Science is masculine, religion is feminine

[carrot]

http://www.oshoteachings.com/osho-one-has-to-learn-to-wait-pray-and-wait-meditate-and-wait/

The outward aggressiveness is masculine. That’s why it is a man’s world and why man has dominated down the ages. And unless women also become ugly like men they will not be able to dominate in the outside world. Unless they also become cruel, violent, aggressive, unless they also loose their grace, they will not be able to succeed. And even if they lose all their grace they will be second-rate men; they can’t be first-rate because that will not be natural to them.

 

[Strelok]

And unless women also become ugly like men they will not be able to dominate in the outside world. Unless they also become cruel, violent, aggressive, unless they also loose their grace, they will not be able to succeed

According to many users this is the average american woman + some fat.
When it comes of aggressiveness (especially toward their own husbands) I think many women are more than enough to satistfy SS or KGB standards.

 

[zekko]

And even if they lose all their grace they will be second-rate men; they can’t be first-rate because that will not be natural to them.

I suppose it should be pointed out that the article is saying that men should become more feminine, and thus more religious.

However, I don't agree with the premise that religion is feminine. The majority of spiritual leaders by far have been male.

Also, if you apply the same logic that women can't be first rate men because it isn't natural to them, then it follows that men should not be able to be first rate religious leaders because it "isn't natural to them". Which, as you can see by the above paragraph, is not the case.

According to many users this is the average american woman + some fat.

Lol.

 

[azanon]

However, I don't agree with the premise that religion is feminine. The majority of spiritual leaders by far have been male.

It would be important to distinguish between the leaders of religion and the followers. The leaders could very well be "masculine" given that they have large numbers that follow them, do their bidding, pay them, etc. It is the followers who yield their mind, life, and money.

The leaders could be in on the gig for personal gain and power. That's about as masculine as it gets.

 

[zekko]

The leaders could be in on the gig for personal gain and power. That's about as masculine as it gets.

True enough, although that wasn't what the article was saying.

Anyway, if personal gain and power is their true motivation, I'd say they weren't really spirtual leaders, are they? But to lead is masculine regardless, yes?

 

[wait_out]

I'm pretty sure the medieval catholic churches were definitively masculine.

Just sayin'

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

Let me help you.

Science and religion are two opposing camps that have stared each other down for centuries. As are reality vs. irrational fantasy, good vs. evil, etc. I know I don't have to tell you that, I'm just establishing my argument.

You are correct when you assert "Science is masculine, religion is feminine". But you are missing the reason why this is true. To know why, we must reduce these concepts to their irreducible primaries, to the philosophical rationale that supports them.

The battle of all battles began in a classroom in Greece, 2400 years ago. Plato, the father of Idealism, taught that the reality we live in is merely a shadow of another reality, and that we are the evil shadows of the beings who live in this utopian alternate reality. He also taught that a superbeing had created both of these realities to 'balance' each other. Does this sound familiar? Does this not sound like every religion you've ever heard of? Idealism is, at its fundamental definition, the belief that we live in a malevolent universe and are the wretched shadows of beings in a utopian dimension, and that our time on earth is best spent in striving towards their ideal, to be like the superior ghosts in another dimension. It is ridiculous to me that after 2400 years and all the advancements we have made in this supposedly wretched reality, that the vast majority of humanity is still mesmerized by the philosophical witchcraft of Plato. In a modern political context, I was horrified when I realized that I was surrounded by mindless irrationality on all sides; on the right your ideal is god and on the left your ideal is your neighbor. Though liberals and conservatives argue from the points of irreconcilable antagonists, as a matter of fundamentality, they are both philosophically corrupt and ultimately in defiance of reality.

And then you have Aristotle. The rebellious student of the ages, from the get-go of his time in Plato's classroom, Aristotle was constantly challenging Plato's premises and constructs. Aristotle postulated that reality exists as an objective absolute, that 'it is as it is', and that it is the job of man's mind to perceive it. He said that reality is not whatever man prays or wishes it to be, but simply that it is, that it exists, and it is upon man to discover it. It was Aristotle's conception of objective reality that has made every achievement of man--from the scientific method to the rule of law--possible. He truly was history's original "man's man", because he denied the gods and demons and whims that had dominated man's existence until he came around.

Ever since, it has been Aristotle's Realism vs. Plato's Idealism, in one form or another. Every political philosophy, every thought, and ultimately every action under the sun has been in allegiance to one of these schools, on a fundamental level. If you ask me, the battle of good vs. evil, which has always been misrepresented as god vs. the devil or one morality against another, is truly: Realism vs. Idealism, or Reality vs. The Unreal, The Irrational, The Impossible.

Does it seem ridiculous that Aristotle was the rebel and the guy preaching about gods and alternate dimensions was considered the status quo? Guess what--he still is. Every religion, every form of mysticism (including altruism and collectivism), every werewolf vampire and ghost owe their "existence" to Plato. Every scientific achievement, every electrical circuit, railroad track, automobile, airplane, computer and cell phone, owe their existence to Aristotle. Not coincidentally, Aristotle was also a vivid proponent of the individual mind in his philosophy of Realism, and the political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries who made America possible owe their inspiration to him.

So when you say "Science is masculine", it is so because science is the province of objective reality, and objective reality is the province of Aristotle, the father of the reality that men have always carried on their shoulders. Have there been Realistic women? Sure, here and there. Ayn Rand was probably one of the most mercilessly Realistic philosophers in history. But by and large, Realism is the province of the masculine.

And when you say "Religion is feminine", it is so because religion is the province of esoteric fantasy, of emotion and faith trumping objective reality, which is the province of Plato. But nothing can truly trump objective reality, because "things as they are" remain what they are regardless of any amount of wishing or attempting to rationalize the irrational.

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

Additionally, I believe Libertarianism is the modern exponent of the Aristotelian spirit of individuality and reason as the province of the individual mind, not society or god.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Wait Out is correct.

In addition, let me fly over right quick in a stealth bomber and drop this "knowledge Bomb" to inspire MORE food for thought:

The quote unquote rationality of SCIENCE "only", seems to appeal to a lot of guys because they feel somehow stronger by association------just by pledging their allegiance to it. But the truth is that most men are MORE "religious" than any woman you'll ever meet. The ONLY difference is in what they choose to "worship".

Many people think of religion and have visions of people congregating in a building designed to worship what many scoff at as only an "unseen deity who lives in the sky". And even those of us who are spiritually-minded and have genuine beliefs in a power higher than ourselves can STILL have a shortsighted idea of what religion actually is.

But let's stop for moment. Let's suit up, armor up, and MAN UP to go deeper here and really uncover what RELIGION actually is.

The LITERAL definition of the word "religion" tends to escape the vast majority of people who like to casually throw it around. So let's break it down:

RE-LIG-ION

RE - means "again"
LIG - means "to tie" or "to bind"
ION - means "to go"

So...what is the actual MEANING of religion?

The literal definition of the word "religion" means----To Go AGAIN into Bondage.

So, with THAT being the actual definition of the term, we should now CLEARLY be able to see that anyone can "make" a religion out of "anything"------such as Money, Success, Failure, Nihilism, Depression, Cynicism, and SEX.

What are YOU in bondage to? Have you successfully escaped it once before, but NOW you're finding yourself in the same habitual patterns of behavior again? Well, whatever that thing is...some would call that "your religion".

Let's talk about "sex" for a moment. As I have said many times before on this very site:

"Anything that you can't say NO to is your MASTER and you are it's SLAVE."

So when it comes to sex, and when you take a moment to consider all the rituals, rules, and regulations MOST men willingly, GLADLY, and ROUTINELY go through just to get sex-------it can be argued that most men worship at the altar of PUSSSY more than anything else.

Stop for a moment and just think about all the money men spend and all the moves they make with the conscious or subconscious goal of achieving a six second orgasm with the woman of their choice. Yeah, in a sense, the world is FULL of guys who gladly expend the vast majority of their mental energy in pursuit of PUSSSY over anything else.

That's right, troops------it's bucks for butts, cash for ass, and "tithes" for Titts".

History, both ancient and modern day, is cluttered with men------whether they're poor and powerless or RICH and POWERFUL, who have fought to build empires, thrown away fortunes, and lost their jobs, "happy homes", and even their very lives in the "unbridled" pursuit of PUSSSY over everything else.

Now, I am NOT of the belief that it's the pursuit of PUSSSY that's the real problem, rather it's the UNBALANCED pursuit of PUSSSY that's closer to being the real problem. Many men WORSHIP pusssy. THIS is actually their "religion", though they don't like it when you put it that way. But that doesn't make the fact of it any LESS true.

Yes, THIS is what they "go again and again into bondage" to get. And it happens SO MUCH that the shyt is actually a cliche.

Now, I recognize that the above statements don't apply to all men----but it applies to ENOUGH of them whereas there's an army of women always willing, ready, and able to take advantage of them on a daily basis-------NO DOUBT.

But all hope is not lost. There's always a group of men who I call the few, the proud, and the ENLIGHTENED. Men who dare to think outside the box. Men who KNOW that slavery to ANYTHING, no matter how soft, slippery, and soothing it may be-----is STILL slavery.

I spend much of my spare time on my site, this site, and in REAL life on a mission to help educate and encourage MYSELF and OTHER MEN that a major key to living a successful life is to learn how to properly manage PUSSSY and everything else----instead of letting it master "us".

Some men here, KNOW what I'm talking about.

Any man who HAS broken free from slavery to pusssy or "anything else" KNOWS that the best way to manage our desire for women AND EVERYTHING ELSE is to first gain better mastery over ourselves. To turn your back on living with this kind of FREEDOM is to indeed, "go again into bondage".

So as you can see, my take on this is that science AND religion are both MASCULINE. In terms of SCIENCE, the BIGGER question we should probably be asking ourselves is WHAT are we choosing to spend our lives "studying"-----and WHY? And in terms of RELIGION, the BIGGER question we should probably be asking ourselves is WHAT are we choosing "to bind ourselves to over and over again"----and WHY?


Soldier on.


V.U.

 

[azanon]

Anyway, if personal gain and power is their true motivation, I'd say they weren't really spirtual leaders, are they?

false dilemma. A preacher at a large church could pull in 250K a year, not even believe what he's preaching, yet others could be "spiritually lead" by him.

Believe me, I could be quite motivated to be influential including selling whatever I'm peddling, even if it's a religion, if the money and/or power payoff were good enough.

 

[azanon]

my site, this site, and in REAL life on a mission to help educate and encourage MYSELF and OTHER MEN that a major key to living a successful life is to learn how to properly manage PUSSSY and everything else----instead of letting it master "us".
V.U.

Fellows, you got two choices: 1. You will be worshiping the alter of PUSSSY or 2. Internet/masturbation.... Choice 2 works great if you rinse and repeat as needed.

Ok, well you've got 3 choices: Turning 40+.

Granted, I was only speaking for me, but if you have (had) a sex drive like I do, that was the only choices no matter how many VU/LMS type posts you read. Finally, at 40, my mind is no longer consumed by this issue. It's a bitter sweet getting older. Don't feel sad for me. It's actually nice not having this thing cloud my judgment like it used to.

I digress.....

 

[Stagger Lee]

I don't believe religion or science is feminine or masculine in itself. Both religion and science started out as masculine and both have now been feminized. Both science and religion are now used to promote the female agenda.

 

[zekko]

LAnd when you say "Religion is feminine", it is so because religion is the province of esoteric fantasy, of emotion and faith trumping objective reality, which is the province of Plato.

Notice again that Plato is a male (not that Plato invented religion by any means). I agree with VU and Stagger Lee, both science and religion are masculine. If religion was really feminine, there would be more female spiritual leaders.

Science is meant to answer physical questions, while Religion is meant to answer philosophical questions. Both masculine pursuits.

 

[Drdeee]

You can't call Islam feminine!

 

[ArcBound]

You can't call Islam feminine!

This is how everyone in the thread knows you didn't read anything.

 

[azanon]

Notice again that Plato is a male (not that Plato invented religion by any means). I agree with VU and Stagger Lee, both science and religion are masculine. If religion was really feminine, there would be more female spiritual leaders.

Science is meant to answer physical questions, while Religion is meant to answer philosophical questions. Both masculine pursuits.

Ultimately, this will just come down to a matter of opinion. Personally, I don't see anything masculine about the need for a crutch - an imaginary friend if you will - to make it through life. That's the only function that I see that religion serves.

I don't see what being biological male has to do with anything (reference to Plato). He can be a dude, and act feminine. The whole purpose of this forum is to teach men how to act like it, which suggests its possible to act feminine too.

 

[squirrels]

That's an interesting way of looking at Plato.

I don't think Plato's intention was to prop the "ideal" up over the "real". Rather, it was to explain the meanings of ideas...these thoughts like "love" and "justice" and things ACCEPTED by his society to represent certain ideas over time.

For example, when you say, "chair", an idea probably pops into your head. In American society at least, one probably envisions a flat surface, positioned horizontally and supported a couple of feet from the ground by four vertical, roughly parallel legs, then a vertical piece to support the back, sometimes solid, sometimes composed of more vertical supports holding up a flat back-piece.

Plato takes that visual to be the "idea" of "chair". The word takes on a life of its own, and he is determined to figure out what it MEANS to be "chair". His life is spent in examination of the IDEAS behind words in Greek society, to find convergence on what it is that people can all AGREE on that the word "chair" represents.

Easy enough in a society when everyone is sitting on similar "chairs", with slight variations on the theme for artistic or functional reasons.

If nothing else, they all agree that a "chair" is something that you can sit on and be supported some distance from the ground. A common definition at least is easy to find when you talk about something concrete like "chair".

Plato comes up with this idea of the "form" of "chair"...he tries to assert that there is one common IDEA of what a "chair" SHOULD be, and all physical chairs ever created are attempts to DISCOVER the FORM of "chair", rather than distinct creations. How else could everyone have such commonalities in their ideas of what a "chair" should be, unless there is a MASTER IDEA for what "chair" is and all human ideas are different views of that "form", attempts to discover it.

The word "chair" is a label, but to Plato, it takes on a life of its own. That's the "divine". CHAIR, the form of "chair", was always there, always existed, and we are just discovering it...in the same way a sculptor when faced with a block of marble doesn't CREATE a sculpture...the sculpture was always IN the rock and the sculptor DISCOVERS it as he carves away the excess.

This idea has some merit. What would happen, for example, if you went back in time and killed Henry Ford's mother. Would we never have automobiles? If he had not invented them, someone else would have, eventually. Look at disparate civilizations that have never had much contact, if any, with each other...still many have invented basic concepts like the Wheel, agriculture, metallurgy, carpentry, weaponry. In fact, even today we find that ancient civilizations like the Romans, or ancient peoples on other continents, have known things about medicine, science, or architecture that we in the MODERN world had to re-discover. To say we "invented" them is a bit narcissistic, is it not?

Socrates' idea (it's really Socrates, not Plato, who is the father of the idea) is that ideas exist ALREADY, in the world of "forms", and knowledge is a kind of inspiration brought about in the process of discovering these "forms"...in Socrates's case, through asking questions.

The thing about Socrates, though, and Plato after him, is that while Socrates is quick to challenge others with HIS thoughts and HIS questions, few take the time to think for themselves and challenge Socrates in turn. Thus he takes this as a sign to CLOSE his dialog, accepting the results of his discussion as his "conclusions", then throws his own spin on them. For example, in "The Republic", Socrates is quick to accept that he and his followers have discovered the definition of "justice", which is partly derived from a religious idea about the "virtues of man", and goes on to build a society based on that definition, infused with some of his own ideas which go unexplored in any detail. For example, his "Republic" has intellectuals elevated to a higher, ruling "caste" than other citizens, essentially asserting that this thinking/discovery process is a greater pursuit than all others and those who pursue it are somehow fit to "rule" those who do not. An arrogant idea, and one that oddly enough goes unchallenged. Mainly because Socrates is surrounded by supplicant students such as Plato who dare not "challenge the master's ideas" in most cases.

That's where what started out as an exercise in free thought becomes a pseudo-religion, in that now instead of trying to DISCOVER, Socrates (and Plato after him) switch gears and begin INDOCTRINATING.

The same thing happens in "real sciences". For example, look at the world of physics. Physicists knew that Sir Isaac Newton's ideas of "gravity" didn't quite "add up". They worked well enough for technical use, but the orbits of some planets weren't right, plus no one knew how to explain this "pulling force" that Newton postulated. However, they had switched from DISCOVERY to INDOCTRINATION long ago, to the point where when Einstein came up with an alternate theory (general relativity), the scientific community was aghast...alternate theories to Sir Isaac Newton were tantamount to heresy.

Here's the thing...I have to be getting close to the text limit, so I'll continue this in the next post...

 

[Strelok]

Ultimately, this will just come down to a matter of opinion. Personally, I don't see anything masculine about the need for a crutch - an imaginary friend if you will - to make it through life. That's the only function that I see that religion serves.

I don't see what being biological male has to do with anything (reference to Plato). He can be a dude, and act feminine. The whole purpose of this forum is to teach men how to act like it, which suggests its possible to act feminine too.

Religion was the simplest way to make sure the average citizen adopten a certain behaviour.

If you tell a kid that making noise at night will make the neightbour sue your father, he will keep making noise.
If you tell the same kid that the noise will wake up the boogyman, he will turn into a silent stone.

Same for religion, at first it was a way to make sure idiots would hurt themselves (dont eat pig in islam means dont eat pig on the desert cause in warm places the pigs have parasites).
Then it became a way to seize money and power (offer gold and food to the gods so they will help you meant to offer gold and food to the priest so he can get rich and support the king).

This i no different than modern main stream media, they create an object and they convince you that you need it, they make that object expensive wheter its a diamond or clothes and you give money to them.
I made the last example really simple.

Religion is masculine and take advantage of the feminine elements of the population like the need for protection or the need to be lead.

 

[squirrels]

...continued...

Here's the thing this article is trying to get across that I think is mired down in this forum-mess.

Newtonian physics work well enough in 99.99% of situations, enough that we can rely on them. But if we try to build theories based on them, sooner or later we find "holes" in our conclusions...things that are soundly based on our accepted principles but just DON'T WORK for whatever reason.

If we, in our vanity, refuse to accept the possibility that the theories we found our conclusions on may be in error, assuming that something is amiss with the universe instead, then we may NEVER discover the truth. We'll have something that "usually works", but every now and then we'll feel kind of empty because we know that we're working with something that doesn't make sense to us. Deep down, we're working with as close a "truth" as we could get, but it's still a lie.

If, however, we open ourselves to the possibility that we DON'T know everything, that maybe there is another way to get the same results, maybe a companion-theory, or maybe an entirely different way of looking at things, then we essentially "make room" in our minds for possibilities to manifest, similar to what Einstein did with his "thought experiments". And it's only when we make this room and accept the QUESTION into our mind that we can be INSPIRED to the answer.

Too many people want ANSWERS, but refuse to allow QUESTIONS into their minds. Questions are just spaces for the answers to manifest.

Here's the OTHER catch...even when we DO get inspired toward an answer, we have to remember that we have only discovered/can only understand this perspective we have witnessed on the true "form"...we shouldn't make the same mistake of taking this inspiration to be a complete revelation and start trying to INDOCTRINATE others. Even Einstein is guilty of this...even after E=MC^2 and relativity, he refuses to accept the possibility of a finite universe, i.e. a "Big Bang". Nor does Einstein address what has been observed at the "very small", the level of Quantum Physics. Relativity doesn't seem to reconcile with this. (this reconciliation, the so-called "Theory of Everything", is one of the great scientific pursuits of our era)

So how does this factor into the abstract, as in the article?

What is "happiness"?

You ask me, I have one definition. Ask another person, they may have another. For some, happiness is having finished a task/accomplished an objective. For others, happiness is starting a new task. Some enjoy success. Others enjoy the learning that comes with failure. Some people are low-risk, some are high-risk.

What's worse, happiness isn't always the same thing(s) for the same person(s) from day to day. One day, you can be excited as hell to take on a new challenge. The next day, it may seem tedious or even frightening.

We all want to DISCOVER what makes us happy. Yet, once we think we have DISCOVERED what makes us happy, we INDOCTRINATE ourselves according to our discovery, resulting in us being driven to tasks that may not even result in happiness. Worse, sometimes we get INDOCTRINATED in "ways of happiness" by other people. We end up chasing cars, clothes, or women, hoping that these things will make US happy because they made OTHERS happy.

Maybe we attain some satisfaction as a result, but it's always a little hollow, as we discover that the feeling of "bliss" we expected as a result of our external or self INDOCTRINATION may not really BE "bliss" for us. Pride, maybe...but not necessarily happiness.

That's because TRUE happiness comes from DISCOVERY, not INDOCTRINATION. You have to OPEN yourself to it, decide that you are willing to make space in your heart to be happy. You can't decide, "THIS will make me happy", go force yourself to do it, and then be happy. No...to find something like love or happiness, your mind has to be OPEN...it has to be in the DISCOVERY process, not following an INDOCTRINATION.

You can tell the difference between someone who is doing something because they are DISCOVERING happiness and someone who is doing something because they are INDOCTRINATED to believe that it will give them happiness. Those who are DISCOVERING happiness are guided by the constant connection to the "form"...this allows them to build, rebuild, and continually adjust their image and direction in life to bring them the maximum joy. That joy can be SHARED with others, as well, because in reality, there is only one "form of happiness", and none of us can lay claim to it, but all can be inspired by it in different ways, DISCOVER pieces of it that may lead us in similar or COMPLETELY different directions. (like the blind men discovering the elephant) But we all share in that discovery. Someone who is following an indoctrination, however, can't SEE the form...they have their piece of the puzzle and they try to force others, through education, persuasion, force, whatever, that their view is the ONLY correct one. Often they go off in one direction, losing touch with what it was they were originally seeking, and then are the first to complain when they don't find it. "Life is unfair! I followed my bliss and it led me to this hollow emptiness".

This is why Zen hates to call itself a "religion"...its purpose is not to describe what it means to "love" or to "be happy" in life. Rather, it says, "don't ask me...look for yourself!" I don't need to give this to YOU to feel validated in my own righteousness, nor do you need to receive it from ME to feel validated in yours. It's right there...we can SHARE it.

So ask yourself while you're at it..."what is LOVE??"

Baby don't hurt me....

No, but really. Isn't that what we're looking for here?

The chump despairs...he does not want to "discover love", he wants love to be given to him. He follows the indoctrination of others...usually his mother or some other figure of authority. He does what he sees from his parents, other grown-ups, or what he sees on TV. He may make some meager progress...if he's lucky, he may have relationships. But he doesn't know "love". He hasn't discovered it. All he knows is what he's been taught to know...and somehow, for either him or those he "loves", it just doesn't feel right.

The "Juan"...he decides that he's going to figure it out. He observes how those who appear romance-savvy interact, finds out what THEY believe. He may ask them, "what's your secret"? From them, he gets the answer, "just be yourself". Good enough for the successful...they have opened themselves to DISCOVERING romance. To the "Juan", it's not good enough. He's still looking for a new system of INDOCTRINATION to tell him what to do. He starts analyzing those who are successful in romance, isolates traits, and IMITATES them. It works...so he develops a system and INDOCTRINATES himself with that system. He then proceeds to INDOCTRINATE others, taking pride when others are successful with HIS system.

Yet the "Juan" doesn't feel LOVE from this. The women...he's only fooling them. He develops disdain for the women because they "buy his act" and he develops disdain for himself because he knows...he KNOWS deep down that he still doesn't get it...it's just an act. He does everything the "good guys" do, but women eventually see through it and want nothing more to do with him. Love for the "Juan" is a continual cycle of doing the same thing and expecting different results...for some, the definition of "insanity". Maybe this time when he "runs this game" on this girl or that girl, he will finally CONNECT with her. Not a chance.

Maybe sooner or later, he starts to realize that maybe "love" and "romance" aren't things that he has the language to describe. You can have a lengthy verbal discussion over the merits of "justice" in Plato's Republic. You can use mathematics to discuss the nature of gravity and the universe. But there is NO language to describe what "love" is.

So how does one understand love without language? Poets have tried forever, in volumes upon volumes of sappy nonsense that disgusts our masculine nature and defies what we see in real-life.

Simple...we open our eyes. We accept that maybe the problem isn't "love" being all screwed up, but maybe what we've been TAUGHT, or what we've taught OURSELVES about love, might be a little screwed up.

Instead of trying to find the right definition of or procedure for "love" and "romance"...maybe we just need to ask the right questions...and wait.

It's a fact, at least for me, that the BEST time for me when I came to this forum was not when I stuffed my head full of all of this Don-Juan crap, but when my EXISTING understanding was brought into QUESTION. When that happens, the mind goes back into DISCOVERY-mode. You make enough room in your mind to question everything you've ever learned, and maybe, if you're lucky enough, you get a glimpse of the light you're seeking, enough to start to build NEW ideas in your mind. But inspiration must be maintained, or our castles become our prisons.

No, THE ideal is not the problem. OUR ideal is the problem. Lao Tzu says the key to happiness is to be able to "act without laying claim". This is the connection to the "divine"...when we lay claim to it, we cut it off from its source like a grape from the vine. This serves to nourish us for as long as it stays fresh, but after a while, our ideas start to rot and we need to go back to the vine to renew them.

Otherwise, we all sit on a big pile of rot...and if we refuse to re-open our minds, we end up preaching that rot to others who want no part of it.

THAT is "religion". THAT is the "ideal" that J-S is preaching disregard for, that Aristotle preaches disregard for. THAT "ideal" stands between what is "real"...manifested in our world...and what is "true"...the source of inspiration and discovery.

 

[Deep Dish]

Religion was the simplest way to make sure the average citizen adopten a certain behaviour... at first it was a way to make sure idiots would(n't) hurt themselves.

No.

Before the dawn of civilization, probably before humans were hunters & gatherers, back when humans were tribes of scavengers, religion first arose to explain things. Natural events like droughts, famines, tornadoes, volcanoes, along with human tragedies as infant mortality and birth defects, made 'god' a seemingly plausible viable belief. We are pattern-seeking animals and needed something to fill in the gap of explanation. The human cognition is driven to find patterns and coincidences to learn and adapt to the environment.

Any social control element came afterwards.