Religious psyche of a nation

[petrushka.googol]

Why is it that some nations that were essentially agnostic became theocratic (like Iran post Ayotollah Khomeini) ?

Does this represent a change in the public psyche ?

 

Why do some nations remain secular ?

 

Please opine.

[swansont]

I think your premise, as usual, is based on a concept that is not well-defined and assumes things to be true that you haven't shown to be true. When you talk about a nation, are you talking about its government, or its people? They aren't the same thing, so you can't freely switch between the two.

 

A nation's government can be secular while some large fraction of its people are religious, but I think you'll find more religious diversity in those nations. Did the people of Iran become more religious, or was that because the people who seized power were more religious?

[petrushka.googol]

I think your premise, as usual, is based on a concept that is not well-defined and assumes things to be true that you haven't shown to be true. When you talk about a nation, are you talking about its government, or its people? They aren't the same thing, so you can't freely switch between the two.

 

A nation's government can be secular while some large fraction of its people are religious, but I think you'll find more religious diversity in those nations. Did the people of Iran become more religious, or was that because the people who seized power were more religious?

 

My basic "conjecture" (if you call it that) was whether the thought processes that permeate a nation are a reflection of deeper stirrings in the workings of a nation....

[iNow]

Our thoughts are influenced to a certain extent by those around us and by the culture in which we immerse ourselves. What those thoughts are and the nature of that influence, however, is extremely variable.

[swansont]

My basic "conjecture" (if you call it that) was whether the thought processes that permeate a nation are a reflection of deeper stirrings in the workings of a nation....

Do thought processes permeate a nation? Again, you form a conjecture based on something you haven't shown to be true.

[Gees]

Petrushka;

 

Please consider the following:

 

Why is it that some nations that were essentially agnostic became theocratic (like Iran post Ayotollah Khomeini) ?

Does this represent a change in the public psyche ?

 

Why do some nations remain secular ?

 

Please opine.

 

Yes. I do believe that what causes these changes are a change in the mood of the public psyche. Often it is disillusionment that causes a people to reach out for a theocratic government. Just as an individual will reach out for spiritual advice after being hurt or disillusioned, so can a public. On the other hand, either complacency or a desire to end the theocracy can cause a people to quest for an agnostic government. Conquest can also play a roll in these changes.

 

I am not sure about secular governments and sometimes wonder if we are fooling ourselves into believing that the government is really secular.

 

Gee

 

Swansont;

 

Please consider the following;

 

I think your premise, as usual, is based on a concept that is not well-defined and assumes things to be true that you haven't shown to be true. When you talk about a nation, are you talking about its government, or its people? They aren't the same thing, so you can't freely switch between the two.

 

On the other hand, what is a nation? Can a nation exist without people? Can a government exist without people? No, but people can exist without a nation or a government. Nations and governments are derived from people, so "people" is the core concept.

 

Philosophy looks for truth and truth begins at the core, so this thread is about the people or public that groups and forms governments and nations.

 

Do thought processes permeate a nation? Again, you form a conjecture based on something you haven't shown to be true.

 

You have never heard anyone talk about the mood of the nation? You have never read surveys that solicit this information from the general public? What do you think would happen to a Senator who wrote and passed a Bill that did not reflect the "thought processes" that "permeate" his constituents? Would he stay in office? Not for very long.

 

Gee

[swansont]

Swansont;

 

Please consider the following;

 

 

On the other hand, what is a nation? Can a nation exist without people? Can a government exist without people? No, but people can exist without a nation or a government. Nations and governments are derived from people, so "people" is the core concept.

 

Philosophy looks for truth and truth begins at the core, so this thread is about the people or public that groups and forms governments and nations.

I will consider it, and point out that I was soliciting Petrushka's clarification, not yours, since neither you nor anyone else could possibly know for sure what was actually meant. Further, the phrasing in the OP indicated both the government and the people (i.e. a theocracy is a form of government), which is why I asked.

 

You have never heard anyone talk about the mood of the nation? You have never read surveys that solicit this information from the general public? What do you think would happen to a Senator who wrote and passed a Bill that did not reflect the "thought processes" that "permeate" his constituents? Would he stay in office? Not for very long.

 

Gee

 

Sure, I've heard of the mood of a nation. But a mood is not synonymous with a thought process, so this would seem to be moot. In addition, it's becoming abundantly clear to me that here in the US that there is no working thought process whatsoever with many of the people when it comes to matters of politics.

[hoola]

If you are using Iran as a specific example of the thrust of your idea, you may want to read "All the Shah's Men", about the CIA overthrow of the democracy that Iran had up to 1953. According to the book, the only place an uprising against the dictator, Shah Palevi could be planned was the secrecy allowed by the church.

Edited November 3, 2015 by hoola

[Ophiolite]

Do thought processes permeate a nation? Again, you form a conjecture based on something you haven't shown to be true.

They sure as heck permeated the UK when Princess Diana died. No conjecture is involved. Opinions, leanings, preferences, beliefs, biases, prejudices, loyalties, and the like - all forms of, or closely related to thought processes - definitely permeate nations and it surprising that you would challenge this rather well recognised phenomenon.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Ophiolite

[swansont]

They sure as heck permeated the UK when Princess Diana died. No conjecture is involved. Opinions, leanings, preferences, beliefs, biases, prejudices, loyalties, and the like - all forms of, or closely related to thought processes - definitely permeate nations and it surprising that you would challenge this rather well recognised phenomenon.

What thought process are you referring to? And if this is so common, you should have no trouble coming up with more examples.

[Ophiolite]

What thought process are you referring to? And if this is so common, you should have no trouble coming up with more examples.

I have detailed categories in my post. What do you find unclear about them?

 

Examples of this include:

 

• Anti-semitism in early 19th Century Vienna
• "Two world wars, One world cup!" attitude in British Society
• Beer, barbies and sporting excellence in the Australian psyche
• Anti-Hutu/Anti-Tutsi prejudices in 1990s Rwanda
• Anti-Japanese feeling in USA, post Pearl Harbour
• Anti-Communist feeling in USA during the McCarthy era
• Anti-Muslim feeling in USA post 911
• Conviction, in Canada, that the Stanley Cup is the only sporting award worth having

If you insist I can provide a further 182 examples. I hope it won't be necessary.

[swansont]

I have detailed categories in my post. What do you find unclear about them?

 

Examples of this include:

 

• Anti-semitism in early 19th Century Vienna
• "Two world wars, One world cup!" attitude in British Society
• Beer, barbies and sporting excellence in the Australian psyche
• Anti-Hutu/Anti-Tutsi prejudices in 1990s Rwanda
• Anti-Japanese feeling in USA, post Pearl Harbour
• Anti-Communist feeling in USA during the McCarthy era
• Anti-Muslim feeling in USA post 911
• Conviction, in Canada, that the Stanley Cup is the only sporting award worth having

If you insist I can provide a further 182 examples. I hope it won't be necessary.

 

Are those thought processes? I don't see e.g. Canada's love of hockey as a thought process. Seems like thought really isn't involved. Anti-communism/anti-Muslim/anti-Japanese/anti-whatever feelings seem like they stem from a lack of thought, and are just knee-jerk emotional responses.

 

The religious psyche mentioned in the title is similarly not a thought process. People don't accept religion because of rational thought. Decisions based on religion are famous for not being based on (and rejecting) rational thought.

[Ophiolite]

Petrushka refers to thought processes that permeate a nation. There is no reference to rational thought processes, either explicitly or implicitly. Your objections on the grounds of rationality are therefore wholly irrelevant.

 

wikipedia informs us that "Thought can refer to the ideas or arrangements of ideas that result from thinking, the act of producing thoughts, or the process of producing thoughts. Although thought is a fundamental human activity familiar to everyone, there is no generally accepted agreement as to what thought is or how it is created. Somehow, thoughts arise in the mind from the product of subconscious brain processing."

 

I would be delighted to learn how the Canadians can acquire a viewpoint on ice hockey without thought. You seem to think thought processes must be both rational and conscious in order to constitute thought. I suggest that if this is your view you are mistaken. Knee jerk emotional responses are assuredly a form of thought. If you maintain otherwise there is nothing more to be said.

[swansont]

Petrushka refers to thought processes that permeate a nation. There is no reference to rational thought processes, either explicitly or implicitly. Your objections on the grounds of rationality are therefore wholly irrelevant.

Sorry, I thought the context was clearer. I was referring to the many instances where thought is removed from the system. Just mindless "do this" commands. No thinking involved whatsoever.

 

 

Knee jerk emotional responses are assuredly a form of thought.

That's where I disagree. It's a reaction that circumvents thought. Just because it involves the brain does not mean it involves what we colloquially refer to as thought. If that were the case, breathing would count as thinking.