Zombies Roaming Around the Pantheon

IF 0.1 0 RELIGION
Leonardo Ambasciano
{"title":"Zombies Roaming Around the Pantheon","authors":"Leonardo Ambasciano","doi":"10.1558/imre.24338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present contribution explores how the field of Roman History has formalized and justified the absence of “belief”—and religious belief in particular—as part of its standard research programme. In positing an unbridgeable gap between ancient Romans and modern human beings mainly based on the idea that “belief” and “faith” are modern Protestant concepts, Roman History inadvertently transmogrified its subjects of study into a legion of zombies incapable of holding meta-representations of their own religious (and non-religious) beliefs. While Roman History might have been an outlier in its staunch commitment to this exclusionary approach, the post-1970s move towards the abandonment of “belief” insofar as the study of ancient religion(s) is concerned was part of a widespread paradigm shift within the Humanities, which only very recently has been questioned. The history of the concept of “belief” in both Roman History and anthropology, as well as its rejection from the former’s disciplinary toolbox, are tackled, while the peculiar disciplinary concepts of Roman “orthopraxy” and “demythicization” (sometimes hailed as explananda or replacements for the absence of “belief” in Roman antiquity) are also explained. Finally, a cognitive rebuttal of this absence is provided through a reappraisal of David Chalmers’ “philosophical zombies” mental experiment.","PeriodicalId":53963,"journal":{"name":"Implicit Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implicit Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/imre.24338","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present contribution explores how the field of Roman History has formalized and justified the absence of “belief”—and religious belief in particular—as part of its standard research programme. In positing an unbridgeable gap between ancient Romans and modern human beings mainly based on the idea that “belief” and “faith” are modern Protestant concepts, Roman History inadvertently transmogrified its subjects of study into a legion of zombies incapable of holding meta-representations of their own religious (and non-religious) beliefs. While Roman History might have been an outlier in its staunch commitment to this exclusionary approach, the post-1970s move towards the abandonment of “belief” insofar as the study of ancient religion(s) is concerned was part of a widespread paradigm shift within the Humanities, which only very recently has been questioned. The history of the concept of “belief” in both Roman History and anthropology, as well as its rejection from the former’s disciplinary toolbox, are tackled, while the peculiar disciplinary concepts of Roman “orthopraxy” and “demythicization” (sometimes hailed as explananda or replacements for the absence of “belief” in Roman antiquity) are also explained. Finally, a cognitive rebuttal of this absence is provided through a reappraisal of David Chalmers’ “philosophical zombies” mental experiment.
僵尸漫游万神殿
本论文探讨了罗马史领域如何将 "信仰"--尤其是宗教信仰--的缺失正式化和合理化,并将其作为标准研究计划的一部分。罗马史》主要根据 "信仰 "和 "信念 "是现代新教概念这一观点,在古罗马人和现代人之间设定了一条不可逾越的鸿沟,无意中将其研究对象变成了一群无法对自己的宗教(和非宗教)信仰进行元表述的行尸走肉。虽然《罗马史》可能是坚持这种排他性方法的一个例外,但 20 世纪 70 年代后,就古代宗教研究而言,放弃 "信仰 "是人文学科普遍范式转变的一部分,直到最近才受到质疑。本文探讨了 "信仰 "概念在罗马史和人类学中的历史,以及它在前者的学科工具箱中被摒弃的情况,同时还解释了罗马 "正统性 "和 "去神话化"(有时被誉为罗马古代 "信仰 "缺失的解释或替代)这两个特殊的学科概念。最后,通过对戴维-查默斯(David Chalmers)的 "哲学僵尸 "心理实验的重新评估,对这种缺失进行了认知反驳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Implicit Religion
Implicit Religion RELIGION-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信