Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
If we talk about the complexity of different philosophies to understand, then it is hardly possible to develop a single scale of complexity due to the lack of criteria for this scale. A lot depends on the individual characteristics of people – Kantianism is difficult for some, pragmatism for others, and neo-positivism for others. Some philosophical systems are represented by several main authors and the language of one is more complex than the language of the other. For example, in my opinion, Rudolf Carnapp is more complex than Bertrand Russell, although they are both neo-positivists, but at the same time they were dealing with slightly different problems. Or if you ask the question, which is more difficult, the philosophy of language or the philosophy of consciousness? Probably, the philosophy of consciousness is more difficult for those who are more inclined to linguistics. Again, it turns out subjectivism.
With religions, everything is somewhat different. Each has a level of understanding for the laity and a level of understanding for the clergy. For the latter, there are even several levels. To claim that I have enough knowledge of them to compare and say which religion is more difficult would probably be very arrogant of me. But to somehow illustrate this idea, I will cite fragments from the teachings and sermons of Jesus Christ for the people and for the inner circle of disciples.
From the Sermon on the Mount before the people (Matthew 5: 27-34)
27 You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ” You shall not commit adultery.”
28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 But if your right eye offends you, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is better for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if your right hand offends you, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is better for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell.
31 It is also written that if a man divorces his wife, he must give her a bill of divorce.
32 But I say to you, Whoever divorces his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
33 Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, ” Do not break your oath, but keep your oaths before the LORD.”
34 But I say to you, Do not swear at all: neither by heaven, because it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, because it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great king; nor by your head, because you cannot make a single hair white or black.
Before the disciples (Matthew 25: 1-13)
1 Then the kingdom of heaven will be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
2 Of these, five were wise and five were foolish.
3 When the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them.
4 But the wise men took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
5 And when the bridegroom tarried, they all fell asleep and fell asleep.
6 But at midnight there was a cry, ” Behold, the bridegroom is coming; go out to meet him.”
7 Then all those virgins rose up and adjusted their lamps.
8 But the foolish said to the wise, ” Give us your oil, for our lamps are going out.”
9 But the wise men answered, ” So that there will be no shortage both for us and for you, go rather to those who sell and buy for yourselves.”
10 And as they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast, and the doors were shut.;
11 Then the other virgins also came and said, ” Lord! Oh, my God! open the door for us.
12 And he answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of man will come.
Agree that the second fragment is much more difficult to understand, especially considering that it is about the Kingdom of Heaven.
Otherwise, we can say that the books of some new religious movements are very complex in purely intellectual terms. For example, some of Ron Hubbard's books make my brain just boil and not from emotions, but from stress. Another example is the book “The Keys of Enoch” by J. Hurtak, which also makes the brain boil.
The most complex religious and philosophical system is modern science.
Well, really. These people believe in the most bizarre theories, confirming and refuting mind-boggling hypotheses. They try to establish their faith through experimental vigils and to expose their opponents and competitors to scientific anathema.
And a simple populist cannot even look at the entire belief system and recognize the truths that are revealed to the chosen ones. Because the short catechism of this faith takes 11 years, and the lengthy one does not fit into life.
Perhaps one of the most complex religious systems is the traditions of India. Their theology has evolved over the course of thousands of years, and many schools and teachings have been formed that make it possible to touch the Divine. Their traditions and philosophical concepts even influenced ancient Greek philosophy, as well as one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, Martin Heidegger.
If we look closely at the trends in religious philosophy, then, in my opinion, one of the most difficult is the “theology of the dead Deity” (for example, T. Altitzer, theology of the “death of God”), since it implies radical and rather complex transformations of the individual.
Why do you need the “most difficult” one?
After all, the more complex the system is beyond a certain line , the more superfluous, errors and misconceptions there are in it.
Because initially there was one idea given out by one author, and then everyone starts mixing something with it. And the more such “authors” are added , the more difficult the structure becomes.
And so this structure can be” built up ” indefinitely, adding more and more “refinements”.
Despite the fact that the original meaning could fit on one sheet of paper.
So do not chase after excessive complexity – there is obviously a swamp and a dead end.
And if in the essence of the question, then I think Christianity has the most extensive system of clarifications right now. It now has the most branches and “interpretations”, not counting the fact that it includes a lot of everything “previous”.
Well, if you evaluate it according to the basics, discarding all these “clarifications”, then it matters to what level all this is cut down, and what is still left. Because 99% of all these “clarifications” are purely situational and DO NOT have the right to be applied globally. (Although many people try to do this)
All religious concepts are intricate, because they contain a complex system of images and meanings, a spiritual and ethical burden of religious perception of the world. As far as philosophical concepts are concerned, the most complex philosophical system is that of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
Of the zz-x religions, I am familiar only with Christianity. Its essence lies in the 10 commandments; it is very simple, clear and doable, if you want to make human relationships predictable and change your attitude to the world.
All religious systems are easy to understand. It can't be any other way. Otherwise, no one will understand them, and the religious system will have no supporters. There is a god (or gods), everything depends on him, so he needs to pray and listen to religious leaders who will explain everything. Everything is simple.
After being introduced to the science of “Understanding the WORD”, all religious and philosophical teachings become very simple, even primitive for perception.
The science of “Understanding the WORD” provides norms and rules for understanding words that are given to humanity. In the ordinary words of any language of the peoples and tribes of the Earth, great knowledge is laid. This knowledge is hundreds,maybe thousands, of years ahead of the current level of knowledge in all sciences.
The science of “Understanding the WORD” is taught only in a special school of knowledge.
Anyone can join this science if they show a desire and zeal.
Peace To All.
The most complex system is the Teaching of Christ, in fact.
No one knows what it is.
No one knows where to look for it or what is written there by Christ himself.
Why?
And because when Christ was moved from the 12th and 13th centuries to the 1st to steal Him from the Russians, they completely lost the Teaching of Christ, which exists only in Russian.
The Church claims that GOD THE WORD-CHRIST (os) did not write a single word.
This is a mockery of Christ, not Christianity.
He has written thousands of books.
And 6 of them are in the Bible, but only in Russian does it make sense.
The most complex system is the one that is meaningless, contradictory, demagogic, confusing and stupid, which tries to embrace everything in its entirety, which is completely ridiculous and absurd.
A reasonable and sensible system is always consistent, simple and understandable. It is limited to a clearly defined framework and scope.
According to Godel's theorem, a consistent system is always incomplete, and a complete one is always contradictory. And this is so natural and understandable that it seems obvious.
The absence of a system's limiting framework and truth criteria is a sure sign that it is meaningless. Any attempts to understand it from the inside, regardless of any established external restrictive limits and conditions, are futile and fruitless. For example, religious and philosophical systems, even if they are caught lying and contradicting themselves, easily get out of the situation, referring to the deliberate cunning of the organization or the almighty, who temporarily distorted the teaching in order to purge the infidels in order to finally restore the truth in its original form. It is absolutely pointless to refute these teachings; it is easier to raise the question of the legitimacy of the organization itself or the representative of their deity.
As for the most difficult system to understand, it is, in my opinion, the usual humor, Gothic, grotesque, self-mocking, sometimes requiring for its understanding the experience of the corresponding subjective experience, which is much richer and more diverse than religious, ideological.
At different times . for the leading people at that time, the Teachers gave the Teaching about the universe in their language and in their concepts . They are all from the Same Divine Wisdom . They have come down to us in translations and interpretations . It was right to start with the structure of the language . a way of thinking . but this will only make things more complicated and confusing . The Holy Fathers of Christianity . at the cathedral, it was easier – all the scrolls with the apocrypha were put under the table . They pulled out a few-they say God knows what are true, the rest decided to consider it heresy . You can also declare what you understand to be true . For the first time in Russian, “Agni Yoga or Living Ethics” is a primary source and guide for the next millennia, it is a synthesis of the previous one .
Figuratively: philosophy is the science of dying (when they say” a person has died”, it means that he has moved to a higher level), i.e. philosophy is a science that provides knowledge about the transition to higher, transcendental levels of consciousness. Philosophy is the imaginative perception of the surrounding reality in various forms. In our time, philosophy is divided into different parts:
It is necessary to treat everything in life philosophically, i.e. calmly, balanced or balanced. The philosopher first of all looks for the “grain” — the essence in every phenomenon, in every event. So we should analyze everything philosophically.
“Do not reject the unknown and inexplicable, but try to know the unknown and explain the inexplicable, for the Gods help those who strive for the knowledge of Wisdom” – the commandment of the God Svarog.
Comprehension of the new is the only difficulty associated with time.
But the greatest challenge is faith,
when the truth is beyond reason.
life and death, of course.
Christianity
I responsibly declare, as a person who has studied them, all religions are utter shit. Stay away from them if you don't want to become a slave. And don't let any children near you.
Yes, there is no limit to the complexity, this is math.
Although you can divide the problem into two parts:
1) Formal systems.
the complexity of a formal system can depend on both the internal structure and the degree of determinism or the degree of ordering of the system (negentropy); the number of elementary systems, the complexity of the basis – the number of elementary operators… That is, if we take, say, Christianity, then one of the attempts to reduce it to a formal elementary system is expressed as the Trinity-God the father, God the son, God the Holy Spirit. But the point is that Christianity is not an elementary system, it is a multi-system or a system of systems, so the complexity increases like the derivative of a power function or something. That is, with the same success, other elementary systems can be distinguished from Christianity-God-God-man-man; basic elementary systems-hell-heaven; monosystems-love… But in addition to this, Christianity is divided into different trends-Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism and others – each direction is a complex system, and Christianity itself is multisystem.
also, the system can be pseudosyllabic, that is, its complexity will increase indefinitely because it will be based on mutually exclusive or non-self-sufficient elements, this is typical for sophistic systems and paradoxes. And all the complexity comes down to identifying the basis of the system, which, upon closer examination, turns out to be incorrect because it does not satisfy the condition of existence or another informal system – that is, the system is built on false premises.
It should also be said that a system can be considered very difficult to perceive if its basis consists of 7 or more elements, there is research data showing that a person experiences huge difficulties when the number of elementary operations exceeds this value. That is, if the concept is defined through 7 different terms, then a person is not able to remember the system structure, since RAM is clogged and when you get to 7, you forget what was in 1.
2*) Holistic systems. This is rather a subgroup* of formal systems, the elements of which are measurable operators, in principle, quite a lot is known about these systems, the science that studies them is called system analysis. The studied properties of these systems are widely used for practical purposes for structuring, simplifying and improving the efficiency of human activity. To study the subject is difficult but necessary, however, the feeling that studying it-psychos. But this is the most understandable part of the general theory.
3) Informal systems or external systems.
This is a group of indeterminate systems such as-dialectical, heuristic, invariant systems, condition of existence and probably something else (??). It makes no sense to talk about their complexity, because their complexity is immeasurable and we have to consider each system separately. Informal systems can be used to determine formal systems and test for, say, completeness. In other words, an informal system is the core of a formal system. Such systems include religious and philosophical trends such as: Hegel's dialectic, Zen Buddhism, and the Tao te Ching treatise. If you wish, you can assess the degree of complexity of these things yourself, all individually, since the complexity of informal systems depends on the general properties of an individual's intelligence and is difficult to progressively study and explain.
I could certainly write something else here, but it's starting to sound more and more like the ravings of a madman, so I'll probably leave it at that. Thank you for reading this. And a request to the author: ask simpler questions, otherwise who finally needs this?
I believe that in 33 world religions there are no special differences for understanding. The main and dominant idea for all religions is love for one's neighbor. Sects and radical movements of different religions interpret their vision in their own way. As far as philosophies are concerned, the differences between EAST and WEST are striking.If Western philosophy is basically a QUESTION ,then the EAST is the answer! In Western philosophy, there is a lot of “water” and very few conclusions and results. All concreteness and result is the east. And now this is confirmed by science. This is my personal opinion. With respect.