Citation:
Zhenfu WANG. Primitive “Culture of Belief” and Anthropological Turn[J]. Academic Monthly, 2022, 54(8): 129-142.
Primitive “Culture of Belief” and Anthropological Turn
-
Abstract
The concept of “primitive religion” which is popular in academic world of today is incorrect for it takes the primitive worship of nature and the worship of ancestors, and their combination, as the connotation of history and humanity in primitive religion. It is to be discussed that Taylor, father of anthropology, identified animism as “the first definition” of religious culture. In fact, the earliest cultural ideology of human beings is the trinity of primitive myth, totem and sorcery, while they have their individual “nature”, which can be summarized with a newly-proposed academic concept of primitive “culture of belief”. This may be a anthropological turn. It is possible to reach academic truth to engage in anthropological studies from the dimensions either in broad sense or in narrow sense. The studies in sorcery culture in China, as it contains the primitive culture of belief, aims to reach a study of the native culture of China, and this may be another possible anthropological turn.
-
-
References
-
Access
-
-
[1]
Shuxian YE
. Anthropological Turn: An Interdisciplinary Leader of New Liberal Arts. Academic Monthly,
2022, 54(8): 143-154.
-
[2]
Gang XIAN
. Schelling on the Origin and Nature of Mythology. Academic Monthly,
2022, 54(7): 18-26.
-
[3]
Mingming WANG
. Association, Comparison and Reconsideration: Fei Xiaotong’s Thesis of “Heaven-Man Unity” and the Anthropological “Ontological Turn”. Academic Monthly,
2019, 51(8): 143-167, 178.
-
[4]
HAN Sheng
. The Death of Emperor Wu and His Religious Cultural Policy. Academic Monthly,
2023, 55(7): 163-178.
-
[5]
Qing TAO
, Xiao’an LIANG
. Marxist Anthropological Research in the Perspective of Political Science. Academic Monthly,
2022, 54(8): 67-79.
-
[6]
NAN Xing
. Kantian Freedom: Anthropological not Metaphysical. Academic Monthly,
2023, 55(8): 27-40.
-
[7]
Ke FAN
. The Living Wisdom and Ecological Civilization in an Anthropology Perspective. Academic Monthly,
2020, 52(3): 141-154, 120.
-
[8]
Qingjie WANG
. Is Heidegger’s Fundamental Ontology A Philosophical Anthropology?. Academic Monthly,
2019, 51(8): 5-12.
-
[9]
,
. . Academic Monthly,
2017, 49(02): 106-116.
-
[10]
Yajun CHEN
. How the Myth of the Given is Collapsed by Pittsburgh School. Academic Monthly,
2023, 55(1): 20-30.
-
[11]
. . Academic Monthly,
2017, 49(12): 162-171.
-
[12]
. . Academic Monthly,
2016, 48(05): 5-12.
-
[13]
BI Xuling
. The Time Pedigree of the Solar Term Myth Narrative and the Innovative Characteristics of Chinese Civilization. Academic Monthly,
2024, 56(1): 155-163.
-
[14]
. . Academic Monthly,
2016, 48(02): 169-178.
-
[15]
. . Academic Monthly,
2017, 49(03): 131-140.
-
[16]
. . Academic Monthly,
2020, 52(8): 15-26.
-
[17]
Xiangchen SUN
. Hegel on the State and Religion. Academic Monthly,
2019, 51(4): 17-30.
-
[18]
Handing HONG
. Hermeneutics and the Eternity of Human Mind. Academic Monthly,
2018, 50(10): 5-16.
-
[19]
. . Academic Monthly,
2016, 48(01): 117-126.
-
[20]
. . Academic Monthly,
2017, 49(07): 127-135.
-
-