to admit, understandably). It has a much higher ... gravity, than the rest of the superstructure, much more inertia, and can even countermand economic necessities.
So when it comes to religion, the dominance of economic situation over superstructure isn't a given.
2) What I mean is, that "Protestantism" gets a face and that name only in the beginning of the 16th century, but as everything (and capitalism itself), it wasn't suddenly there, out of the blue. That's why I say, that Protestantism started some 300 years earlier with the laymen-movements (which has been an issue SINCE THEN throughout Protestantism).
So when you compare Protestantism and Capitalism you have to compare either BOTH at the start or BOTH at their roots, and capitalism definitely does not go back to the end of the 12th century.
Now, if you look what actual Protestantism is all about - that is, what led to a SCHISM as opposed to a slow changing of the Catholic Church, the issue isn't an economic one, is it?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 04:52 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:56, 26 Jun 2013.
|
I think to be able to do that you must establish the connection of 12th century roots of protestantism to the early stages of capitalism. I mean, Weber claimed a very direct causality, of a very specific type of Christianity, it was not just about leaving the RC Church:
Christian religious devotion had historically been accompanied by rejection of mundane affairs, including economic pursuit.[74] Weber showed that certain types of Protestantism – notably Calvinism – were supportive of rational pursuit of economic gain and worldly activities dedicated to it, seeing them as endowed with moral and spiritual significance.[61] Weber argued that there were many reasons to look for the origins of modern capitalism in the religious ideas of the Reformation.[75] In particular, the Protestant ethic (or more specifically, Calvinist ethic) motivated the believers to work hard, be successful in business and reinvest their profits in further development rather than frivolous pleasures.[72] The notion of calling meant that each individual had to take action as an indication of their salvation; just being a member of the Church was not enough.[62] Predestination also reduced antagonising over economic inequality and further, it meant that a material wealth could be taken as a sign of salvation in the afterlife.
Now if you especially take the "In particular, the Protestant ethic (or more specifically, Calvinist ethic) motivated the believers to work hard, be successful in business and reinvest their profits in further development rather than frivolous pleasures. part, this seems not something that evolved within Christianity itself because of some theological diversion, it rather seems like something that evolved as a business code of conduct and later got embedded into religion.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 05:51 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 17:52, 26 Jun 2013.
|
|
Weber's explanation lacks connection with other historical processes though - in the "Protestant Ethics" he focuses solely on the behaviour of the early days capitalists, explaining it as an indirect result of their rather harsh piety but he pays no attention to the prior processes which led to the Reformation, nor he acknowledges the role of the decreased influence of the Roman church over more than half of Western Europe, the increased ability of each state govern itself and the influence of all these processes on the economy. In other words, he chooses a starting point and attempts to prove his point from there, ignoring many things which had happened before that and from there - introducing flaws in his argumentation.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 06:06 PM |
|
|
|
Zenofex, what you say fits my criticism.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 06:45 PM |
|
|
The meaning is a different one - I explained it somewhere already.
Among other things, those that would become protestants were appalled by the pomp and luxury the Roman Catholic church and the Pope waded in. They said, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a jackass, not in a coach with 8 white horses, and he wore a simple robe and sandals, not a mitra and purple and jewels and gems.
It was a simple back-to-the-roots movement (something not that unheard of no matter the time in history).
They were also appalled by the sinful life in the towns and cities, the drinking, and gambling, and all the carnal stuff - the clergy in the thick of it.
So what IS THIS then? Working hard (is godly). Not sinning with wine, woman, song and gambling; no luxury (simplicity), no expensive garments, no gaudy mansions. So money is collected AUTOMATICALLY by those who have a talent for what they are doing. And they do it, because it's GOOD, not because it makes money.
So what is an integral part of protestantism is the ACCUMULATION - which is the main prerequisite for capitalism.
It would be foolish to conclude, for capitalism to develop, accumulation was needed, so a religion was created that did just that.
Instead accumulation was the direct comnsequence of the command: DO NOT BE LAZY AND WASTE YOUR TIME WITH IDLENESS and of the command DO NOT GO FOR VICES, VANITY OR POMP.
This would both lead to accumulation AND development of science as a worthy pastime - striving for knowledge (instead of idling or giving in to the vices).
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 09:04 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:06, 26 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
They said, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a jackass, not in a coach with 8 white horses, and he wore a simple robe and sandals, not a mitra and purple and jewels and gems.
It was a simple back-to-the-roots movement (something not that unheard of no matter the time in history).
They were also appalled by the sinful life in the towns and cities, the drinking, and gambling, and all the carnal stuff - the clergy in the thick of it.
The thing is JJ, all of these doesn't usually lead to accumulation but denouncing earthly gatherings entirely. Think of the Franciscans and their understanding of Christianity. There are many religions in the world that takes earthly wealth as a bad thing, including some sects of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and so on and I think that's what the source refers to when it says Christian religious devotion had historically been accompanied by rejection of mundane affairs, including economic pursuit. and Weber saw not just the Roman Catholic Church but religions of the Far East as obstacles in front of capitalism. What he evaluated as a unique driving force in Calvinism was the emphasis on being successful on business and the notion that wealth is the sign of God's grace which seems quite different than teaching simplicity, modesty and chasteness which are quite common in many cultures around the world. It is also the very specificness of these teachings that make me conclude that it was the early stages of capitalism that caused them rather than the other way around, as I stated just above "being successful in business and reinvesting your profits in further development" doesn't seem like something that some theologian would come up with, it's rather a certain way of life which is learned by doing business and then starts to become accepted as good and moral.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2013 09:50 PM |
|
|
Calvinism is just the next step of protestantism.
One of the cornerstones of protestantism is NOT BEING IDLE (LAZY).
Lazyness (idleness) is UNGODLY; WASTING TIME is ungodly; WASTING in general is ungodly. God gave people a life - not to relax, let it be, "let the next day take care of itself", but to "work to honor the fact that God gave you life".
Protestantism is a PERFORMANCE religion - which makes sense considering "accountability": perform well on earth - reap the benefits in the afterlife.
Now consider the ancient Roman Empire. A SLAVE economy. The Roman Catholic world is somewhat based on the idea of "Let OTHERS work for you".
Calvinism is already the second stage: the realization that "hard working" and "ascetic lifestyle" is not only godly, it would seem that god rewards you with wealth, so a godly lifestyle -> wealth and therefore NO WEALTH -> ungodly lifestyle.
It has nothing to do with economy. It's just a religion that HIT HOME in terms of performance.
There is a reason why EUROPE (Britain) led the pack - protestantism.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 28, 2013 06:12 PM |
|
|
It is interesting that Elodin calls himself a free-thinker, which is usually the term humanists define themselves. What is capital during your life is to realize that you don't have to be religious. You don't have to be anything. But you were gifted with a conscience, sensibility and analysis power thus you still need to find alternative ways to express your beliefs and share what you think is important with others. And here humanism enters in the game.
Humanism is older than all the religions. People of religion usually inherit their beliefs from their families, depending on their culture. Humanists have always worked things out for themselves, and they are still doing it now. For this reason, they are sometimes called "freethinkers" because that’s what they do – they think freely, rather than believing.
Humanists believe that:
-we can gain knowledge through scientific research and looking at the natural world - what is real, what we can see and touch
-this one life is all we know we have
-our morality (our sense of right and wrong) comes from our human nature and culture
-what is right is what promotes human welfare and fulfillment
-we can and should create meaning and purpose in life
Since the beginning of recorded history, around 6000 years ago, human beings have worshiped over 3700 different supernatural beings and gods. Which one are we expected to believe in? The god or gods that religious people believe in depends on their culture – where they were born, what their parents worship and not on what is actually true or not.
So, my question would be: why christianism and not another one?
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted June 28, 2013 06:15 PM |
|
|
@Sal,ever heard the point of view that the same god may have different names?
Example-Bacchus/Dionysus.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 28, 2013 06:17 PM |
|
|
Of course, but the events triggering his reign are described very differently among the various religions.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 28, 2013 06:19 PM |
|
|
|
If that's true, then this god has a major personality distortion because on one hand he commands that no other god should be worshipped and on the other he manifests himself as a swarm of gods a few thousand kilometres eastwards. Just to name one example.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 28, 2013 06:20 PM |
|
|
|
That view has so many logical holes in it you'll get old trying to count them. Theologies dont match, politheism and monotheism not only does not match, one is considered heresy by the other. The lengths people take to keep believing is really absurd sometimes.
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted June 28, 2013 06:23 PM |
|
|
@Sal,I already posted my thoughts about what religion can be considered better than others and why so/not so.
I would be interested to read your comments on the connection between music and religion.
For example is there connection between type of music and a belief?
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 28, 2013 06:43 PM |
|
|
Cioran (romanian-french philosopher) told one day: "if we need a single proof that God exists, this would be Johann Sebastian Bach alone".
I am aware that the greatest ever composer were deeply religious but I still think it was time-based conjecture. Now, of course, classical music can express a large variety of feelings, unlike the other very limited styles (try to express shyness within rock-style for example and you will see what I mean), and this matches perfectly the conflicts a religious person can experience during her life. But such conflicts can be experienced by humanists also, and the truth is that we can't make any qualitative difference between religious people artworks and atheists ones. Which shows that genius isn't worshiping anyone, it flies all above those things and mocks on them.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
