Pantheism in Star Wars

[WayFarer]

Bat's ain't mice. Heck, they ain't even rodents.

It was just an jocular off-the-cuff reply to your qualm with an "if". I know that in spite of their appearance they are not closely related to mice. Some evidence indicate that they are more closely related to primates.

 

[Skwim]

It was just a jocular off-the-cuff reply to your qualm with an "if". I know that in spite of their appearance they are not closely related to mice. Some evidence indicate that they are more closely related to primates.

It was a 50-50 option on my part: take it as a jest or an honest bit of ignorance. After I get to know people around here a bit better I'll be better able to pigeon-hole ya all.

 

[McBell]

It was a 50-50 option on my part: take it as a jest or an honest bit of ignorance. After I get to know people around here a bit better I'll be better able to pigeon-hole ya all.

I accept your challenge.

 

[Skwim]

I accept your challenge.

You're too scary looking to challenge. :run:

 

[McBell]

You're too scary looking to challenge. :run:

Huh?

I thought Jawas were kinda cute...

 

[brbubba]

In pantheistic theology God and the Universe/Nature are one and Nature can be defined as "that which has been born" then God it would not be inconceivable that God would/could also be biological (related to/affecting life) at least when viewed within the scope of our current understanding.

Nature is not part of the definition for Pantheist. Not to mention it's such a vague term, i.e., has so many meanings, that it's probably best not used at all.

OP, it could be Pantheist, but it would have to be classical pantheist, as naturalistic pantheist would balk at the fact that there is an afterlife in the way that Star Wars depicts it.

 

[WayFarer]

Nature is not part of the definition for Pantheist.

Several dictionaries/pantheist writers/philosophers disagree.

Not to mention it's such a vague term, i.e., has so many meanings, that it's probably best not used at all.

Except, perhaps, when it (the word Nature) is used as it is defined. Then it is what should be use and what was meant.

 

[brbubba]

Several dictionaries/pantheist writers/philosophers disagree.

Except, perhaps, when it (the word Nature) is used as it is defined. Then it is what should be use and what was meant.

Spinoza uses the word "nature" quite a lot, but it's typically used to discuss the nature of something. Many naturalistic pantheists use the word "nature" to describe the cosmos, the universe, everything. These are two completely different uses of the word. Not to mention the definition of nature that equates to the universe is not uniformly recognized by all sources.

A quick search for a definition of nature will find 9 definitions on Mirriam Webster and 20 on Dictionary.com. So yes, it is a vague term that can mean many things and should NOT be used over more simple explanations unless you attempt to clarify the meaning. And in that case just stating your clarification instead of "nature" would have taken less time.

 

[WayFarer]

A quick search for a definition of nature will find 9 definitions on Mirriam Webster and 20 on Dictionary.com. So yes, it is a vague term that can mean many things and should NOT be used over more simple explanations unless you attempt to clarify the meaning. And in that case just stating your clarification instead of "nature" would have taken less time.

brbubba, I am concerned you are making things too hard. A "can't see the forest for the trees" sort of thing. I know you want to argue about the definition of nature even when I thought the intent was clear and even gave a definition for it, but since you brought up definitions maybe I can help you out a bit more.

Nature is not part of the definition for Pantheist.

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical...
Wikipedia: Pantheism

In the 17th century Benedict de Spinoza formulated the most thoroughly pantheistic philosophical system, arguing that God and Nature are merely two names for one reality.
Encyclopædia Britannica

pantheism1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which man, nature, and the material universe are manifestations
2. any doctrine that regards God as identical with the material universe or the forces of nature
Collins Discovery Encyclopedia

​

So it appears that "nature" can and in fact is, or at least can be, part of the definition of Pantheism (and subsequently pantheists). You argue that I should have clarified what I meant by "nature", if you reread my post that you quoted you would see I did.
Hopefully this can be left now. Hopefully I have made my view, imperfect as it may be, clearer. I am also hopeful you did not take offense at this, or another of my responses to your reply to my original post. Just to be clear: by "not take offense" I mean:

not: a logical operator that produces a statement that is the inverse of an input statement
take: to obtain by deriving from a source
offense: the state of being insulted or morally outraged
​

 

[brbubba]

brbubba, I am concerned you are making things too hard. A "can't see the forest for the trees" sort of thing. I know you want to argue about the definition of nature even when I thought the intent was clear and even gave a definition for it, but since you brought up definitions maybe I can help you out a bit more.

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical...
Wikipedia: Pantheism

In the 17th century Benedict de Spinoza formulated the most thoroughly pantheistic philosophical system, arguing that God and Nature are merely two names for one reality.
Encyclopædia Britannica

pantheism1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which man, nature, and the material universe are manifestations
2. any doctrine that regards God as identical with the material universe or the forces of nature
Collins Discovery Encyclopedia

​

So it appears that "nature" can and in fact is, or at least can be, part of the definition of Pantheism (and subsequently pantheists). You argue that I should have clarified what I meant by "nature", if you reread my post that you quoted you would see I did.
Hopefully this can be left now. Hopefully I have made my view, imperfect as it may be, clearer. I am also hopeful you did not take offense at this, or another of my responses to your reply to my original post. Just to be clear: by "not take offense" I mean:

not: a logical operator that produces a statement that is the inverse of an input statement
take: to obtain by deriving from a source
offense: the state of being insulted or morally outraged
​

I'm just not a fan of the word "nature" because it has so many dictionary meanings. I realize now you are using the nature = the universe meaning, but when the definition isn't consistent across sources it tends to obfuscate the meaning.

I don't take offense, what I believe isn't being attacked here, Pantheism is simply the closet thing I can find to what I believe. I just find it mildly disconcerting that there is so much "interpretation" as it were of the term. This isn't because I'm some exclusionist, it's simply to create a common base from which Pantheist's can share common traits. Ideally I think Pantheism should be like the term Christian, where using it should invoke a basic idea or understanding of what you believe.

So basically, why use the word nature instead of universe? When trying to understand the concept it confuses people when you say nature instead of the universe. Hell it confused me. I was thinking all these naturalistic pantheists just liked trees. Furthermore there seems to be a real insistence on nature over the universe, which I can't understand for the life of me.

 

[WayFarer]

So basically, why use the word nature instead of universe? When trying to understand the concept it confuses people when you say nature instead of the universe. Hell it confused me. I was thinking all these naturalistic pantheists just liked trees. Furthermore there seems to be a real insistence on nature over the universe, which I can't understand for the life of me.

brbubba, While I can not speak for why others may use the term nature the reason I did was as I state the origin of the word is "derived from the Latin term natura - 'that which has been born'" my reasoning was that if God and the Universe/nature are one then could God not be viewed (giving our limited understanding) as being or seeming biological or have biological traits.
Words have always been a hang up. They are not the things themselves yet they are suppose to represent them. This makes words are archetypes and as such are subjective. It is unfortunate, but necessary. I hope you can see what I was meaning from my posts.

 

[brbubba]

brbubba, While I can not speak for why others may use the term nature the reason I did was as I state the origin of the word is "derived from the Latin term natura - 'that which has been born'" my reasoning was that if God and the Universe/nature are one then could God not be viewed (giving our limited understanding) as being or seeming biological or have biological traits.
Words have always been a hang up. They are not the things themselves yet they are suppose to represent them. This makes words are archetypes and as such are subjective. It is unfortunate, but necessary. I hope you can see what I was meaning from my posts.

Of course. I've often thought of the body concept, God as the body/universe. Although it's an inexact thing, it's close enough for those having a difficult time conceiving it otherwise. So in essence, you could view the entire universe as a biological entity. Although I typically think of it on a more basic level, e.g., energy.

 

[WayFarer]

Although I typically think of it on a more basic level, e.g., energy.

I like the energy angle. It could be worked out like the electrical impulses that flow through our body on a universal scale.

 

[it's_sam]

I like the energy angle. It could be worked out like the electrical impulses that flow through our body on a universal scale.

We have all I think added to our knowledge and I was rethinking how to explain this better in how I see it. The O in this I used for neutral wich is how I still reffer to it, but I see it as all matter and energy. The + would be adding two or more of these together making something new and the overall possibilities in the O larger, since its the same mass just new in use wich would also serve to make things easier (like tools, cleaning, etc..). The - in this would be taking away from the O in an attempt to make the O easier to manage, but you can only ever obtain distance from the O "no energy or mass can be neither created nor destroyed". In this understanding I have been able to apply this to every aspect of my life and thought. Short and sweet I guess HAHA.

I had posted this in General Religious debates, I thought it applied well to this thread though.