What sense we can make of claims to an 'insider' knowledge that's only accessible to a higher kind of person, a born sage, let's say? — j0e
You're not explaining how you see your historical accounts answering either of those questions. What relevance has the history of the concept got to whether it is valuable and what we ought to do about it.
The irony is that you've spent a lot of time denying that science can answer value questions, but here you seem to be suggesting that history (a no less empirical investigation) can do exactly that. — Isaac
Spinoza was not a sage — 180 Proof
What we have in the historical record is 'the testimony of sages'. — Wayfarer
In those other cultures, sound judgement, or sagacity, did not only concern those matters which could be measured. It's the development of that outlook, in which facts and values became separated, that I think is the historical issue at hand. — Wayfarer
Or through contemplative practice after years of training, say....
I'm willing to acknowledge that I am 'trapped' in a Western scientific tradition that privileges a particular worldview and method of gaining knowledge (which in itself is tentative and fallible, but let's leave that in brackets for now). This worldview does not readily accept the validity of recondite knowledge from a transcendental source.
Is it possible for someone like me to see outside of my worldview? Have I missed something?
I want to understand better what a sage is and what it is they hold. I suspect my privileging evidence and reason will make this virtually impossible. — Tom Storm
It seems to me that many intellectual fields require extensive study of the subject and/or a certain intellectual faculty that not everbody possesses in order to be understood.
Development of understanding is a process, requiring dedication and a sharp mind. — Tzeentch
The world has been disenchanted for me in some ways, but I can't say that I'm bored. — j0e
There may be an important difference in the 'exalted' sage. It's not just a matter of knowing our shared reality in more detail but seemingly knowing an otherwise secret reality through an uncommon faculty. — j0e
Can you explain that difference?
At the surface there seems to be one, but on further inspection I'm not so sure. Weren't the bits of reality that Einstein laid bare through his works "secret"? And wasn't his extraordinary mind an uncommon faculty? — Tzeentch
And of course the funny thing is that almost everything that makes life worth living to me (and many others) is based on elusive glimmers of the numinous - through music, art, prose fiction, a sunset, nature... all the cliches. — Tom Storm
I know that in helping people it is not always necessary to do something. Solidarity, presence and attending to others - whatever you want to call it often has far more remarkable transformative power than therapy or, God forbid, advice. — Tom Storm
You bet. And when I used to drink, My Favourite Things. But most often I used to listen to hours of Mahler and transport myself... — Tom Storm
In principle, any reasonable person should be able to retrace Einstein's steps, follow his logic, and of course test the predictions derived from his theory. — j0e
He doesn't just get to say 'because I say so, because I have a third eye that you do not have.' His mind would be judged uncommon by its fruits, rather than the reverse. — j0e
We're the puke of chance? That's different indeed from being made in a god's image or mirroring the essence of the universe — j0e
That this is the domain of the non-academic.What sense we can make of claims to an 'insider' knowledge that's only accessible to a higher kind of person, a born sage, let's say? — j0e
Not at all. Now we have democracy, which is forcing us into sameness and simplistically formed camps, for bare survival. We are pluralistic and we welcome variety: as long as it is superficial.I think you are on to something, so I guess I was trying to build a bridge between you and Isaac.
The Catholic church and Christianity in general lost much of its power, and religion became a private matter. Agreed. Pluralism reigns now. Everyone brews up their own religion or anti-religion. The thought-police aren't allowed to bother us in this private sphere. So the sense of one right way or 'objective' values has presumably decayed (hard to say how variously people actually felt and thought given censorship.) — j0e
You think it's stopped rotting by now?Personally I want to live in Denmark — j0e
Well, people love to mess with eachother's minds, that's for sure.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
If you're just out on the plains shooting anything that moves then you might be excused for not knowing what you just shot, if anything. But here you're interested in an "actual pursuit" of something you call "esoteric knowledge." For brevity's sake, what is an actual pursuit, and what is esoteric knowledge? I ask because in my admittedly limited experience, they mean a non-pursuit of non-knowledge, for self-entertainment. But likely I just don't understand the termsactual pursuit of esoteric knowledge, — Jack Cummins
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.