Go to the heart of any religion and you will find philosophy. What we have come to know as religion is simply an exoteric representation of a philosophy — Tzeentch

Since religions still exist, does that mean esoteric portion is still unknown to outside world today?

Yes, that book sounds worth reading. You are good at finding them online, while I seem to still find most of the ones I read as paper books on shelves.

There is plenty of literature on esoteric aspects of religion and philosophy, ranging from Gnosticism, the Rosucrucians, theosophy and the ideas of Rudolf Steiner.

Go to the heart of any religion and you will find philosophy. What we have come to know as religion is simply an exoteric representation of a philosophy, because the nature of philosophy is such that it cannot necessarily understood by everyone. — Tzeentch

Exactly.

If exoteric is able to attract so many, then esoteric should reverse it with at least equal power.

The issue is that religion is thereby also vulnerable to being tainted by the less luminous, being used as a tool of power — Tzeentch

Figuratively, multiple keys can fit into a keyhole, but only one is able to actually unlock it.
I see Gnosticism and Rosicrucianism as keys that fit into a keyhole but do not unlock.

I think there is more to esoteric part than just that. (I'm not alluding to God)

I like your image of multiple keys, but not being able to find one that fits, in thinking about the esoteric. I can see that Gnosticism and Rosucrianism may be seen like the keys which don't fit. Of course, the esoteric does involve the 'secret' traditions, so it is likely that it involves a lot which is not known by many, although it is likely that many do not wish to know that side of the religious picture. I do manage to read a fair amount, because I live in London, where there is a large esoteric bookshop, but I am sure that there is a lot that remains 'hidden' and unknown, and some aspects may be hard to gain access to.

Go to the heart of any religion and you will find philosophy. What we have come to know as religion is simply an exoteric representation of a philosophy, because the nature of philosophy is such that it cannot necessarily understood by everyone. — Tzeentch

Sounds reasonable except for the fact that no one understands religious philosophy. No one can answer questions at the "heart" of any religion. That is a necessary condition because religion requires faith, and ultimate authority to have faith in. You cannot have an exoteric religion because it would not require faith and religious authority.

The issue is that religion is thereby also vulnerable to being tainted by the less luminous, being used as a tool of power, etc. — Tzeentch

So why is philosophy not vulnerable, or less vulnerable, to abuse and religion is vulnerable? Esoteric knowledge requires faith in authority, and because they are final answers it requires ultimate authority. Ultimate authority = power.

Sounds reasonable except for the fact that no one understands religious philosophy. No one can answer questions at the "heart" of any religion. That is a necessary condition because religion requires faith, and ultimate authority to have faith in. You cannot have an exoteric religion because it would not require faith and religious authority — praxis

This understanding of the difference between religion and philosophy certainly runs counter to the use of the word religion in many philosophy and theology departments today, where religion is treated in a way not that far removed from the way that Tzeentch has articulated it.

Many authors, from Caputo to Sheehan and Critchley, look at religion in terms of the philosophical ideas they see at its heart , which has no necessary ties to structures of authority. These ideas are implicit in the religion , and made explicit in philosophical explication.

Many authors, from Caputo to Sheehan and Critchley, look at religion in terms of the philosophical ideas they see at its heart, which has no necessary ties to structures of authority. — Joshs

I’m not sure that you realize what you’re saying. Anyone can review core religious philosophical ideas. No problem.

These ideas are implicit in the religion, and made explicit in philosophical explication. — Joshs

No one can fully explicate these ideas. Again, this is a necessary condition.

No one can fully explicate these ideas. Again, this is a necessary condition. — praxis

You said this is a necessary condition because religion requires faith and authority. I’m not clear on the difference between religious faith and the metaphysical faith at the core of philosophical thinking. To believe in something you have to have a something to believe in, a way of thinking about the world. One can choose one particular faith over another in the same way one can choose one philosophy over another; on the basis of how well it makes sense of the most important aspects of life. People move from one religious structure to another all the time on this basis. I don’t see this supposed difference between philosophy and religion as any more coherent than that between philosophy and science or between science and the arts.
Each new era in philosophical history brings with it a new approach to religion that is throughly intertwined with the new philosophical worldview. This intertwining is only possible because philosophy and religion are just different styles of articulating a belief and value system.

Sounds reasonable except for the fact that no one understands religious philosophy. — praxis

Countless books have been written on the subject. I don't know why you would say this.

No one can answer questions at the "heart" of any religion. — praxis

Perhaps not, but no one can answer the questions at the heart of philosophy either.

That is a necessary condition because religion requires faith, and ultimate authority to have faith in. You cannot have an exoteric religion because it would not require faith and religious authority. — praxis

It's the exoteric part that requires faith, however the esoteric part focuses, like any philosophy, on understanding.

Faith replaces understanding for the exoteric, because understanding simply isn't a reasonable goal for most people. Most people aren't philosophers, and most can't understand complicated philosphical concepts or simply lack the interest to put in the effort required to understand them.

So why is philosophy not vulnerable, or less vulnerable, to abuse and religion is vulnerable? — praxis

Philosophy and religion are very different in nature. A dependency on authority and faith applies in a general sense to religion. It does not apply to philosophy. Philosophy is about truth and understanding, and concepts like faith and authority should be dirty words in philosophical circles!

Esoteric knowledge requires faith in authority, and because they are final answers it requires ultimate authority. Ultimate authority = power. — praxis

This is not necessarily true. If the esoteric teachings are of a philosophical nature, as I said, authority and faith would not be a part of them. Esoteric means nothing other than "hidden" (from the common eye). There is no element of faith or authority, or even religion in there.

Aside from books being written on philosophy and religion, there was the whole tradition of theology, and it was a vast body of thought. I tried reading some theology at one point. A central area of discussion appeared to be about whether the idea of God and the problem of evil could be reconciled. However, I could not really gain a proper grasp of theology though, because it seemed that it begins from the standpoint of acceptance of certain religious premises, as opposed to philosophy, which approaches perceived 'problems' from a wider angle and reference point.

A central area of discussion appeared to be about whether the idea of God and the problem of evil could be reconciled. — Jack Cummins

I think that's essential to esoteric knowledge.
Various topics about God speak of God as God only, however essential to esotericism is not to remove the evil one.

For example, can we analyze a murder case by removing the killer and only talk about victim (or vice versa)?

Theology seems to float somewhere in between religion and philosophy. In the end, it seems inquisitive minds are drawn towards the same questions (and answers?), whether their roots be religious or secular.

In the context of your original question, it might be worth making a distinction between religion and spiritual teachings or wisdom tradition.

Religion, I think, is essentially the practice of a certain spiritual teaching or wisdom tradition by a large group of individuals. By this distinction, if you were to ask me whether religion and philosophy are complementary, I am not so sure. However, if you were to ask me whether spiritual teachings or wisdom traditions are complementary with philosophy then there'd be no doubt in my mind that they are!

It is true that there is religious thinking and, on the other hand, the ideas within wisdom and spiritual thinking. It is possible to have spiritual ideas without any religious ones. The term 'spiritual' conjures up notions of religious or metaphysical entities, but in its most fundamental root, spiritual can be seen as relating to the inner life of a human being. I think that it is interesting that Eastern religions perspectives seem able to explore the inner life with less emphasis on 'God', especially in Buddhism.

You said this is a necessary condition because religion requires faith and authority. I’m not clear on the difference between religious faith and the metaphysical faith at the core of philosophical thinking. — Joshs

The former is held to be true, simply.

To believe in something you have to have a something to believe in, a way of thinking about the world. — Joshs

To a large degree, science is responsible for the way we think about the world, literally the world, that it's spherical and revolves around the sun, for instance. You may say that some of us require faith to believe what scientists claim about the world, but unlike religious authorities, scientists can answer questions about their claims and provide evidence. Also, there's no hierarchy of authority, no 'great chain of being', and in fact depends on peer review and independent validation.

One can choose one particular faith over another in the same way one can choose one philosophy over another; on the basis of how well it makes sense of the most important aspects of life. People move from one religious structure to another all the time on this basis. — Joshs

When not merely inculcated into religion and people seeking it out, what are people looking for? In a word, I think they're looking for meaning, and meaning can be found in religion. Does philosophy offer meaning? Philosophy has been accused of causing nihilism, by undermining existing values and beliefs and failing to put anything useable in their place. Among the less reflective, this has been one of the most objectionable aspects of philosophy as a whole.

I don’t see this supposed difference between philosophy and religion as any more coherent than that between philosophy and science or between science and the arts. — Joshs

Religion is based in faith, philosophy and science in reason, and the arts in aesthetics.

Each new era in philosophical history brings with it a new approach to religion that is throughly intertwined with the new philosophical worldview. This intertwining is only possible because philosophy and religion are just different styles of articulating a belief and value system. — Joshs

Again, I'm not sure if you realize what you're saying. I can see a religion as a style articulating a belief and value system. No problem. I can also see philosophy as a style articulating a belief and value system. No problem.

No one can answer questions at the "heart" of any religion.
— praxis

Perhaps not, — Tzeentch

We agree! :party:

... but no one can answer the questions at the heart of philosophy either. — Tzeentch

Both a theist and an atheist can philosophize about the existence of God til the cows come home and in the end, their positions are unlikely to change. One difference is that the theist relies on authority and has faith in that authority. Has any theist alive today come up with the idea of God, and a whole belief system that surrounds it, themselves?

Esoteric knowledge requires faith in authority, and because they are final answers it requires ultimate authority. Ultimate authority = power.
— praxis

This is not necessarily true. If the esoteric teachings are of a philosophical nature, as I said, authority and faith would not be a part of them. Esoteric means nothing other than "hidden" (from the common eye). There is no element of faith or authority, or even religion in there. — Tzeentch

I'm not following. I'm saying that religion requires hidden ultimate "truths" and it's that inaccessibility that gives the religious authority their power. If everyone could talk to God, preachers and popes would be out of a job.

Religion is based in faith, philosophy and science in reason, and the arts in aesthetics. — praxis

That distinction is a quaint old notion with a long pedigree in Western thinking, but it has been discarded by a range of thinking that recognizes the grounding of philosophical and scientific reason in aesthetics.

I'm not sure if you realize what you're saying. — praxis

I’m saying the same thing that Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Nietzsche , Kuhn, Rorty and Merleau-Ponty said years ago.

Here’s one attempt to apply Kuhn to religious conversion.

“Thomas Kuhn's theory of paradigm-shift can be used as a methodological tool in the study of religious conversion. The same way that the scientist is limited to work within a scientific paradigm, the believer can be said to exercise religion within a theological paradign. And as anomaly can lead to science crises and a change of worldrew, anomaly within the horizon of the believer can lead to existential crisis and religious reorientation.”(TOMAS SUNDNES DRoNEN)

Religion is based in faith, philosophy and science in reason, and the arts in aesthetics.
— praxis

That distinction is a quaint old notion with a long pedigree in Western thinking, but it has been discarded by a range of thinking that recognizes the grounding of philosophical and scientific reason in aesthetics. — Joshs

It's just a way of distinguishing them. There are all sorts of ways to distinguish them from each other, I'm sure, quaint as some of them may be.

I'm curious though, since you bring it up, in what sense is scientific reason based in aesthetics?

I'm not sure if you realize what you're saying.
— praxis

I’m saying the same thing that Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Nietzsche , Kuhn, Rorty and Merleau-Ponty said years ago.

Here’s one attempt to apply Kuhn to religious conversion.

“Thomas Kuhn's theor of paradigm-shift can be used as a methodological tool in the study of religious conversion. The same way that the scientist is limited to work wvithin a scientific paradigm, the believer can be said to exercise religion within a theological paradign. And as anomaly can lead to science crises and a change of worldrew, anomaly wilhin the horizon of the believer can lead to existential crisis and religious reorientation.”(TOMAS SUNDNES DRoNEN) — Joshs

Again, I have no problem with this. Why would I?

Philosophy and religion have combined origins, — Jack Cummins

What are the combined origins? What are the origins and how are they combined? Common origins maybe?

in what sense is scientific reason based in aesthetics? — praxis

“According to Kühn, aesthetic factors play no decisive role in theory-choice within normal science. He says that, in the puzzle-solving of which normal science consists, the usual stimulus for scientists' coming to embrace a new theory is its being demonstrated empirically superior to its competitors. Kühn has formulated five criteria, including those of predictive accuracy and degree of simplicity, on which one theory may be judged empirically superior to another (Kühn, 1977, pp. 321-323).

By contrast, a new paradigm's empirical properties will typically not enable it to poach adherents from a better-established paradigm, Kühn believes. After all, he says, a mature paradigm will have developed problem-solving resources that new paradigms are unable to match. Therefore, scientists in a revolutionary crisis will typically find their estimates of the competing para- digms' empirical properties weighing in favor of their current paradigm, and inhibiting paradigm-switch(Kühn, 1962, pp. 156-157).

Kühn identifies the factors that tend to induce paradigm-switch in arguments of a different sort: "These are the arguments, rarely made entirely explicit, that appeal to the individual's sense of the appropriate or the aesthetic - the new theory is said to be 'neater', 'more suitable,' or 'simpler' than the old" (ibid., p. 155). Kühn suggests that, without the contribution of such arguments, it might be impossible for a world-view to develop into a paradigm dominant in itscommunity:

The importance of aesthetic considerations can sometimes be decisive. Though they often attract only a few scientists to a new theory, it is upon those few that its ultimate triumph may depend. If they had not quickly taken it up for highly individual reasons, the new candidate for paradigm might never have been sufficiently developed to attract the allegiance of the scientific community as a whole. (Ibid., p. 156)

As a suitable test-case, Kühn picks the transition from Ptolemy's to Copernicus's theory in mathematical astronomy, which he maintains consti- tuted a revolution (Kühn, 1957, p. 134; 1962, pp. 149-150). He reconstructs the grounds on which mid-sixteenth-centurymathematical astronomers decided between these theories. Kühn claims that the Copernican theory could not have won adherents from Ptolemy's theory on the grounds of either predictive accuracy or degree of simplicity: "Judged on purely practical grounds, Copernicus' new planetary system was a failure; it was neither more accurate nor significantly simpler than its Ptolemaic predecessors" (Kühn, 1957, p. 171). Rather, Kühn believes that Copernican theory gained adherents on the strength of its aesthetic properties. According to Kühn, the arguments advanced in De revolutionibus show that Copernicus himself was aware that he could attract Ptolemaic astronomers to his theory most effectively by stressing its aesthetic virtues.

Kühn concludes that Copernicus's theory established itself in virtue primarily of its aesthetic properties and despite being able to demonstrate no empirical superiority over Ptolemy's theory. Therefore, he judges that, qua paradigm- switch, the transition from Ptolemaic to Copernican mathematical astronomy accords with his view of the role of aesthetic factors in revolution.“

( James McAllister)

try to avoid facing up to the harshest aspects of existence. — Jack Cummins

What aspects of existence are you talking about? As in being hard?

What part of understand existence is difficult to comprehend and why?

I see many in emotional turmoil about ones self awareness and I find that confusing to me.

I guess I would like to know what is so scary about being self-aware and why existence brings so much anxiety?

When speaking about the harshest aspects of existence, I am referring to the existential aspects of existence which cause so much suffering, ranging from fear of one's own death, experiencing the death of significant others, poverty, and seeing atrocities in the world, including people treating others in an inhumane way, and all forms of suffering.

Both a theist and an atheist can philosophize about the existence of God til the cows come home and in the end, their positions are unlikely to change. One difference is that the theist relies on authority and has faith in that authority. Has any theist alive today come up with the idea of God, and a whole belief system that surrounds it, themselves? — praxis

No one alive today has created their concept of reality all by themselves.

I'm saying that religion requires hidden ultimate "truths" and it's that inaccessibility that gives the religious authority their power. — praxis

The philosophical and spiritual concepts underlying religions are well-documented and accessible to all who would put in the time and effort, so I don't see how this is true.

I'm also not sure how this relates to the topic at hand.

When speaking about the harshest aspects of existence, I am referring to the existential aspects of existence which cause so much suffering, ranging from fear of one's own death, experiencing the death of significant others, poverty, and seeing atrocities in the world, including people treating others in an inhumane way, and all forms of suffering — Jack Cummins

I can see how that can cause a lot of distress. I’m stressing out just thinking about it right now.

But let me ask you something weird if the answer was to suddenly appear out of no where.

What would you do with it?

I don’t mean to sound intrusive just wondering that’s all.

In speaking of combined origins of religion and philosophy, rather than simply common origins, the point which I am trying to make is that many thinkers blended the two, to the point where they would have probably been rather surprised by how they are different disciplines now. I am partly referring to ancient religions, such as the Egyptian and Hindu ones. However, the whole development of Christendom involved a combination of religious ideas and philosophy. In particular, Augustine and Aquinas came from a religious stance, but incorporated the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, almost trying to merge the two seamlessly.

It is likely that it may only be in the last couple of centuries that philosophy and religion are seen apart from one another, following the ideas of science and other movements, such as existentialism. One point which may be important is that it may only be that in recent times that philosophers have seen life from the standpoint of scientific materialism. Of course, many thinkers of the past did not adhere to the theism of the Judaism and Christianity, or of Islam, but the cosmos of the previous worldviews, including Eastern philosophers, the ancient Greeks and the pagans was more of a 'religious' one , insofar as there was an underlying belief in some kind of 'supernatural' order.

At the "heart" of religion (esoterica) is "the mystery"; the rest (exoterica) is public-facing, dumbed down, ritual reenactments via mneumonic narratives about aspects (metaphors?) of "the mystery". Philosophy is the rational exorcism of self-abegnating, stupifying, infantilizing, reality-denying/escapist "mysteries" of which religion (i.e. cultic (conspiratorial) thinking) consists.

It is likely that it may only be in the last couple of centuries that philosophy and religion are seen apart from one another ... — Jack Cummins

I don't think so. The Presocratic and later Hellenic philosophies such as the Epicureans, Stoics, Kynics & Pyrrhonians explicitly opposed logos to mythos, even irreligiously in some instances. Buddhists, Jains and Charvaka, while not irreligious per se, pursued soteriological paths by lived experience and practical reasoning independent of religious considerations. Early Daoists and Confusians also marginalized "gods" and "mysteries" in their reflections on living.

"The last couple of centuries", as you say, was a necessary critical reaction to a millennium of Christendom's hijacking of pagan rationality to paint garrish lipstick on the grunting, rutting, farting swine of Catholic theology. The Church co-opted Platonism and then Aristotleanism precisely because, in the main among the educated in early and medieval Christianity, philosophy and religion – reason and faith – were epistemically distinct and even metaphysically separate commitments, therefore it was deemed desireable (necessary) to shotgun marry Athens to Jerusalem/Rome.

Stop thinking! God did it! — Faith

Stop thinking God did it. — Reason

Punctuation makes all the difference. :mask:

I'm saying that religion requires hidden ultimate "truths" and it's that inaccessibility that gives the religious authority their power.
— praxis

The philosophical and spiritual concepts underlying religions are well-documented and accessible to all who would put in the time and effort, so I don't see how this is true. — Tzeentch

There are countless examples of religious authorities creatively adding a spin to doctrine, or just making shit up on the fly, in order to influence the gullible but the following is a favorite of mine.

[If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way] — Daiun Sogaku Harada Roshi

Japanese war atrocities in China were particularly heinous.

Stop thinking! God did it!
— Faith
Stop thinking God did it.
— Reason
Punctuation makes all the difference. :mask: — 180 Proof

:lol:

Your post is interesting, because I was wondering if what I wrote was too much of a generalization about the split between religion and philosophy historically. I guess that there has always been a wide spectrum of viewpoints, before the rise and fall of Christendom, even though science has altered perspectives radically. The tension between reason and faith has been a strong one and even now many feel that it is 'sinful' to even question some of the ideas within religious systems, which may be why many wish to cling on to ideas like the creation story within Genesis. There is a lot of perpetuation of fear, and the idea of 'hell and damnation' is spoken of less, but it still remains as an undercurrent, to make people believe that faith as opposed to reason is supreme.

I don't think science has anything to do with the philosophy-religion divide (i.e. same roots, different trees).