Marvel Comics To Introduce Muslim Superhero

Post Reply New Topic

While there are obviously similarities, since the concept of religion has meaning. But there are substantial differences as well. Buddha nature is about ourselves after desire and aversion have been extinguished--it is what is left after we become ego-less. The Holy Ghost is more about the attenuation of our egos than their extinction.

I agree. I've got a border collie, which is hands-down the most intelligent dog breed, and mine was bred as a working dog to herd cattle rather than as a pet (though she makes a fine pet too). Since she was bred for intelligence rather than to meet show standards, I never have to tell this dog something three times, and rarely twice. Hegel said true slavery wasn't possible, as a real slave is an extension of his master's will. But this dog comes awfully close. Her life revolves around carrying out my will.

Bach, I also want to say publicly that I didn't intend to impugn your orthodoxy when I said I assumed you accepted the authority of the Fourth Lateran council. Though obviously very impolitic, the reason for my choice of words is that being very literal-minded, I have an allergy to accepting premises on the basis of authority, as opposed to premises that are obtained through reason or empirical observation. Sometimes though, accepting arguments from authority is a matter of convenience, and in other cases something necessary.

Anyway, I enjoyed the exchange. I haven't studied theology in twenty-five years. I'm surprised how much of it I have retained. My particular interest is placing things like religion and science in their proper cultural context and understanding their mechanics rather than their particularities.

"Kuhn's thesis works perfectly well for mathematics and science. The classic case is Newtonian physics and the Special and General theories of relativity. However, I would argue that both types of physics really form one science, since scientific method and of mathematical reasoning are invariant. The shift from Cartesian space to Riemannian space-time may seem a revolution, but each relies on the same intent: explain the data using mathematical modeling. In actuality, all physics, all chemistry, all biology -- even with paradigm shifts -- are unified because they use the same coherent method."

Actually, I would argue that Kuhn's thesis fits virtually all types of what we would term objective knowledge. My special interest while in college studying philosophy was perverse: I was more interested in what we can't know--in the limits of knowledge--than with what is knowable, though hardly in the postmodern sense.

As far as Newtonian physics and the Einsteinian variant now considered de rigueur are concerned, both are very imperfect as evidenced by the fact that Einstein devoted most of his life to reconciling his macrophysical theories with the microphysical theories embodied in quantum mechanics, called uniform field theory. To date, it has been an exercise in futility.

My theory is that the evolutionary processes that shaped our minds selected for intelligence needed to complete specific practical tasks, such as finding something to eat or a mate, rather than grappling with metaphysics or absolutes. I think this is why science and technology have progressed in linear fashion while things like morals, metaphysics, and theistic questions have not. We live in a world of repetitive, circular patterns but can only deal with this world with minds that view things as linearities.

This is also the best argument in favor of a divine being I have discerned. Since an external world obviously exists, and our minds are incapable of understanding none of it perfectly, and most of it barely, to me this suggests an intelligence not only more powerful than ours, but also different in kind. I would cite creation ex nihilo as an example.

In this respect we can certainly propose a meta-philosophy which would, in theory, grant some unity to all particular philosophical systems and regard each one as a particular "focus." I'm game for that. Is this what you are saying?

A la Kant, I think we have no choice but to systematize our world, though I think experience shows quite clearly, a la Nietzsche, that systems are of limited value, since there are things they fail to explain, and generally discrete systems fail to reconcile with each other. Bottom line: We have minds that demand systems and a world which defies all attempts at comprehensive systematization.

If you will recall, the postmodernist Lyotard's "Libidinal Economics" declared war on metanarratives, or what we are referring to as meta-systems (or do you have something different in mind?). Of course, Lyotard had in mind the obscene failures of Marxism when he wrote this book, but its validity extends far past Marxism, and includes all forms of artificially constructed ideology. Of course, the problem is that we can't not create meta-systems, both for our psychological satisfaction as well as to organize our world. The problem is that we can't do so well. This is one of the reasons for the abysmal failure of the conceit of postmodernism as an anti-narrative. Merely claiming to be such a thing in itself constitutes a narrative, and a very bad one.

This is why I am such a stark reactionary. Even if we were to assume that exact knowledge of phenomena and correct actions were possible, such a feat would require that we understand not only all possible paradigms and presumptions, but that we understand the totality of what science calls factors and variables. This is impossible. So, I think our only hope is to go with ideas and procedures with a time-tested track record of working, even if they all work imperfectly, and not to expect too much of human nature--call it original sin if you will. What works is the collected wisdom of the ages that was acquired through endless trial and error. To me, it just doesn't make good sense to be constantly reinventing the wheel, which is the essence of modernism and postmodernism.

To answer your question though, since all knowledge assumes a subject-object relationship, real objectivity isn't possible (though we must pretend it is). Hence Nietzsche's aphorism that the closest we can come to objectivity is much subjectivity--or different perspectives on the part of the subject in our epistemological equation.

Let me step even further into the realm of the ultra-controversial and say that humans--even the brightest among us--are incapable of living in the absence of totalitarianism. The only question is what form that totalitarianism takes. I say this on the grounds that nobody is smart enough even to provide for their material needs in the absence of pre-established techniques, much less construct a worldview out of whole cloth. Our prized sense of individuality that leads us to believe that such a thing is possible is actually a characteristic of Western cultures, and more particularly of toxic liberalism.

Healthy totalitarianism is our culture (with culture being defined in its broadest sense as human ecology) with religion as its locus. This is why the destruction of a people is always preceded by the death of its gods, which are the locus of all culture. If you think about it, there is nothing more totalitarian than an omniscient, omnipotent god. Totalitarianism only becomes evil when the intelligentsia co-opt the role of the divine being--i.e., when man plays god. Doing so would require perfect knowledge.

So, our culture is our meta-system despite it being profoundly unsystematic. The abandonment of culture and God it is centered around is the reason that our regnant orthodoxy of postmodernism is little more than a cri du coeur of defeat and doom. The postmodernist simply can't get there from here.

To quote another of the late-greats, Aristotle, hubris always precedes tragedy--and thus the need for a healthy dose of humility.

At least this is how things look from the cow pasture where it is okay to be sadly lacking in the social graces.

I won't even ask if you have any objections or stipulations; rather, I will await them

Carol Danvers has taken up the mantle of Captain Marvel now, becoming the heir to Mar-Vell's legacy instead of just his female opposite number.

Note that she has previously operated under the names Binary and Warbird before returning to her Ms. Marvel identity. Also, Sharon Ventura briefly went by Ms. Marvel before she became She-Thing.

Meanwhile, this new Ms. Marvel would not be Marvel's first prominent Muslim heroine, as X-Men has featured Dust, a mutant with the power to transform into sand, who was a member of the X-Men's junior team and also appeared in the Wolverine & The X-Men cartoon.

Most humans tend to be pragmatic in their philosophic interests. Aristotle and Scotus dwell in the turrets of ivory towers. Most Stoics and modern pragmatists live on the plains.

Interesting metaphor.

God as you describe Him would be ipsum intelligere subsistens -- whose primary act is "to know." (A Thomist would disagree: God is ipsum esse subsistens -- whose primary act is "to be.")

In context, I would certainly agree. I have to wonder if these two positions are mutually exclusive. Does not being necessarily precede knowing? This dualism reminds me of the perennial conflict between rationalists and empiricists that were eventually combined into something eminently useful: Science.

Exactly. The only "meta-philosophy" is no philosophy at all, but a continual return to the world as it is, and a continual refinement of our understanding. This is why reading and observing are such essential task.

Other than the technicals of logic, mathematics, and science, has philosophy ever made any real strides? Are not Plato and Aristotle as valid--or as invalid--today as when they were written?

I am not familiar with Lyotard, so I can't comment. Postmodernists are a contradictory lot.

Rather than being something apart from modernism, I contend that postmodernism is merely the terminal phase of the modernist project. It also guides all modern, liberal thought. I'm not sure how one could make sense of the world without at least a cursory familiarity with the postmodernism, as sick and decadent as it is.

This is why I am such a stark reactionary. Even if we were to assume that exact knowledge of phenomena and correct actions were possible, such a feat would require that we understand not only all possible paradigms and presumptions, but that we understand the totality of what science calls factors and variables. This is impossible.

Obviously.

I'm not sure I follow. Is it obvious that I'm a reactionary? If so, your response seems a bit peremptory. Or are you referring to my rationale for being so?

One theological proposal in regards to the arrival at some perfect philosophy and science, is the Scriptural assertion that all wisdom and knowledge resides in Christ, who possesses perfect human nature. Those of us born under the curse of original sin cannot, therefore, achieve any utopian dream whether that be a society, a science, or a philosophy.

Yes, perfection of any kind would require intelligence and perception of a different type than what we possess. The modernist attempt to do so is not only an exercise in folly, but tragedy.


An unusual use of the word "totalitarianism," but I understand what you are saying here. It reminds me of Plato's "noble lie" and of Christendom's "glorious Truth."

Is not what is conventionally termed totalitarianism where man usurps the role traditionally held by religion and God? Is this not why conventional totalitarians have hated God and religion? If so, the difference between conventional definitions of totalitarianism and my definition bear strong similarities. If it is possible to live as an island, a lot of aspies will be thrilled. The fact is that all of us need others not only for emotional fulfillment, but for the components of culture. Thus, totalitarianism.

The Frankfurt school preaches a "critical theory" by which the subculture replaces the culture as normative in order to promote societal collapse, which is a calculated doom.

Ah, yes. The notorious cultural Marxism which makes the normal abnormal and the abnormal normal. What I see has having happened is that Marxism was a direct outgrowth of liberalism, designed to rectify some of the problems associated with traditional right-liberalism. Since this approach failed miserably, the Frankfurt School began the process of folding Marxism and related radical movements back into liberalism, which was possible due to its "open society" nature. Thus the self-destructive nature of modern liberalism, and postmodernism as the terminal phase of modernism. When a movement is against itself internally, the end is nigh.

I would add that the mechanism by which this self-destruction is occurring derives from Gramsci. Gramsci provided the tools necessary to sacralize liberalism--known as Political Correctness. Critical and therapeutic techniques are merely the tools by which modern, self-destructive liberalism has attained a cultural hegemony over Western societies.

Last edited by Thelibrarian on 11 Nov 2013, 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thank you.

"Obviously" - not that you're a reactionary, but that I agree with what you said that followed.

Absolutely. I've studied philosophy as an academic subject... It's interesting, and the thought experiments can be fun, but in the end, I see it as so much mental masturbation.

I came to Stoicism because of my interest in Roman history. The Romans were practical, tough-minded people on the whole, and very modern in their own way. The Roman stoics were almost exclusively interested in ethics and the practical application of philosophy as the way to an enlightened and good life.

Roman practicality vastly improved Stoicism, and is the main reason it's still popular and relevant today.

A lot of modern psychology comes from Roman Stoicism.

In pragmatic matters, I'm a big admirer of Epicurus. I don't believe in his take on God, but I think his ideal for living is pretty close to what I've always wanted.

I think this is really cool. Mainly because she's a Pakistani-American teenage girl and as someone who teaches many girls from a similar background (Pakistani-British) I find it cool that the lives of these girls are being acknowledged in a non-stereotypical way. The Muslim thing is just incidental for me and happens to go along with being from a Pakistani family.

The world could sure use more superheroes.

Thats what I suspected- that this character was 'ethnically/culturally' muslim, and not some fervently religious muslim- a person who happened to be of somekind west asian/south asian ethnic background, and not some character who faced east ever two picture frames - and prosyletized Islam to the kiddies reading the comic book ( like it sounds like in the title of the thread).

Just one more flavor of superhero. Not worth the nine pages of ado about!

Like this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP0yOW6FpEM

you're all a bunch of species-ist!

Where are the fans of 'Wonder Warthog'?

To be sure, America just isn't made up of white Christian guys anymore, and our superheroes should reflect that.