Versions Compared

Old Version 1

changes.mady.by.user Matthew Carroll

Saved on

compared with

New Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Alicia Whavers

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

It's worth keeping in mind that the use of such terms as "quasi-religions," or "religion surrogates," assumes that real religion, or religion proper, can only be what I would call, more exactly, "axial religion."

Wiki Markup
Does this mean, then, that, as I have often said, such usage assumes "a nonfu nctionalnonfunctional, or substantive \[= a nonformal, or materiallmaterial\], understanding" of "religion"? Yes, it does, insofar as the distinction between "archaic" and "axial" religions is itself not a functional, or formal, but rather a substantive, or material, distinction. But saying that it is is tricky, insofar as it is a substantive, or material, distinction _Iltat_ _a_ _different_ _(higher) level_ _than the substantive, or material, distinctions that require to be made between different axial (and also, perh;lpsperhaps, archaic) religions themselves. In this sense, the functional/substantive, or formal/material, distinction may be used both absolutely and relativeJyrelatively._

The same is true, presumably, of Santayana's distinction between "natural" and "ultimate" religions, as well as other similar, or parallel, distinctions such as \VhiteheadWhitehead's between "social" and "rational" religion.

...