The Philosophy of Superstition

Superstition is one of those odd ideas that everyone at some time claims on behalf of someone else, but never claim for themselves.

This ought to come as no surprise since superstition is, itself, a modern concept designed to misrepresent competing world views. It is invented by certain philosophical cults to harangue opposing philosophies. So what is the philosophy behind “superstition”?

Superstition is the act of mixing incommensurable ontologies to create an ontological hybrid object.
For example,

  1. it is a superstition to believe in the idea that light of 630nm really is red. Here, material objects and experiential objects get mixed up into one odd object - in this case the superstitious ontological hybrid “red light”.
  2. it is a superstition to believe that sky gods physically “affect” the weather. Claims such as this one, usually made against “primitive” tribes are themselves superstitions. This is because the claimant supposes, wrongly, that tribes are employing a physical model of “affect”.

I personally don’t give the scientific idea of superstition any credence, and think that where it is used against others the person using it needs to explain themselves: for most of the time the claim “superstition” is simply used as a tool of misrepresentation.

What do you mean “really is red”? That wavelength is within the definition of “red”. Definitions are always necessarily semi-arbitrary and don’t exist in reality, but just as much as the thing you’re sitting on really is a chair, light with wavelength 630nm really is (a shade of) red.

So, no, it’s not a superstition, it’s just how words work. If you have a beef with how words are defined, take it up with Webster.

An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

The word itself was first in Latin and just meant someone that takes a stand regarding the gods that is extreme and beyond the normally witnessed devotion to some idea regarding the gods.

Ergo, super- sta-.

It refers to being beyond the ground of standing on a proposition; it means that whatever the assertion is, at the time typically in regards to the gods, it is beyond conventional understanding of the devotion to the stance.

So no…that example with “red” is absolutely not a superstition.
Neither is the god’s example.

Because the word really refers to the idea of being even beyond the normal range of what is expected even religiously.

David Koresh; that’s a properly good example of superstition.

In the common tongue, what people generally mean by “superstition” is either dark ages beliefs that are no longer commonly thought valid even religiously, or they mean spiritually paranoid (being creeped out by unexplainable, yet amazing, coincidences).

No light has colour.

Your definition, taken from an academic source, is circular. It is circular because “irrational” is explained in terms of not “logical”.

Being “beyond conventional understanding of the devotion to the stance” is another way of saying what I said - that superstotion is a claim made against competeing ontologies. But it is the claim that is ephemeral.

You don’t know what those words mean.

I agree, light doesn’t “have” color. Light has a property called wavelength. When the light hits our eyes, the wavelength registers as color.
Here, get educated, click this

also, i’d like to point out that if there’s no color, there’s also no such thing as radio waves, micro waves, x rays, ultra-violet and infra-red, since all those things are, EXACTLY like color, distinguished ONLY by different wavelengths of photons.

so, do you also hold that there’s no such thing as radio waves, micro waves, x rays, ultra-violet and infra red?

The entire English language is circular.

It’s not made against competition.
It’s made in expectation from the normative when in witness to that which goes beyond and above the normative.

If I see 2,000,000 people and they behave on average to a given medium regarding religion, and then I see one person that takes their religious stance beyond that average that I have come to expect, then they are superstitious by definition.

Specifically, however, the word arose for a very narrow use that has not really been applied since, but is quite applicable today once again.
It arose because there was a trend in Rome of apocalyptic fear of the gods and those that would become caught up hysterically in that stance beyond any attempts to bring them back into societal function were called superstitious.

It carried over from there to refer to beliefs that were not orthodox of the Church but local pre-Christian beliefs of a given area and eventually thereby became a term with derogatory tone.

It means something akin to this air now, but it also means “mystical”.
It depends on who’s saying it and what context they are using it as to what it means in common tongue now.

Either way…red is not superstitious to any application of the word.