Via Mystica and Postmodern Thought
Ben Tyner
have recently argued that there is an identifiable historical moment or
definable period in which modern thought has turned back to the its
religious heritage, and back to religion itself, away from the secular
period that has dominated for a while. I know there is a book on this by
Hent de Vries, Philosophy and the Turn to Religion. I was wondering if any
of you would like to elaborate on this...
"Ben Tyner" <bent...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ACl9.13677$CN2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Thank you all so much for your help- the reading list I have compiled just
> from this discussion will be very helpful.
>
>
> Ben Tyner
>
> "Craig McFarlane" <cmcf...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote in message
> news:an0kvi$1j3$1...@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca...
> > Ben Tyner (bent...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> > > I am planning on researching the inheritance of the Christian mystical
> > > tradition in certain elements of postmodern thought. Anyone have ideas
> on
> > > things I could read or look into?
> >
> > Start with The Book -- i.e., Hegel's _Phenomenology_. From there go to
> > Kojeve's _Introduction_. After that you can pick pretty much anyone of
> > consequence from either the Gallic or Teutonic traditions (i.e.,
> > Heidegger, Jonas, Bataille, Hyppolite, Foucault). The inverse of this
> > position is Strauss and his followers -- Rosen, especially. Cooper's
_The
> > End of History: An Essay in Modern Hegelianism_ and Darby's _The Feast_
> > are excellent secondary sources into these works as in, in many
respects,
> > Butler's _Subjects of Desire_.
> >
> > cm.
> >
>
>
Mike Dubbeld
> If I could just turn this discussion one more direction, some historians
> have recently argued that there is an identifiable historical moment or
> definable period in which modern thought has turned back to the its
> religious heritage, and back to religion itself, away from the secular
> period that has dominated for a while. I know there is a book on this by
> Hent de Vries, Philosophy and the Turn to Religion. I was wondering if any
> of you would like to elaborate on this...
'Modern thought' to me began with the Enlightenment and ended with
Logical Empiricism/Positivism'. It was a 'turn to the subject'. When
we say 'I know' - the 'I' doing the knowing was the focus of attention.
Descartes says 'I think therfore I am.' Meaning everything as being
knowledge was up for grabs at that time - a turn away from Authoritarianism
of the Church. The Enlightenment began with Martin
Luther. I say this because up until his time the Church had undisputed
power over what was what. Luther instilled doubt in religion and that
same doubt spilled over from theology to philosophy and science.
Newton was the epitome of the Enlightenment. By his universal law
of gravitation God became unnecessary. The same law that could
explain how moons orbited Neptune could account for the tides. The
universe was mans oyster. Freed from the shackles of bondage of the
Church man believed he could explain everything deterministically.
My guess is that the highlight of this arrogance was Nietzsche/Freud
and Marx. Neitzsche proclaimed 'God is dead'. Marx is famous for
his religion being an opiate of the masses/conspiracy by those in power
to control the masses. Freud put us at the mercy of our unconscious
desires/was a bitter ex-Jew atheist that suffered from cancer and the
World War for which he had to flee from leaving all his works behind.
But the idea of the world being explained deterministically was last
formally defeated in Logical Empiricism in philosophy and is no
longer pursued as it is seen as a logical fallacy - see Foundationalism
vs Late Post-Modern Non-Classical Foundationalism/Belief systems.
Post-Modern thought begins arguably with the quantum theory bunch
or shortly thereafter. Emphasis turns 'away from the subject'/individual.
'I know' becomes concerned with the environment in which the 'I' is
placed. Consciousness and qualia come into play - see David Chambers
Philosophy of Mind http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/index.html
where psychology is not seen so much separated from philosophy.
Quine basically eliminated philosophy all together. He showed that
there is no distinction between philosophy and science ---
'The distinction between metaphysics and science is undermined'
'The result of Quine's work is that foundational analysis of linguistic
meanings is rendered impossible.'
'It would seem that there is nothin left called "philosophy" that is
distinguishable from science.'
Professor Dr. Darren Staloff - Quine Ontological Relativism in Great
Ideas of the Western Intellectual Tradition Lecture 77 for The Teaching
Company.
Quine's most powerful attack on Logical Positivism is given in
Ontological Relativity and OTher Essays. Since its demise Logical
Positivism exists today using new criterion - Falsification. But this
is a re-wording of Late Post-Modern Non-Classical Foundationalism/Belief
systems and closely tied into linguists.
Post Modernism has for the most part concerned itself with Linguists
and Consciousness as near as I can tell.
Late Post-Modern Non-Classical Foundationalism/Belief systems is
the key to hanging your religious hat on anything using logic and reason
but it is often pointed out that it is faith - not reason at all that is
required for religion. For this idea see Kirkegard's 'Leap of Faith'
and also Pascal. Christianity has been blemished by Platonism as
much as or more than Platonism has helped it.
All of these things are fodder for the mind/I am not a fan of Western
philosophy. Westerners think they are their minds and worship them
as such. They have a great deal to learn as Reality IS NOT or EVER
WILL BE found in the mind at all. The mind is a limited instrument
and if you do not know the limitations of the mind - you do not
understand the problem at hand. It is only when the mind is disgarded
in meditation that real Knowledge comes. As long as we are in the
mind it is like we are forever on the outside looking in. Like a reporter
that has never done mountain climbing attempting to understand
mountain climbing.
Mike Dubbeld
Jørg
> Like a reporter
> that has never done mountain climbing attempting to understand
> mountain climbing.
Or like an idiot who has no clue about quantum mechanics attemting to discuss it.
cheers
Jørg
James Whitehead
<gdo...@yahoo.com> writes
& grammar, logic and computer science.... and other such subjects such
as discrimination - on the basis of gender - race - intellectual ability
- without the relevant qualifications.
Of course the experts once reckoned the coelacanth was long dead - shame
it couldn't attend the palaeontology classes...
--
James Whitehead
Paul Bramscher
I think it was Feynman, a famous physicist himself, who said that nobody
understands quantum mechanics. Current models are clearly flawed
anyway. It seems that physics, as a field, has dabbled in the
counter-intuitive mystical and personality cults since its medieval
precursors. Astrologers and alchemists needed to explain the world in
ways that made sense to the inner sanctum, the mystical elite. Newton
needed to explain it in ways that made sense to other people. We,
apparently, need to explain the universe in ways that makes sense to
machines. The only question, as I see it, is: What comes after the
cybernetic bias? Who, or what, is to be the next primary audience for
cosmological explanation?
James Whitehead
<brams00...@tc.umn.edu> writes
I kind of agree with much of your sentiment above, just a passing
thought but isn't this all - that is the "idiot calling" an argument
about differing languages - which seek to express an outside world- in
the beginning wasn't the word - but with the word came all this trouble?
But isn't it just a result of expecting one thing to stand for another -
as if it could?
--
James Whitehead