The "perennial philosophy" is ...defined as a doctrine which holds [1] that as far as worthwhile knowledge is concerned not all men are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and [3] that the wise men of old have found a "wisdom" which is true, although it has no "empirical" basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality--through the Prajñāpāramitā of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the Sophia of Aristotle and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on; and [4] that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents. — Conze
It is within this context that the figure of 'the sage' is understandable, 'the sage' being one who understands, and so exemplifies, these qualities. — Wayfarer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericismThe concept of the "esoteric" originated in the 2nd century[3] with the coining of the Ancient Greek adjective esôterikós ("belonging to an inner circle"); the earliest known example of the word appeared in a satire authored by Lucian of Samosata[4] (c. 125 – after 180). — wiki
They're an awkward fit like sophists, dogmatists and charlatans.How does such a sage fit in with the rest of philosophy, if at all? — j0e
Well, sure, if that's what he calls it. But on what grounds should we believe him? Ye shall know them fuckers by their forbidden fruits – so it is written (or tattooed) somewhere.Should we call what the sage has special access to knowledge?
I'll spit on the floor and drink to that.Is there a performative contradiction in reasoning in defense of something inherently 'irrationalist' in the sense of declaring itself indecipherable except by the chosen few?
:up:But on what grounds should we believe him? Ye shall know them fuckers by their fruits – so it is written (or tattooed) somewhere. — 180 Proof
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10615/10615-h/10615-h.htm#link2HCH0001For, since the reasoning faculties of the soul, which are almost constantly, though not always warily nor wisely employed, would not know how to move, for want of a foundation and footing, in most men, who through laziness or avocation do not, or for want of time, or true helps, or for other causes, cannot penetrate into the principles of knowledge, and trace truth to its fountain and original, it is natural for them, and almost unavoidable, to take up with some borrowed principles; which being reputed and presumed to be the evident proofs of other things, are thought not to need any other proof themselves. Whoever shall receive any of these into his mind, and entertain them there with the reverence usually paid to principles, never venturing to examine them, but accustoming himself to believe them, because they are to be believed, may take up, from his education and the fashions of his country, any absurdity for innate principles; and by long poring on the same objects, so dim his sight as to take monsters lodged in his own brain for the images of the Deity, and the workmanship of his hands. — Locke
What censure doubting thus of innate principles may deserve from men, who will be apt to call it pulling up the old foundations of knowledge and certainty, I cannot tell;—I persuade myself at least that the way I have pursued, being conformable to truth, lays those foundations surer. This I am certain, I have not made it my business either to quit or follow any authority in the ensuing Discourse. Truth has been my only aim; and wherever that has appeared to lead, my thoughts have impartially followed, without minding whether the footsteps of any other lay that way or not. Not that I want a due respect to other men’s opinions; but, after all, the greatest reverence is due to truth: and I hope it will not be thought arrogance to say, that perhaps we should make greater progress in the discovery of rational and contemplative knowledge, if we sought it in the fountain, IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THINGS THEMSELVES; and made use rather of our own thoughts than other men’s to find it. For I think we may as rationally hope to see with other men’s eyes, as to know by other men’s understandings. So much as we ourselves consider and comprehend of truth and reason, so much we possess of real and true knowledge. The floating of other men’s opinions in our brains, makes us not one jot the more knowing, though they happen to be true. What in them was science, is in us but opiniatrety; whilst we give up our assent only to reverend names, and do not, as they did, employ our own reason to understand those truths which gave them reputation. Aristotle was certainly a knowing man, but nobody ever thought him so because he blindly embraced, and confidently vented the opinions of another. And if the taking up of another’s principles, without examining them, made not him a philosopher, I suppose it will hardly make anybody else so. In the sciences, every one has so much as he really knows and comprehends. What he believes only, and takes upon trust, are but shreds; which, however well in the whole piece, make no considerable addition to his stock who gathers them. Such borrowed wealth, like fairy money, though it were gold in the hand from which he received it, will be but leaves and dust when it comes to use. — Locke
If the 'higher truth' is not empirical (ie, it has no universalizable and predictable effects), and it's esoteric value can only be grasped by the sage, then what would be the point of even discussing the matter, philosophicaly? — Isaac
My own understanding of esoteric is of hidden knowledge. I don't know how Wittgenstein fits into this exactly....I am interested in the esoteric but with a certain amount of caution, because it can become about people assuming elite knowledge. — Jack Cummins
I suppose a secondary issue is whether 'our' rational/secular philosophy is its own kind of inner circle in a nonpejorative sense, an inner circle that excludes any other conception of the inner circle. 'Universal' seems key here. — j0e
What I think is of interest is the social role of such claims. Are we to take them at face value and ignore the clear social advantage of claiming higher knowledge which only you can access and such can't even be tested? — Isaac
n reality, it is, of course, perfectly possible that despite X having written an entire bookshelf on the subject of Y, they have nonetheless (by virtue of their poor choice of methodology) acquired not a scrap of actual knowledge about Y. — Isaac
Democracy, science, and anti-esotericism seem to fit together. If so, why? — j0e
It's tempting to interpret claims of higher knowledge as the ideology of a ruling class (in times past) or as charlatanism (in places where the educated are generally wary of taking religion too seriously.) Then there's the sincere florist. — j0e
Maybe I'm just being gullible, but it seems unlikely to me that the Catholic priests involved in the child abuse scandals, for example, believed none of their own 'higher knowledge'. — Isaac
I think its quite within reason to think it might be all three, even in any one given case. — Isaac
Should we call what the sage has special access to knowledge? — j0e
We seem to be crossing these two subject matters, as I outlined above. I think it's often very insightful to look at the history of ideas, but I'm not seeing the crossover into assessing their value. I could give a detailed account of how slavery came about, but would it impact on a judgement of whether it was right or wrong? — Isaac
But should the sage, if he exists, care? Is the sage political? Conservative / reactionary? — j0e
In Plato's Symposium Socrates says the difference between a sage and a philosopher (Ancient Greek: φιλόσοφος, meaning lover of wisdom) was that the sage has what the philosopher seeks. While analyzing the concept of love, Socrates concludes love is that which lacks the object it seeks. Therefore, the philosopher does not have the wisdom sought, while the sage, on the other hand, does not love or seek wisdom, for it is already possessed.
I agree. It's off-topic (if also interesting.) — j0e
I think those who are nostalgic for 'objective values' are sincere in some sense, but what's the political direction? How does it cash out? — j0e
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.