Panikkar's Four Attitudes

These attitudes are taken from Raimundo Panikkar's essay on "Four Attitudes," and they can apply to personal philosophies as well as religions.

Case I is Exclusivism: My philosophy is true; others are false.

Strength- Many religions actually make this claim. It can lead to a certain confidence and clear purpose. There is a sort of heroic passion shown by some people who have strong convictions.

Weakness- It is potentially intolerant, arrogant, contemptous of anyone who doesn't share this view.

Case 2 is Inclusivism: My philosophy is best. Others are inferior, but not necessarily false.

Strength- This is more tolerant without being eclectic or relativistic.

Weakness- It's rather hubristic, judgmental. It's condescending to other philosophies, as if they are merely being tolerated but not embraced.

Case 3- Parallelism: My philosophy is one path to truth, but others are equally viable.

Strength- This is tolerant and avoids eclecticiasm or "blending." It's a seperate but equal approach.

Weakness- It leaves philosophies in isolation. There is little guidance for interrelation.

Case 4- Interpenetration: My philosophy is one imperfect path amongst many, each of which has something to learn from the others.

Strength- It is tolerant, ecumenical, cooperative, open-ended.

Weakness- It doesn't stand for much. It could be too relativistic. It's "bimbo" like, nothing there. It could also be dismissive of all other religions and be a super religion, including all other religions.

Which one are you?

bis bald,

Nick

Post 1

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 9:48am

None of the above.

-- Bridget

Post 2

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 12:38pm

Please take the post seriously and explain. If you think it doesn't capture your attitude, in whole or part, please explain what your attitude is.

If you have nothing of value to say, Bridget, I'd appreciate it if you would just not post on me.

Nick

Post 3

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 8:11pm

My attitude is that I don't take things for granted, and that everything can be debated within a reasonable context. Yet, if there are arguments against the obvious that have no supporting evidence(s), then it is useless to consider them. Whether it's Intelligent Design, Free Energy, and what not; it is still on the onus of the person making the positive claim to prove it. But, this is not a plead to skepticism, because I do not consider perception inherentally flawed.

As for my views on philosophies, I don't have any. I go by my views and assess them as I feel the need to do so. And I don't buy into the relativism proposition either.

-- Bridget

Post 4

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 9:29pm

I respect that. I don't think I am consistently one of these attitudes either. However, I think this is a worthwhile model for people to reflect on their attitudes. Those who are overly intolerant may need to be a little more willing to question their own premises before they fly airplanes into buildings, and those who are overly wishy-washy may need to ask themselves what is worth taking a stand on, what is worth living and dying for.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 5

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 11:09pm

The underlying assumption of Panikkar's Four "Attitudes": That there's not one superior side of every debate.

Ahh, but there IS (it just takes some effort to identify).

Ed
[the probability of there being no right side of a debate -- ie. exactly equal value, afforded to opposite views -- is nil]

Post 6

Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 12:56am

None of the above.

What about "I base my philosophy on facts, reasoning, scientific enquiry and personal experience"?

I think the majority would change their philosophy in a second if someone PROVED his philosophy was better.

Panikar's categories apply to believers. Most of us are unbelieving athe�sts.

I don't feel the need to interact with other spiritualities. What matters is the human behind the religion, his actions and attitude towards life. If somebody has earned my respect and friendship, I couldn't care less about what he eats on friday or where he wants to go after death.

Religions will always be exclusif of each other, it's their nature: Believing is holding something to be true when it is not/cannot be proved to be true. Because believing doesn't rely on an external standard, there is no way to compare two beliefs.

Relgions don't interact, PEOPLE DO. Christians, jews, muslim, hindu, buddhists, wiccans, freethinkers, scientologist and baseball fans are able cooperate in thousands of ways, from starting a family to running a nation. What's important is benevolence and a desire for freedom, not what I think of my neighbours philosophy.

PS
Panikar's categories are paradoxes.

If Case 4 is right, (every philosophy contains some truth) then Case 1, (my philosophy is 100% true, all others false) is false. A case 4 believer is exclusive for case 1. In other words, a liberal christian is intolerant to a fundementalist, thus deniening himself acces to one form of belief, which could be, according to his beliefs, the missing piece in his spiritual jigsaw puzzle.

Post 7

Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 4:05pm