I don't think so - I think we still need the preoccupation with the Law to be able to understand Christ. The movement has happened in human history - but not necessarily in our own personal history, which is what matters.That's true. But you're speaking about what has been historically prior, and I am speaking about what is now spiritually prior. Thanks to the advent of Christ, we do not need to pass through the stage of preoccupation with Law now and may proceed directly to Love. — John
Well this is what I've been saying - that was Marx's mistake. He didn't understand that Hegel's was the history of ideas - not the history of material conditions. This is precisely the point I was making.The very difference between Hegel and Marx is that Hegel understood the material exigencies of history to be a reflection of the history of spirit (or consciousness as reflected in the history of ideas), whereas Marx saw the history of ideas to be a reflection of the history of the material exigencies (economics as the dialectic of materialism). — John
You wouldn't be alone -But I think there has been a strong tendency in mainstream religion to loose sight of that. It's called 'mistaking the finger for the moon' - another Buddhist parable. Actually it is what I learned from Buddhism, that has enabled me to re-evaluate the meaning of my own Christian heritage. — Wayfarer
Ah I feel Spinoza's intuitive knowledge (the third kind) being close to you ;)Strictly speaking, knowledge does not need to evolve. We might jump straight to synthesis in our ideas. In such cases though, we cannot "derive" meaning from what's gone before. Since we've jumped to knowledge of all sides in such cases, there is no act of thinking through to discover something based on what we already know. Amongst philosophers, this tends to be treated with distain because in that context there are no logical arguments to give that result in "discovery." — TheWillowOfDarkness
Oh wow, what a great event, I will certainly record it in my calendar - I agree!In this respect, both Marx and Hegel (and countless other philosophers) make the same mistake. They say their logic amounts to prediction of the future. Hegel says our ideas will/must evolve in someway. Marx says given particular conditions (both "material" and ideas), our society will/must evolve. Neither claim is true. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I also agree here - there is no "evolution" of consciousness - no straight line going upwards. It's pretty much random change - both up and down.For all we know, we might use the same ideas for centuries, maybe even millennia. Or we might jump straight to synthesis. Or the material contains of the world might be such that synthesis is forgotten. Or a set of thesis, antithesis, synthesis might be forgotten entirely. Hegel overlooks the material nature of our ideas. Logic might be enough to define truth, but it doesn't mean someone is thinking it. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Amongst philosophers, this tends to be treated with disdain because in that context there are no logical arguments to give that result in "discovery" — Willow
I should add there is another group which doesn't like this understanding of knowledge: advocates of the transcendent. — TheWillowOfDarkness
To merely be oneself, to be worthy (a meaningful life) and/or unworthy (a sinner who's terrible actions have no resolution), is the enemy. Both are running from themselves to a fantasy of perfection where there is a genocide of any failing. — 'Willow"
John "Asinus" Mill. The godfather of the Progressives... oh my days — Agustino
Not necessarily. Your practical views are very close to some forms of meditative Buddhism from my understanding. You're all about being centered in your body, being right here in the present moment, fully aware of what is actually going on around you right here and right now, and not being trapped in dwelling on the future or the past, or otherwise being seduced by thinking or trapped by images. You think that if someone is like this - then they will not even inquire about God or the transcendent, they'd feel no need. An approach that owes a lot to mindfulness and pragmatism. Your approach isn't that uncommon to quite a few of the religious folks by the way - although it is true that it is an approach that is atypical of the typical Christian religious believer in the US for example. And it really depends on what you're doing at the moment whether this type of approach is useful. If I'm running a marathon - or otherwise participating in a sports competition, such an approach is likely to be very beneficial - it will indeed give me peak performance in that circumstance - a peak performance that I cannot achieve by being worried about what my opponent is doing, how fast they're running, whether they're ahead or not, etc. . But if I'm say an investor, trying to decide what I shall do with my money - that approach isn't very useful. I can be in the moment all I want - but that's not what would be productive in that case. I need to be analytic at that moment - not produce a synthesis, but rather analyse, and think about the situation - more like completing a puzzle.I should add there is another group which doesn't like this understanding of knowledge: advocates of the transcendent. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I don't think so - I think we still need the preoccupation with the Law to be able to understand Christ. The movement has happened in human history - but not necessarily in our own personal history, which is what matters. — Agustino
Well this is what I've been saying - that was Marx's mistake. He didn't understand that Hegel's was the history of ideas - not the history of material conditions. This is precisely the point I was making. — Agustino
Very good. That's what I've been saying. It remains for you (or Marx) to show the necessary link between the history of ideas and the history of material conditions ;)But this is by no means the point I was making. I didn't say that Marx was or was not mistaken. I would say that he understood very well that "Hegel's was the history of ideas- not the history of material conditions". Marx understood that perfectly well and that is why he overturned Hegel (on his own account stood Hegel right way up) to place the focus on the history of material conditions, instead of on the history of consciousness (or ideas, or spirit, if you prefer).
The point I made was that Hegel thought material conditions are an expression of spirit; so while Hegel's history of spirit is obviously not the history of actual material conditions, that fact is exactly what you would expect to be the outcome, on account of what it was that Hegel prioritized. — John
Which, by the way, is true - just as you yourself have just admitted.You claimed earlier that Hegel was not making a point about material conditions but about the evolution of consciousness. — John
I disagree - he thought the history of events is related to the history of ideas - ie affected by the history of ideas - but not determined by it.He thought material events are a manifestation of spirit; so the history of events necessarily mirrors the history of ideas, with the former being dependent on the latter. — John
I have not been offering any opinion about whether Hegel showed a necessary connection between the history of ideas and the history of events, and the dependency of the latter on the former, or whether Marx established a necessary connection and dependency the other way. — John
Self-contradictory.He thought material events are a manifestation of spirit; so the history of events necessarily mirrors the history of ideas, with the former being dependent on the latter. — John
Good, so then can you tell me what point about what we have been discussing are you actually in disagreement with?So, this has nothing to do with what we have been discussing. — John
Self-contradictory. — Agustino
Good, so then can you tell me what point about what we have been discussing are you actually in disagreement with? — Agustino
There is no force setting the compass. It just points. — WillowOfDarkness
Paravritti literally means "turning up" or "turning back" or "change"; technically, it is a spiritual change or transformation which takes place in the mind, especially suddenly, ... which... corresponds to what is known as "conversion"... .
It is significant that the Mahayana has been insistent to urge its followers to experience this psychological transformation in their practical life. A mere intellectual understanding of the truth is not enough in the life of a Buddhist; the truth must be directly grasped, personally experienced, intuitively penetrated into; for then it will be distilled into life and determine its course.
There is no force setting the compass. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.