Anthropologia religionis

Anthropologia religionis est studium coniunctionum institutionum religiosarum et aliarum institutionum socialium, et comparatio usus fidum et usuum religionum in culturis variis. Anthropologia hodierna plenam cogitationis magicae et religionis continuitatem adsumit,^[1] et religionem omnino opus culturale esse, a civitate humana quae id exercet effectum.^[2]

Historia[recensere | fontem recensere]

Saeculo undecimo ineunte, Albirunius (Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī, 973–1048) studia comparativa de anthropologia religionum et culturarum per Orientem Medium, Pelvem Mediterraneam, et subcontinentem Indicum singulatim scripsit.^[4]

Anthropologia hodierna plenam cogitationis magicae et religionis continuitatem adsumit,^[1] atque eam omnino opus culturale esse,^[5] et rem proiectionis psychologicae. Plena continuitas magicae et religionis fuit res postulata ab anthropologia hodierna saltem ex circa 1935.^[1]^[6] Religio in anthropologia hodierna habetur genus proiectionis psychologicae; quod est sententia methodologica quae adsumit omnem religionem creatam esse a civitate humana quae eam veneratur: "industria creans Deo adscripta ex homine proicitur."^[7]^[2]^[8]^[9]

*L'Atmosphere: Météorologie Populaire.* Camillus Flammarion, Lutetiae, 1888.

Ludovicus Feuerbach anno 1841 fuit primus qui hac notione ut fundamenta systematici religionis iudicii usus est.^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13] Praecipuus principii proiectionis praecursor fuit Ioannes Baptista a Vico.^[10].^[14] Prima adfirmatio huius sententiae apud Xenophanem, scriptorem Graecum antiquum, invenitur, qui dixit: "dei Aethiopum nigri nasis planis, cum illi Thracum flavi oculis caeruleis necessario erant."^[15]^[10]

Aemilius Durkheim, notiones Feuerbachianas anno 1912 amplificans, religionem habuit "proiectionem socialium societatis aestimationum," "rationem quo symbolica adfirmationes de societate fiunt," "lingua symbolica, quae adfirmationes facit de ordine sociali,"^[16]^[17]^[18] vel breviter et simpliciter, "religio est societas sese venerans."^[19]^[13]^[20]

Studia evolutionis culturalis in anthropologia culturali saeculo undevicensimo dominata sunt; plurimi anthropologi, simplicem religionis "primitivae" et "hodiernae" distinctionem ponentes, quomodo haec in illam per gradus evoluta est explicare conabantur. Plurimi autem anthropologi saeculo vicensimo hanc rationem reiecerunt. Hodie, anthropologia religionis gratiam ratiocinationum Caroli Marx, Sigismundi Freud, Aemilii Durkheim, Maximi Weber, aliorumque amplectitur.

Definitio religionis[recensere | fontem recensere]

Marcus Aurelius et cognati familiae imperialis, gratiam habentes ob Germanos debellatos, sacrificium faciunt: anaglypta aequaeva, Museum Capitolinum Romae.

Maior quaestio in anthropologia religionis est definitio notionis religionis ipsius. Anthropologi olim crediderunt certos usus et opiniones religiosas esse in omnibus culturis plus minus universales aliquando in earum progressu, sicut opinio spirituum vel manium, usus magiae ut ratio supernaturaliorum continendorum, usus divinationis ut ratio scientiae arcanae inveniendae, et actio rituum sicut oratio et sacrificium ut ratio consecutionum eventuum variorum per supernaturalia motorum, aliquando proprietates shamanismi vel venerationis maiorum habens. Secundum Geertz, religio est "(1) symbolorum ratio quae agit ad (2) constituendos animi habitus et incitamenta valida, diuturna, undique circumfusa in hominibus per (3) informationes ordinis vitae generalis figurandas et (4) has informationes tali veritatis colore tegendas ut (5) animi habitus et incitamenta videantur unice verisimilia."^[22]^[23] Hodie, anthropologi disputant de firmitate inter culturas harum categoriarum, quas multi reiciunt, exempla primitivismi Europaei saepe putantes. Anthropologi varias normas religionis definiendae consideraverunt—sicut fides supernaturalibus vel fiducia rituum—sed pauci has normas universe firmas esse affirmant.

Religio in cultura Occidentali plus minus facta est idem ac monotheismus variique codices morales quos monotheismus mandat. Codices morales una cum fide Hinduistica et Buddhistica creverunt, a monotheismo distincti. Praescriptivi autem codices morales, vel etiam normativi codices ethici, necessarium opinionum vel usuum elementum plus quam necessarium scientiae et rationis scientificae elementum non sunt.

Certi usus et opiniones religiosae[recensere | fontem recensere]

Nexus interni

Notae[recensere | fontem recensere]

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 Ernestus Cassirer (1944) An Essay On Man^{[nexus deficit]}, pt.II, ch.7 Myth and Religion, pp.122–213: "It seems to be one of the postulates of modern anthropology that there is complete continuity between magic and religion. [Nota 35: "See, for instance, RR Marett, Faith, Hope, and Charity in Primitive Religion, the Gifford Lectures (Macmillan, 1932), Lecture II, pp. 21ff."] . . . We have no empirical evidence at all that there ever was an age of magic that has been followed and superseded by an age of religion."
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 Guthrie (2000) pp.225-6
↑ Insigne cosmologiae binariae in Taoismo, unum ex notissimis signis religiosis.
↑ J. T. Walbridge (1998), "Explaining Away the Greek Gods in Islam," Journal of the History of Ideas 59 (3): 389–403.
↑ T. M. Manickam (1977), Dharma according to Manu and Moses, p. 6: "Religious anthropology suggests that every religion is a product of the cultural evolution, more or less coherent, of one race or people; and this cultural product is further enriched by its interaction and cross-fertilization with other peoples and their cultures, in whose vicinity the former originated and evolved."
↑ Robertus Ranulphus Marett (1932) Faith, Hope and Charity in Primitive Religion, in Gifford Lectures, lectura 2, Hope: "In conclusion, a word must be said on a rather trite subject. Many leading anthropologists, including the author of The Golden Bough, would wholly or in the main refuse the title of religion to these almost inarticulate ceremonies of very humble folk. I am afraid, however, that I cannot follow them. Nay, I would not leave out a whole continent from a survey of the religions of mankind in order to humour the most distinguished of my friends. Now clearly if these observances are not to be regarded as religious, like a wedding in church, so neither can they be classed as civil, like its drab equivalent at a registry office. They are mysteries, and are therefore at least generically akin to religion. Moreover, they are held in the highest public esteem as of infinite worth whether in themselves or for their effects. To label them, then, with the opprobrious name of magic as if they were on a par with the mummeries that enable certain knaves to batten on the nerves of fools is quite unscientific; for it mixes up two things which the student of human culture must keep rigidly apart, namely, a normal development of the social life and one of its morbid by-products. Hence for me they belong to religion, but of course to rudimentary religion—to an early phase of the same world-wide institution that we know by that name among ourselves. I am bound to postulate the strictest continuity between these stages of what I have here undertaken to interpret as a natural growth."
↑ Anglice: "creative activity ascribed to God is projected from man."
↑ Jacob Pandian, "The sacred integration of the cultural self: An anthropological approach to the study of religion," in The Anthropology of Religion, ed.S. Glazer (1997), p. 507.
↑ Van A. Harvey, "Projection: A Metaphor in Search of a Theory?" in Can religion be explained away? ed. D. Z. Philips, ed. (1996), p. 67.
↑ ^10.0 ^10.1 ^10.2 Harvey, Van A. (1997) Feuerbach and the interpretation of religion p. 4.
↑ Ludovicus Feuerbach (1841) The Essence of Christianity.
↑ James Patrick Mackey, The Critique of Theological Reason (Cambridge University Press, 2000), 41-42.
↑ ^13.0 ^13.1 John K. Nelson, "A Field Statement on the Anthropology of Religion" (1990).
↑ Caterina Nella Cotrupi, Northrop Frye and the poetics of process, p. 21.
↑ Anglice: "the gods of Ethiopians were inevitably black with flat noses while those of the Thracians were blond with blue eyes."
↑ Anglice" "a projection of the social values of society," "a means of making symbolic statements about society," "a symbolic language that makes statements about the social order."
↑ Aemilius Durkheim (1912) The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life.
↑ Fiona Bowie, The Anthropology of Religion: An Introduction (Oxoniae: Blackwell, 1999), 15, 143.
↑ Anglice: "religion is society worshiping itself."
↑ Durkheim 1963:266.
↑ Ries, Ursprung der Religionen, 153.
↑ Anglice: "(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
↑ Clifford Geertz, "Religion as a Cultural System," in Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, ed. M. Banton (Londinii: Tavistock, 1966), 1–46.

Bibliographia[recensere | fontem recensere]

Arnold, Wilhelm Karl, Hans Jürgen Eysenck, et Richard Meili, eds. 1993. Lexikon der Psychologie. Ed. undecima. 3 vol. Freiburgi: Herder ISBN 3451231298.
Bowie, Fiona. 2000. The Anthropology of Religion: An Introduction. Malden Massachusettae: Blackwell Publishers. ISBN 0631208488, ISBN 063120847X.
Eliade, Mircea. 1978. Geschichte der religiösen Ideen. 4 vol. Freiburgi: Herder. ISBN 3451052741.
Eliade, Mircea. 1951, 1994. Schamanismus und archaische Ekstasetechnik. Ed. 8a. Francofurti: Suhrkamp. ISBN 351827726X.
Freud, Sigmund. 1913, 2005. Totem und Tabu. Ed. nona. Francofurti: Fischer. ISBN 3596104513.
Jensen, Adolf Ellegard. 1951, 1992. Mythos und Kult bei Naturvölkern. Monaci: DTV. ISBN 3423045671.
Jung, Carl Gustav. 1934, 1990. Archetyp und Unbewusstes. Grundwerk, 2. Ed. quarta. Olten: Walter. ISBN 3530407828.
Guthrie, Stewart Elliott. 2000. Projection. In Guide to the Study of Religion, ed. Willi Braun et Russell T. McCutcheon. Londinii et Novi Eboraci: Cassell.
Leroi-Gourhan, André. 1964, 1981. Die Religionen der Vorgeschichte: Paläolithikum. Francofurti: Suhrkamp. ISBN 351811073X.
Lewis-Williams, David. 2004. The Mind in the Cave. Consciousness and the Origins of Art. Londinii: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0500284652.
Oeser, Erhard. 2006. Das selbstbewusste Gehirn: Perspektiven der Neurophilosophie. Darmstadt: WBG. ISBN 3534190688.
Ries, Julien. 1994. Ursprung der Religionen. Monaci: Pattloch. ISBN 3629000789.
Ries, Julien, et al., eds. 1989–2009. Über die Anthropologie des Heiligen. 10 vol. Jaca Book.
Schmidt, Klaus. 2006. Sie bauten die ersten Tempel: Das rätselhafte Heiligtum der Steinzeitjäger. Monaci: Beck. ISBN 3406535003.
Spineto, Natale, Fiorenzo Facchini, et Julien Ries. 2003. Die Symbole der Menschheit. Ostfildern: Patmos. ISBN 3491961459.
Tokarew, Sergei Alexandrowitsch. 1968. Die Religion in der Geschichte der Völker. Berolini: Dietz.
Wilber, Ken. 1987. Das Spektrum des Bewusstseins: Ein metaphysisches Modell des Bewusstseins und der Disziplinen, die es erforschen. Bernae: Scherz. ISBN 3502158525.

Nexus externi[recensere | fontem recensere]

Lang, Andrew. 1900. "Anthropology and Religion," The Making of Religion, capitulum 2 (Londinii, Novi Eboraci, Bombay: Longmans, Green, and Co.), 39–64.
Murphy, M. D. Pagina anthropologiae religionis, www.as.ua.edu (University of Alabama).
Situs proprius, www.aaanet.org (The Society for the Anthropology of Religion).

[Cassirer1944-1] 1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 Ernestus Cassirer (1944) An Essay On Man^{[nexus deficit]}, pt.II, ch.7 Myth and Religion, pp.122–213: "It seems to be one of the postulates of modern anthropology that there is complete continuity between magic and religion. [Nota 35: "See, for instance, RR Marett, Faith, Hope, and Charity in Primitive Religion, the Gifford Lectures (Macmillan, 1932), Lecture II, pp. 21ff."] . . . We have no empirical evidence at all that there ever was an age of magic that has been followed and superseded by an age of religion."

[Guthrie2000p225-2] 2.0 ^2.1 Guthrie (2000) pp.225-6

[3] Insigne cosmologiae binariae in Taoismo, unum ex notissimis signis religiosis.

[4] J. T. Walbridge (1998), "Explaining Away the Greek Gods in Islam," Journal of the History of Ideas 59 (3): 389–403.

[Manickam1977p6-5] T. M. Manickam (1977), Dharma according to Manu and Moses, p. 6: "Religious anthropology suggests that every religion is a product of the cultural evolution, more or less coherent, of one race or people; and this cultural product is further enriched by its interaction and cross-fertilization with other peoples and their cultures, in whose vicinity the former originated and evolved."

[Marett1932lect2-6] Robertus Ranulphus Marett (1932) Faith, Hope and Charity in Primitive Religion, in Gifford Lectures, lectura 2, Hope: "In conclusion, a word must be said on a rather trite subject. Many leading anthropologists, including the author of The Golden Bough, would wholly or in the main refuse the title of religion to these almost inarticulate ceremonies of very humble folk. I am afraid, however, that I cannot follow them. Nay, I would not leave out a whole continent from a survey of the religions of mankind in order to humour the most distinguished of my friends. Now clearly if these observances are not to be regarded as religious, like a wedding in church, so neither can they be classed as civil, like its drab equivalent at a registry office. They are mysteries, and are therefore at least generically akin to religion. Moreover, they are held in the highest public esteem as of infinite worth whether in themselves or for their effects. To label them, then, with the opprobrious name of magic as if they were on a par with the mummeries that enable certain knaves to batten on the nerves of fools is quite unscientific; for it mixes up two things which the student of human culture must keep rigidly apart, namely, a normal development of the social life and one of its morbid by-products. Hence for me they belong to religion, but of course to rudimentary religion—to an early phase of the same world-wide institution that we know by that name among ourselves. I am bound to postulate the strictest continuity between these stages of what I have here undertaken to interpret as a natural growth."

[7] Anglice: "creative activity ascribed to God is projected from man."

[8] Jacob Pandian, "The sacred integration of the cultural self: An anthropological approach to the study of religion," in The Anthropology of Religion, ed.S. Glazer (1997), p. 507.

[9] Van A. Harvey, "Projection: A Metaphor in Search of a Theory?" in Can religion be explained away? ed. D. Z. Philips, ed. (1996), p. 67.

[Harvey1997p4-10] 10.0 ^10.1 ^10.2 Harvey, Van A. (1997) Feuerbach and the interpretation of religion p. 4.

[11] Ludovicus Feuerbach (1841) The Essence of Christianity.

[12] James Patrick Mackey, The Critique of Theological Reason (Cambridge University Press, 2000), 41-42.

[Nelson90-13] 13.0 ^13.1 John K. Nelson, "A Field Statement on the Anthropology of Religion" (1990).

[14] Caterina Nella Cotrupi, Northrop Frye and the poetics of process, p. 21.

[15] Anglice: "the gods of Ethiopians were inevitably black with flat noses while those of the Thracians were blond with blue eyes."

[16] Anglice" "a projection of the social values of society," "a means of making symbolic statements about society," "a symbolic language that makes statements about the social order."

[Durkheim-17] Aemilius Durkheim (1912) The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life.

[18] Fiona Bowie, The Anthropology of Religion: An Introduction (Oxoniae: Blackwell, 1999), 15, 143.

[19] Anglice: "religion is society worshiping itself."

[20] Durkheim 1963:266.

[21] Ries, Ursprung der Religionen, 153.

[22] Anglice: "(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."

[23] Clifford Geertz, "Religion as a Cultural System," in Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, ed. M. Banton (Londinii: Tavistock, 1966), 1–46.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]