They did, only that it was transcendent. You would never be immanently free (or you would never immanently achieve spiritual liberation, in this life) - the desire for immanent freedom of this sort is, according to Voegelin, exactly the same desire to be found in secularist progressive movements - they too desire a freedom, or liberation achieved in this world. According to Voegelin, you and the secularist progressive share the same consciousness, you just have different means of achieving the desired result (and by "you" I mean the religious gnostic - as opposed to the secular gnostic)What lead me to an interest in Gnosticism, is why Christianity (or 'churchianity') didn't seem to have anything that corresponded with the idea of moksha, spiritual liberation, as it was depicted in books about Eastern mysticism that I had been reading all my life. — Wayfarer
What I see here is a vision of higher meanings tangled with lower meanings in a continuum of life-enhancing fiction. Since life is meaningful in the sense that we always already care, these fictions are weighty and crucial. But one can learn to shift one's weight from one foot to the other, from the higher meanings or Truths to the "daily detail." I will defend the thesis, however, that self-esteem depends on a "Heroic" investment/identification. To speak "intellectually" on a forum for instance is an implicit assertion of one's own worth and dignity (and even uniqueness). Since we are nothing but abstract thoughts here, our appearance seems to indicate an affirmation of the the abstract thoughts we possess and largely are.2. "HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own—in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the 'Thing-in-itself—THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!"—This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this "belief" of theirs, they exert themselves for their "knowledge," for something that is in the end solemnly christened "the Truth." The fundamental belief of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES. It never occurred even to the wariest of them to doubt here on the very threshold (where doubt, however, was most necessary); though they had made a solemn vow, "DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM." For it may be doubted, firstly, whether antitheses exist at all; and secondly, whether the popular valuations and antitheses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their seal, are not perhaps merely superficial estimates, merely provisional perspectives, besides being probably made from some corner, perhaps from below—"frog perspectives," as it were, to borrow an expression current among painters. In spite of all the value which may belong to the true, the positive, and the unselfish, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for life generally should be assigned to pretence, to the will to delusion, to selfishness, and cupidity. It might even be possible that WHAT constitutes the value of those good and respected things, consists precisely in their being insidiously related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil and apparently opposed things—perhaps even in being essentially identical with them. Perhaps! — N
You would never be immanently free (or you would never immanently achieve spiritual liberation, in this life) - the desire for immanent freedom of this sort is, according to Voegelin, exactly the same desire to be found in secularist progressive movements - they too desire a freedom, or liberation achieved in this world. According to Voegelin, you and the secularist progressive share the same consciousness, you just have different means of achieving the desired result (and by "you" I mean the religious gnostic - as opposed to the secular gnostic)
Also very similar to Prometheus who desired man to be like the gods. — Agostino
Secular philosophy transposes the physical universe into the role previously attributed to the divine, and science into the role previously attributed to religion. — Wayfarer
I speak against a certain kind of atheism which is popular. I have little to quarrel with the pious atheism of Epicurus for example. I have something against modern atheism which is used as a justification for lack of restraint, for attacking tradition, for demanding radical change, and for inciting people to rebellion. In summary, I have something against that which threatens order and stability, because chaos harms everybody. Instead of slowly looking for ways to reform society to eliminate the problems while minimising the difficulties generated, it hurries with a solution that is most often worse than what it appears to cure. — Agustino
A moral person by my understanding is religious even if they are atheists. — Agustino
This is an abstraction so I am not sure what specific thing you're referring to. I think morality is something universal (hence my usage of natural morality), which can be summarised by the virtues, including humility, yes. — Agustino
All religions promote decency - including by the way the atheism of Epicurus or Hume. — Agustino
It depends on whether their religious belief has anything to do with you, or it just has to do with their own religious community in such a society. — Agustino
Atheist under your definition isn't really atheist. — Agustino
David Cameron is an atheist under my definition - probably under yours he's a believer just because he talks about his Christian faith, and calls the UK a Christian nation. — Agustino
Nope - there's two atheisms - one let's call it pious atheism (think about Epicurus, or even that CONSERVATIVE David Hume), and the other one impious atheism. In the former atheism is just a personal belief about the existence of a deity. In the latter it is a justification for permissible moral behaviour, with the intent of overthrowing tradition. I don't accept the latter as moral, to make this clear. — Agustino
Modernist humanism is the same. The generalised "free everyman" takes the mantle of the transcendent, becomes the tradition which is destined to be practiced, such that we will be saved from our finite wretchedness-- technology will create utopia, everyone is a free man able to realise their dreams, etc., etc. It's all wistful fantasy which doesn't take human life seriously. — TheWillowOfDarkness
We seem to have fantasies-that-work versus truth-to-be-revered (which also happens to work, as a lucky by-product). What good is truth apart from utility if it's not the "hallowing" of its messenger?Alienness is a criterion of the “sacred.” In everything sacred there lies something “uncanny,” strange, such as we are not quite familiar and at home in. — Stirner
That reminds me of what I think is your view. We think we need the "infinite" idea in order to measure up. But I personally think we serve "the sacred" (in a sophisticated form) even as we point it out as a dominating structure. We become (as intellectual personae wearing philosopher's hats part-time) something like pure ideological violence or nothingness.Here we come upon the old, old craze of the world, which has not yet learned to do without clericalism – that to live and work for an idea is man’s calling, and according to the faithfulness of its fulfilment his human worth is measured. — Stirner
Therefore I repeat that the religious world – and this is the world of thought – reaches its completion in criticism, where thinking extends its encroachments over every thought, no one of which may “egoistically” establish itself. Where would the “purity of criticism,” the purity of thinking, be left if even one thought escaped the process of thinking? This explains the fact that the critic has even begun already to gibe gently here and there at the thought of Man, of humanity and humaneness, because he suspects that here a thought is approaching dogmatic fixity. But yet he cannot decompose this thought until he has found a “higher” in which it dissolves; for he moves only in thoughts. This higher thought might be enunciated as that of the movement or process of thinking itself, as the thought of thinking or of criticism, for example. — Stirner
Actually Stirner was criticizing criticism for being still too pious, albeit something like the final station of (generalized) religion. He thought there was a stage beyond criticism, basically in thoughtlessness, which is maybe like overcoming the will to overcome metaphysics. But we all do that sometimes. For me, Stirner as intellectual persona just isolated pure iconoclasm. (To be sure, this is implicit in "all is vanity" with a much older text.)I would argue Stirner is still caught under the spell of the transcendent here. Criticism is veiwed in terms of seeking the "higher" rather than understanding a particular subject itself. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Of course one is hallowed by proximity to (or possession of) this "master." In other words, we allow ourselves to be bound in order to bind in a sort of pyramid scheme.The truth, or “truth in general,” people are bound not to give up, but to seek for. What else is it but the Être suprême, the highest essence? Even “true criticism” would have to despair if it lost faith in the truth. And yet the truth is only a — thought; but it is not merely “a” thought, but the thought that is above all thoughts, the irrefragable thought; it is the thought itself, which gives the first hallowing to all others; it is the consecration of thoughts, the “absolute,” the “sacred” thought. The truth wears longer than all the gods; for it is only in the truth’s service, and for love of it, that people have overthrown the gods and at last God himself. “The truth” outlasts the downfall of the world of gods, for it is the immortal soul of this transitory world of gods, it is Deity itself.
I will answer Pilate’s question, What is truth? Truth is the free thought, the free idea, the free spirit; truth is what is free from you, what is not your own, what is not in your power. But truth is also the completely unindependent, impersonal, unreal, and incorporeal; truth cannot step forward as you do, cannot move, change, develop; truth awaits and receives everything from you, and itself is only through you; for it exists only — in your head. You concede that the truth is a thought, but say that not every thought is a true one, or, as you are also likely to express it, not every thought is truly and really a thought. And by what do you measure and recognize the thought? By your impotence, to wit, by your being no longer able to make any successful assault on it! When it overpowers you, inspires you, and carries you away, then you hold it to be the true one. Its dominion over you certifies to you its truth; and, when it possesses you, and you are possessed by it, then you feel well with it, for then you have found your — lord and master. When you were seeking the truth, what did your heart then long for? For your master! — Stirner
But my question remains. In the name of what value or goal do you bother to hit fantasies at their core with this descriptive truth? If you don't want to save others from meaningless, do you want to save them from the illusion that they need saving? It's hard to see how a thinker isn't always offering something useful (beauty is something like pure use if pleasure is value).I'm asking something far tougher of fantasy than making a call to obliterate it or offering an alternative fiction. My descriptive truth hits our fantasies right at their core: in their cliam of truth. I'm not talking about what we ought to do or offering a way to save us from meaninglessness. — TheWillowOfDarkness
In this respect, it's all together more powerful than any assertion of how someone ought to think. If I was just saying fantasy was bad for us, it would be easy to counter. I would be a dogmatist demanding we could save ourselves through (the fiction of) truth, a run of the mill cheerleader for one of the many ways of living in this world.
I not doing this though. Believing the truth isn't going to save us because no-one needs saving. My argument doesn't say we ought to give up fantasy, just that they're telling a whopping great lie about our meaning. In this context, fantasy becomes untenable. Not because it is not worthwhile or we ought not be involved with it, but rather because it says something about us which is untrue.
If I am meaningful in myself, fantasy no longer saves. Worthwhile or not, it becomes a mere practice I enjoy (or do not enjoy) rather than how I avoid being a meaningless wretch. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Depends - conservatism generally and historically refers to social policy. Someone can be a conservative with a socialist view of economics, nothing contradictory in that. In fact, my economics are probably slightly left-leaning as well (free education, free healthcare, government restriction of multinational corporations, etc.) Marx had something that he called reactionary socialism (because such a socialism was practiced before) - which is very alike to social conservatism coupled with socialist leaning economics. — Agustino
A complete misreading, in my view, based on an inadequate conception of the nature of the goal. — Wayfarer
First I think it is good to have an introduction of Voegelin's thought for this discussion. On the internet there are quite a few sources. Here. Here (very long, and quite comprehensive. Or here.I haven't read it. But offhand my experience is that Gnosticism has several unusual religious elements that make this hard to swallow. — The Great Whatever
Yes, this structure of consciousness where the participants see themselves as special or elite appears in modern movements like Marxism, where the Proletariat is the special class that will bring about the communist paradise for everyone. Modern homosexual movements see themselves in this same light, as special and unique and deserving to show and demonstrate their sexuality to everyone. This is pride, instead of humility.emphasis is on the exclusion and specialness of those in the Gnostic community — The Great Whatever
Voegelin criticizes this as the Gnostic denial of reality, and seeking to replace it with a more real, second order reality that only they have access to. This bears the character of totalitarianism for several reasons: (1) it seeks to replace reality as empirically accessible, (2) claims infallible direct access to reality that is not open to rational criticism and correction. It's very similar to what @TheWillowOfDarkness does, when he claims that there is nothing necessary about a person - it's an empty abstraction, which carries with it the denial of reality.the world is just a kind of prison, or afterthought, or shadow play — The Great Whatever
Indeed - which really is an important point. A religion which cannot ensure social stability and order is really no religion at all. I'm not disagreeing with perhaps there being a higher, mystical tradition within a religion, but I disagree with considering something to be a religion which is formed of pure mysticism denied from connection and criticism from authority and tradition. Such is anathema to the purposes of order.That situation does not seem stable. — The Great Whatever
Yes, I am especially surprised as most conservatives nowadays tend to be religious and yet, I can find nothing in religion which supports rampant capitalism, accumulation of money for its own sake, social ostracization of different races, and other manifestations of greed.I'm actually surprised there aren't more people who embrace this combination of social conservatism and leftist(ish) economics. — Erik
Yes!But getting back to the point, I do think a focus on virtue - and character formation generally - can only benefit the development of genuine 'freedom' as well as a 'progressive' economic agenda. A virtuous person for instance would seem much more likely to treat their family, their workers, and their fellow citizens in ways that would result in more camaraderie, trust and good will than we see at present. Without that ethical grounding, cynicism and hedonism and shortsighted self-interest combine to create a hostile and exploitative social and economic environment. — Erik
Thanks for sharing your example! We need more examples like this in the world, and I think there should be no shame in sharing examples of goodness. Afterall, if you do not share examples of goodness, then all that will happen is that others will share examples of evil and shamelessness, and make evil cool. A big problem today is that the good men have sat down, and have restricted themselves to a humility which prevents them from having an effect on educating their peers. Instead, people like Lady Gaga, Amy Schumer, and the like spread their vulgarity, rudeness, and selfishness across society, and no one does anything to stop them. Instead they are allowed to make this into a "cool attitude" - whereas if someone tries to make virtue and goodness cool, then there is a problem, then he is an oppressor, and lacks in humility. I think people need virtuous examples to combat the influence that decadence is otherwise guaranteed to have over society - and there really should be no shame in doing it. Those who spread evil have no shame about doing it - why should those that spread good have any shame?I'll shamelessly offer myself as an example of how embodying some (admittedly poor) semblance of 'virtue' could be compatible with a progressive social policy - keeping in mind my many personal flaws of course and admitting I was going to go with the old 'I have a friend who...' routine. Long story (somewhat) short, I offered to take a pay cut at work to make sure a couple of my hardworking employees got modest pay increases I felt they deserved. This idea was met by the owners with total disbelief, like how could anyone be so stupid as to volunteer to make less money? The answer for me was pretty simple: taking care of our employees and treating them like human beings rather than numbers would reinforce their loyalty and commitment, which would make my job a lot easier, and would also increase the likelihood of the company's success.
What I didn't say, so as not to give offence, is that I'm not fixated on money or gaining the approval of others through the typical symbols of social success. I would gladly spread the wealth around if it meant others are taken care of too. Being stubborn and shortsighted bean-counters, and seeing our workers as obstacles rather than contributors to increased profits, they couldn't fathom mindset. It was like I was speaking a language they had never heard. I then tried to use their language and reinforce the pragmatic cost/benefit angle (setting aside the moral/ethical aspect) as increased pay (along with other things) would likely improve morale, decrease absenteeism, help us avoid turnover, and improve the overall performance of our staff. With that they started to listen and actually gave the employees raises. — Erik
That's why I say he's stuck in the transcendent mode of thinking: criticism is understood as the way we save ourselves, rather than a way of developing an understanding of ourselves and the world. He doesn't envision truth as the living world or logic, which has no role in saving us. Truth is understood as our rescue, despite it being the living world and logical expression which has no role in saving anyone from meaninglessness. — TheWillowOfDarkness
We have here an image of the self-consciously free ego for whom "nothing is sacred" but the tool-using ego itself, or pure post-principle profanity. Let's give this poet his due.Christianity took away from the things of this world only their irresistibleness, made us independent of them. In like manner I raise myself above truths and their power: as I am supersensual, so I am supertrue. Before me truths are as common and as indifferent as things; they do not carry me away, and do not inspire me with enthusiasm. There exists not even one truth, not right, not freedom, humanity, etc., that has stability before me, and to which I subject myself... — Stirner
Truth's power is not over those who believe fantasy, but those interested in truth-- if you accept the truth things are meaningful in themsleves, then fantasy has no role to serve.
The promises of rescue which make fantasy so profound to its adherents are revealed to be empty. Their claim-- their fantasy is a wonderful truth rescues us from meaninglessness-- is known to be false because no one was ever meaninglessness. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I knew you'd say this :) - of course, if you are right, then I'm the gnostic, only that I don't think you have your facts (which ground your understanding of the structure of Being - or lack of it) right :DYour world constrained by logic shares a denial of reality similar to the gnostics. Insisting the world must be your preferred logical meaning, you ignore the movement of existence itself. You are blind to any part of existence which does not fit your logical rule. Anything which is not your particular tradition is a "shadow play" which doesn't qualify as a meaningful state. — 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.