Replies

Perhaps you should look in the mirror to find the sanctimonious smart ass on this thread.

Perhaps I should, tpaine. Since you recommend the exercise as potentially profitable to me.

I get the feeling from you sometimes, tpaine, that you really would like to understand what Voegelin is saying, and it's frustrating to you that you do not. FWIW, I don't believe this has anything to do with lack of intelligence on your part. I think it has to do with the main point of this essay -- that when we do not share a common universe of discourse, based on a common experiential basis, it is difficult (at best), and may be impossible, for people to understand each other.

One could say, "well, that's just the way it is. Get over it." I could easily get over it, except for the fact that IMHO there is a widening cultural divide, in our nation and in the world, between factions that we could designate as those who are on the side of life and basic human dignity, and those who are on the side of "progress" and human utility. WRT the latter, it's as if man were trying to escape from the human condition itself. The former camp (which includes the great philosophers of open existence, classical and modern) is trying to convey to the latter that such a thing is impossible.

In short, the former camp is vitally concerned with issues relating to the "sphere of the person"; the latter camp often appears to regard the "sphere of the person" as a fiction, quite often an "inconvenient" one. Thus, the need to "re-educate" the human individual to the requirements of the new order that the truly "progressive" thinker wishes to see come about. Which seems to involve the acceptance of nihilism as the "reasonable" doctrine to live by.

Obviously, the two sides do not share a common universe of discourse. They are thus virtually incapable of communication, let alone debate.

I was thinking last night that I really should try to write a short outline of what Voegelin is saying in this essay, since you stated you'd like to have a brief, succinct summary. But I imagine if you truly believe I am a "sanctimonious smart ass," then my effort (it would need to be considerable to pull off such a thing) would probably be doomed from the outset as yet another "exercise in futility."

Peace.

You said:
" Of course, you do not believe in God. And so this entire conversation is not merely superfluous, but utterly devoid of meaning to you...."
Perhaps you should look in the mirror to find the sanctimonious smart ass on this thread.

Perhaps I should, tpaine. Since you recommend the exercise as potentially profitable to me. I get the feeling from you sometimes, tpaine, that you really would like to understand what Voegelin is saying, and it's frustrating to you that you do not.

Nope, V. doesn't frustate me at all, as I believe he's an intellectual fraud.

FWIW, I don't believe this has anything to do with lack of intelligence on your part.

Big of you betty. -- I bet you can't see that man behind the curtain either.

I think it has to do with the main point of this essay -- that when we do not share a common universe of discourse, based on a common experiential basis, it is difficult (at best), and may be impossible, for people to understand each other.

As I said before, if that simplistic truism is the 'main point' here, it proves my point that V. is a hack.

One could say, "well, that's just the way it is. Get over it." I could easily get over it, except for the fact that IMHO there is a widening cultural divide, in our nation and in the world, between factions that we could designate as those who are on the side of life and basic human dignity, and those who are on the side of "progress" and human utility.

And one of the points I've made previously in our ongoing discussions of philosophy is that your views help in creating these factions.

WRT the latter, it's as if man were trying to escape from the human condition itself. The former camp (which includes the great philosophers of open existence, classical and modern) is trying to convey to the latter that such a thing is impossible.

Ahhh yesss... I see. - You are on the side of truth, justice, the american way, -- and therefore your opponents are not. - Correct?

In short, the former camp is vitally concerned with issues relating to the "sphere of the person"; the latter camp often appears to regard the "sphere of the person" as a fiction, quite often an "inconvenient" one. Thus, the need to "re-educate" the human individual to the requirements of the new order that the truly "progressive" thinker wishes to see come about. Which seems to involve the acceptance of nihilism as the "reasonable" doctrine to live by.

Meaningless, generalizations betty.

Obviously, the two sides do not share a common universe of discourse. They are thus virtually incapable of communication, let alone debate.

Your, & V's insistence that there must be two sides to reality, IS the debate on this thread, and imo, an intellectualy phony issue.

I was thinking last night that I really should try to write a short outline of what Voegelin is saying in this essay, since you stated you'd like to have a brief, succinct summary. But I imagine if you truly believe I am a "sanctimonious smart ass," then my effort (it would need to be considerable to pull off such a thing) would probably be doomed from the outset as yet another "exercise in futility."

Whatever.

I would welcome a short summary. I suspect that it will not be philosophy, a much debased word these days. "Philosophy" does not refer to every way of looking at the world, or to religious views as such (although the existence and nature of God can be philosophical questions). What is philosophy? In some ways, that is the essential philosophical question. Or, as Leibniz put it, why is there something rather than nothing? A philosophical answer to that question is reasoned, and not just a conclusion (e.g., God created the universe; the universe began with a big bang). Reason is a hallmark of true philosophy--not belief or faith. One of the assumptions of reason is that all rational people can argue and debate philosophy. Voegelin appears to negate that basic assumption of rational discourse, and say either that people who disagree are crazy or that they live in an alternate reality. These are self-serving statements, and if widely adopted have the effect of shutting down philosophy, not fostering it. Compare Voegelin to Socrates. Now, I am not a big Socrates fan, especially these days when he has been sainted by some or coopted by others to further their pedophile machinations, but surely Socrates (as presented by Plato) is an archetype of the philosopher. And Socrates held that all people could be taught philosophy, that debate and discourse were possible and desirable.