And after class...

Following our discussion on class, I was wondering why we had such a problem defining religion. Its somewhat like the conversations I have had with people on the subject of love. No one knows how to define it of what are the special qualities that make it specifically so, but they know how to identify it. Religion is the same. We knows which things are religion, but it is hard to tell what would become a religion if we wanted to make one. How is it that the Culture does not exude qualities of religion? Perhaps they do. But they live not by a constant practice. There is still an individuality for each person that the Culture does not control which makes it less religious. I think religion is a control factor, to monotor populations. Generally they provide a set of moral standers for an individual but that is not required. Instead they provide a social frame work in which a person can live and die by. In this case I think the Culture is not a religion specfically because it avoids death. Religion is meants to explain what happens to us when we die so we do not have to constantly live our lives in fear. In this way I agree with Nishida is his explanations of easter and western philosophies combine. He explains that religious is not about creating moral obligations but instead to figure out the existenciel crisis. With this I must be in agreement.