Portal talk:Comparative religion

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Classes[edit source]

If someone could help fill out the classes that would be greatly appreciated. This needs to become the dominant school in the theology category. The school of Theology is way too fragmented to be of any use to anyone. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magosgruss (talkcontribs) 21:58, 29 February 2008)

I changed and added. Axiology (aesthetics & ethics) precedes epistemology and metaphysics in difficulty as well as religious standards. I am not pleased Aleister Crowley is listed but not tens of pagan and 'great' religion founders (even if we list them, Crowley may not have had the highest ethics.) Bahá'u'lláh is less controversial than him, and is arguably the most important modern comparative religion author.Dchmelik 07:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
His ethics would depend largely on who you goto as your source. If you consider Nietzsche an authority on this than Crowley would easily fit in. Feel free to add as you see fit. Magosgruss 19:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems I added too many 1st year classes. We should think of how to move some up. Maybe each year could use one of the 3 or 4 philosophical fields (whether axiology or aesthetics & ethics,) and if it is 3 then 4 could either continue 3 or have the option to focus on a specific religion. I do not think much of Nietzche; IIRC he was a moral relativist and anti-Platonic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dchmelik (talkcontribs) 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, when I say 'not something' except certain math, I do not mean it as negative. All beings have purpose and every incarnation can be explained to have (had) an advantage: at least a lesson. Maybe Wikiversity is just not used much, or maybe you disliked what I said, but the writing here has been slow. Even I can see that Crowley wrote several texts that collect facts that are hard to find, and they may be collected or explained in ways that could lead to some insight. I have read little/no Nietzche but I could consider him to have some unusual, perhaps humourous, insight into what it is to be human. However, I made a timeline from history's dawn to now of inspiring Philosophers, and I doubt I will ever have time to read them all. Surely many also could not fully understand or control themselves to a degree sometimes--like even most better than average people--and I could give examples. I do not know if Israel Regardie had the ethics that inspire me (I recently made the school School:Ahimsa Academy) as much as his esoterism, but his work is so large I know not if I will have the chance to learn all I can about Crowley. I do not know why I would, but I would rather than Nietzche any day if he was mainly a secular exoteric 'philosopher' that just wrote about random stuff he thought about. The text I perused seemed that way, though existentialism has a few significant points, but both stray too far and verbosely from ages-old questions Socrates helped answer almost fully. That is mostly what happened since mediaeval times, but IMO it is all those questions that are an excellent start for the esoteric ones--and excellent to always return to.--Dchmelik 09:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologize if my answer seemed dismissive, I did not intend for it to be. You're right though, I realize this was a few years ago, but not much has really been done since our initial work on this department. Would you be willing to start it again as a project? --Magosgruss (discusscontribs) 20:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)