Monthly Archives: July 2010

Pt. 6–Magic 299–Grounding Earth religions & Human Potential philosophies

Knowing, Thinking and Being: The World, Knowledge, and the Dawn of Modern Science

Welcome to part 6 of Magic 299 and my ongoing effort to articulate and examine some of the historical, philosophical and religious foundations that contribute to two important concepts held as axioms by many Neo-Pagans, Pagans, and Magickal and New Age communities. Again, these are variations on what is known as reality formation, i.e. “We create our own realities”, along with the related concept of “responsibility assumption”, or, “Each of us is 100% responsible for the occurrences in their lives.”

It is my hope that this exploration will be of service as it attempts to uncover a context for these ideas while it also examines their spiritual and philosophical significance.

In part 5 I blogged about relevant characteristics of mysticism and metaphysics as well as touching upon some medieval ideas that relate to our topic.

The broad nature of this subject (both in terms of the swathe of time covered here, as well as the abundance of writing by the many great thinkers considering related ideas) requires me to make some careful choices in an attempt to summarize the important topics and to cherry pick those thinkers and ideas that come closest to our particular threads here. This means, of course, that there is a whole lot more out there! I hope that some readers choose to take some time to follow some of the links I’ve provided from Wikipedia, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and elsewhere. Each of those links lead to yet further information–the magic of stepping onto those threads that tremble outwards into the far-reaching world wide web. What an amazing thing to have so much of our world–including information about the world’s “physicality” and insights into the “world of the mind”–all linked in this manner!

References to “the world” are common in mystical traditions, along with a call to be separate from at least the “mundane” aspects, often maintaining a detachment analogous to emptiness. One key to the malleable and enigmatic mystical and metaphysical expressions mentioned in part 5, lies in the perspective that “the world” of appearances reflects only learned beliefs – based on the limitations of time, culture and relationships – and that an unquestioned faith in those (mis)perceptions limits a person’s return to a divine state.

The mystical approach seeks the discovery and/or development of a highly effective set of practices which will lead to union with the Divine and an enlightened mind and/or soul. This results in practices which are focused upon the intrinsic world, for example, chanting, certain carefully orchestrated physical practices (yoga asanas) breathing techniques, fasting, dietary restrictions, clearing the mind in an effort to achieve a non-thinking awareness, etc. There is a wide range of mystical and metaphysical practice and belief, and not a lot of agreement on which practice works “best”, despite the cross-“platform” similarities to be found in most mystical groups.

Mystics and metaphysicians give a variety of reasons for their preference for one metaphysical belief over another. Some propose that metaphysical beliefs derive their justification from the positive consequences of maintaining a certain belief, for example they provide hope, or give meaning to existence. Others suggest that their metaphysical speculations offer the best “fit” with what is accepted knowledge in science or other empirical disciplines. Each of these practices is related to some sort of interpretation of reality–and usually some sort of distinction is made between types of reality.

As the Middle Ages drew to a close, metaphysical speculation about “types of reality” which had characterized and even dominated much of Western philosophy, began to give way to careful analysis as to what can actually and reasonably be posited about reality and the material world. Thought thus shifted again from intrinsic perceptions and ideas to extrinsic and provable observations.

Francis Bacon

In the court of Queen Elizabeth (and later James I) there was an important voice for this new focus, that of Francis Bacon (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626) who said:

“Men have sought to make a world from their own conception and to draw from their own minds all the material which they employed, but if, instead of doing so, they had consulted experience and observation, they would have the facts and not opinions to reason about, and might have ultimately arrived at the knowledge of the laws which govern the material world.”

Bacon’s efforts to come up with a clear method for doing this resulted in his articulation of what is called the Baconian Method, which together with the contributions of scientists and thinkers like Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton has come to be known as the “scientific method” also see Wikipedia‘s article on the scientific method. For the history of the many other thinkers and scientists who have contributed to the scientific method see Wikepedia‘s timeline on the topic.

Bacon crafted a set of procedures for distinguishing among probable causes and then determining the actual cause of an observable fact. These procedures include the methods of agreement, of difference, and of concomitant variation. Employing these methods entails noting and then listing that which occurs in and about the phenomenon in question and also separately noting that which does not occur. The ensuing lists are then compared and the items in each list are ranked as to degree of occurrence or relevance. In this manner, by a process of elimination and inductive reasoning a practitioner of this method can determine both what is not involved, what is involved, and what has changed, or changes, and therefore it is possible to arrive at the underlying cause of a fact.

While developments of this process contribute to much of the more recent or “modern” attempts to describe what we can see, measure, and know–that is to determine causes for “reality”; of particular significance to our two threads of personal reality formation and outcome responsibility is Bacon’s discussion of what he referred to as the “Idols of The Mind“. These “Idols” are what Bacon determined to be aspects of human thinking which obstruct a correct and reasoned scientific approach. He is using the word “Idol” in the Greek sense as illusion or false appearance, as fantasy; he does not use “idol” in the sense in which it directly refers to some worshiped divinity. Idols in Bacon’s usage of the word are eidola, the transient (and therefore to Bacon likely to be erroneous) images of things. The tendencies described by these Idols are important not just to explorations of causality in science, but are also important for us to take into account when we consider how or whether we as individuals can be a causal nexus in our own lives.

Bacon identified four Idols of the Mind (the quotes from Bacon below are from his Novum Organum, edited by J. Devey, 1911):

1. Idola Tribus, the Idols of the Tribe, refers to the tendency to apply preconceived notions to what we see and to perceive a greater order and regularity in systems than actually exists. In Bacon’s words:

“The idols of the tribe are inherent in human nature and the very tribe or race of man; for man’s sense is falsely asserted to be the standard of things….(p. 20). [They]…arise either from the uniformity of the constitution of man’s spirit, or its prejudices, or its limited faculties or restless agitations, or from the interference of the passions, or the incompetence of the senses….” (p. 28).

Bacon’s Idola Tribus describe our general tendencies to be deceived, tendencies which are inherent in human nature. These tendencies include ignoring countervailing evidence against our views, relying in an uncritical manner upon our sense perceptions, over-generalizing what we perceive, and the inclination to jump to conclusions.

2. Idola Specus, the Idols of the Den (or Cave), are errors in perceptions resulting from individual weaknesses in reason, caused in turn by personal preferences and personality.

In Bacon’s words: “The idols of the den are those of each individual; for everybody (in addition to the common errors in the race of man) has his own individual den or cavern, which intercepts or corrupts the light of nature, either from his own peculiar and singular disposition, or from his education and intercourse with others, or from his reading, and the authority acquired by those whom he reverences and admires, or from the different impressions produced on the mind, as it happens to be preoccupied and predisposed….” (p. 21)

Bacon’s Idola Specus are therefore those distortions which arise from our particular viewpoints and intrinsic insights (Bacon bases this metaphor upon Plato’s myth of the cave); to counter these particular Idols, Bacon reminds us that whatever our mind ‘…seizes and dwells upon with peculiar satisfaction is to be held in suspicion’.

3. Idola Fori, the Idols of the Marketplace, involve miscommunication of ideas rooted in semantics, particularly those due to differences in language usage. An example of this is the uncertainty arising when words in science have different meanings than their usage in common parlance.

In Bacon’s words the Idola Fori are: “…formed by the reciprocal intercourses and society of man with man….for men converse by means of language, but words are formed at will of the generality, and there arises from a bad and unapt formation of words a wonderful obstruction to the mind. Nor can definitions and explanations with which learned men are wont to guard and protect themselves in some instances afford a complete remedy – words manifestly force the understanding, throw everything into confusion, and lead mankind into vain and innumerable controversies and fallacies.” (p. 21)

Bacon’s Idola Fori are not simply errors that come in the course of interpersonal communication, but also arise from abuse of word usage in a language.

4. Idola Theatri, the Idols of the Theater, refer to the tendency of humans to unquestioningly adhere to religious or philosophical dogma, remaining either incidentally or intentionally blind to reality.

In Bacon’s words: “…there are idols which have crept into men’s minds from the various dogmas of peculiar systems of philosophy, and also from the perverted rules of demonstration…for we regard all the systems of philosophy hitherto received or imagined, as so many plays brought out and performed, creating fictitious and theatrical worlds.” (p. 22)

Bacon’s Idola Theatri thus specifically arise from errors which are introduced by previous theories, for example, Aristotelianism’s abstract schemata, along with the introduction of theological ideas into science. Bacon was comparing extant philosophical and religious systems to theatrical spectacle, which therefore likens them to imaginary and fantastical representations and worldview.

Rene Descartes

The dawn of modern philosophical thought is often attributed to Rene Descartes, (also see the Stanford entry ) who posed epistemological questions, or speculations as to the nature of knowledge and its origin and limits.

Descartes approaches knowledge by distinguishing between persuasio, or lesser grades of conviction and belief, and scientia, a rigorous knowledge. He is renowned for defining knowledge in terms of doubt, his discussion of the difference between these concepts was clearly articulated in a letter excerpted below.

“I distinguish the two as follows: there is conviction when there remains some reason which might lead us to doubt, but knowledge is conviction based on a reason so strong that it can never be shaken by any stronger reason.” (1640 letter)

Descartes (1596-1650) is thus credited with articulating the foundational philosophical structure upon which the natural sciences could be built. In order to determine and describe a set of true principles, ideas about which there can be no doubt, he employs a form of methodological skepticism, discussed and demonstrated in his Discourse on the Method (1637) as hyperbolical/metaphysical doubt.

Basically, as a mental and philosophical exercise he rejects all ideas which can be doubted (persuasio) and then seeks to restore them only with a firm foundation for genuine knowledge (scientia).

Descartes did briefly consider ideas of mysticism and of magic but he rejected them in favor of the ideal of a mechanical explanation.

His rejection of suppositions articulated in his Discourse on Method resulted in Descartes’s original French statement “Je pense donc je suis,” “I think therefore I am”, later articulated in Latin as Cogito Ergo Sum. He expands upon this in Latin in 1641 in his Meditationes de prima philosophia, in qua Dei existentia et animæ immortalitas demonstratur (Meditations on First Philosophy, in which the Existence of God and the Immortality of the Soul are Demonstrated).

For Descartes, once one stripped away all preconceived notions and belief, one could not escape the fact that one was still wondering about ideas and existence, and therefore doubting one’s own reality was a fruitless exercise.

From Discourse on Method:

“I had long since remarked that in matters of conduct it is necessary sometimes to follow opinions known to be uncertain, as if they were not subject to doubt; but, because now I was desirous to devote myself to the search after truth, I considered that I must do just the contrary, and reject as absolutely false every-thing concerning which I could imagine the least doubt to exist.

“Thus, because our senses sometimes deceive us, I would suppose that nothing is such as they make us to imagine it; and because I was as likely to err as another in reasoning, I rejected as false all the reasons which I had formerly accepted as demonstrative; and finally, considering that all the thoughts we have when awake can come to us also when we sleep without any of them being true, I resolved to feign that everything which had ever entered my mind was no more truth than the illusion of my dreams.

“But I observed that, while I was thus resolved to feign that everything was false, I who thought must of necessity be somewhat; and remarking this truth–I think, therefore I am–was so firm and so assured that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics were unable to shake it, I judged that I could unhesitatingly accept it as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking. I could feign that there was no world, I could not feign that I did not exist. And I judged that I might take it as a general rule that the things which we conceive very clearly and very distinctly are all true, and that the only difficulty lies in the way of discerning which those things are that we conceive distinctly.”

–Rene Descartes

(For more of Descartes’s actual words on this topic see “I think therefore I am ” from the Public Bookshelf’s Outline of Great Books.)

Important for our related subjects of reality formation and mental outcome causality, Descartes also distinguished between mind and body. For Descartes, the difference could be found in the distinct forms of their substance; with the mind a thinking, feeling, but immaterial, spatially non-extended substance–a soul, as contrasted from the body which is spatially extended (three dimensional) and is itself incapable of thought or feeling. This metaphysical dualism that distinguishes so radically between the thinking mind, and the three dimensional matter, reveals Descartes’s rationalist metaphysical approach to this topic in that it is based upon Descartes’s postulations of innate ideas of mind, matter, and God, while his physics and physiology, both mechanistic and empiricist are based upon sensory experience.

Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia

Descartes’s mind-body dualism is important to our discussion of reality formation and 100% responsibility, although it is actually the concerns raised by Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia (a brilliant friend who corresponded with Descartes) which are most significant.

Despite recognizing the deep differences inherent in the duality, Descartes accepted the common belief that mind and body causally interact:

“Everyone feels that he is a single person with both body and thought so related by nature that the thought can move the body and feel the things which happen to it” (in Cottingham et al., The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Volume III: The Correspondence, 1991).

Despite Descartes’s nod to a causal link between mind and body, the radically different types of substance comprising mind and body make it difficult to see just how they might causally interact. Descartes was well aware of the difficulty. He dedicated The Passions of the Soul [1649] which partly treats with these questions to Princess Elizabeth, who on May 6, 1643 wrote him asking:

“…how the human soul can determine the movement of the animal spirits in the body so as to perform voluntary acts—being as it is merely a conscious substance. For the determination of movement seems always to come about from the moving body’s being propelled—to depend on the kind of impulse it gets from what sets it in motion, or again, on the nature and shape of this latter thing’s surface. Now the first two conditions involve contact, and the third involves that the impelling thing has extension; but you utterly exclude extension from your notion of soul, and contact seems to me incompatible with a thing’s being immaterial…” (letter in Anscombe and Geach 1954).

Elizabeth is expressing the prevailing mechanistic view–working (as was Descartes) within the framework of Galilean mechanics which expressed the dominant physical theory of the era. She is asking Descartes to provide a causal explanation for how the body works, positing that it must involve some cause’s impelling of the body, where impelling requires some form of contact between the cause and the effect. Since a soul as described by Descartes could never literally come into contact with a body—as souls are spatially unextended—an immaterial soul could never impel, and so could never causally interact with a body.

The ensuing exchange therefore has a direct bearing upon our larger discussion:

On May 21st Descartes responded to Princess Elizabeth that the explanation she seeks can be found in a discussion of three “primitive notions”. Among these he distinguishes bodies, souls [minds], and body-souls [body-minds] and claims that each of these “notions” cannot be explained “…except through itself.”

On June 10, 1643 Elisabeth (correctly) responds that he has not explained things yet:

“…it would be easier for me to concede matter and extension to the soul, than the capacity of moving a body and of being moved, to an immaterial being. For, if the first occurred through `information’, the spirits that perform the movement would have to be intelligent, which you accord to nothing corporeal. And although in your metaphysical meditations you show the possibility of the second, it is, however, very difficult to comprehend that a soul, as you have described it, after having had the faculty and habit of reasoning well, can lose all of it on account of some vapors….”

On June 28, Descartes responds with an elaboration on the three “notions”:

-soul is properly conceived by the understanding alone,

-bodies are properly conceived by understanding aided by the imagination,

-unions of bodies and souls are properly explained by the senses.

He notes, however, that the proper understanding of the “union” is difficult.

On July 1 of the same year Elisabeth responds: “I too find that the senses show me that the soul moves the body; but they fail to teach me (any more than the understanding and the imagination) the manner in which she does it. And, in regard to that, I think there are unknown properties in the soul that might suffice to reverse what your metaphysical meditations, with such good reasons, persuaded me concerning her inextension [non 3-D nature-MM]. And this doubt seems founded upon the rule you lay down there in speaking of the true and the false—namely, that all our errors occur from forming judgments about what we do not sufficiently perceive. Although extension is not necessary to thought, yet not being contradictory to it, it will be able to belong to some other function of the soul less essential to her.”

This unsolved problem clearly relates to our discussion of 100% responsibility for personal reality causality. If it’s unclear and difficult to conceive of how consciousness can even move the body in which it “rides”, how much more difficult is it to articulate the “how” of creating intangible yet external events and “reality”. As far as the second axiom of personal outcome responsibility, this unexplained causal nexus is operating not just with the “substance” of external “things” but also across time and space.

Regardless of the circularity of some of Descartes arguments, or the failure to adequately answer Princess Elizabeth’s important questions, Descartes provided later philosophers and thinkers with a useful moral code for quests for the truth in The Discourse where he recommended that seekers of truth: obey local customs and laws, make decisions on the best evidence and then keep to them firmly as though they were certain, change desires rather than the world, and always seek truth. He also offers us in The Discourse and his other works a simile for knowledge which he describes as “like a tree in its interconnectedness and in the grounding provided to higher forms of knowledge by lower or more fundamental ones. Thus, for Descartes, metaphysics corresponds to the roots of the tree, physics to the trunk, and medicine, mechanics, and morals to the branches.” (from Encyclopedia Brittanica‘s discussion of Descartes.)

We’ll continue with further issues of Epistemology and philosophy of knowledge and science in a later entry.

Pt. 5–Magic 299–Grounding Earth Religions & Human Potential Philosophies

Mysticism, Metaphysics, and Medieval Mind

This post is the fifth in my quest to explore foundational ideas that contribute to two widespread related axioms commonly held to be true by many individuals belonging to Pagan, Neo-Pagan, Magickal and New Age communities. It is my hope that this examination will be of service as it attempts to uncover some context for these ideas and to also examine their spiritual and philosophical significance. Again, these ideas are variations on what is known as reality formation, i.e. “We create our own realities” along with the related concept of “responsibility assumption”, or the belief that all individuals are 100% personally responsible for what happens in their lives. I will again provide links for further detail from Wikipedia and elsewhere.

So far, this content has been fairly dense–not necessarily an easy read, and I sincerely hope that I am not putting off any readers, and that my readers won’t assume that all my blog posts will be equally impenetrable. This hasn’t been the most approachable material for me either, although I have to confess, it continues to be a very interesting process.

I’ve had to take “intensity breaks” in the creative, pixel-bending other cortex simply to refresh…and I begin to understand the stereotype of the somewhat disarrayed, possibly unwashed, argumentative and ink-stained philosophers who are “out there” on some metaphysical plane, or deep in their own worlds, following strange ideas all night, swilling coffee to finish an article, and getting increasingly difficult to understand as they go along. I hope I can reverse the latter trend at the very least.

In my previous post I explored Neoplatonism in the context of the Rise of Christianity.

Some scholars describe the death of one particular Neoplatonic thinker as the end of the Classical period. This was the murder in 415 AD of the Alexandrian philosopher Hypatia, also a noted mathematician and astronomer who fell afoul of a mob of Christians who accused her of inciting religious turmoil. She was a follower of Plotinus (see previous entry ), like him favoring logic and math over evidence gleaned through observation. Hypatia’s gruesome murder (dragged through the streets naked and then set on fire) provides quite the object lesson for those interested in what it was like for female pagan philosophers during the decline of poly- and pantheist Pagan thought and the emerging rise of monotheism as interpreted by Christianity.

Even after Hypatia’s murder, as the light of Classical Learning dimmed and was finally extinguished, Neoplatonic influences remained, transformed but surviving in Christian Mysticism, the Judaic Kabbalah, Ishraqi and Sufi Esotericism, and Islamic Philosophy.

Mysticism

What characterizes a mystic tradition, including Christian Mystics, Kaballah within Judaism, and Sufism within Islam, is that in each case mystics form sub-groups within what is usually a more conservative, mainstream religious viewpoint. Mysticism tends to emphasize a more direct experience and relationship with divinity over doctrine or religious training, and because mysticism is also inclined to express its practices and meanings trough esoteric and subjective language and practices, it is often the case that the mainstream religious paths view their particular mystics with skepticism and distrust.

An approach that goes beyond the mainstream devotional and liturgical practices of the “parent” religious perspectives is likely to be related to the goal of our exploration here. This is because reality formation, specific metaphysical practices aimed at positive outcomes, and personal responsibility for those outcomes, are ideas which are rooted in intrinsic, internal and subjective spiritual insights that any person can access. It is therefore more likely that in mysticism we may encounter religious concepts that encompass reality formation. This likely relationship with our axioms of interest is further made probable by mysticism’s general belief that the ordinary, everyday reality is superficial, that there is a more fundamental underlying state of existence within or beneath the ordinary, mundane perception of the world, and that it is possible for initiates of a mystical path to navigate these inner worlds and realities through specific pursuits and practices.

As I said above, the emphasis upon subjective direct experience of both divinity and the underlying mystical world, makes mysticism suspect to those who emphasize the empirical. Partly in response to this questioning of mystical religious perceptions and knowledge, there is a tendency for mysticism to draw upon justifying ideas and practices to be found in the more “mundane” sciences of the time. Of course, this practice can also be seen as an openness to explore outside of traditional religious ideas for practices that will enhance or advance mystical goals.

A widely held view in mysticism is a belief in some form of immanence; as mystics directly experience divinity and the foundational inner world, they tend to de-emphasize the importance of an afterlife. This often brings them into conflict with their “parent” religion’s mainstream doctrinal claims. Mysticism’s belief in immanence is also another factor related to the axioms that are the subject of our inquiry. Direct divine experience, or a belief in the existence of divinity in all things, can easily be seen to imbue the mystical practitioner with God-like abilities including reality formation and influence over outcomes.

Mystics in Abrahamic religions are marginalized to varying degrees: in Judaism, the Chasidic Kabbalists are respected by the mainstream; in Islam, Sufism is tolerated; in western Christianity, mysticism is actively opposed and feared as cultic or even “evil”. In the latter case, a practice and belief system that is already highly subjective and internal has additional reason to cultivate secrecy as part of its practices.

Subjective, internal, and occult mystical practices are deeply couched in ambiguity, contradiction, and malleability. The mystic tends to interpret experience through a different set of assumptions from those present in “ordinary, mundane existence”, and because mysticism often advocates distance and separation from the ordinary as part of its practice, mystical approaches tend towards idiosyncrasies and esoterica. This may convey mystical truths for the mystic but non-practitioners may view such practices not only with skepticism, but even with alarm.

Mystical practices and language do not offer rational questions with final linear conclusions. A mystic would say that these practices, for example Zen koans, are particularly designed with one intent; the purpose is to open a mind that has been closed by habitual responses to the world and mundane reality.

The mystic often views the world as clouded by misconceptions rooted in habitual responses we learn from the mainstream and in the ideas and habits we form though our experiences in education and in life–experiences which we take to be “reality”. Mysticism often teaches that this experience-driven formation of habits, externally validated by peers and teachers, quickly solidifies into “law”. To address this hardening, mysticism often seeks to upset or dislocate the ego and the mind from habitual views of reality and to open itself to alternative possibilities and deeper enlightenment–to alternate realities and truths.

Zen mystical teachers insist that the meaning of a koan can only be demonstrated directly in a living, physical interaction. Despite this, the Zen tradition has produced a great deal of literature, including thousands of koans and countless volumes of commentary. Countering this apparent contradiction, teachers warn students of the problem inherent in confusing a koan’s interpretation with the realization of that koan.

“Do not confuse the pointing finger with the moon.” –a Zen aphorism

Similarly, apparent contradictions and non-linear thought can be seen in Judaic mysticism:

“The Kabbalah is not a single system with basic principles that can be explained in a simple and straightforward fashion, but consists rather of a multiplicity of different approaches, widely separated from one another and sometimes completely contradictory.”

—Kabbalah, by Gershom Scholem

Mystics tend to explore specific methodologies intended to bring about a religious insight or experience and usually offer their approaches to a broad range of interested individuals without regard for previous training. Because of the systematized nature of mystical practices and their replicable, direct availability to practitioners, mysticism often comes to be seen as a divine science. Because mystical sciences do remain couched in ambiguity, they are not as well received by the non-mystical sciences they may seek to embrace, instead provoking skepticism and controversy among those who value empirical knowledge, or “proof”.

I will address modern mysticism, quantum mysticism, and the relationship of modern mysticism to science, quantum physics, etc. in a separate blog post.

Metaphysics

Just as mysticism does not lend itself easily to external tests, evidence, or proofs, the related metaphysical beliefs are similarly called into question.

Metaphysics is often characterized as the intent to explore and shed light upon the most important aspects of human nature, coupled with an effort to comprehend the nature of the universe in which we find ourselves, define our relationship to that universe, and understand our movement with “all that is” towards our eventual, often similar or mutual ends. Metaphysics also involves a philosophical inquiry into (and search for) explanations about existence. For this reason, metaphysicians and metaphysicists also explore fundamental questions of origin, possibility, causality, spacetime, and ontology, or the study of physical things and their inter-relationships.

Subsequent to the development of the scientific method, metaphysics has increasingly explored that part of philosophy and religion that involves non-empirical inquiries into the nature of existence. This exploration includes theories about what constitutes a “real” being, what the nature of such a being might be, and what sort of language and concepts are best utilized in the description of such beings. This approach includes explorations of the nature of perception, ideas, memories, intentions, consciousness, motives, and similar mental phenomena falling into a metaphysical “theory of mind”.

More typically, metaphysics explores questions about the nature of reality, formulating theories such as dualism and materialism .

Questions as to free will and determinism also fall under the mantle of metaphysical studies, as well as the quest for explanations of why things exist rather than nothingness, whether the universe has always existed, whether there is life after death, the nature of substance, the existence of spiritual beings, what constitutes the “supernatural”, etc.

Metaphysical claims therefore, often treat with ideas and issues that are not easily measured. They also offer competing and contradictory theories which cannot be resolved through empirical testing to determine the truth. This non-empirical focus has led to criticisms similar to those raised about mysticism.

The term “metaphysics” is derived from the Greek μετά (metá) (“beyond”) and φυσικά (physiká) (meaning “physical”)

The practices and inquiries of metaphysics far predate the Classical era, with metaphysical study called the “Queen of Sciences” by Aristotle. The three main branches of traditional Western Metaphysics are drawn from the three main sections of Aristotle’s book on what he called “First Principles”. These metaphysical branches are ontology, natural theology, and universal science.

Clearly, aspects of the two axioms that have prompted my rather exhaustive (exhausting?) blogging–both the ability to “create reality” and a “100% personal responsibility for outcomes”–raise metaphysical questions which fall under all three of Aristotle’s categories. Examples of these metaphysical questions include:

* What actually is the reality that one creates?

* What steps or processes are involved in current reality formation?

* Does one completely create all that one experiences or are there external principle(s), or Principal(s) at work?

* What is created when one does not pay specific attention to reality formation?

* If each of us creates our own reality, is there an interface with other realities created by other beings and if so, what is the nature of that interface?

* If one creates one’s own reality, can one get “better at it” with some sort of specific practice? If so, what does mediocre reality formation cause?

* What is the relationship between creation of reality and mishaps or random occurrences (if either exist)?

* If there “are no accidents” why does it appear that there are?

* If one is responsible for the outcomes in one’s life, is there any other agent at work?

* If one takes steps to manage positive future outcome, what is the relationship between time, space, other reality and outcome designers, present and past actions and the eventual realization of outcome goals?

* What steps might be taken to avoid events emerging from non-omniscience and unexpected consequences of reality formation and outcomes?

* What are the ethics and responsibilities that result from reality formation?

* What is the relationship between individual beings creating reality and any supernatural beings or divinity/ies?

* What is the place of “randomness” in a perspective that embraces reality formation or 100% responsibility for outcomes?

* What happens when two beings directly attempt to create opposing realities?

* If everything that one experiences is personally created, possibly prior to birth or even in previous existences, does this form a new sort of determinism in which one does not have the free will to escape those previous choices put in place?

* If each of us is 100% responsible for our outcomes, and each individually creates reality, can anyone or anything else really exist, and if so, are there multiple realities in which they and we exist; and, are those realities layered, interwoven, independent or co-created?

As I said above, philosophical and religious metaphysical questions about existence and transcendent realities do not easily lend themselves to empirical scrutiny but do easily provoke skepticism and even disdain, as do the efforts of mystics to explore these questions within the context of their various “parent” religions.

When attempts to explain these questions have given rise to different answers, a clash resulted (and still results) not only in the disputes of ideas but in more dramatic conflicts including acts of war, genocide, and localized attempts to eliminate alternative views (Joan of Arc, Hypatia).

Hypatia of Alexandria died in 415 CE. By 450 CE, the “light” of any open, non-Christian approach to metaphysical inquiries was almost entirely extinguished. The concept of heresy and similar restrictions became increasingly prevalent. Medieval Christian philosophy was largely disengaged from the political and cultural currents of the time, so it is significant that so much intellectual energy continued to go into addressing issues of faith.

Medieval Mind

Western medieval philosophy is an often-overlooked period that basically acts as a bridge between ancient thinking and the modern era, stretching as it does from the Classical period to the Enlightenment. During the Middle Ages (cerca 450–1500 BCE) in the Western world, the primary philosophical pursuits revolved around attempts of Christian leaders to reconcile Christian ideology and religious practices with Classical philosophy and Hellenic and Hellenistic ideas.

Particularly focusing upon the ideas of thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, medieval Christians attempted to apply their methodologies to Christian theology, probing deeply into the fundamental nature of Christian thought. Primarily, medieval philosophers were interested in methods that would demonstrate ways in which Christianity can be seen as consistent with what can be demonstrated through reason.

As I did with the Classical and Neoplatonic philosphers, I am going to restrict this discussion of Medieval thinkers to avoid remaining forever in a preamble to the analysis of the stated topics of the larger discussion. For the most part, ideas about personal reality formation do not dovetail easily with medieval or Abrahamic-based religious thought. With regard to responsibility for outcome, the Western medieval take on this primarily involved Christian ideas about sin, the avoidance of sin, damnation, and the afterlife.

We have already touched upon Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) who was influenced by Plato’s distinction between the intelligible realm, which is perfect and accessible only by the mind; and the sensible realm, which is imperfect and comprehensible through the senses. Augustine argued that God’s perfection and goodness is equally manifest in both spheres. Augustine’s writings indicate that he did not support the idea of human reality creation (assuming that such creation emerges from our minds). For example in this famous passage from the Confessions he wrote:

“If we both see that what you say is true, and we both see that what I say is true, then where do we see that? Not I in you, nor you in me, but both of us in that unalterable truth that is above our minds.” (XII.xxv.35).

Boethius (c. 476–c. 526) who wrote his influential The Consolation of Philosophy while in prison awaiting execution, personified philosophy as a woman who shows him how human freedom and moral responsibility are possible within God’s providential governance of the universe. The Consolation involves a dialectic with the personified Lady, and a good portion of this work touches upon areas related to our inquiry.

“Unlike many modern philosophers, Boethius did not believe that the will can remain free, in the sense needed for attribution of moral responsibility, if it is determined causally. Moreover, Philosophy insists that the causal chain of providence, as worked out in fate, embraces all that happens. In V.1, when Boethius asks about chance, Philosophy explains that events are said to happen by chance when they are the result of a chain of causes which is unintended or unexpected, as when someone is digging in a field for vegetables and finds a buried treasure. Philosophy’s solution is to argue (V.2) that rational acts of volition, unlike all external events, do not themselves belong to the causal chain of fate. This freedom, however, is enjoyed only by ‘the divine and supernal substances’ and by human beings engaged in the contemplation of God. It is reduced and lost as humans give their attentions to worldly things and allow themselves to be swayed by the passions.”

— taken from Boethius entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The dominant Classical influence on medieval philosophers remained the works of Plato until the 13th century, when the translation of most of Aristotle’s works into Latin offered a potent and divisive tool for systematizing Christian thinking. The philosophers below engaged primarily with this new trend.

Bonaventure (1217–74) was willing to borrow Aristotle’s teachings when he found them useful, as in his account of theoretical knowledge; but he rejected Aristotle’s view that the world has always existed and argued passionately against what he took to be excessive enthusiasm for Aristotle. He did say that:

“Things have existence in the mind, in their own nature (proprio genere), and in the eternal art. So the truth of things as they are in the mind or in their own nature — given that both are changeable — is sufficient for the soul to have certain knowledge only if the soul somehow reaches things as they are in the eternal art”

–De Scientia Christi

This idea may impact our two axioms, if we posit that our own souls can be creative at the level of reality formation in “an eternal art” emerging after we “reach things as they are”.

Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274) used the works of Aristotle as his primary philosophical inspiration, developing arguments for the existence of God as well as an account of the powers and limits of human reason in knowing God. Aquinas wrote that humanity’s goal is union with the loving will of God. He wrote that this was achieved through a “beatific vision” in which one comes into direct contact with the essence of God. This direct contact results in a perfect eternal joy and is achieved after death by those who have been redeemed by Christ while yet alive.

This goal of union with God through a beatific vision is significant for those yet alive, as Aquinas pointed out that will must be directed towards virtues such as holiness and charity. This can be seen as Aquinas’ take on reality formation and positive outcome. By ordering a moral life in quest of happiness through union with God, Aquinas argued that “The relationship between will and goal is antecedent in nature ‘because rectitude of the will consists in being duly ordered to the last end [that is, the beatific vision].’ Those who truly seek to understand and see God will necessarily love what God loves. Such love requires morality and bears fruit in everyday human choices.” (from Wikipedia’s entry on Aquinas )

William of Ockham (c. 1288–1347) is most famous for the principle called “Ockham’s razor,” which gives preference to simplicity in explanations. His tenacity in using this principle led to a breakdown in a harmonious relationship between theology and philosophy as envisioned by Aquinas. An important contribution of William of Ockham to our topic lies in his argument that while human beings have a natural orientation towards their own ultimate good, this orientation does not restrict their will.

Like Aristotle and Aquinas, Ockham believed that humans can choose the means to achieve their ultimate good. The natural orientation and tendency toward that good is built in; this is inescapable. However, Ockham breaks with Aquinas in his argument that humans still have the will and choice as to whether or not they will act to achieve this orientation. They can choose to take no action, and even to act directly against their own good. Humans then, can knowingly choose evil.

By the end of Ockham’s life Aristotelianism was waning quickly. Within a generation, a new Renaissance examination of Platonism was blossoming and pervasive. As a result, the medieval philosophical era both began and ended with variations on a Platonic worldview.

Next time: I drink, therefore I am. (Just kidding!)

Pt.4-Magic 299-Grounding Earth religions & Human Potential philosophies

Wow! This Has Been Getting Interesting!

I’ve been working for awhile now on this project. I don’t think I realized how interesting it would be for me personally to approach the wide-ranging material on Classical Western philosophy with a specific focus and intent rather than considering it more broadly. I find myself following tangential informational paths of interest, and then having to reel myself back in to seek the specific threads that relate to the two axioms that prompted this exploration. I have been spending my early mornings, some of my lunches and most of my nights and weekends in a sea of amazing ancient writings, thoughts and information.

When I began this project it was almost on a whim that grew out of a periodic “pet peeve” I have with credulity, blanket statements, and claims about “truth” or “what is”. I had also noticed a general tendency among many modern Pagans and New Age thinkers to base their actions, including spiritual, religious, and magical practices, upon a cluster of significant ideas without necessarily knowing where those ideas come from. I realized that we can use a pen without knowing how ink is made; we can type on our computers without needing any understanding of motherboards and electrons, but I also knew that information specific to an understanding of where our ideas come from can be enriching and powerful. I also knew that I was uncomfortable with the two axioms I’ve chosen to explore here, again, these are: the belief or assertion that we “create our own realities” and the claim that each individual is 100% responsible for all occurrences in their lives. I even knew, albeit rather foggily, why I had these concerns, and I had some unrefreshed memory about where the ideas come from, possible alternative interpretations, useful aspects in spiritual or magical practice, and risks and logical fallacies. However, as I said this understanding was “foggy” and the context was “unrefreshed”. Cleaning the philosophical spectacles has been very inspiring.

What’s personally been really entertaining is the focused revisiting and the discovery of new ( to me) information about early metaphysical and Pagan philosophy. I have to say, I’m loving it. Philo Sophia.

At the same time, part of me is feeling impatient–I know I need to get the underlying and foundational ideas out there and into some sort of perspective before I can begin to really think about and discuss aspects of these two axioms, but I keep wanting to jump ahead to the analysis and I haven’t even gotten out of the Classical era yet. And there are all those German philosophers who weighed in on this, and then there are the more recent roots of modern esoteric thought! However, I will keep plugging away at this, get the hereditary roots of magical philosophy onto the page and then, I get the feeling I’ll have a wild adventure synthesizing the meanings.

So, without further ado, the next installment:

Neoplatonism and the Rise of Christianity

This post is the fourth in a discussion and criticism of the roots, context, spiritual and philosophical significance of the widespread related axioms of reality formation, i.e. “We create our own realities” and “responsibility assumption”, or the belief that all individuals are 100% personally responsible for what happens in their lives. I will again provide links for further detail from Wikipedia and elsewhere.

The previous post examined later Hellenic and Hellenistic Classical thinking that can be seen as related in a foundational manner to our two topics, particularly looking at Stoicism and Skepticism. Towards the later period in question, the rise of Christianity in Rome dramatically impacted the previously poly- and pantheistic Western perspectives.

Neoplatonism was last in the line of Classical Pagan philosophies. Synthesizing the work of Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and the esoteric interpretations of classical Hellenic mathematics and practices from Pythagoras, Neoplatonic thought blended philosophical, mythical and metaphysical concepts and served as a last bastion of Hellenic Paganism during the rise of an increasingly hostile monotheistic and Christian dominance. Neoplatonic thought can be seen as not just an eclectic approach to Hellenic philosophical concepts but a synthesis of many of the most important ideas. Aristotle’s logic and philosophical method are oddly countered by a Skeptism particularly of empirical knowledge. Neoplatonism’s desire to aspire to goodness and virtue through a metaphysical dialectic is derived from Plato’s Socratic Dialogs. Neoplatonic thought also draws from Stoic ethics while sharing the Stoic perspective of the action of the Divine in Nature as well as Stoic interpretations of the origin of matter. Neoplatonic thought is important to a discussion of the roots of our two axioms of reality formation and 100% personal responsibility for outcomes in our lives, partly because of ways in which Neoplatonism informed the much later development of Theosophy which will be addressed in another post. Of specific importance to modern ideas about reality formation and personal responsibility for individual outcomes are the Neoplatonic ideas about the relationship of the Soul to extrinsic reality.

A critical Neoplatonic voice is that of Plotinus who felt that engaging in a dialectic allows the Soul to discover its status as an intimate governor of Nature. Plotinus discusses the relation of the individual soul to the All-Soul. He describes the individual soul as independent of the highest Soul to demonstrate how the forgetful soul can fall into an illusion of separation. In The Enneads however he specifically insists that the individual soul and the All-Soul are one and that Nature is the Soul’s expressive act. Plotinus posited that the Universe is an analogue of the experience of the Soul, and he developed a system by which the Soul naturally comes to know itself in relation to its acts, which results in the attainment of full self-consciousness.

Specifically, it is in Neoplatonism that we see an effort to clarify how individual souls can directly engage with Nature through dialectic. While some believed that is impossible to understand Divine Nature through reason, and the soul is therefore not capable of rising to a Platonic goal of perfect knowledge beyond change, Neoplatonic thinkers posited that it is through the dialectic that the soul attempts to recover from its forgetfulness of Divinity and once again know reality.

“God is not external to anyone, but is present within all things, though they are ignorant that he is so.” –Plotinus

Specifically, Plotinus’ description of the Soul as an essentially creative being which understands existence on its own terms, is of importance to the development of the axioms in question. It is clear that early ideas about reality formation are best expressed in Neoplatonic ideas such as that of Proclus who in Platonic Theology III stated that:

“The thought of every man is identical with the existence of every man, and each is both the thought and the existence”.

The origins of Neoplatonism can be traced back to the era of Hellenistic syncretism which also spawned such movements and schools of thought as Gnosticism and the Hermetic tradition. A major factor in this syncretism, and one which had an immense influence on the development of Platonic thought, was the introduction of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek intellectual circles via the translation known as the Septuagint. The encounter between the creation narrative of Genesis and the cosmology of Plato’s Timaeus set in motion a long tradition of cosmological theorizing.

Because this “Magic 299” discussion takes as its particular focus the philosophical context for modern eclectic and primarily non-montheistic individuals in the Neo-Pagan, Magical, New Age and Gaian communities, I am not going to spend a lot of time exploring monotheistic viewpoints unless they directly contribute to either of the two axioms in question. For those interested in that there’s a ton of information out there from Islamic, Christian and Jewish religious thinkers and teachers. A good place to start for those who do wish to explore the dominant religious viewpoints is the Pacific School of Religion. I will touch upon Western and Middle Eastern philosophies from around the time of the spread of Christianity that specifically contribute to or shed light upon the two axioms in question.

I closed Part Three with the following sentence:

“As skepticism influenced nearly all other Greek philosophies, Hellenic and later Roman philosophies came to take it for granted that certain knowledge is impossible and they turned to focus upon that knowledge which could be deemed to be true most of the time.”

While I just said above that I am not going to be spending a lot of time on monotheistic perspectives, there is an important issue that applies here. It also allows for a transition from the Paleo-pagan and Neoplatonic thought to later contributions to our topic.

Specifically, I want to talk about how early Christian thought drew upon or rejected the two schools of thought I discussed in part three. Much of the history of early Christian philosophy is an attempt to superimpose the new religion over Greek and Roman philosophical methods which had increasingly embraced Stoicism and Skepticism and the related idea of probable knowledge and uncertainty.

Early Roman Christians faced a dilemma as Christian philosophy was far more concerned with, and even demanded, an absolute and certain knowledge of the divine and of Christian ethical precepts, and this perspective directly contradicts Hellenic and Hellenistic ideas about probable knowledge. It became increasingly important to distinguish between “the true religion” and ideas rooted in various Pagan philosophies. One of the original Christian “missionaries”, Paul of Tarsus, addressed this problem by claiming that he was spreading the knowledge of God, while the knowledge of the Hellenes was “human knowledge” and therefore the knowledge of fools. Christian knowledge, which rejects the human reasoning which might lead to skepticism, was described as the wise knowledge. This approach resulted in Christianity taking a strong anti-rational position from its inception.

The Christians were competing however with a very well-established and powerful cluster of beliefs and philosophies. As with the destruction, usurpation and re-purposing of Pagan sculpture, art, architecture and temples, what early Christians could not destroy they chose to preempt. Much of the history of early Christian theology and philosophy is therefore an attempt to superimpose the new religion over Greek and Roman philosophical methods which were based on Skepticism and probable knowledge.

So early Christian thinkers such as St. Augustine and Boethius adapted some of the Aristotelian, Platonic, and Stoic traditions of Greece and Rome to demonstrate that one could in fact arrive at certain knowledge, at least in matters of Christian religion and divinity.

While Stoicism was regarded by Christians as a pagan philosophy, nonetheless, they did “retool” certain important terms from that philosophical viewpoint. This includes the use of language such as “virtue “, “spirit “, “conscience ” and “logos “. Additionally, the Christians did not simply borrow a useful terminology from the Stoics. They also embraced and created a synchretic religious perspective based upon shared philosophical beliefs such as the Stoic and Christian concept of an intrinsic free will in the face of extrinsic reality, assertions of a human kinship with God, and a belief in the innate weakness or “evil” of mankind. Both Stoicism and Christianity also advocated restraint of the passions and the “lower” emotions so that human potential could be developed.

This idea of “working on oneself for spiritual betterment” is also tied to modern ideas of personal responsibility and reality formation.

“Withdraw into yourself and look. And if you do not find yourself beautiful yet, act as does the creator of a statue that is to be made beautiful: he cuts away here, he smooths there, he makes this line lighter, this other purer, until a lovely face has grown from his work. So do you also: cut away all that is excessive, straighten all that is crooked, bring light to all that is overcast, labor to make all one glow or beauty and never cease chiseling your statue, until there shall shine out on you from it the godlike splendor of virtue, until you see the perfect goodness surely established in the stainless shrine” –Plotinus

Magic 299–Grounding Earth religions & Human Potential philosophies–Pt. 3

More Hellenic and Hellenistic Contexts for Responsibility & Reality Formation

This post is the third in a discussion and criticism of the roots, context, spiritual and philosophical significance of the widespread related axioms of reality formation, i.e. “We create our own realities” and “responsibility assumption”, or the belief that all individuals are 100% personally responsible for what happens in their lives.

The previous post examined early Classical thinking that is foundational to the question, this post will discuss some slightly more recent Hellenic thinking that also relates. Again, I will provide jump off links from Wikipedia and other useful sites for readers who may wish to explore aspects of these topics in greater detail.

The previous post touched upon intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of our perceptions of cause and reality. Plato placed knowledge in thought, and reality, therefore, in the ideal form. There is a reasonable tendency to perceive an inner and an outer reality, a reality of what is sensed externally–physical reality–and an inner reality of thoughts and feelings. It is not surprising that we conflate extrinsic, or physical reality with the intrinsic consciousness that experiences it. It is also not surprising that over the millennia we have attempted to reconcile deterministic ideas with free will and have argued over both the teleological and causal meanings of the conclusions we draw from our experiences.

In Western Classical thought regarding this, the Stoics directly explored the relationship between free will and determinism finding that the most desirable path is one that incorporates will that acts in accordance with laws of Nature. Philosophy then, became practice.

Of course, in order to act in accordance with Nature’s laws, one would have to know what they are. This would, the Stoics taught, require one to develop logic, ethics, and self control to bring negative thoughts and emotions under control and allow for accurate perception and interpretation of logos, or the divine animating principle pervading the Universe.

This divine animating principle of logos (which also to the ancient Greek meant language and reason) was seen to be a primordial and material element of fire. This tangible, material flame of being was combined by the Stoics with Hellenic pantheistic ideas and the fire came to be seen as an expression of a primal and causal divinity. All things were seen to be composed of this divine flame including the human soul.

At the same time, the Stoics saw this Divinity as reason. Reason was seen as the expression of the Divine Fire, or in other words the Fire is a rational element. Extrapolating from this pervasive divine reason, the Stoics determined that there is a harmonious, divine order and purpose to the universe and that this design is embodied in an absolute law of Nature. The Stoics therefore came down on the side of determinism over free will. Our acts may be chosen and voluntary but they are governed by a necessity born in Divine Nature.

Stoic ethics then, are composed of two principles:

One, that there are no exceptions to the governing Law of the Universe;
Two, that human nature is based in reason.

These principles are both articulated in the important Stoic maxim: “Live according to Nature.” This was seen to mean that humans should conform themselves to the laws of the universe and learn to pay attention to and act upon their own essential nature to be found in and through reason.

An important stoic contribution to ethics and to our ultimate topic of personal responsibility and reality formation can be found in the Stoic belief that it is an individual’s responsibility to be virtuous and that this virtue arises out of reason in harmony with Nature.

In criticisms of stoicism we can also find ideas that will be of use later in our discussion of reality formation and personal responsibility.

One problem with Stoicism involves the logical paradox to be found in their concepts of free will and determinism particularly when expressed in terms of a belief in predestination. If all is predestined then arguments to personally develop or to cultivate indifference seems paradoxical.

Another problem can be found in the question of the social consequences of a widespread Stoic encouragement of a cultivated indifference and a concern that such indifference defies reason. Indifference if practiced widely would appear heartless: a father would not appear affected by death of his child, and for all of us to encourage within ourselves an apparent uncaring, even sociopathic callousness seems paradoxical with what we see in natural law. A likely outcome might be an apathetic approach to life which might manifest in neglect of family or social responsibility. It is often because we love and care and suffer when we see others suffer that we are motivated to take action to protect ourselves and others.

There is some indication in Stoic texts which suggest that the Stoics did attempt to address the paradoxical conflict between a deterministic universal causality and free will. There is an excellent discussion that delves more deeply into these issues and Stoic ethics and philosophy of mind at The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . They point to the following texts which indicate a mitigated or “soft” determinism:

“Chrysippus used the illustration of a cylinder rolling down a hill as an analogy for actions that are within our control (Cicero and Gellius, 62C-D). It is true that the force that starts its motion is external to it. This is analogous to the impressions we have of the world. But it rolls because of its shape. This is analogous to our moral character. When our actions are mediated by our characters, then they are ‘up to us’. Thus, if I see an unattended sandwich and, because I am a dishonest person, steal it, then this is up to me and I am responsible. All things come about by fate but this is brought about by fate through me(Alex. Aphr. 62G). When, however, I trip and fall, knocking your sandwich to the floor, this is not up to me. The chain of causes and effects does not flow through my beliefs and desires.”

This analysis is also important in our later consideration of ideas about total personal responsibility for all outcomes.

There were also contemporary criticisms of Stoic philosophy. A great examination of this and of Stoicism in general can be found at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which points to the arguments of Galen, Posidonius, and Cicero:

“The medical writer and philosopher Galen defended the Platonic account of emotions as a product of an irrational part of the soul. Posidonius, a 1st c. BCE Stoic… (criticized) …the psychology of emotions, and developed a position that recognized the influence in the mind of something like Plato’s irrational soul-parts. The other opposition to the Stoic doctrine came from philosophers in the Aristotelian tradition. They,like the Stoics, made judgment a component in emotions. But they argued that the happy life required the moderation of the passions, not their complete extinction. Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations, books III and IV take up the question of whether itis possible and desirable to rid oneself of the emotions.”

Disputes over knowledge and truth in ethics and philosophy gave birth to the Skeptic tradition (Stanford Encyclopedia discusses Skepticism here and Wikipedia’s entry is here. The Skeptic tradition can be traced back to Pyrrho of Elis who found himself frustrated and overwhelmed by the attempt to sort out rationally which school of thought had the right approach. Developing distrust of the lofty and complicated language involved in trying to understand issues of causation Skeptics decided to drop the nonsense and advocate instead the seeking of ataraxia, or peace of mind. They claimed that as it did not appear to matter whether you believed in a particular tradition or not, as people who were unaware of the disputes appeared to get along quite well without knowing the details about them. They also pointed out that faith and belief in intelligible realities is not required in order for them to “work” and that as it is impossible to directly perceive causation or purpose, it was therefore a waste of time to try.

There are two basic precepts that arose out of this thinking: that there is no such thing as certainty in human knowledge, and that all human knowledge is only probably true, that is, it might not be true, or it might be true much of the time, but not always.

As skepticism influenced nearly all other Greek philosophies, Hellenic and later Roman philosophies came to take it for granted that certain knowledge is impossible and they turned to focus upon that knowledge which could be deemed to be true most of the time.

The Elenarwen's Blog

From the Sidhevairs: A Virtual Vision of Westernesste