Religion is the feelings, acts and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.
thanks for this post, Shifra! Your part on science reminded me of the key distinction Wilhelm Dilthey made between science and the humanities: science seeks to *explain* the world, but it cannot *understand* it (in the elevated way that philosophy and religion can, for example). the tension inherent within a "scientific worldview" is that science cannot tell us what is meaningless or meaningful because its domain is exclusively the empirical world: what one can touch, taste, see, etc. So by definition, science cannot transcend the material world--that is for the other humanities disciplines 🕺🏻. in my opinion, because science will always be dependent on *language* to express the world, it will always be subordinate to disciplines that deal with language, and thus meaning (poetry, philosophy, history, etc.)
You’re right, it is one thing to write for yourself, and another thing entirely to write for a public. Posting work online is both the best motivator, as well as the worst critic.
I appreciate your kind words! When you deduce anything down to the core, it all becomes somewhat absurd. Not to be all too cliche, but life and living itself is an absurdity we simply have to live through. That’s where the idea for starting this Substack came from, anyway.
I totally feel religious without being religious! As though rituals add depth to life, even if they don’t add meaning.
This was a beautiful Shifra!
Rituals make life feel more meaningful! And that’s what we all want, right? To give life some kind of meaning?
thanks for this post, Shifra! Your part on science reminded me of the key distinction Wilhelm Dilthey made between science and the humanities: science seeks to *explain* the world, but it cannot *understand* it (in the elevated way that philosophy and religion can, for example). the tension inherent within a "scientific worldview" is that science cannot tell us what is meaningless or meaningful because its domain is exclusively the empirical world: what one can touch, taste, see, etc. So by definition, science cannot transcend the material world--that is for the other humanities disciplines 🕺🏻. in my opinion, because science will always be dependent on *language* to express the world, it will always be subordinate to disciplines that deal with language, and thus meaning (poetry, philosophy, history, etc.)
Beautiful Moon/Earth analogy, thanks for that.
Time does pass in mysterious ways. The less we think about it, as in meditation, the less it seems to actually pass at all.
I will check your article out now, sounds like we are on a similar page!
You’re right, it is one thing to write for yourself, and another thing entirely to write for a public. Posting work online is both the best motivator, as well as the worst critic.
I appreciate your kind words! When you deduce anything down to the core, it all becomes somewhat absurd. Not to be all too cliche, but life and living itself is an absurdity we simply have to live through. That’s where the idea for starting this Substack came from, anyway.
I hope to see the aforementioned post soon!