"Dialectics is the science of arguing well"
Originally posted by Extant Taxon
Originally posted by Lucifer777
Philosophy in the Socratean sense is not ultimately about choosing a political and moral philosophy; it is more of a very simple "method" of analysing
all ideas and subjecting them to analysis, critcism and debate, much like many of us do on the Internet.
By "Manichean" I assume that you refer to the kind of spiritualist black and white, good and evil type thinking, however I am not a Manichean or a
transcendentalst; on the contrary I am a Nietzschean; I simply know of no higher authority than human reason and intuition and intuition. .
Well, there is much more to philosophy than the purely Platonic (Socratic) mode, and well enough for the discussion of morals, ethics, or
politics. Socratic thought, as presented by Plato (who really knows exactly what Socrates thought, Plato left the majority of his legacy) was
intensely concerned with the political, with the polis, everything in the end revolved around a political duty.
I am not at all suggesting that philosophy is "only" about a "method," but that it is "essentially" about a "method," and it is a very simple method
that can be easily taught, learned and shown by example, and from that subsctructure, the various branches of philosophy develop.
For example, I tend to adhere to a political philosphy (Anarchism) and to a moral philosophy (Thelema) and to the general groundrules of the
philosophy of science, with regards to what is "objective knowledge (i.e., epistemology)," but I have arrived as such positions through the process of
a lifetime of study and dialectics (debate / argument) and I can defend all such positions with arguments based upon human reason and intuition alone
and without having to rely on a transcendent deity or transcendent morality; I do also amend my positions from time to time, so I am not suggesting
that my conclusons are infallible, merely that my "method" is an orthodox philosophical method and I know of no other effective method.
But yes, of course, I'm all for holding ideas up the light and holding them accountable, via the dialectic method.
One place to start would be top define terms. So when I refer to Mancichaean in the political sense I'm referring to a stark black and white
Straussian sense of a strict ethical duality, that brooks no mediation.
In the end I see that your strict dialectic is very much in this vein.
The dialectical process of human development is a "process;" the person who starts with a statement that there are certain objective transcendental
truths simply opens the floodgates of hell and lays the foundation for all sorts of fantastical utterences, and thus do we have the history of
religion and religious morality, much of which is simply a restriction on human nature and human desire.
Since we are human beings, it is necessary to do some groundwork on human psychology and attempt to discover "human nature;" thus I would make certain
"absolute" claims, but they would only be based on human nature, and whatever opposes human nature I would say was unnatural and even "godly." An
example would be male and female genital mutilation (curcumcision) which I would say was unnatural and therefore "godly" and therefore malevolent, and
I could make a rather long list of such matters, such as the practice of executing people for adultery, for homosexuality, for working on the Sabbath
or for the victimless crime of blasphemy, since such matters are clearly "godly" and thus unnatural, inhumane and malevolent and are blasphemies
against human nature.
As for Nietzshe, he is someone I have intended to read for some time. Shall have to get onto it in the near future.
He seems to me to be the apotheosis ("the elevation to the rank of a god; the penultimate, preeminent
") of the Enlightenment philosophers. He
also had the admirable habit of speaking in the language of the proletariat rather than the in the language of the Kantian forerunners of Focaultian
postmodernist mumbo jumbo which Dawkins and others are so scathing of (see Dawkin's essay "Postmodernism Disrobed"
), and thus can be easily understood by the masses.
A good place to begin with Nietzche is with "The Antichrist (www.fns.org.uk...
)." Philosophy in my judgement does not begin until the death
of god, for a human being cannot think properly if there is some transcendentalist babbling in his ear about "revealed" divine laws against humankind.
It is not without good reason that Neitzche suggested that human history should rebegin it's dating system with the publication of the Antichrist,
rather than with the alleged birth of the fictional religious fanatic, Jesus. Since philosophy essentially did not begin properly until Neitzsche, in
my judgement; what came before was just the preparation by individuals whose minds were mostly clouded by the memetic virus of religion and the
transcendentalist ramblings of religionists.
.... The rapacious capitalist meme, in it's current form as controlled by multinational conglomerates, will result in a global fascist
corporate superstate (in the sense as defined by Mussolini). We're not quite there yet though, there are still countries (rogue states) that are not
dominated by the primary nationalist gangs, though now for want of trying.
Well the Capitalist elites obviously wish for a world which is under their control, but it will not be without widespread resistance; I think they
would prefer martial law, since in Europe, probably most of the population are socialists, including much of the academia, intelligensia and the
proletariat, and the elites are unlikely to get their way unless they can impose some form of tyranny.
I tend to adhere to Marx's view that societies will progress from slave societies to Capitalist societies to socialism to communism. Currently in
Europe we have a combination of Capitalism and socialism, but I believe that the future will eventually evolve into socialism and communism, though
probably not without numerous wars and revolutions and certainly one can expect the economic and military elites to seek to impose dictatorships which
favour them, but there is usualy always eventually a dialectical reaction and resistance, and the harsher the experience becomes for the masses, the
more potent become the conditions for revolution.
I do wonder just how much the ostensibly astounding revolutionary wildfires in North Africa are really organic and grassroots in nature. Even if they
are the fields (especially Libya) will be ripe for the pickings if Gaddafi is ousted.
In nations where the vast majority of people are Muslims, if Republican forms of government appear in the place of the current tyrannies, they are
likely to be Islamic Republics rather than modern liberal secular democracies; this could even be regressive rather than progressive; it is one thing
to have brutal 21st century dictators, and it is quite another to seek to impose the primitive laws of a 7th century dictator, slave trader and
militant religious fanatic, particularly in Egypt which has the biggest army in the region and US military technology including F-16's. I could well
forsee Israel anonymously nuking Egypt and beginning a global apocalyptic war.
I tend to think of religious fundamentalism and its attendant atrocities as rather effect than cause. Humankind will fight over just about anything,
and an absolute belief is one of the best excuses.
You will find that, for example, among the European middle classes, they do not behave like football hooligans. Nietzche's "Ubermensche" is perhaps
the simplest model of an ideal human being, and a replacement for the older models which were simply models of archetypal religious schizophrenics.
Nietzsche's "superior man (and woman)" is already a model widely accepted by modern humanists, scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, atheists and
much of the secular middle classes and academia; it is simply a model that can be defined as a modern, educated, rational, scientific, ethical, free
thinking, sacreligious human being, and it is as simple as this. Unfortunately whatever political philosophy one adheres to, one simply cannot have an
ideal society without ideal people and the Nietzchean ideal will take time to arrive and will require a process of education.
Plato was so opposed to democracy was because he feared that "mob rule" would be worse far than tyranny and oligarchy, especially when you have a
"mob" of largely uneducated savages. Any modern society would have to be a technocracy and a society governed by educated people; no political system
could be ideal if ruled by a bunch of football hooligans or by Islamic mullahs, whether elected or not.
The Israeli Communist system (the Kibbutzim) worked so well and created a crime free economic heaven for it's residents, but it was many decades in
the making, and those born to socialism became adjusted to it as children; if one attempted that with the dross of the football hooligan culture in
Europe it would simply be a nightmare and probably descend into gang warfare and the worst kind of anarchy; the conditions for a truly socialist
revolution are thus yet to be created.
I think that the Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are rather the symptoms of the primary disorder of militant patriarchy.
Unfortunately the further one goes back in the history of religon, usually the more primitive and savage one finds religious cultures to be, many of
which were blood sacrifice religions, not so far removed from the religion of the Aztecs; human progress in my judgement really requires the
eradication of the curse religion. For humankind to stll be revering human sacrifice cultists like Abraham and relatively savage religious fanatics
like Moses, Jesus and Mohammad indicates that we still have a long way to go until humankind is liberated from the savagery and barbarism of the
We need to revisit, as a global people, the idea of the alchemical marriage, of the union of male and female in true equality to render society
as a functioning whole.
Yes, of course. Although I come across as anti-metaphysical it is partly because I have had a lifelong interest in all matters esoteric, and I can see
that you have similar interests from the threads you have posted. I have really been immersed in the Neopagan counterculture and I suppose that it has
been Crowley who has been the central influence and central "role model." It is merely that I don't consider such a model to be useful for the masses,
since he is also a model which displays characteristics of delusion, religious shizophrenia and transcendentalism; his evangelical anti-Christianity
was admirable and I do believe that Thelemic philosophy will be the central moral philosophy of the future world, but it is absolutely no different to
Nietzchean moral philosophy, and replacing one form of transcendentalism (i.e. Christianity) with another form of transcendentalism (Crowleyianty)
seems to me not to be a universal solution, though clearly Crowley is a far better role model for the New Aeon than the primitive promoter of an
ancient Bronze Age religion, the fake healer and fake miracle worker, Jesus.
In terms of a natural theology (i.e., a non transcendental Deistic theology derived purely from human reason and human nature), the idea of the divine
incarnation which can be derived from Crowley's Kabbalistic philosophy is that ultimately the divine image is essentially the sexual union of the
liberated (from the "sins of restriction") human male and female and that this is the incarnation of the immanent hermaphroditic creator; however the
idea of a "monogamous" alchemical marriage seems to me to be a blasphemy against human nature since we are not monogamous beings by nature, but
certainly the union of two lovers appears to be life's ultimate sacred experience, though of course this is heresy to the Christians.
I'm not a fan of this militant radical feminism that is a reaction to the male dominance of the world stage either. I don't think that the answer is
to give leadership over to a gynaecocracy. One sex's ascendency over the other is an imbalance that is unsustainable.
Having travelled quite widely throughout the Islamic world where women are little more than slaves, I am most certainly a radical feminist, as is my
current witch of a Scarlet woman; but radical feminism need not be about the supremacy of maternalism over paternalism; on the contrary; it is merely
about the right's of women, the vast majority of whom are just slaves in paternalistic societies.
He didn't see the Rhodes Group as active after 1950 I believe. But then this is a moot point. His analysis, that we know of, ended around 1960.
I think that secret societies, as with religion, are merely symptomatic. The origins of the symptoms lie in a greater sociocultural context I think.
But their effect on the system that birthed them is still measurable and important.
It seems to me that "regular" Masons tend to be conservative Capitalists and very much part of the establishment and that they are not at all a
progressive influence; they are a rather antiquated society which operate like a Capitalist gang; certainly Masons as a cabal are financially powerful
and they have placed themselves in that situation though banking and commerce.
Those who are esoterically enclined in the modern world tend to be drawn towards the New Age movement, the "irregular" Masonic societies such as the
O.T.O, the Neopagan and Neowiccan movements, Luciferianism and philosophical Satanism etc., this may be today's counterculture but it is likely to
become a prevailing culture in the future which will become a major source of resistance to the current "old monied" establishment of the Masons and
other Capitalist gangs of esotericists.
My point was that really the origins of philosophy can be traced to organised religion.
I think it's essential to note where the quest for ultimate answers emanated from, and the thinkers who helped to evolve the modern schools of
philosophy.Yes, the previously mentioned thinkers had their thought coloured by the demands of their faith (and also would have had to be seen to be
conforming to that faith, even if they had concepts other to dogma; the Catholic Church was all dominating in the sociocultural sphere), but the
search for truth began with the transcendent ideal. And this should be acknowledged.
One of my old theology professors defined philosophy as the attempt to derive truth through human reason and intuition alone, and theology as revealed
truth through "revelation." Of course theology is not a real subject, since the subject of the study, "theos" does not lend Herself to empircal
observation, so one can just make up anything one likes about Her and it cannot be verified or falsified; that is the problem with theology and really
it is just the study of the numerous ramblings of transcendentalists who were the enemies of human reason and human nature. If human beings began to
think "rationally" and philosophically it was in "spite" of religion, not because of it; faith is the ultimate enemy of reason and vice versa.
Of course, it's beyond time to move beyond the conception of a capricious invisible bully in the sky in relation to philosophy.
I for sure would not censor anyone's desire to believe as they see fit to though.
If there is a Creator, I suspect that the history of religion and theology is simply an insult to Her intelligence and I suspect that She would rather
we think for ourselves. Crowley's "There is no god but man (and woman)
" is a better maxim to follow, since there are only really our fellow
human beings to worship, and this is a central tenet of Luciferianism; that we are the gods and that we should accept no higher authority.
Originally posted by Lucifer777
I know of no other reliable method than the absolutism (as you refer to it) of human reason and intution.
When I refer to absolutism I mean that there is no other interpretation of data or presentation of said data than the one you present. Of course you
of have to settle on a conclusion, but perhaps acknowledge that there are shades of gray (and bursts of colour) possible in your black and white
An arrogant person is a person who always claims to be right about everything, even if shown by human reason to be errant in some way; I am not
suggesting that I am right about everything; on the contrary, I often amend my views on various matters through the course of study and debate; it is
merely that the philosophical method is a better method of attempting to derive human ethics, political philosophy, and to ask the question "What is
truth?" for as soon as one submits to a trascendental method of arriving at the truth, this opens the gates of hell for all manner of daemons to fly
through, and this has been the history of religion.
The Wiki article you point to even acknowledges that neurobiology "has not isolated a single organic cause." The various causative factors in
what the medical establishment title a "disorder" are also not final. There is much still to be discovered on the subject. Having acquaintances in the
field of psychopathology I can say that the science, such as it is, is all up for grabs. Not a single psychologist or psychiatrist I know of will
commit to a foundational theory on the subject.
Yes OK. However differences have been observed between the brain scans of schizophrenics and non schizophrenics but as to why this is, well I am not a
neurologist and am limited to studying their findings; however I do believe that persons' suffering from the symptoms of religious based schizophrenia
were probably the founders or models for many of the world's religions and that this has created a world where religious psychosis is considered to be
The main thing I would like to get at is the pejorative bias implicit in your categorising of schizophrenic in relation to a religious psychosis.
There are various avenues of approach to the dilemma of what is called schizophrenia, not least being the medical establishment's slant on "mental
illness" as a disorder.
There has been much made of the link between schizophrenia, altered states of consciousness, and shamanism.
Embracing the Fragmented Self - Shamanic Explorations of the Sacred in Schizophrenia.
The schizophrenic's reason and senses, like those of the shaman during initiation, are assaulted by concrete revelations of the heights and depths of
the vast Otherworlds of the collective unconscious. Simultaneously, the schizophrenic is forced to slot into the sometimes petty humdrum and routine
of daily existence. The invasion of the ego by archetypal forces transforms the individual profoundly and irreversibly; no-one who has endured such a
crisis can confine the expanded horizons of their consciousness to the claustrophobically "safe" and tame boundaries of cultural norms. Yet instead of
encouraging and bolstering the development of such transcendental levels of awareness, mainstream psychiatry seeks - out of fear of the unknown, the
unconscious, the numinous, the irrational and the abnormal - to stifle it under the euphemistic and patronising guise of "treatment".
The Jungian approach to psychological dissimulation is possibly far more fruitful and less of a stigmatic designation, which I think is the sense in
which you apply it, literally.
Those who are hyper-sensitive to the experiential world can be in a sense heavily influenced by the dominant cultural paradigms of the day and express
themselves via this form.
Of course, they could also be expressing themselves via this paradigm for the benefit of the people they communicate with. The similarities between
the teachings of the man called Christ and Buddhism have been noted for some time...
I should point out that I am quite familiar with the varieties of religious experience from a personal point of view and that I have had many rather
"mind blowing experiences;" however unfortunately speaking about what caused such experiences appears to be against the forum rules of ATS, so I have
been told. Certainly because the body of every human being naturally produces nature's most powerful psychoactive, '___', it is certainly "natural"
for some people to have visionary dreams, waking dreams and even audio and video hallucinations, even without the use of shamanic psychoactives. It is
quite possible that religious schizophrenics and people who report shamanic experiences simply have bodies which overproduce '___'; however I have
come to consider such experiences as unreliable despite a lifetime of experimentation along the lines of Crowley's methods; in fact Crowley's methods
of jolting oneself into the transcendental realm through a combination of Abramelin magick (necromancy essentially), sex magick and his various other
methods (which I have been forbidden to speak of on ATS) can be described a form of self induced schizophrenia; I don't wish to appear negative about
this method; on the contrary; it is very effective, but one is also playing with fire and the result is almost always what would be commonly perceived
as a total loss of sanity, and the whatever "spiritual" type experiences one goes through appear to be totally subjective.
Therefore I tend to ground myself with human reason and human intuition. That there are other dimensions of reality, gods, goddesses etc., is not a
knowledge which I believe to be any use to humankind, since it can just lead back to the delusions of "revelations," religion and the lost cause of
transcendental morality which has been a curse on humankind for Aeons.
I think that Crowley will continue to be the Neopagan, New Aeon model for future esotericists who are drawn to the world of shamanic experiences.
Despite being somewhat of a transcendentalist himself, fortunately his Thelemic philosphy can also be understood by pure reason and human intuition
and utterly prohibits religious morality; thus will the Final Law hopefully prohibit future "revelations" by transcendentalists which will re-enslave
human nature. For those of a more humanist and strictly philosophical nature we have modern models such as Nietzche, Richard Dawkins and Christopher
Yes, but you do so dress for battle yourself, don't you?
I have to live up to my HGA (Holy Guardian Angel) invocation. Lucifer long ago seemed to me to be a more appropriate angelic invocation than Aiwass
(High preist of Horus) and I have never really like priests and prefer to be the enemy of god than his ally anyway.
. An enjoyable conversation thus far.
Philosophy and intelligent esotericism junkies tend to be discussion forum addicts, but you have to look for them amidst the myriads of religious
fanatics and their incessant ramblings.
edit on 22-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis
edit on 22-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting