The first time I realised this was when I was reading The Inner Citadel and Plotinus, or The Simplicity of Vision by Pierre Hadot. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Surprisingly, reading Hadot had the opposite effect on me. It seems to me that Hadot does note the similarities, but more importantly also the differences between different philosophies. And where he ended up quite approving of Stoicisim/Epicureanism - he was quite critical of the Plotinian flight from this world. It's been quite a bit since I last read him though...

The examples you use all describe what takes place in the world (the universe) so I'm not sure we're using "transcendent" in the same way. — Ciceronianus the White

The experience doesn't seem to be situated in the physical world as I understand it. Some things in the physical world do give rise to, or lead to the experience, that is true, but the experience isn't of something situated anywhere in the world. I look at a beautiful painting, and behold, for a moment I am transfigured, experience the slowing down of time, the forgetfulness of a strong sense of self and the nearby world - and instead I become focused not on the painting itself, but on that which the painting expresses. You can search for the source of that experience anywhere you want in the atomic configuration of the painting and you will not find it.

I wonder if this accounts for Plato's dislike of artists. — Ciceronianus the White

I think Plato himself though was quite an artist - I find his dialogues sublime. Plato disliked artists because he understood how art can be misused to encourage base desires, instead of pursuit of the good. And there were some philosophers who found art to be very significant - such as Schopenhauer.

Conservatives and progressives sneer the same sneer. They dehumanize the other, project their own repressed dark side across the aisle. — Hoo

Certainly as far as it goes I think conservative principles are much more necessary for social order. As I have stated however, progressives also have a point with some of the issues they are championing, and these are simply to be incorporated.

I felt a thirst for something higher and larger-hearted than all of this grinding of oughts against oughts. I think that's why there is talk of the "beyond." Some part of us gets sick of the pettiness. — Hoo

Why not seek to put the two together? As I said, progressives also have some valid oughts.

I think facing one's own dark side (sex, violence, greed) is important, but then I was influenced by Jung. — Hoo

What do you mean by this? How do you "face" your dark side? Surely I would agree that we have to be aware of any tendencies we may have towards immorality and be watchful about them, as well as practice becoming better people on a continuous basis.

Haha no worries!

Why is that; if it is not merely an aesthetic disgust. Actually for that matter why would it be aesthetically disgusting at all? — John

As I said, because it is morally wrong - which doesn't necessarily have something with the legality of it.

I met a fairly dissolute street artist at a tapas bar in Barcelona when I was traveling; who told me, after a few beers and a hash joint, that he and his mates used to fuck a she-ass up in the hills of Morocca when he was about 14. He said the she-ass loved it and would come running when it saw them approaching. — John

Ok - I have my doubts regarding the story though, but surely it may be possible.

However could *that* happen.

Only kidding.

The etymology of the word is contested. Some say it is derived from the word for 'blood', others say that it is derived from a term meaning 'to miss the mark'. I prefer the latter.

I think a lot of damage has been done by Calvin's interpretation of Augustine. As you mentioned that you're Orthodox, you might be aware of that. The Orthodox interpretation of the 'original sin' is far less drastic than the Calvinist one with its ideas of absolute predestination.

In Buddhism, there is no 'original sin', however there is the idea of 'beginingless ignorance'. The major difference between 'sin' and 'ignorance' is that the former is volitional, i.e. corruption of the will, the latter is cognitive, i.e. corruption of the intellect (in scholarly terminology.) — Wayfarer

I never wrote that statement that you have attributed to me :D

As I see it, a general structure of law and sin pervades life. Even progressives who scoff at religion themselves obsess over whether they are guilty of racism or sexism. This is their version of sin. I don't think it's different in first-person emotional terms from the experience of "old-fashioned" sin. The world is and has always been a traffic jam of law-bringers, accusers, and those guilty before their own law and the laws of others. It's a jungle of status significations, apes beating their chests, Inquisitions, class race and gender solidarities, Stalinist purges, paleo diets and crossfit as religion, etc. etc. It's the assertion of finite personality as the "true" law. The self identifies with something finite and partial and is therefore at war.
But stepping into "Christ" is stepping out of all this noise and angst and need to assert. It affirms even the endless narcissism that jungle of finite personality is made of. It is itself clarified and opened by moves within this jungle.
So the freedom in Christ has its contrast in the mundane world, which it does not replace or obliterate. — Hoo

Yes they (the progressives) do have a small, tiny point. Although I think they take it to extremes, the same way ISIS fundamentalists take it to extremes. I'm a conservative, but nevertheless approve of those subjects of social justice and left-leaning economics into my political positions. I don't think Christians for example understand by "the wife should obey the husband" that the wife should kill herself if her husband tells her to for example. But rather if, for example, there is a disagreement about which school the child should attend, the husband should have the final say, but he should nevertheless consider the wife's position and thoughts. A feminazi is likely to think something different - although they will have a point that the wife shouldn't be abused or mistreated or disconsidered. They rebel against power structures - I being a conservative seek to maintain power structures, and think that respect for those power structures is essential in everyone's well being, as they are what is required for order to be maintained, and everyone profits from that. Although I do agree power structures shouldn't be abused. But just because it is possible for them to be abused doesn't mean that they are bad. It is worse if there are no power structures.

And yet we somehow know that it is deeply wrong in a truly grotesque ( and not merely aesthetically grotesque) way. — John

Yes but that is more morality than law (that we find it grotesque and deeply wrong). Furthermore, the problem is that the animal probably will not sit there patiently for the man (or woman) to do it (as it is simply not attracted to them). Thus it is very likely that forcing the animal will be involved. And that is an example of violence and cruelty which should be punished by law.

Hegel made this kind of point also in a somewhat different way. Freedom, he said, is impossible without discipline, which is achieved by habituation, by following rules or procedures. The great concert pianist has achieved greatness, that is freedom of expression, by internalizing the necessary constraints via discipline, but her actual freedom does not consist in following any rule or procedure, but in transcending them. — John

Yes! I am aware of this although my direct study of Hegel is quite lacking in comparison with other philosophers I have studied. This point is especially important for some conservative, Right Hegelians I've looked into, such as Ivan Ilyin.

Yes, of course murder has greater effects on others than gluttony, that is just why it is worse. It also would have greater effects on oneself; and that is also why it is worse. — John

I agree. My distinction was aimed merely at showing that some sins we need to treat differently than others. Some we need punishments for because they do not only (or mostly) harm the doer - they also harm others. These are sins such as murder, adultery, theft, etc. Other sins like gluttony, compulsive masturbation, etc. may harm the doer, but generally only bring little harm on others. We organise society not based on preventing self-harm, but preventing the injury of others. Whereas in morality we are interested in both self and others. We call immoral that which brings harm either to self or others. Under the law, we only care about how others are affected - how the doer is affected remains irrelevant. Thus we call unlawful only that which harms another.

If I'm close to another position, all the better. I really love Hegel and the conceptual evolution of self-consciousness. Ideas can glow. We can passionately love them. So maybe we aren't so far apart. But for me there's the concept of something beyond any law or authority. Maybe it's the in-finite concept as the negation/subsumption of all finite concepts. I get something from it, and I can relate it to themes in the Gospels, but I make no claim toward its universal validity or relevance. — Hoo

Maybe in a bit you'll end up like G.K. Chesterton!

When I fancied that I stood alone I was really in the ridiculous position of being backed up by all Christendom. It may be, Heaven forgive me, that I did try to be original; but I only succeeded in inventing all by myself a copy [...] of the existing traditions of civilized religion [...] I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy — G. K. Chesterton

Certainly murder is worse than gluttony; I don't think anyone would disagree with that. — John

My point isn't about the morality of it for the doer, but about the way it affects others. Murder is likely to have stronger effects than theft, which is likely to have stronger effects than something like gluttony, and so forth.

If I'm close to another position, all the better. I really love Hegel and the conceptual evolution of self-consciousness. Ideas can glow. We can passionately love them. So maybe we aren't so far apart. But for me there's the concept of something beyond any law or authority. Maybe it's the in-finite concept as the negation/subsumption of all finite concepts. I get something from it, and I can relate it to themes in the Gospels, but I make no claim toward its universal validity or relevance. — Hoo

Well yes, it's a position I find tempting (and interesting) - that of an absolute freedom not bound by anything. But then I also find that to contain its own contradiction inside - a freedom not bound by anything is a denial of the possibility of law, and hence of itself. Freedom and law need each other - they are mutually fulfilling, not mutually denying.

Gluttony may lead to obesity and other severe health problems that place a tremendous burden on those who must care for the obese person; or his family may struggle to survive if the person dies very young and was the breadwinner, and so on. — John

Sure but you certainly do see the way in which such effects are less likely in the case of gluttony, and more likely in the case of something like murder.

If that is so, then you are dangerously close to the Orthodox position. Because you'll end up saying that you love according to the intellect - hence an intellectual love, not a mindless one. And the intellect as I said just is the Law.

The Law is beneath him, but not because he's so eager to break it. It's just a man made thing, a political tool, technology that enables community. — Hoo

Or rather Christ is the Law...

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven — Jesus Christ

The Law is beneath him, but not because he's so eager to break it — Hoo

But the only question is "could he break it?" and to that I would answer no. Why? Because his will and intellect are one, and thus the will cannot act contrary to the intellect, which (the intellect) is the law.

One doesn't want to steal or kill or commit adultery, or at least one's best self doesn't — Hoo

Here I think there is a difference. If God is the totality as you say, and man is a part of that - then we cannot pretend that what must hold true of the totality also holds true of the part. For God, his intellect and his will are one and the same. Thus God cannot act contrary to the Law, which is given by his intellect. For man - who is a part of this totality, his will is separate from his intellect. Thus man's will can act contrary to his intellect. The part that is always free and always pure, as you say, that is the intellect. That's "one's best self". But the will can and often is corrupt, and thus acts against one's best self. That's why St. Paul writes:

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me — St. Paul

Thanks for the tip. I have to be honest though and say that I can only see duty as part of the Law that "my" so-called Christ (name doesn't matter) "transcends." There's an everyday sense of duty that I relate to, of course. — Hoo

Yes but what if you were to find a reason for freely choosing duty? That's Kierkegaard's point.

My position would be that I think a mistake is committed when we go from "part of the divine" to "the whole of the divine". The whole of the divine is the Law and it makes little sense to say it transcends itself for a reason I will soon explain. But a soul (part of the divine) in no way can transcend the Law, which is always higher than it.

Now - if the divine were to transcend itself, then what this really implies is that the divine is more alike a will than alike an intellect - namely, God could desire X to be good, regardless of what it is, and then it would be - God would transcend whatever law. But I disagree with this conception. I don't agree with such a capricious God. I much rather find the idea of a God who is more like an intellect than a will appealing. Meaning that God always acts according to the Law, because the Law is simply God's nature. So God's will acts according to his intellect - his will and his intellect are one.

Owen Barfield suggests in this article here:
http://www.owenbarfield.org/rudolf-steiner-and-hegel/ — John

Seems like an interesting read, thanks for sharing that. His book Saving the Appearances influenced my thinking quite a bit!

indeed, well said! :D

Yes that is true (regarding Platonism). It seems much more other-worldly focused than Catholicism for example. Not that I necessarily view that as a good thing, but it's the way things have been. I think this other-worldly focus has sidelined them a lot - one of the reasons that Eastern Orthodoxy isn't more widespread. Same as Buddhism - a relatively peaceful religion, focused solely on Nirvana - can't expand and grow that much, as it puts the emphasis on the spiritual to the detriment, if necessary, of the worldly. Personally I prefer a stronger balance, and therefore find myself being much more an Aristotelian than a Platonist - the spiritual merely uplifts, but does not negate the worldly - and worldly things are also goods.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity nice to see you quote about it! I'm an Orthodox Christian ;)

You may find Kierkegaard's Works of Love interesting at reconciling your idea of radical freedom with the idea of duty - it's one of the core aspects he deals with. In short, lovers choose (out of their freedom one might add) to swear their love by God (and hence by duty) because this is the only thing that can make it eternal - this is the only thing greater than their own love, which can thus guarantee their love for eternity -> "I will love you forever, because I ought to".

I find Sam Harris' ideas about morality and free will to be odd and poorly supported. New Atheism (of which he is a part) has a political agenda with which I disagree. — anonymous66

I agree with your views! :)

Epicurus did believe in the gods. He even had an argument to defend his belief. He just also believed that they had nothing to do with us, and that rather we are completely on our own. — anonymous66

Sure, but in practical terms, he was an atheist. His behaviour did not hinge on the belief in gods, as gods have nothing to do with men. Whereas for Sam Harris, his behaviour does hinge on the non-existence of gods.

The atheists I know appear to be of the opinion that morality is something bad that religions thought up, and that a better world is one in which people don't think of morality, except in terms of claiming that nothing is, our should be thought of as being immoral. — anonymous66

Yes; the difference between Sam Harris and Epicurus is that Epicurus honestly disbelieves in God, while Sam Harris uses his disbelief as a justification for his vices.

It's just religion must offer something beyond politics and prudence and even theology and metaphysics in my view, and I find that it does. — Hoo

Could you clarify please in more detail what you mean by this? Thanks :)

That underlined bit is the "Hegel." Frustration/incoherence leads up the ladder to higher forms of love. So "sin" or "error" is necessary and the desired being or highest love is not timeless but instead utterly depends on time. There's no jumping ahead of the dialectic. We live forwards but understand backwards. (Or that's how I'm seeing it.) — Hoo

That sin and error are necessary for the progression of an individual is undeniable. However - a society, in order to maintain the stability required for the individual's progression must contain and restrain sin. It is impossible for the virtues to arise in a social environment which is totally corrupt. Why? Because the corrupt mechanism has its own power structures which restrain virtue, and prevent it from occurring. How do those power structures manifest? Let's look at a basic example - a child going to school. Now the child may be seeking to be virtuous - but the other kids bring alcohol to school, they encourage him to drink and isolate him if he doesn't, they encourage him to be promiscuous or at least not condemn promiscuity in order to even talk with them, and so forth. Now having friends is a good thing - so they are using that as a way to convince him to give up whatever interest he had in the virtues, by effectively saying "if you are interested in virtue, then you can't have friendship". This is a power structure, and a corrupt one too. Thus cultural elements are required in order to combat this.

This is what I originally had in mind when I thought of Plato on Eros: — Hoo

Keep in mind an important aspect. In Athenian culture, it was unfit for a young male to be interested in females. Why? Because if he put all his efforts into pursuing female beauty, he would not be able to develop the virtues. His mind would be obsessed about one thing only, and he would never manage to take control over his sexuality. It was both safer to spend time with an older man, and much more likely that he would learn the virtues. So this form of homosexuality had a very different aim than homosexuality does today. Furthermore, it is to be remarked that homosexual relationships between middle aged men were generally viewed with contempt - because at that age men were supposed to devote themselves to their wife. The "fear" the Greeks had regarding women were there because they understood what havoc women could have on the uninitiated man's mind (which is something we seem to have forgotten today - we do quite the contrary, we do everything we can to encourage women to use their body and talents to be attractive and to manipulate men - and same for men - a total lack of culture). Hence they developed the whole schema for young males that love of women was a lower kind of love - in order to discourage it.

Why don't you start then? :D

Indeed, by today's lights it was probably nearer asceticism. — Wayfarer

Ah the pious atheism of Epicurus! >:O How I miss that atheism....

As for sin - sin is the ultimately politically-incorrect word nowadays. — Wayfarer

Whatever Became of Sin by Karl Menninger (a psychiatrist) discusses this idea in detail if you are interested.

I know on the Buddhist forum, one of their dogmas is that 'Buddhists don't have an idea of "sin" ' but I think that is basically because of the way it has been interpreted by the counter-culture (and also for marketing purposes, if you asked me). — Wayfarer

Yes agreed.

Of course it sounds censorious or abstemious to speak in terms of detachment from desire, but I think it is an unfortunate necessity, because human nature, if it follows its own instincts, generally is not going to home in on existential truths of any kind — Wayfarer

I don't think this is entirely true. I think those who have the time to think and reason about their impulses and desires will understand that those desires are really aimed at something good - all of them. For example the desire for sex - it's really aimed at the desire for intimacy. Usually what happens is that person X, for whatever reason, comes to the conclusion that the ideal of intimacy can't be achieved (for whatever reason - which could be his failings in love, his inability to find someone adequate, his broken heart, etc.), and therefore in hatred renounces it, and then goes full on in despairing indulgence of whatever is left. So something is wrong with the way people sometimes pursue it - that's their own ignorance of the true object of their desire. It's a problem for the rest of us because it doesn't only harm themselves - as a sin like gluttony would for example - but it also harms the rest of us. Thus we require ways to protect innocent people - either that they are cultural attitudes we have, or laws - and for this type of thing I think cultural attitudes are a lot more efficacious.

I think, to be brutally frank, the hostilty to those ideas is because we don't want it to be true, we would just like to please ourselves - sure, be 'nice people' X-) , 'kind', and all the rest, but basically stay as we are. — Wayfarer

Hahahaha! Yes being 'nice people'. I've abandoned my two year old son, I've let my parents die alone, I've disregarded and disrespected the love of my wife - but I'm a nice person, I send money to my son and my parents, I send a birthday present once a year to my wife, you know ;) lol (I have to now specify that this is a joke - because some people, notably John on this board, take every example I give as fact about me...) The problem isn't that we stay as we are, so much that we hide from the ways in which we harm ourselves and others.

I aspire to be free from selfish inclinations and cravings, because I would like to think it opens the door to a higher kind of life, but it ain't an easy thing to achieve, and there doesn't seem to be a silver bullet. — Wayfarer

Well - the elephant is swallowed with the teaspoon. Virtues (or vices) are cultivated by habit and understanding. Understanding of what? How they benefit or harm you from an objective point of view. A drug addict cannot renounce the drug until he understands how he is harmed. Sure, that understanding is not sufficient. Then will-power and training is also needed. But understanding is at least necessary.

I think religion is often framed in terms of a set of prohibitions. — Hoo

Yes - I think that's good because not everyone has the wisdom or the time to be a philosopher and understand how some particular may affect them especially in the long-drawn out future. The punishment/reward system, the traditions, the moral injunctions - these aim to maintain order even when most of the people do not understand how it is to be maintained.

So religion "falls" into accusation and self-righteousness — Hoo

A necessary fall in the government of men.

The key point is that sin is just privation or clumsy desire. Prudence dictates that we make laws, cage the violent. But I think religion is best when it accuses nothing, forbids nothing, but points to the transcendent not as a duty but as an opportunity. — Hoo

Yes but you see - some vices bear their effects on everyone else around. Religion doesn't condemn you in any strong form for gluttony - that is an evil that you do only to yourself (hence why you don't see gluttony in the 10 Commandments). But it does condemn you in a strong form for adultery or for murder - because those have serious effects in disturbing social order and profoundly affecting the lives of people around you. So it's not only an evil you do to yourself - it's a privation you impose on others as well. So don't forget that not everyone will be a philosopher, hence it is the duty of religion (and other power structures) to impose laws to control and prevent - by force if needed - those vices which do threaten the well-being of innocent others around you.

It's a treatise on left politics for leftists — Moliere

I'm out of here then I guess :P

It was a three-word response to the question 'hey what's wrong with simply enjoying life'. It wasn't a philosophical treatise. — Wayfarer

Well the real answer I believe is that "nothing is wrong in simply enjoying life". Simply enjoying life is probably the best way to live. However - this does require a certain wisdom, most easily begotten from tradition, including the virtues. Someone who cheats on their girlfriend will probably not be able to "simply enjoy life", and good things will easily be taken away from him, making him pursue them even harder, and if he does so confusedly, he will make them even farther from his reach. It doesn't require philosophy - if philosophy was a requirement, the common man could never achieve blessedness. But I think the common man can eminently achieve blessedness, and often does so more frequently than the arrogant learned.

And really my main point was just that the discourse "everything is transient" is very confusing and likely to lead someone into the wrong view - nihilism, or absurdism.

That last point, is the point. — Wayfarer

Yes but the other things are also goods - which is very important. Many from the Platonic tradition go to the extreme of saying that just because the transcendent is the supreme good, everything else is unimportant - that's not true.

But that doesn't include desiring fast food, porno, mindless entertainment, money, thrills, etc, right? — Wayfarer

Well you have to consider what one truly desires when they opt for fast food, porn, mindless entertainment, money, thrills etc. They are very likely confused about the object of their desire. For example, when someone desires sex, they probably desire some form of intimacy. Now some think they can achieve this without being committed - thus they engage in promiscuous sex. Some think they can achieve this merely through sex, regardless of other elements of the relationship. And so forth - there are many possible deceptions about the object of desire. And these are deceptions precisely because the so called object of desire they identify actually frustrates the achievement of the authentic, underlying desire - they prevent the actual object of desire from being obtained. So yes - the desire for sex is the desire for intimacy, and it is good. The desire for food is the desire for a healthy and well-nurtured body and it is good, although a lesser good than the transcendent for example, because one wants a healthy and well-nurtured body in order to be able to achieve many of the other goods. The supreme good is the transcendent though.

'Filling the emptiness' has nothing to do with it, that is simply seeking satiety — Wayfarer

Not if you define satiety, as one should, as incomplete fulfilment of desire (it's incomplete because desire rises again - if it was complete, no desire would arise). Much more, I think so called satiety occurs when one mis-identifies the object of desire, and thus only temporarily deceives themselves that they are fulfilled. Furthermore, there are very serious problems with your language on this matter. "Everything is transient" is contradictory to:

The whole point of the spiritual path is to find what is not subject to change and decay — Wayfarer

If everything really were subject to change and decay, then there would be no spiritual path - a quest for the changeless would be a quest for that which doesn't exist in the first place, which is absurd. Look at this:

It is impossible for any created good to constitute man's happiness. For happiness is the perfect good, which lulls the appetite altogether; else it would not be the last end, if something yet remained to be desired. Now the object of the will, i.e. of man's appetite, is the universal good; just as the object of the intellect is the universal true. Hence it is evident that naught can lull man's will, save the universal good. This is to be found, not in any creature, but in God alone; because every creature has goodness by participation. Wherefore God alone can satisfy the will of man, according to the words of Ps.102:5: "Who satisfieth thy desire with good things." Therefore God alone constitutes man's happiness. — St. Thomas Aquinas

Look how clear that language is. Desire is good - desire points you towards the good. When you truly understand desire, then you understand that it cannot be fulfilled alone by things other than the transcendent, then you stop lusting for those (which is your "everything is transient" speech). However, there was nothing in your "everything is transient" speech that could have ever pointed to "the whole point of the spiritual path is to find what is not subject to change and decay". In fact, you couldn't even put the two together - they're mutually contradictory, unless you get yourself into some complicated word play - the transcendent doesn't really exist, because only things in the world exist, bla bla. Instead of teaching the simple point - namely desire is good, focus on understanding what you truly lack, and hence what will truly make you fulfilled - you go about in a very confusing manner. If someone reads just that one post, they'll think you're a nihilist - "everything is transient, nothing is permanent".

It depends. Everything is transient, I think the beginning of the path is the awareness of that. — Wayfarer

Really? If that were true, man's fulfilment would be impossible. Man has desire. Desire is the reflection of an emptiness, a thirst. Filling that emptiness - that is the quieting of desire. But if nothing is unchanging, nothing is eternal, then fulfilment of desire can never be eternal, and hence desire can never be quieted - thus there would be no end to suffering.

Well, I agree that Watts' actions ought not to be emulated, but The Supreme Identity is a uniquely valuable book, regardless. — Wayfarer

How is that possible? It's impossible that a man whose life is not transformed by it is in possession of the truth. It's a performative contradiction. Like Heidegger - I think Heidegger may have made a few interesting points, but I refuse to recognise his works as "great" due to his moral failings (supporting Nazism, doing anything to advance his career, having sex with his students - including Hannah Arendt, etc.). Such a man could not have been in possession of truth (and any truth he was in possession of was certainly corrupted). Thus despite his interesting points, I think his works can safely be avoided by someone in pursuit of the truth. The same points may be found stated differently in other sources.

But then again, he never presented himself as guru nor was he ever pious, and besides his books are really good; his philosophical prose is peerless in his genre. That book, and Beyond Theology, Way of Zen, and several others, remain on my all-time favourites and I would still have no hesitation in recommending them to anyone. — Wayfarer

But this is an excuse. Who cares if his works were peerless? They clearly weren't so powerful as to get him to change. So it's in the end just beautiful but meaningless words, which don't mean much in reality. It's like a drunk writing a very beautiful poem, and many others coming after and wondering what genius has written it, and what is the intended meaning. Clearly no meaning was ever intended.

People require an ordered environment to flourish, they cannot flourish in disorder. And people like Alan Watts are proof of just that. What happens when order is disconsidered, and people are encouraged to travel on their own, lonely path.