If Hedonism is a sloppy label for a philosophy more accurately described as Epicureanism, I'd agree with it coming in number two. Hedonism itself is understandable but short-sighted, IMO (which still makes it more reasonable than Nihilism or Divine Command).
Every now and then, I get a question on how I can identify with Buddhism, Catholicism, and Neopaganism, without falling into a muddle in the middle. The walls between these (and any "religions" in the modern age) seem thick and unyielding, and cannot flex without damaging the integrity of the whole. I've met syncretists (such as Zen Druids and Christo-Pagans) who seem to flex walls in this way, some with more success than others.
I wonder though how much twisting and flexing is actually necessary? On the surface, none at all - the walls between "religions" in my opinion, are simply manifestations of the original wall, the compartmentalization of religion at the beginning of the modern age (demonstrated by Kant and his "starry heavens above me and the moral law within me"). If the moral law within (identified in Christian terms) in no way reflects the universal "starry heavens above", but is something essentially private, then how much greater is the chasm between private moral laws of a European and private moral laws of an Arab. Religion having been whittled down to a list of "beliefs", western philosophy of religion further reified religions by trying to compare and contrast lists of "beliefs" as logical statements.
This logical approach was/is flawed in many ways, most of which stem from the language-like nature of religion:
First, languages cannot be compared and contrasted so easily - is French a deficient language since there is no equivalent to the English word "mind"? Or are both French and English deficient because they lack the gradations of "white" that exist in Inuit languages? Or do they simply approach the same reality from a different perspective?
Second, languages do not rise in opposition to each other but in relation to a historical context. Again, French didn't create a concept "sympathique" simply to taunt the English lack of such a word, nor as a critique of the German nuances to the word - they developed the concept out of their own experience. Likewise, Gautama didn't formulate the Four Noble Truths as a reaction to Moses or Jesus, but as an insight into his lived experience. Jesus wasn't founding a religion in opposition to druids on the other side of the world, but was sharing a vision among his own people.
So, my first answer to confusion over my Buddheo-Catholic-Druid self is answered in terms of language - I'm a religious polyglot. I work comfortably within a number of religious milieus.
My second answer has to do with culture and religion ( Collapse )
Again, no thoughts of my own, so I feel lke patching together a bunch of things from disparate sources and glue them together with my green impressions. ( Collapse )
okay
quixotic