Esotericism is essential to philosophy proper, but it's culturally subversive and so, often concealed, as a hidden layer of meaning in the texts themselves. — Wayfarer

To openly speak against the Creed, or any firmly held dogma for that matter, can be compared to suicide (Socrates, Jesus for example). In the case of The Inquisition, it wasn't even necessary to "openly speak" out, to be punished. The Freemasons enjoyed a unique position.

I must say I have a soft spot for the Cathars who believed the physical world a sort of prison, and whose belief of course was persecuted by a lesser version of gnosticism (aka Catholicism/Orthodox Christianity). The Law was like the physical world, to be discarded for the Logos- that's the Greco-Roman gnostic element. The savior that dies and resurrects bringing salvation is the mystery cult aspect. Combine these, you get Pauline Christianity (what becomes eventually Catholicism/Eastern Orthodox/Protestantism.) I find it ironic that the Catholic church had problems with sects that "out gnostic-ed" the already "gnostic" Catholic/Orthodox consensus (post-Nicene creed of savior god that overturned the physical (Law) for a higher Logos).

Which is layers upon layers of syncretic Greco-Roman mystery cults, gnostic ideas, and the appropriations of both Judaic understandings and Homeric literature to create the legendary Jesus. — schopenhauer1

More to the point in this context is that salvation is available to all who will believe. That is what is behind the notion of equality in the first place. In pre-Christian cultures society was rigidly stratified. One of the reasons gnosticism was suppressed was because of its alleged elitism. (But then, Calvin has the Doctrine of the Elect, the difference being that nothing can be done on the part of the believer to be counted as a member.)

I notice you have not presented any argument as to the benefits of esotericism... — Banno

I didn't start off wanting to argue for the role of esotericism so much as recognition of it as an often-unstated issue. The question was about the role of the transcendent. In plain language, there is no role, nothing to discuss (positivism, basically.)

In esoterica, there is the use and understanding of symbolism, by which things are communicated that can't simply be said in plain language. 'What are those things? Show them to me!' will come the plain language reply. To which the only answer is a shrug.

Case in point - the apocryphal origin story of Ch'an Buddhism. According to legend, the Buddha gave this teaching in silence during a gathering of his disciples. He simply held up a flower and gazed at it, without saying a word.

The Buddha's disciple Mahakashyapa, who was known for his deep understanding of the Dharma, was the only one who understood the meaning of the Buddha's gesture, which he communicated by smiling, while the others in the assembly tried to guess at doctrinal answers. The Buddha then acknowledged Mahakashyapa's realization with a subtle smile, indicating that he had transmitted his teaching to him directly, beyond words and concepts.

The Flower Sermon is considered to be a pivotal moment in the transmission of the Dharma from the Buddha to his disciples, and from one generation of Zen practitioners to the next. It represents the idea that true understanding cannot be conveyed through words or concepts alone, but must be realized through direct experience. The story of the Flower Sermon has been retold and celebrated in Zen Buddhism for centuries as a symbol of the ineffable nature of enlightenment.

That said, Ch'an has produced and maintains a vast canon of teachings and commentaries. The Ch'an 'ko-an', famously exemplified by 'the sound of one hand', literally means 'public case' or 'public document'. I don't think it's an all-or-nothing proposition - the role of discourse is valued in Buddhism, but so too the acknowledgement that the fulfilment of the teaching is beyond it.

All well and good, but so what - the silence, I can see a point to; but what part in your story was played by an esoteric inner circle?

Are you sure esotericism is the word you want? Perhaps you want ineffable.

Are you sure esotericism is the word you want? Perhaps you want ineffable. — Banno

Aren't they two different facets of the same thing? The point being, the communication of the ineffable was part of the role of philosophy. Interesting fact: Plato was a mystic, as defined by textbooks: 'initiate of the Greek mystery religions' (probably one of the orphic cults). This is why, I believe, it was said that in addition to the written dialogues, there was an unwritten component, although some of it was to become spelled out in the later tradition. A large part of Platonic philosophy was the preparation of the student so as to be able to grasp what was being taught, and I'm not sure that could be understood in propositional terms. Very much as described in Pierre Hadot's 'philosophy as a way of life'. It is those qualitative aspects that have been mostly redacted out of modern interpretations of Plato and philosophy generally.

Aren't they two different facets of the same thing? — Wayfarer

Well, no, not prima facie; do you want to argue the case?

And still, that it happens does not imply that it ought happen.

…..hidden layer of meaning in the texts themselves. — Wayfarer

I was introduced to Steiner a few years ago. Figured out halfway through “Philosophy of Freedom” esoteric theosophy, re: occult science, wan’t the ticket.

I never took a shine to Steiner, I went through most of Gary Lachman's book on him but I couldn't relate to him. But that doesn't detract from the point.

The Freemasons enjoyed a unique position. — Metaphysician Undercover

Bloody well deserved, considering what they accomplished with no electric power

D’accord.

Bloody well deserved, considering what they accomplished with no electric power — Wayfarer

This capacity, to create, to construct, through the application of mathematics and geometry is what gave the Freemasons a unique position in relation to the Church. The Church needed the masons for the construction of their earthly structures, so it also needed that mathematics based ideology held by the masons. The masons were allowed to maintain their parallel belief system, and any parts inconsistent with those of the Church were allowed to be held in secret. Therefore, so long as the beliefs were kept secret, the Church could turn a blind eye and not exercise persecution.

This element of secrecy has left the early history of this masonic guild, prior to themselves recording data, shrouded in mystery. But you can bet that this parallel belief system is as old, if not older than the Inquisition, which we know about through the documented history recorded by the Church. Evidence is to be found in the adoption of educational materials from Arabia, into the west, such as the "Arabic numerals".

Freemasonry describes itself as a "beautiful system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols".[38] The symbolism is mainly, but not exclusively, drawn from the tools of stonemasons – the square and compasses, the level and plumb rule, the trowel, the rough and smooth ashlars, among others. Moral lessons are attributed to each of these tools, although the assignment is by no means consistent. The meaning of the symbolism is taught and explored through ritual,[8] and in lectures and articles by individual Masons who offer their personal insights and opinions. — Wikipedia

Again, that esotericism is done is a long way from that it ought be done. — Banno

The more pertinent question is, 'do you see the usefulness of esotericism'? Whether or not the end is good or evil (relation to "ought") requires prejudice to answer.

Have you ever wondered about the example used by Wittgenstein at the beginning of the "Philosophical Investigations"? The example is derived directly from stonemasonry:

The language is meant to serve for communication between a builder A and an assistant B. A is building with building stones: there are blocks, pillars, slabs and beams. B has to pass the stones, and that in the order in which A needs them.

This book is loaded with esotericism, hidden meaning, and I think that's why Wittgenstein's philosophy is commonly called mysticism. To disregard, and pay no attention to this aspect, the hidden meaning, is to miss out on an important part of his philosophy. If you believe that "private language" is impossible because Wittgenstein produces a logical argument which proves that private language is impossible, while simultaneously demonstrating esoterically that "private language" is very real, then you've misunderstood Wittgenstein.

The issue being that the contrived definition of "private language" which lends itself to the logical proof is not consistent with how one would commonly understand "private language". So the logical proof just demonstrates the impossibility of an imaginary, fictional "private language". Meanwhile, real private language is true and happening, and demonstrated by Wittgenstein. This sort of logical proof (unsound or false definition) is what Socrates and Plato exposed as providing the rhetorical power of sophistry.

there is also the big problem that what you suggest is not going to happen and is effectively like suggesting if we all behaved like Gandhi (or insert idealised human being of your preference), there'd be world peace and love all about us. Which may well be true. But 'if' is a monumental hurdle. Anyway - no point going on about it as it's off topic. — Tom Storm

Why would people not be able to change? Have we not changed behaviors and ways of life, culturally, over decades and centuries based primarily in what people find the best way of life at the time?

But the method is not just positive when used in a broader sense. Would you agree that it can benefit your own thinking process? If so, or if anyone find a positive use for it, then it basically functions just like any other epistemological concept for reasoning. Just like in stoicism where a tenet is to step back and not be overwhelmed with emotion, it is similar in nature but for the detailed process of reasoning without bias.

I would argue that it primarily benefits the one using them and people around them. It can help their ability to solve problems and to discuss complex topics in spaces where emotion often drives the plot. But if society were structured around them more broadly I would argue that they would benefit society exponentially.

And in 2023, we have a problem with identity linking to values, ideologies and knowledge. That people today cannot discuss their knowledge without them handling that knowledge as part of their identity. This have led to a massive spike in the use of biases when reasoning because the emotions that comes out of wearing ideas as part of an identity blocks people from being able to change knowledge when being exposed to conflicting ideas.

For many people today, new ideas that conflict with the current knowledge becomes a threat to their identity rather than just being a threat to the sphere of ideas and knowledge that they adhere to in the moment. Someone questioning their idea is equal to that person questioning their existence.

This is why this detachment framework helps sever the link between knowledge and identity while making it easier to spot the biases that binds someone's knowledge to identity.

So, I think you are simplifying the concept a bit if you view it just as some "Gandhi concept" since the benefits are both broad and specific.

I'd also say that this doesn't really go off topic because the main focus was the question on what philosophy is for and that an answer is for questioning religion. But it's in this that I say that that is just the result of its core function of removing bias from solving complex questions. And in using a method that is primarily focusing on spotting and removing bias we're essentially doing philosophy at its very core.

All other things then becomes a result out of this. Reasoning in religious ways is primarily based in biases. Removing biases and any religious argument falls apart. Religion is also a more long form version of the times we live in now in that religious knowledge almost always binds with identity.
There's no difference between a non-religious topic of discussion that features identity-bound biases and a religious one, they are both analogous of being a frozen bias-statue in the gallery rather than walking freely exploring all perspectives and ideas as external entities.

So to answer this thread's main question, philosophy isn't about questioning religion, it is about removing bias and as a result it becomes a perfect method for questioning religion.

And if we have a method that improves our ability to spot and avoid biases, that would essentially be applied philosophy as an everyday praxis, which I think would be very beneficial to society, but also the individual's well-being and ability to handle reality better.

I didn't start off wanting to argue for the role of esotericism so much as recognition of it as an often-unstated issue. The question was about the role of the transcendent. In plain language, there is no role, nothing to discuss (positivism, basically.) — Wayfarer

I've never had the sense that God or Nature is trying to communicate with me via occult channels. But my study of Information & Quantum theories has led me to agree with Plato & Aristotle : that a First Cause of some kind is a necessary conclusion from the open-ended chain of causation in nature. Yet even those philosophical pioneers didn't make any claims of esoteric knowledge . . . did they?

I don't know why that presumptive Creative Cause remains cloaked in mystery. Yet one possibility is that it is not a sentient being, but a merely a directional Principle of Nature. Another possibility is that the cloak of invisibility (transcendence) is necessary to allow sentient creatures to exercise moral free choice, without feeling coerced by an all-powerful ruler. Perhaps just to see where such an unbiased open-ended experiment might go.

Ironically many mystery seekers seem to be imagining and hoping for a loving & punishing Genesis type of Creator. One who whispers in the ears of favorite sons, to give them an advantage over the clueless, those blind to hidden variables. I can understand the urge of curiosity, but my experience with esoteric prophets (in literature) indicates that vulnerable blind faith is necessary for those who hope to obtain such secret knowledge --- by their own efforts, or through deals with insiders.

Yet for me --- instead of secret codes --- a direct -- or at least "open" -- channel of communication would be preferable. But my cautious skepticism ("trust but verify") leaves me open to accusations of not being sufficiently open-minded. In the real world though, unguarded minds are easy prey for false prophets & political predators. Therefore, some kind of Faith Filter seems advisable : just open enough to let the truth in, and to screen-out falsehoods. :smile:


Esotericism as claims to higher knowledge :
Somewhat crudely, esotericism can be described as a Western form of spirituality that stresses the importance of the individual effort to gain spiritual knowledge, or gnosis, whereby man is confronted with the divine aspect of existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism

Why would people not be able to change? Have we not changed behaviors and ways of life, culturally, over decades and centuries based primarily in what people find the best way of life at the time? — Christoffer

Not relevant to the discussion. We are not talking about whether people change or not. We're talking about a theoretical, programatic intervention to deliberately build change in thinking, with a specific philosophical approach. We disagree on the feasibility of this project. That's all. Let's move on.

Yet even those philosophical pioneers [i.e. Plato and Aristotle] didn't make any claims of esoteric knowledge . . . did they? — Gnomon

Plato's writings make frequent references to Orphic myths and beliefs, such as the soul's immortality and the importance of leading a virtuous life to attain salvation. Some have argued that these references indicate that Plato was initiated into the Orphic mysteries, while others suggest that he may have simply been familiar with Orphic ideas through his study of ancient Greek philosophy and religion.

It is also worth noting that the Orphic tradition was one of many mystery religions that were practiced in ancient Greece, and Plato may have been influenced by other mystery traditions as well.

Appropriately, nobody knows for sure. But regardless there are esoteric elements in Plato, not least the tradition that his most important teachings were not committed to writing, but were transmitted from master to student directly. And neoplatonism, so-called, which was the later Platonic tradition, is one of the principle sources of esoteric philosophy in the Western cultural tradition.

many mystery seekers seem to be imagining and hoping for a loving & punishing Genesis type of Creator. — Gnomon

'Many mystery seekers' are dupes lead by con men. A lot of it is projection. If you know anything about psychoanalysis, you will know of transference, which occurs when a patient's unconscious feelings and desires are projected onto the therapist. You can imagine the scope for that happening in spiritual groups. But not all fall victim to that. There would be no fool's gold were there no gold, as the old saying has it.

I brought up the subject of esotericism in relationship to 'the transcendent'. The transcendent usually refers to a state or aspect of reality that surpasses the limits of ordinary physical existence, such as a dimension of reality that exists beyond the sensory world. In religious or philosophical contexts, the term 'transcendent' is used in relation to the deity or (in Buddhism) the state of being of a Buddha.

'Transcendental' by contrast is a philosophical term referring to something that is fundamental to the experience but which cannot be directly perceived or measured. In Kant, the term 'transcendental' is used to describe fundamental principles or categories of thought that are essential to experience, but are not themselves revealed in experience. Kant's philosophy of transcendental idealism holds that the mind actively constructs experience around such categories as time, space, and causality, that are necessary constituents of experience but which do not appear to us as elements within experience.

Both 'transcendent' and 'transcendental' imply a reality or being that is beyond or outside of ordinary experience or perception, although they differ in their specific applications and contexts. That is why the language of the transcendent is necessarily symbolic or allegorical (although it's also interesting to consider the sense in which the writings of German idealists were esoteric.)

One of the books I encountered in Buddhist Studies was called 'The Twlight Language' by Roderick Bucknell and Martin Stuart-Fox. The main idea of the book is to describe the esoteric language and imagery used in Buddhist texts and teachings, including the Pali Canon, Mahāyāna sutras, and Tantric teachings. It examines the use of symbols characteristic of Buddhism, such as the lotus, the mandala, and the chakra, in their role as catalysts for meditative awareness. It also demonstrates the skillful way in which Buddhism plays on words, uses double-meanings and other devices as 'skillful means' for conveying or provoking insights beyond the strictly empirical. This book provided an excellent compendium of the use of symbolic language to convey esoteric insights.

Reasoning in religious ways is primarily based in biases. — Christoffer

Don't you think that might itself be rather a biased judgement?

The proposal you're suggesting is really like adopting the persona of the imagined 'Mr Spock' character from Star Trek, Spock, the Vulcan, possessed an enormous IQ and encylopedic knowledge, from a terrestrial point of view, but was often caught out by what we would now describe as his lack of EQ (although that term had yet to be invented,)

Reading your posts, you're basically coming from the perspective of Carnap and the Vienna Circle positivists, for whom anything connected to religion and metaphysics was nonsensical, and whose sole imperative was to put philosophy of a firm scientific footing. I don't necessarily want to go down the arduous road of trying to convince you otherwise, other than to suggest that positivism was, by the second half of the last century, regarded as a failed philosophical movement.

I brought up the subject of esotericism in relationship to 'the transcendent'. The transcendent usually refers to a state or aspect of reality that surpasses the limits of ordinary physical existence, such as a dimension of reality that exists beyond the sensory world. In religious or philosophical contexts, the term 'transcendent' is used in relation to the deity or (in Buddhism) the state of being of a Buddha. — Wayfarer

This and the following three paragraphs are very nice. Thanks.

The Pythagoreans, also known as the Divine Brotherhood of Pythagoras, are another good example of a secret society. Plato drew a lot of material from the Pythagoreans, making these secrets public, but the material was published in the form of a critique.

Not relevant to the discussion. We are not talking about whether people change or not. We're talking about a theoretical, programatic intervention to deliberately build change in thinking, with a specific philosophical approach. We disagree on the feasibility of this project. — Tom Storm

I think you misinterpret what I've meant. It is not a project to force change onto society, it is a mental toolset that people have to evaluate by themselves if it is useful, just as they would with any other system that helps people be better at complex mental tasks and to avoid unnecessary stagnation of progression in solving problems and dealing with complex questions. There are a number of philosophical concepts in existence that would be good if everyone used, and even if not everyone uses them they have influenced history and science.

What I suggested was a system of philosophical thinking that helps fight back against bias, especially when we live in a time when our biases have fused with identity, leading to polarized conflicts in which ideas aren't compared and evaluated, but instead identities clash.

It's not a project of reforming society, it's a mental model that could reform if it was ever popularized as a norm of complex thinking.

That's all. Let's move on. — Tom Storm

And I'm not sure you read it all, but I circled back to the main topic.

Don't you think that might itself be rather a biased judgement? — Wayfarer

Bias is a broad term and it doesn't just mean a failure in an argument or deduction, but also how things gravitate towards a preferable reality. What I meant by religion being biased is that all arguments in religion has a bias towards the specific religion they come from. They (through history) can create great philosophical questions and be highly intelligent deductions, but in the end, as soon as something can't be explained, they always conclude it with a connection to the religious fantasy that was preconceived of the argument.

Philosophy, on the other hand, requires consistency against bias. If the argument requires a preconceived idea to function, it becomes circular reasoning, a confirmation bias and falls apart.

This is what I mean when saying that philosophy isn't for questioning religion as a primary function, because that is a secondary emerging function that simply comes out of the primary function of removing bias from thinking about complex questions.

If you think about all philosophical topics and arguments, they're all trying to do one thing, remove bias and fallacies from an argument in order to arrive at a conclusion that can be agreed upon.

Some arguments may be less deductive and more inductive, and therefore more "likely" than mathematically rigid, but even such arguments function on maximizing the probability of the conclusion being correct.

Any other form of reasoning that includes biases and fallacies without a rigid framework to fight them, fails at philosophy and becomes emotional opinions, fantasies, guru gobbledygook etc.

Even more continental philosophies requires a form of structure, a form of inner logic that doesn't summarize itself and conclude with something preconceived.

The proposal you're suggesting is really like adopting the persona of the imagined 'Mr Spock' character from Star Trek, Spock, the Vulcan, possessed an enormous IQ and encylopedic knowledge, from a terrestrial point of view, but was often caught out by what we would now describe as his lack of EQ (although that term had yet to be invented,) — Wayfarer

I'm not so sure it goes that far. The method I propose is about distance from ideas and concepts in order to be aware of your own biases and be able to understand conflicting ideas and concepts better when evaluating your own. In a way I would say it incorporates EQ far better since it places others perspectives, concepts and ideas on equal positions to your own in order for you to evaluate the idea and concept you have. Essentially, it has an empathic component in removing initial judgement of others ideas before careful measurement.

Becoming more analytical does not automatically equal becoming lacking in empathy. It can also be the opposite, that a lack of empathic intelligence leads to biased thinking since others ideas and concepts are being judged before hand, regardless of them being valid or not. This is also the form of bias that happens with religious thinkers when in a discussion. Other people's conflicting ideas are filtered through their bias towards their religion and they're not empathically evaluating these ideas but instead judge them before any step of actual analysis of their validity. Lesser religious thinkers get stuck in this first step almost instantly. We can see that in the vast amount of theological threads on this forum in which any counter-argument results in them looping around in circular reasoning.

Reading your posts, you're basically coming from the perspective of Carnap and the Vienna Circle positivists, for whom anything connected to religion and metaphysics was nonsensical, and whose sole imperative was to put philosophy of a firm scientific footing. I don't necessarily want to go down the arduous road of trying to convince you otherwise, other than to suggest that positivism was, by the second half of the last century, regarded as a failed philosophical movement. — Wayfarer

I don't draw the hard line as positivist in that sense of "guilt by association" against religion. What I'm focusing on is the existence of bias and fallacy within ideas, concepts and reasoning. These aren't bound to religion, but they are a failure at philosophy. Everyone can do it and religious thinkers can also create arguments that are in fact solid. But I'd argue that they then aren't producing a religious argument, but instead they succeeded at a philosophical one. My point is that bias and fallacies are common traits in religion because of how many arguments fail to go past the "because God" or "because of this religious text". When an argument doesn't rely on that, it doesn't matter if it's a religious thinker or if the concept is more continental in appearance. There are plenty of metaphorical arguments in religious writing that functions as solid philosophical ones, but as I said, they are then technically no longer religious arguments since they don't have a bias towards the beliefs of that religion and instead rely on rational reasoning without biases.

Essentially, if the argument has a bias, if its reasoning is filled with fallacies, then the author of that argument needs to restructure and work to remove those. A primary function of philosophical discourse is to spot each others biases and fallacies, to fine-tune each others arguments. Because if we back up and look at the process with some distance to our opinions: if someone creates an argument that is without bias and is reasoned without fallacies and you cannot find any holes in it, then why would you considered it wrong even if it is against your convictions? True philosophy is basically helping each other to reach that point, and being able to rid yourself from biases and fallacies means being closer to successfully conclude your argument. In philosophy, we're not really fighting to convince others of our beliefs, we are fighting to arrive at some sort of rational and reasonable truth about whatever topic that philosophy is about. So, because of this, I conclude philosophy to primarily focus on fighting biases and fallacies since they're at the dead center of a failed philosophical argument.

It's not a project of reforming society, it's a mental model that could reform if it was ever popularized as a norm of complex thinking. — Christoffer

I'm not sure you are following my words either. As I keep saying the chances of this happening are close to nil. But I'm glad you're thinking about these sorts of ideas. More people should. Take care.

I don’t have a specific question except: what do you think? — Jamal

What I think is this is an excellent, coherent and articulate analysis and summary of the role of philosophy to humanity. It clearly has a rightful place in tying together all human disciplines, and steadying them, moderating their dominance over one another, and thus danger to one another. Philosophy does this by being innately flexible and applicable.

The "art of thought" can approach any field of study.
As nothing can be mastered without thought other than pure ignorance.

Bias is a broad term and it doesn't just mean a failure in an argument or deduction, but also how things gravitate towards a preferable reality. — Christoffer

I think you ought to distance yourself from this concept of "preferable", and take a look at the way you use it. The word is a relative term, so it only holds meaning in relation to an end, a goal, or a person's intention. So, whenever the word is used, we can ask, 'preferable for what purpose, or what reason?'.

Your phrase "things gravitate towards a preferable reality" doesn't make any sense. If we qualify "reality" with a way of looking at reality, perspective, or ontology, you'd be saying that things gravitate toward a preferred ontology. The problem though, is that it requires effort to achieve ends, goals intentions, so "gravitate" is not an appropriate word here, because it signifies a lack of effort, going with the flow or something like that.

Now your sloppy use of words has left us with a bifurcation in potential interpretations, each going in opposing directions. By "gravitate towards", do you mean a type of going with the flow, which would incline one to proceed toward any random end or goal, as a sort of laziness, or do you mean making a concerted effort toward an identified goal or end? As you can see, these two are completely different, and there is really no way to tell, from your use of "preferable" which you are talking about. Does "gravitate towards a preferable reality" refer to the lazy attitude of ill-defined goals and lack of ambition, or does it refer to the attitude of having specified goals and making effort to achieve them?

I think you ought to distance yourself from this concept of "preferable", and take a look at the way you use it. The word is a relative term, so it only holds meaning in relation to an end, a goal, or a person's intention. So, whenever the word is used, we can ask, 'preferable for what purpose, or what reason?'.

Your phrase "things gravitate towards a preferable reality" doesn't make any sense. If we qualify "reality" with a way of looking at reality, perspective, or ontology, you'd be saying that things gravitate toward a preferred ontology. The problem though, is that it requires effort to achieve ends, goals intentions, so "gravitate" is not an appropriate word here, because it signifies a lack of effort, going with the flow or something like that.

Now your sloppy use of words has left us with a bifurcation in potential interpretations, each going in opposing directions. By "gravitate towards", do you mean a type of going with the flow, which would incline one to proceed toward any random end or goal, as a sort of laziness, or do you mean making a concerted effort toward an identified goal or end? As you can see, these two are completely different, and there is really no way to tell, from your use of "preferable" which you are talking about. Does "gravitate towards a preferable reality" refer to the lazy attitude of ill-defined goals and lack of ambition, or does it refer to the attitude of having specified goals and making effort to achieve them? — Metaphysician Undercover

This can be because I'm kind of advanced in the English language, but it is not my native tongue, so I can end up in semantic traps.

When I say "things gravitate towards a preferable reality," I'm referring to the interpretation of "reality" that makes us feel most comfortable. Such preferences can change, and we can gravitate towards different comfortable realities depending on how our beliefs evolve.

The reality we find most comfortable is one in which we have clear and comfortable interpretations, regardless of their validity. Such bias often arises from the anxiety of the unknown. We tend to eagerly embrace a narrative of reality that offers us the most comfortable existence.

This inclination to gravitate towards comfort is something we all experience, but the primary role of philosophy is to challenge and cut us off from this gravitational pull. It aims to prevent us from falling into comfort, into bias, and keep us rationally grounded.

I hope that clears up the confusion of that sentence?

What I meant by religion being biased is that all arguments in religion has a bias towards the specific religion they come from. They (through history) can create great philosophical questions and be highly intelligent deductions, but in the end, as soon as something can't be explained, they always conclude it with a connection to the religious fantasy that was preconceived of the argument ... My point is that bias and fallacies are common traits in religion because of how many arguments fail to go past the "because God" or "because of this religious text". When an argument doesn't rely on that, it doesn't matter if it's a religious thinker or if the concept is more continental in appearance. There are plenty of metaphorical arguments in religious writing that functions as solid philosophical ones, but as I said, they are then technically no longer religious arguments since they don't have a bias towards the beliefs of that religion and instead rely on rational reasoning without biases.... I don't draw the hard line as positivist in that sense of "guilt by association" against religion. What I'm focusing on is the existence of bias and fallacy within ideas, concepts and reasoning. — Christoffer

You assume that religions can only be based on acceptance of dogma, or belief in God, so any religious argument must be 'biased', because not grounded in reality, but only in belief. That as soon as a religious philosopher comes up with a solid argument, then it's no longer religious, but philosophical. You basically assert that religion can only be based on 'fantasy'. But that itself is bias!

Are you aware of the phenomena of religious experience, as distinct from 'mere belief', and of the role that mysticism played in Greek and later in European philosophy? That there are experiential dimensions of religious life, far beyond what is presented in religious dogma? Are you aware that Thomas Aquinas, for example, introduces his arguments with philosophical objections, and then painstakingly addresses those objections before setting out his point? That there are religions, such as Buddhism, that are not based on belief in God at all?

Up until arguably the 20th century, philosophical spirituality was a fundamental current within philosophy itself, very much part of, for example, German, British and American idealism. And as for the idea that philosophy itself comprises empirically demonstrable arguments grounded in facts that all rational observers must assent to - this is very much the kind of argument that positivism tried, and failed, to advocate. Positivism has nothing to do with 'guilt by association'. Positivism is 'a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism'. And that's pretty well what you're arguing.

Any other form of reasoning that includes biases and fallacies without a rigid framework to fight them, fails at philosophy and becomes emotional opinions, fantasies, guru gobbledygook etc. — Christoffer

What 'rigid framework' in particular? Which philosophers or schools of philosophy would you look towards that will produce this ideal, rational society where everyone acts rationally at all times, only taking into consideration the relevant facts and acting with perfect detachment?

You basically assert that religion can only be based on 'fantasy'. But that itself is bias! — Wayfarer

Define what religious belief is? Is it a proven claim? A deduced conclusion? If something isn't proven or doesn't possess any internal logic, if it is based on wild assumptions, what is it?

Is it biased to define religious beliefs based on precisely the most basic text-book definition of bias? Meaning, a leaning towards something specific, in this case, that religious belief?

How is religious belief not biased?

Are you aware of the phenomena of religious experience, as distinct from 'mere belief', and of the role that mysticism played in Greek and later in European philosophy? That there are experiential dimensions of religious life, far beyond what is presented in religious dogma? — Wayfarer

Yes, I'm not talking about experiences or definitions of religion's purpose for people. I've talked extensively in another thread about the importance of rituals, traditions and the emotional experience that religion can produce (with the bottom line being that if we were to remove religion and not find replacements for these parts we are robbing society of valuable important practices for our well being and psychological balance). Such experiences can also help in philosophy, but the philosophical claims you make cannot be part of such, or else they are tainted by whatever belief you have, i.e based on a bias.

What I'm talking about primarily is that conclusions can't be made through a religious lens without a bias towards that specific religion. Without the ability to prove a religious claim in any logical manner, the conclusion is essentially biased. We can of course use religious metaphors and analogies, but the final conclusion cannot assume religious claims as facts, truths or universalized ideas.

Are you aware that Thomas Aquinas, for example, introduces his arguments with philosophical objections, and then painstakingly addresses those objections before setting out his point? — Wayfarer

Yes, he used Aristotelian reasoning. However, when we speak of the history of philosophy, we tend to pick out the logical conclusions that has a sound philosophical grounding and dismiss the rest of the stuff that was deeply rooted in the religious beliefs of the time. It's not until very recently that philosophical scrutiny reached a point that we usually call scientific in quality. Point being, philosophy has still been about countering biases regardless of which time it was in, it's precisely why people like Thomas Aquinas are well known, due to his careful reasoning and keeping Greek philosophical traditions alive based on Augustines previous work. However, throughout the history of philosophy, the scientific understanding of the time influenced what was considered non-biased conclusions. In the ancient greek the metaphysical understanding of reality, the physics of its time was considered actual scientific conclusions, but that's because the type of scientific methods we see today didn't exist. What was belief and what was truth has been mixed together throughout history, only to begin being dismantled during the enlightenment era when we start to develop a better framework for how to conduct science.

This is why philosophy was considered the scientific norm rather than how it is today with science and philosophy being separate entities. So while the assumptions about reality were affected by a lack of modern scientific scrutiny, philosophy still functioned on an inner logic and rational reasoning. The problem was always that non-scientific assumptions that were considered truths due to the lack of modern methods of science, blinded philosophers from making conclusions outside of that framework. It still managed to poke holes into the biases of religion and it's probably the clash between philosophical logic and religious belief that led philosophy towards the modern methods of science. I.e it is the attack on biases that moved discourse forward and helped arrive at new and alternative conclusions at each era of discovery.

Up until arguably the 20th century, philosophical spirituality was a fundamental current within philosophy itself, very much part of, for example, German, British and American idealism. And as for the idea that philosophy itself comprises empirically demonstrable arguments grounded in facts that all rational observers must assent to - this is very much the kind of argument that positivism tried, and failed, to advocate. Positivism has nothing to do with 'guilt by association'. Positivism is 'a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism'. And that's pretty well what you're arguing. — Wayfarer

Which is what I also described above. The history of philosophy is filled with clashes between its fundamentals and the current time it existed in. But the fundamentals have always been there and it's because of them that we've evolved into what philosophy is today. And I haven't said it should be grounded in only "facts", I've said that arguments in philosophy requires a rational logic that removes biases and presumptions. If it isn't doing that, it's just fiction, anything goes. That doesn't mean we can't use metaphors, story and analogies to tell an argument, it just mean that the conclusion needs to hold together. If the conclusion is anywhere close to relying on "because the spirit" "because God" "because faith", then it is in fact fantasy, it is faith and it is religious belief.

The problem with the way you frame my argument is that you essentially lock it down to a positivist framework almost as a straw man. But we can still make philosophical conclusions in moral philosophy that doesn't have a scientific fact behind them. And they still need to have a logical conclusion that we can agree upon. For example, there's a logic to Kant's universalization and even if there are no actual scientific facts backing it up, and even if there are objections to it, it is a concept that is extremely well argued for, has an internal logic, and can be expanded upon in newer concepts and ideas. This logic doesn't come out of religion, there's no bias to some presumptions, but an idea about the consequences of actions being universalized. It is a non-scientific conclusion that is still logical.

So I don't see how you interpret that as a positivist framework? I'm pointing out how philosophy acts to reduce and remove bias from arguments and how religion functions on a foundational bias towards the specific religion those arguments are formed within.

What 'rigid framework' in particular? Which philosophers or schools of philosophy would you look towards that will produce this ideal, rational society where everyone acts rationally at all times, only taking into consideration the relevant facts and acting with perfect detachment? — Wayfarer

What's the praxis of philosophy? What is it that you actually do when doing philosophy? Is it just looking up in the night sky and have some ideas about reality? Is it just deciding some rules you like about how people should act against each other? This thread's main plot is essentially "what is philosophy?" So what is it? If it's not religion, not science, how do you define it?

You say it depends on the schools of philosophy, on which philosophy you like etc. Is it? Doesn't that then essentially become whatever anyone can think of really?

What is not philosophy? Does it generally exclude approaches that rely solely on faith, dogma, unsubstantiated claims without reasoned argumentation and critical inquiry?

So when I position philosophy being about reducing and removing bias when forming arguments, isn't that generally an overall definition of philosophy's function? Because it doesn't seem to matter which school of philosophy or which philosophers you like, it doesn't matter which time a specific philosophy was formed, there's always the process of eliminating bias and fallacies from the arguments created. Of course, the conclusions then becomes dependent on the times they are formed in, but the general core function still persists, if you produce an argument with a bias that breaks its logic, you have failed at philosophy. That doesn't mean Positivism, that means a dedication to inner logic of an argument. If that argument is about things like morality, there's no scientific facts to rely on, but the conclusion has to have a rational logic, it has to exclude your pure beliefs, exclude your preassumptions about morality, in order to function as a moral idea in philosophy.

This is the conclusion I draw as an observation of the history of philosophy. What is the commonality throughout, the most basic function that we can ascribe to philosophy?

And as of my description of ways of reasoning that is good at removing bias. What opposite "attachment"-based system is it that you position should exist instead? When I say that detaching yourself from bias to be able to argue rationally, what way of philosophy is the opposite to that which is better? I'd like to hear in which way philosophy functions if you attach yourself to bias and wear it as part of your identity? What is the opposite of what I described, seen as you seem to have objections to that method?

Interesting fact: Plato was a mystic, as defined by textbooks: 'initiate of the Greek mystery religions' (probably one of the orphic cults). — Wayfarer

Those of Eleusis, by my understanding. Eleusis was quite handy to those in Athens; not far away at all, relatively speaking.

But being an initiate didn't make one a mystic, at least as we understand the word. Many were initiated, including Alcibiades who is infamous for mocking the mysteries in public. Augustus, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and even Commodus among the Roman Emperors were initiated to those mysteries; Julian as well, of course, being one of the last to be initiated. Cicero too. Aristotle also. I'm not sure any of them would have been called "mystics" as we use the word, with the exception of Julian.

There is an online appendix to Meltzer's Philosophy Between the Lines that consists of quotes, both ancient and modern, by and about philosophers.

The term has been used in different ways, but for a better idea of how it has been used in the western philosophical tradition. In simplest terms it means to appear to be saying one thing while saying another.

There are many quotes from and about the ancients, but it is not a practice that was limited to them.

Since there are a couple of current thread on Descartes I'll start with him:

Descartes writes to one of his more imprudent disciples:

Do not propose new opinions as new, but retain all the old terminology for
supporting new reasons; that way no one can find fault with you, and those who
grasp your reasons will by themselves conclude to what they ought to understand.
Why is it necessary for you to reject so openly the [Aristotelian doctrine of]
substantial forms? Do you not recall that in the Treatise on Meteors I expressly
denied that I rejected or denied them, but declared only that they were not
necessary for the explication of my reasons?
– René Descartes to Regius, January, 1642, Œuvres de Descartes, 3:491-
92, quoted and translated by Hiram Caton in “The Problem of Descartes’
Sincerity,” 363

David Hume (1711-1776):
[T]hough the philosophical truth of any proposition, by no means depends on its tendency
to promote the interests of society, yet a man has but a bad grace, who delivers a theory,
however true, which he must confess leads to a practice dangerous and pernicious. Why
rake into those corners of nature which spread a nuisance all around? Why dig up the
pestilence from the pit in which it is buried? The ingenuity of your researches may be
admired but your systems will be detested, and mankind will agree, if they cannot refute
them, to sink them at least in eternal silence and oblivion. Truths which are pernicious to
society, if any such there be, will yield to errors which are salutary and advantageous.
– David Hume, Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, 257-58 (9.2)
(emphasis in the original)

Encyclopedia of Diderot and d’Alembert (1751-1772):

EXOTERIC and ESOTERIC, adj. (History of Philosophy): The first of these words
signifies exterior, the second, interior. The ancient philosophers had a double doctrine;
the one external, public or exoteric; the other internal, secret or esoteric.
– “Exoteric and Esoteric,” Encyclopedia (translation mine)

[T]he condition of the sage is very dangerous: there is hardly a nation that is not soiled
with the blood of several of those who have professed it. What should one do then?
Must one be senseless among the senseless? No; but one must be wise in secret.
– Denis Diderot, “Pythagorism or Philosophy of Pythagoras,” Encyclopedia

The Encyclopedia not only frequently speaks of esotericism–and approvingly–but it also
practices it, as becomes clear from a letter of d’Alembert to Voltaire. The latter had been
complaining to d’Alembert about the timidity of some of the articles. He replies:
No doubt we have some bad articles in theology and metaphysics, but with
theologians as censors... I defy you to make them better. There are other articles,
less open to the light, where all is repaired. Time will enable people to
distinguish what we have thought from what we have said.
– Jean d’Alembert to Denis Diderot, July 21, 1757, Œuvres et
correspondances, 5:51 (translation mine; emphasis added)

Just what this means, Diderot makes clear in his article titled “Encyclopedia.” He is speaking
about the use of cross-references in the articles. This can be useful, he explains, to link articles on common subjects enabling their ideas to reinforce and build upon one another.
When it is necessary, [the cross-references] will also produce a completely
opposite effect: they will counter notions; they will bring principles into contrast;
they will secretly attack, unsettle, overturn certain ridiculous opinions which one
would not dare to insult openly....There would be a great art and an infinte
advantage in these latter cross-references. The entire work would receive from
them an internal force and a secret utility, the silent effects of which would
necessarily be perceptible over time. Every time, for example, that a national
prejudice would merit some respect, its particular article ought to set it forth
respectfully, and with its whole retinue of plausibility and charm; but it also ought
to overturn this edifice of muck, disperse a vain pile of dust, by cross-referencing
articles in which solid principles serve as the basis for the contrary truths. This
means of undeceiving men operates very promptly on good minds, and it operates
infallibly and without any detrimental consequence–secretly and without scandal–
on all minds. It is the art of deducing tacitly the boldest consequences. If these
confirming and refuting cross-references are planned well in advance, and
prepared skillfully, they will give an encyclopedia the character which a good
dictionary ought to possess: this character is that of changing the common manner
of thinking.
– Denis Diderot, “Encyclopedia,” Encyclopedia

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914):
[Forbidden ideas] are different in different countries and in different ages; but wherever
you are, let it be known that you seriously hold a tabooed belief, and you may be
perfectly sure of being treated with a cruelty less brutal but more refined than hunting
you like a wolf. Thus the greatest intellectual benefactors of mankind have never dared,
and dare not now [in America, circa 1877], to utter the whole of their thought.
– Charles Sanders Pierce, “The Fixation of Belief,” Philosophical Writings, 20

Define what religious belief is? Is it a proven claim? A deduced conclusion? If something isn't proven or doesn't possess any internal logic, if it is based on wild assumptions, what is it? — Christoffer

Impossible. Can't be done. The term covers such a diverse range of cultural phenomena, that it has no single meaning. There are those who say that the word itself is an impediment. But one thing it's not, is a compendium of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles proposing a testable hypothesis.

Are you familar with Plato's dialogues? Socrates, as you're well aware, was sentenced to death for atheism, but the Phaedo, the dialogue taking place in the hours leading up to his execution, is one of the main sources for the defense of the immortality of the soul. Is that a religious dialogue, or is it not, by your lights?

Are you familiar with the early Buddhists texts and the account of the awakening of the Buddha? What 'wild assumptions' do you think are conveyed in those texts? For that matter, what issue are they addressing?

What's the praxis of philosophy? What is it that you actually do when doing philosophy? Is it just looking up in the night sky and have some ideas about reality? Is it just deciding some rules you like about how people should act against each other? This thread's main plot is essentially "what is philosophy?" So what is it? If it's not religion, not science, how do you define it? — Christoffer

I'll go with the approach articulated by scholar and historian of philosophy, Pierre Hadot.

According to Hadot, twentieth- and twenty-first-century academic philosophy has largely lost sight of its ancient origin in a set of spiritual practices that range from forms of dialogue, via species of meditative reflection, to theoretical contemplation. These philosophical practices, as well as the philosophical discourses the different ancient schools developed in conjunction with them, aimed primarily to form, rather than only to inform, the philosophical student. The goal of the ancient philosophies, Hadot argued, was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos. This cultivation required, specifically, that students learn to combat their passions and the illusory evaluative beliefs instilled by their passions, habits, and upbringing. ....

For Hadot... the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were a series of spiritual exercises. These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research. However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition: practices of attention (prosoche), meditations (meletai), memorizations of dogmata, self-mastery (enkrateia), the therapy of the passions, the remembrance of good things, the accomplishment of duties, and the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things (PWL 84). Hadot acknowledges his use of the term “spiritual exercises” may create anxieties, by associating philosophical practices more closely with religious devotion than typically done (Nussbaum 1996, 353-4; Cooper 2010). Hadot’s use of the adjective “spiritual” (or sometimes “existential”) indeed aims to capture how these practices, like devotional practices in the religious traditions (6a), are aimed at generating and reactivating a constant way of living and perceiving in prokopta, despite the distractions, temptations, and difficulties of life. For this reason, they call upon far more than “reason alone.” They also utilize rhetoric and imagination in order “to formulate the rule of life to ourselves in the most striking and concrete way” and aim to actively re-habituate bodily passions, impulses, and desires (as for instance, in Cynic or Stoic practices, abstinence is used to accustom followers to bear cold, heat, hunger, and other privations) (PWL 85). — IEP

The philosophical issue with modern science, in particular, is that it leaves no place for man as subject. Science relies on the fundamental techniques of objectification and quantification, and can only ever deal with man as object. It is embedded in a worldview that isn't aware that it's a worldview, but thinks of itself as being 'the way things are'. And there's no self-awareness in that.

It's not until very recently that philosophical scrutiny reached a point that we usually call scientific in quality. — Christoffer

Positivism, again.

being an initiate didn't make one a mystic — Ciceronianus

Mystic: Middle English: from Old French mystique, or via Latin from Greek mustikos, from mustēs ‘initiated person’ from muein ‘close the eyes or lips’, also ‘initiate’.

The Oxford Dictionary used to state that a mystic was 'one initiated into the [Greek] Mystery religions', although the definition has now been broadened.

The Oxford Dictionary used to state that a mystic was 'one initiated into the [Greek] Mystery religions', although the definition has now been broadened. — Wayfarer

Much broader, in fact. Of course, if we define "mystic" as an initiate into the mysteries, there were one hell of a lot of mystics back then. There were a good number of mystery cults. But it means something more, now, which I think can't be associated with the Eleusinian mysteries.

Merriam Webster:

Mystic; noun
1: a follower of a mystical way of life
2: an advocate of a theory of mysticism

Mystical; adjective
1. a : having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence
the mystical food of the sacrament
b: involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality
the mystical experience of the Inner Light

Mysticism, noun
1: the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics
2: the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)

Cambridge Dictionary

Mystic, noun:
someone who attempts to be united with God through prayer:

Mystic, adjective:
relating to magic or having magic powers, especially of a secret, dark, or mysterious kind:

I think we use the word differently, now. What distinguished the ancient mysteries was knowledge of a sort, which was arrived at through rituals which were secret, hence mysterious.

Cicero wrote of the Eleusinian mysteries in his On the Laws:

For it appears to me that among the many exceptional and divine things your Athens has produced and contributed to human life, nothing is better than those mysteries. For by means of them we have transformed from a rough and savage way of life to the state of humanity, and have been civilized. Just as they are called initiations, so in actual fact we have learned from them the fundamentals of life, and have grasped the basis not only for living with joy but also for dying with a better hope.”

A more ecstatic, magical mystery cult was that of Dionysus. From what we know of the mysteries of Eleusis, they were more refined. A kinder, gentler mystery cult. The revelation wasn't received in the mist of frenzy, or in a sudden burst of communion with God, but through contemplation and ritual, over a period of days.

Cicero wrote of the Eleusinian mysteries in his On the Laws:

For it appears to me that among the many exceptional and divine things your Athens has produced and contributed to human life, nothing is better than those mysteries. For by means of them we have transformed from a rough and savage way of life to the state of humanity, and have been civilized. Just as they are called initiations, so in actual fact we have learned from them the fundamentals of life, and have grasped the basis not only for living with joy but also for dying with a better hope.” — Ciceronianus

:pray: :clap: A splendid affirmation, thank you.

Great resource, thanks, that's another of those book I must get around to.

[Forbidden ideas] are different in different countries and in different ages; but wherever
you are, let it be known that you seriously hold a tabooed belief, and you may be
perfectly sure of being treated with a cruelty less brutal but more refined than hunting
you like a wolf. Thus the greatest intellectual benefactors of mankind have never dared,
and dare not now [in America, circa 1877], to utter the whole of their thought.
– Charles Sanders Pierce, “The Fixation of Belief,” Philosophical Writings, 20 — Fooloso4

cf what happened to Thomas Nagel.