• Gospel of Thomas
    ↪baker
    For example, in traditionally Buddhists countries, monks are considered the elite, even though they lead materially very simple lives (or at least, they should, on principle). — baker

    Absolutely right - this was my point before - recondite knowledge is the poor person's pathway to an elite status. I suspect this is behind the pursuit of much mysticism.
  • Gospel of Thomas
    I believe you chronology is a bit off. Kabbalah was developed centuries after the Gnostics — Count Timothy von Icarus
    Quite right. I wasn't intending to suggest K was earlier than Gnostics or in fact connected. Nor are the Scientologists :smile: I was just saying that the styles are reminiscent.

    The Cathars! I forgot all about them. I still think it is correct to make a connection between the appeal of a secret teaching and a powerless group. It can make them feel special when all manner of shit is raining done on them. In this way, I suspect there is an overlap with conspiracy theories held by community members who feel left out but by 'elites'.

    The notion of secret wisdom has always been fascinating too. The Holy Grail is one later symbol of this, but dumbed down as a crass materialist trinket of 'everlasting life.'

    In relation to Gnosticism (and yes, it was not monolithic) I was galvanised years back when I read the idea that there was once an additional piller added to the more conventional Christian traditions of Faith and Reason. The third piller of Gnosis (loosely the idea that we are all divine). It sounds as though the early organised church got Faith and Reason together to beat up on Gnosis (in the words of one commentator I read).

    But tropes fill the air again - can there be anything more encrusted in clichés than the notion that a venerable early tradition was overtaken by the imperious forces of an organized tradition. The Name of the Rose picks up this theme in medieval times when the church is betraying itself yet again. I won't mention Dan Brown. This theme is on rince and repeat

    If we see gnosis as, perhaps, a more venerable answer to faith (no small thing) as a pathway to personal salvation (is that the right word when applied to gnosis?) can anyone tell me what gnosis might look like when applied now to the Christ story - Gnosticism being very much a part of a first century epoch.
  • Gospel of Thomas
    That's why Pagel's book, Beyond Belief, appealed to me, as it confirmed this narrative. According to Pagels, Thomas' gospel was markedly different to the Gospel of John, in that it stressed the experiential nature of Christ's teaching and downplayed the idea of Jesus as an ultimate authority. But the powers-that-be coalesced around the Johannine intepretation - principally, I thought, because it is considerably easier to manage believers. We only ever read about the gnostics through the writings of those who vanquished them, like Iraneus and Tertullian. That is why the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts was such a revelation. — Wayfarer

    Certainly some Gnostic schools (and early Christianity more generally) suggests that Jesus is a mortal man with Gnosis, not the Holy Spirt galvanizing him. Jesus is seen as an exemplar of the man who transitioned spiritually through knowledge, but not in a literally divine sense. But does this mean we are not to see Jesus as a type of Bodhisattva, I have never quite determined what to conclude.
  • Gospel of Thomas
    [
    I picked up a vibe early that you were coming in with a kind of detached psychological/analytic approach - kind of therapist-used-to-probing-others-while-their-own-views-remain-safely-unspoken - that just felt deeply counter to the kind of conversation I'm interested in. I pushed back accordingly. — csalisbury

    I have to watch how I come across. I certainly can be detached and analytical just as you say. The problem with forums is the conversation can feel impersonal and veiled and because philosophy and cultural studies can hit controversial subjects, it is often hard to know what tone to strike.

    The interesting thing about the opening of Thomas is that it has the familiar tropes of mysticism that frankly seem designed to appeal to personal vanity. Secret knowledge/ key to personal transformation. This is right out of Hermetic wisdom or the Kabbalah. But frankly the same proposition is made in Scientology. Is it the case that secret or hidden teachings are the classic refuge of the dispossessed and marginalized? (think I first read that in Isadore Epstein's Judaism - his take on Kabbalah).

    What is appealing about mainstream Christianity is the surface appeal of the myth. Jesus is the least mystical of religious teachers. A key teaching is about loving the poor, the weak, the scorned - so detested by Nietzsche and so many modern sensibilities - is actually a powerful idea with far reaching repercussions. There is no need for secret teaching or initiation. That's refreshing. This to me is where orthodoxy (for want of a better term) has the edge on the more secretive Gnosticism. Making something a secret doesn't mean it is more profound, but it sure seems that way.

    Perhaps the Gnostic stuff appeals more to people with hierarchical machinations on their mind. "How can I access the real wisdom and the key to ever lasting life?" (or whatever the reward underpinning the doctrines might be) Is it not interesting that the Gnostic teachings also pivot on an idea that is so prevalent now. That the world is coming unstuck and the truth is hidden by design and that only some with the right mindfulness can access this truth. It makes you wonder if QAnon is today's apocalyptic nascent religious tradition with a baroque line in hidden internet based scripture - waiting to be rediscovered in 2000 years and reinterpreted for the times.

    Oops, that was more of a flight of ideas than a coherent view.
  • Gospel of Thomas
    ↪Valentinus
    In the days before the internet it was so hard to get good information on this subject and Pagels was so helpful if you could get her book on order. You kind of needed to have select friends in University religious departments to learn more. The snobbery against Gnosticism was pretty strong. The first translations from the Jung codex had to be ordered from overseas and some were still to be properly completed.
  • Gospel of Thomas
    ↪csalisbury
    Pagels (who doesn't sing) is a reference to one of the seminal writers on this subject - surely this name is copasetic. Her work on the Gospel of Judas was revelatory to me (no pun intended). The notion of Judas being the most loved and significant of all the disciples (because he had a key role in setting the divine plan in motion) is a compelling idea. A beatific betrayal, if you like. This was also echoed in the novel The Last Temptation of Christ, another extraordinary mystical interpretation of the story.
  • Gospel of Thomas
    ↪csalisbury
    Interesting, why are you attracted to this approach to the gnostic gospels (perhaps, mysticism in genera?) I notice you're using autobiographical detail, proper names, and indications of your inclusion in a kind of a sanctified, certified community. What does this approach do for you? — csalisbury

    I wouldn't assume so much. No proper names used. The tiniest of autobiographical fragments that contextualize my interest in this subject. As to 'inclusion in a kind of sanctified certified community' - sounds like you worked hard at a kind of put down, but I shouldn't assume. What does it do for me? Conversation helps me understand where others are coming from. Mysticism is the one off shoot of religion I have found most interesting over the years, probably its the use of allegory. But it is very easy to get marooned in nonsense too.
  • Gospel of Thomas
    ↪csalisbury
    What do you make of the first couple parts? — csalisbury

    I don't have any views on it as I don't remember the documents well enough. I read some of them in the 1980's and I knew one of Carl Jung's offsiders when the Jung Codex was put together. We spent a good deal of time discussing their significance to early Christianity. Nothing you won't find in Elaine Pagle's famous book (The Gnositc Gospels).
  • Gospel of Thomas
    ↪Valentinus
    Not attracted. Interested.
  • Gospel of Thomas
    ↪csalisbury
    There are so many misconceptions about the Gnostic gospels whether it be that of Thomas, Mary, Judas, Phillip - whichever. Because this material is tendentious, scholars are often inaccurate and contradictory on this material too, so you need to be very careful about what you assume from these texts. Why are you attracted to this material?
  • Do We Need Therapy? Psychology and the Problem of Human Suffering: What Works and What Doesn't?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    I have worked in the field for many years. All I am saying is people need not distract themselves with solving puzzles or wondering about criteria or this therapy versus that one, or how many types of classifications or schools there are possible. Bottom line: if you feel sad or unhappy in any way for an extend time. Seek help. Best response. There's no doubt that people distract themselves from treatment by many other activities or rationalizations. I would never say that therapy works for everyone or that medication is the answer, but astonishing transformations and improvements do happen all the time. Psychosocial options are critical too.
  • Do atheists even exist? As in would they exist if God existed?
    It could be argued that is a problem of institutionalism rather than any religious indoctrination in particular. — Paul S

    Not sure what that sentence means. But in essence if a movement, in this case, religion, keeps generating institutions all over the world (and in every religious format) that are retrograde, then the issue is religion's effect on people, surely?
  • Do We Need Therapy? Psychology and the Problem of Human Suffering: What Works and What Doesn't?
    Turns out, 80% of depressions can be cured by not having a war where you live. — unenlightened

    That's be my guess too.
  • Do We Need Therapy? Psychology and the Problem of Human Suffering: What Works and What Doesn't?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    Jack - analysis/paralysis. It is not very complex. If someone is in despair (whatever you wish to call it) and feeling chronic emptiness, it is likely to be depression and requires treatment/intervention. There is no sense in trying to analyze or categorize this one further. An inability to experience joy, with feelings of dread requires intervention.
  • Do We Need Therapy? Psychology and the Problem of Human Suffering: What Works and What Doesn't?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    What you describe is depression and requires compassionate treatment.
  • Do atheists even exist? As in would they exist if God existed?
    God is one of those things that should rarely escape from the personal realm. Who gives a rat's ass what anybody else thinks when it comes to your religious/spiritual beliefs? — synthesis

    The problem is in some countries a particularly primitive expression of religion is a massive influence on generating retrograde social policies and laws and negatively impacting upon the life of others.
  • Do We Need Therapy? Psychology and the Problem of Human Suffering: What Works and What Doesn't?
    I am asking about how therapy helps in response to the problem of human suffering and asking to what extent it may help? Can it even aid in the experience of nihilism? — Jack Cummins

    Therapy is no different to any other human activity. You can get good and bad practitioners and models. Generally people need to shop around to find a therapy mode or a therapist they find beneficial. The relationship with the therapist or therapeutic alliance is more important than the mode of therapy. This has been found in most of the research. Practical solutions focused interventions appear to be most beneficial. Merely talking is not likely to be enough.

    I am not fond of the term - 'an experience of nihilism'. This is a red herring. If a person is experiencing anhedonia and truly believes that nothing matters this is rarely an expression of philosophy, Camus style. It is usually chronic depression and warrants treatment.
  • Know Thyself, is it the beginning of all wisdom?
    Re: wondering if a forum distorts one's personality.
    What did you have in mind ?     — Amity

    Just that the conversations to my taste are often terribly stilted and stylized - compared to those I have in real life. People tend to exaggerate or diminish parts of themselves in this style of communication.

    I am not sure what you mean by this. The dialogues or discussions on any particular topic or book can vary as to the aim, time and energy of the people involved. — Amity

    That the act of offering a written opinion over a protracted period is unnatural, compared to an ordinary conversation. Nuance and tone are hard to gauge. A discussion is had slowly over hours or days and has an effect on the discourse.

    None of the above is insurmountable or dire, just a curious by product of forum-world.
  • Know Thyself, is it the beginning of all wisdom?
    Politicians, in particular, need their self image to be strong. It is important to be seen as a winner, even when all the facts point in the opposite direction. — Amity

    I've known a few politicians. This is lamentable. Really the primary job of a politician is not to give the game away. Looking strong is the easiest way to do this. But it is the public's loss that we see strength in such limited cartoon terms.

    Philosophical forums can help shine a light on the reality of our selves, actions and practice and not one that is self-biased, a bit skew whiff. — Amity

    Never done this before. I am not on any social media either. I just thought I would give this a fortnight to see whether I found it stimulating. I'm wondering if a forum distorts one's personality. You have quite unnatural conversations in concentrated increments in slow motion.

    Nice to chat.
  • Do atheists even exist? As in would they exist if God existed?
    ↪TaySan
    Don't know. I am one of the uneducated so I'm a potential customer.
  • Do atheists even exist? As in would they exist if God existed?
    Yet it does encourage the reader to think for themselves. — TaySan

    My point is that they yell about the minuscule amount they know and don't listen and learn. Hence the trouble we have all around the world of hostile tribes only interacting with their own small bubble, getting angrier all the time.
  • The Dan Barker Paradox
    wonder how Dan Barker would respond to your comment and Hillel's insight? Barker seems to be much concerned with the many contradictions which he alleges the Bible suffers from. By his reasoning another, more suitable, title for the Bible, the Torah, and the Quran, is "Contradiction" and he wants nothing to do with them. — TheMadFool

    Errr... no. The general argument is not just contradiction it is content. Barker's quote, which has been around for decades before he was born, refers to the knowledge you gain about God if you actually read the anthology of fan fiction books anthologised in the Bible. The God described is a morally depraved mafia boss, a mass murderer of innocent human beings, a supporter of slavery, rape and torture, a bully and a coward. It's enough to put you off your gefilte fish.
  • Do atheists even exist? As in would they exist if God existed?
    But in the highly secular society I live in, this has nothing to do with religion. People just think with their wrong heads. — TaySan

    Yes, that is entirely true. I am dismayed by fundamentalism and blind faith and most of it is not religious. Richard Dawkins makes his points pretty well but many people dislike his slightly imperious style.

    I agree with you. One of the great problems in culture is the lack of critical thinking and also the venturing of dogmatic opinion where the person simply does not have enough knowledge. I have certainly done this myself.
  • The Problem Of The Criterion
    I can be a methodist in certain situations or a particularist in others; there's absolutely nothing wrong in either case. — TheMadFool

    I can be a Methodist in certain situation or a Presbyterian in others, it depends on whether there is alcohol. Sorry.... I'm a child.
  • The Problem Of The Criterion
    ↪Possibility
    Thanks. I'm with you. I thought you were heading elsewhere.

    But does this mean 2 and 3 are wrong? Or does it mean that how we identify and how we define the concept are two different processes? — Possibility

    I guess which Muppet category depends upon context. They are all potentially simultaneously correct.

    But all this is predicated on a correspondence version of truth (so detested by Idealists).

    To point in the direction of the mop and say 'it is not that case that there is a Muppet in the mop cupboard' sounds like an example of the problem of counterfactual conditionals. People who are anxious about the metaphysical aspects of realism will argue that there are no negative facts and thus correspondence breaks down. This proposition about the mop cupboard doesn't seem to have any corresponding relation to objects and relation to objects in the world. Or something like that.
  • The Problem Of The Criterion
    think the idea that we identify concepts by ‘essential features’ is a myth we use to constrain the reality of experience to rational, consolidated forms. — Possibility

    Can you expand?
  • The Problem Of The Criterion
    The concept ‘dog’ is constructed in our minds with the help of language in relation to instances. So, a ‘dog’ may be initially understood in terms of a relational structure of shapes, size, sound, texture, etc. - depending on whether those early instances are a family pet, pictures in a book, or sounds from next door. — Possibility

    Yes, nice. Truth in the end is an umbrella word used to describe a very wide range of relationships. We don't know anything much about truth but we know how to justify beliefs. Everything is what it is by virtue of its relation to everything else. You can't capture X in it's purity. There isn't anything to X except those relationships.

    Dogs are one thing but we also know what a Muppet is (well, some of us do). This is something that doesn't even exist in nature and is a time-limited, made made artifact. But there is a grammar of Muppet design and it is possible to recognize the visual patterns and even context of their appearance, even if we have never seen a Muppet in the real world or watched a TV show with Muppets in it. When you say this is a Muppet you are not reflecting some platonic ideal of a glove puppet in the world of universal puppet forms. You are simply connecting to one or more visual aspects of the object which adds up to a Muppet. Of course none of that stopped our 6 year-old calling the mop at our place a Muppet.
  • Is the underlying basis of reality infinite?
    The reality which we can know is finite. — Proximate1

    How do you demonstrate that?
  • Know Thyself, is it the beginning of all wisdom?
    Turns out I was wrong. And that realisation comes after a period of standing back and reflecting. — Amity

    That's a courageous thing to say.

    My own view is that people do not reflect often enough on two things. 1) on how much they really know about something and 2) how they are coming across.
  • Why do people need religious beliefs and ideas?
    My book would be about people with values succeeding and people taking a ride on their success and destroying the geese that lay the golden eggs. — Athena

    This idea is much in the public discourse already. Even just those people who write interminable complaints about Disney and its vacuuming up and vandalism of the Star Wars franchise. The idea that commercial forces hijack a good idea and destroy it in their rapacious quest to make money is a commonplace. But if you can do something brand new or unexpected with it, great.
  • Why do people need religious beliefs and ideas?
    What are the names of those theologians, so I can look them up? — Athena

    Most theologians, priests and preachers I have met hold this view.

    For some famous examples of Christian thinkers, in chronological order

    Paul Tillich
    Thomas Merton
    Bishop Shelby Spong
    David Bentley Hart
  • Why do people need religious beliefs and ideas?
    I would enjoy doing a book about how money has corrupted the forces of morality we once had. This being the result of organizations based on values, being bought up for by people only interested in profits. — Athena

    I think many books have been done on this subject already. Das Kapital being one of the more famous examples. I think this this is one of the great recurring tropes in popular culture too.
  • Why do people need religious beliefs and ideas?
    I am not really opposed to Christianity at all, just find it conjures up so much fear, but I feel so really stressed if I go into an old church. — Jack Cummins

    Don't forget that many forms of Christianity do not accept the idea of a devil or demons or any of the cartoon violence in Revelation. For many Christian theologians the Bible is allegorical and not to be taken literally under any circumstances.
  • In Defense of Modernity
    ↪TheHedoMinimalist


    It's generally the job of philosophers to be critical of their times and the ideas in current circulation. Society is so atomized these days that it must be hard for philosophers to know where to begin or what to rate as important.
  • Do atheists even exist? As in would they exist if God existed?
    That's not what I'm saying. I'm sorry if you see it that way, not the intention. — Paul S

    Ok. What are you saying then. It isn't clear to me.
  • Thoughts on why we might hate when people think we're just simple
    If so, then how does the simplification of one's identity hurt one's vanity? — Nagel

    I wouldn't take it for granted that this is a given. If you are getting to the essence of a person then this is frequently appreciated by them. Getting to the essence is often a form of simplification too. Not everyone hates being understood in concrete and/or elemental terms. Generally it is only when the 'understanding' is seen as reductive that it rankles.

    People quite like being stereotyped, judged and pigeonholed if those categories conform to their understanding of themselves. For instance, if I say to my friend Joe that he is an aging, Star Wars fanboy who refuses to grow up. He says, 'You got me there, Brother.' Someone else might find this offensive if they visualize themselves as something different or more elevated than this. Joe does not.
  • Do atheists even exist? As in would they exist if God existed?
    ↪Paul S
    I wasn't interested in that argument, just the steps you were taking. The steps people take are often more significant than their destination.

    All you seem to be saying is that theism allows for more mystery than atheism.
  • Monism or Pluralism
    ↪PoeticUniverse


    Interesting claim. How would you demonstrate this?
  • Do atheists even exist? As in would they exist if God existed?
    It remains the case that there is no stronger a case for atheism than there is for theism.

    That isn't the point we are addressing. The point is; what basis do you have for accepting a proposition? If a person said atheism resonates with me better than theism, that's why I believe it, that would be inadequate.     — Paul S
  • Do atheists even exist? As in would they exist if God existed?
    In my opinion discussions are not about being right. It is about a satisfactory experience for both interlocutors. I hope we can keep it that way — TaySan

    Of course. I am regularly wrong about most things.
Home » Tom Storm