Who destroyed philosophy?

@GoshisDead,

Hermetic teachings >O<

2 Replies

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep wrote:

Hermetic teachings >O< Gosh...

1 Reply

@Pepijn Sweep,

Can someone answer sometime ?

0 Replies

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep wrote:

Hermetic teachings >O<

The truth is the totality
Obviously the truth is found in the depth of a Christ, or Buddha, or Hermes.
The totality is beyond the machinary of relativity and also beyond the illuminated void.
The totality is that which is beyond the body, the affections and the mind.
The totality is that which is far beyond all dualism.
The totality in Christ, or in Buddha, or in Hermes is always the same.
grace emerges from the totality.
The truth is that which is, which has always been and will always be.
The truth is incarnated only in the body of a being like Christ, Buddha, or Hermes.
Samael Aun Woer - Pistis Sophia Unveiled.

1 Reply

@ABYA,

ABYA wrote:

Pepijn Sweep wrote:

Hermetic teachings >O<

The truth is the Totality
The truth is found beyond the depth of a Christ, Buddha, Hermes or Mohammed.

The totality is that which is beyond the body, the affections and the mind.
The totality is that which is far beyond all dualism.

The Chaos of Christ, Buddha, Hermes and Mohammed is always the same.
Sophia emerges from the Chaos and reaches Totality.

The truth is that which is, which has always been and will always be.
The truth is incarnated only in the body of a being like Christ, Buddha, or Hermes. Or Mohammed...

Samael Aun Woer - Pistis Sophia Unveiled.

Good poem !

0 Replies

Hermeticism is not something I am familiar with, although when I look up the encyclopedia entry, I can see certain elements of it that are interesting. I have not read anything much of that writer, although I have heard of him.

Actually I would like to think that my approach is mainstream. In fact I think the mainstream of Western Philosophy was a spiritual tradition, up until quite recently. This simply means that many, or even all, the main thinkers in the tradition were religious philosophers in some way or another. Even Spinoza, who is regarded as one of the most important sources of secularism (which he is) still regarded the pinnacle of his philosophy as 'the intellectual love of God'.

In Eastern Philosophy, my main influences are philosophical rather than mystical, and mainly Buddhist.

Anyway, in relation to the theme 'who destroyed philosophy', I don't think it is destroyed. But the rejection of all of the spiritual elements that began around the time of Neitszche has resulted in a type of philosphical outlook that I personally find completely uncongenial, as I have already said.

I am interested in exploring themes of hermeticism and esotericism in some other threads, and I am sure there will be time to do that.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

Descartes was a Rosicrucian,

But what has that to do with it? He could have been an Azande for all it matters. My discussion of Descartes is about what he wrote, not what he was. How is that relevant? My interest is in his arguments and conclusions in the Meditations and in his Discourse. Why should I care to what cult or other he belonged. My interest in Descartes isn't a personal interest. It isn't in the lives of the philosophers, or even in the history of philosophy except insofar as it informs what the philosopher wrote. Why should it be?

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

Dualism as rabidly practiced veiled the self by discrediting the intuitive at the same time as it illuminated world. Through it I can now speak to you over the internet, but at what cost?

Have we been discussing dualism? Or, for that matter, the consequences of dualism? Why should I care about those?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

jeeprs wrote:

Descartes was a Rosicrucian,

But what has that to do with it? He could have been an Azande for all it matters. My discussion of Descartes is about what he wrote, not what he was. How is that relevant? My interest is in his arguments and conclusions in the Meditations and in his Discourse. Why should I care to what cult or other he belonged. My interest in Descartes isn't a personal interest. It isn't in the lives of the philosophers, or even in the history of philosophy except insofar as it informs what the philosopher wrote. Why should it be?

Because what a person "is"/believes directly affects what they produce.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

Dualism as rabidly practiced veiled the self by discrediting the intuitive at the same time as it illuminated world. Through it I can now speak to you over the internet, but at what cost?

Have we been discussing dualism? Or, for that matter, the consequences of dualism? Why should I care about those?

Jeeprs, Abaya, and I were, you can disregard it as you wish. You know because discussions of Descarts, of which you are a part, almost never touch on dualism.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

Dualism as rabidly practiced veiled the self by discrediting the intuitive at the same time as it illuminated world. Through it I can now speak to you over the internet, but at what cost?

Have we been discussing dualism? Or, for that matter, the consequences of dualism? Why should I care about those?

Jeeprs, Abaya, and I were, you can disregard it as you wish. You know because discussions of Descarts, of which you are a part, almost never touch on dualism.

The fact that a discussion is on Descartes need not mean it is on dualism. Descartes wrote about things other than dualism.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

Dualism as rabidly practiced veiled the self by discrediting the intuitive at the same time as it illuminated world. Through it I can now speak to you over the internet, but at what cost?

Have we been discussing dualism? Or, for that matter, the consequences of dualism? Why should I care about those?

Jeeprs, Abaya, and I were, you can disregard it as you wish. You know because discussions of Descarts, of which you are a part, almost never touch on dualism.

The fact that a discussion is on Descartes need not mean it is on dualism. Descartes wrote about things other than dualism.

The fact that Jeeprs, Abaya, and I were discussing is means that it was being discussed

0 Replies

Descartes' beliefs were directly relevant to his output. Beliefs have consequences. We were debating the extent to which Decartes was a part of the Platonist tradition, and I pointed out that both Plato and Descartes were spiritual thinkers. While I don't think that Descartes' model of the division between matter and mind is a very good one, the subsequent abandonment of 'mindstuff' and the adoption of a materialist ontology is also completely illogical and unsatisfactory. In fact the champion of materialism, and a contemporary of Descartes, was Thomas Hobbes, who is mainly remembered for his materialism. I would nominate Hobbes as one of those who destroyed philosophy. He was nasty, brutish and short. Very Happy

3 Replies

@jeeprs,

Peace will distroy 2 Cents

philosophy. Very Happy

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

The difficulty with spiritual beliefs is that they come in many varieties, and some may contradict others. How are we to sort the (possibly) true from the false? In science, theories are tested by experiment; what equivalent method is there for testing spiritual beliefs? How can we make progress in ascertaining transcendental truths?

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

yeah, short people got no reason

0 Replies

@ACB,

ACB wrote:

The difficulty with spiritual beliefs is that they come in many varieties, and some may contradict others. How are we to sort the (possibly) true from the false? In science, theories are tested by experiment; what equivalent method is there for testing spiritual beliefs? How can we make progress in ascertaining transcendental truths?

This conflates science with philosophy. Philosophy is not science nor can it be. The materialist mindset in philosophy is only one approach, albeit a very loud approach. The historical homogenization of science and philosophy is a socio-historic trend. With the cultural acceptance of science as the primary source of knowledge creation the assumption that philosophy must comply to remain legitimate is taken as certain by many, including professed and fairly well educated people on this forum. However, real and powerful philosophy happens without the scientific method all the time. Aside from this certain disciplines within philosophy cannot use the scientific method simply because they have no material from which to work. Assuming science uses logic to function is one thing, mandating that logic must be scientific is another.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

ACB wrote:

The difficulty with spiritual beliefs is that they come in many varieties, and some may contradict others. How are we to sort the (possibly) true from the false? In science, theories are tested by experiment; what equivalent method is there for testing spiritual beliefs? How can we make progress in ascertaining transcendental truths?

This conflates science with philosophy. Philosophy is not science nor can it be. The materialist mindset in philosophy is only one approach, albeit a very loud approach. The historical homogenization of science and philosophy is a socio-historic trend. With the cultural acceptance of science as the primary source of knowledge creation the assumption that philosophy must comply to remain legitimate is taken as certain by many, including professed and fairly well educated people on this forum. However, real and powerful philosophy happens without the scientific method all the time. Aside from this certain disciplines within philosophy cannot use the scientific method simply because they have no material from which to work. Assuming science uses logic to function is one thing, mandating that logic must be scientific is another.

Apparently, then, you believe that as long as someone says that a religious belief is true, it is true? And if there are conflicting religious beliefs, and long as both are believed, both are true?

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

ACB wrote:

The difficulty with spiritual beliefs is that they come in many varieties, and some may contradict others. How are we to sort the (possibly) true from the false? In science, theories are tested by experiment; what equivalent method is there for testing spiritual beliefs? How can we make progress in ascertaining transcendental truths?

This conflates science with philosophy. Philosophy is not science nor can it be. The materialist mindset in philosophy is only one approach, albeit a very loud approach. The historical homogenization of science and philosophy is a socio-historic trend. With the cultural acceptance of science as the primary source of knowledge creation the assumption that philosophy must comply to remain legitimate is taken as certain by many, including professed and fairly well educated people on this forum. However, real and powerful philosophy happens without the scientific method all the time. Aside from this certain disciplines within philosophy cannot use the scientific method simply because they have no material from which to work. Assuming science uses logic to function is one thing, mandating that logic must be scientific is another.

Apparently, then, you believe that as long as someone says that a religious belief is true, it is true? And if there are conflicting religious beliefs, and long as both are believed, both are true?

Apperantly you are one of the people I was talking about who assumes materialism for all things in philosophy including ethics, metaphysics, and yes, even epistemology. Look at me I can ascribe a belief to a person out of the context of that person's post as well. I might as well say 'This must mean you are a cat rapist'.

0 Replies

@ACB,

Quote:

The difficulty with spiritual beliefs is that they come in many varieties, and some may contradict others. How are we to sort the (possibly) true from the false? In science, theories are tested by experiment; what equivalent method is there for testing spiritual beliefs? How can we make progress in ascertaining transcendental truths?

That is an excellent question. The key poin is that the laboratory for the testing of spiritual beliefs is within our own life and experience. In these disciplines, you are that which you seek to know. But like with science, you can only find out what works by experience and experiment. So you have to investigate, do the research, discover the methods, the premises, the promised results, then do the work, and see what happens.

This really was basic to Greek philosophy. If you read the meditations of Marcus Arelius and Plotinus (to name only two), they are based on philosophy as a way of life, not just as a series of verbal formulations.

Furthermore by undertaking the effort of investigating which philosophical method is really worth pursuing, you are already doing the work of sorting out what, in your judgement, really are the philosophical methods that ought to be pursued. So by doing this, you are no longer dealing with the question purely in the abstract.

This is something well understood in the true and great traditions of philosophy, but not in the modern secular worldview, called the Scientia Sacra, the sacred science. This is not a quaint belief amongst pre-modern people, it's the real deal.

0 Replies

Who destroyed philosophy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know