On Debate and Existence: Excerpts from Voegelin

The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, Vol. 12 ^ | 1990 | Erice Voegelin

[general_re]

I like this approach: Ethical Monotheism.

Hypothetical: can someone who absolutely denies the divinity of Christ fit into that system? Why or why not?

[general_re]

I never said I was a Straussian, only that I found his critiques of Voegelin to be cogent and worthwhile. Actually, in my post about that book, I originally had a bit explicitly denying that I was a Straussian, but I struck it for some reason that escapes me at the moment...

[onedoug]

It has always formed the core of Judaism, so one might reckon....

[tpaine]

To paraphrase the closing line from your thesis...
-- I like this approach:

Some version of the golden rule is the only truly effective answer to moral relativism, to racism, to nationalism, to worshipping art or law or success. All one needs to do is live by the simple message:

"Do to others as you would have them do to you."

[general_re]

LOL - I set that one up for you, didn't I? Give me a bit to think, and I'll see if I can't stump you for real ;)

[cornelis]

Why or why not?

I read your last significant post to bb not without some grief. It doesn't take much too realize that your response to bb is insufficient for a people. And yet here you are to play with questions saying certainty matters and then it doesn't bother you. Moreover, your "too deus ex machina for me" is not the view of the common man. Rather it is a sophisticated divertissement and conjuration of the ghosts of Freud and Feuerbach. We already recognize your penchant for Descartes.

[cornelis]

Here we go again; "I never said you said."

Sorry.

[gore3000]

Which is about three millimeters and one fig leaf away from saying that truth is subjective and dependent on perception - truth depends on perception, perception depends on experience, therefore truth depends on experience.

You are completely mistating what Voegelin is saying. He is saying that for there to be possible discussion there has to be some common ground. The problem of debating with materialists is that they do not acknowledge even the existence of their own minds. This is totally irrational and therefore any attempt at rational discussion with materialists is fruitless. Your rejection of passages where he describes why intellect is a quality of mankind shows his statement to be correct.

[general_re]

It doesn't take much too realize that your response to bb is insufficient for a people.

I don't claim to be a messiah, to have answers suitable for all societies and cultures. Not even for this one. We all find the answers that work for us personally. People who tell you that they have such answers are usually selling something.

And yet here you are to play with questions saying certainty matters and then it doesn't bother you.

Some things can be established with reasonable certainty. Some things can't. The fact that uncertainty exists in some places doesn't bother me. Why should it?

Moreover, your "too deus ex machina for me" is not the view of the common man.

Yes. But that doesn't bother me either. Suppose it were the view of "the common man"? Would that cause you to change your mind about it?

I can't be anything other than what I am - can you?

Rather it is a sophisticated divertissement and conjuration of the ghosts of Freud and Feuerbach.

LOL. Would it help if I explicitly rejected Feuerbach too? And Freud, Hegel, Engels, Adorno, Horkheimer, Etzioni, Sartre...shall I go on? ;)

I grab bits and pieces here and there. It does not follow that I am in some opposing "camp" from the fact that I do not accept Voegelin in his entirety. Nor does it follow that I am a "something"-ist because I find a thing of worth in that something. If I say that Marx was right about 19'th century capitalism being rather brutal, does that make me a Marxist?

We already recognize your penchant for Descartes.

"We"? I cannot help but get the impression that "we" is busily trying to classify me, so that "we" might put me in a nice little box with a neat little label on the front.

So be it. If "we" is more comfortable having me fit into some sort of taxonomic order, then my suggestion that I don't fit comfortably into any category is unlikely to stop "we" from trying ;)

[general_re]

Here we go again; "I never said you said."

No, no - no need to apologize. In fact, I should - I was quite well aware that you never suggested that I was a Straussian. But my attempt to clarify for others seems to have some out badly. Sorry about that...

[general_re]

You're right. I am completely irrational, and further discussion with me would be fruitless and a complete waste of time. I strongly urge you to never post to me again.

[cornelis]

You forgot Durkheim. : o

I trust you can forgive the classification. It was only meant to see your tipping of the hat to the common man for what it was.

And that is why I read your last significant post to bb not without some grief. It doesn't take much too realize that your response to bb is insufficient for a people. And yet here you are to play with questions saying certainty matters and then it doesn't bother you. Moreover, your "too deus ex machina for me" is not the view of the common man. Rather it is a sophisticated divertissement and conjuration of the ghosts of Freud and Feuerbach.

Behind the courtesy to the common man we all recognize the common man's assent to revelation. And apart from the infatuation of the common man (this, too, has a long-standing tradition) their naive perception is one in a milieu created by larger figures. And this is exampled by you, as one who is able to carry on this conversation with their very thoughts.

[Phaedrus]

If one begins with simple axioms and builds a conceptual structure that demonstrably corresponds with significant and complex aspects of reality, I would say that that is sufficient proof that truth exists and that we have some means to apprehend it. All of science presumes the Universe is orderly and proceeds to discern it. The effort has been hugely successful.

The origin of that order is, however, not touched by Science's means. One may assume the obvious, as has the vast bulk of humanity, that there is an omnipotent intelligence behind (within?) the Universe.

There is, as well, a non-rational or emotional element to the discernment of truth, much ignored by the scientists, and that is monumentally significant flashes of insight, in which incredibly complex mathematical structures come fully formed to mind, to be later laboriously deconstructed and made accessible. They "intrude" with incredible force upon the lives of the individuals experiencing them. Both Poincare and Nash are examples (now reading A Beautiful Mind).

To assume life is pointless because we cannot conceive of some or many of the deeper aspects of reality sells both God and Man short. Our limitations do not define God but we are not without some siginificant capacity.

My 2 cents ...

[cornelis]

Our limitations do not define God

This is important and I'm glad you mention it.

We could say it another way: God or any other extra-mental object of knowledge exists independently of our knowing and therefore it's existence is not determined by the act of knowing, even though our mode of knowing is a limiting feature.

Unless we deny this independence, it is not for us to decide, by the character of knowing, what exists and doesn't. No is it our responsibility to determine the nature of its existence.

[betty boop]

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.

[general_re]

You forgot Durkheim.

Him too. ;)

Behind the courtesy to the common man we all recognize the common man's assent to revelation. And apart from the infatuation of the common man (this, too, has a long-standing tradition) their naive perception is one in a milieu created by larger figures.

We do. And I do recognize it as being true that this is the general trend of human belief. However, that fact, in and of itself, carries no weight for me - I can no more subject my beliefs to a popular vote than you can. One may certainly derive some comfort from knowing that the conclusions one has reached have also been reached by many others. I cannot fault anyone for feeling that way, and I would hardly deny the importance of that belief to those who hold it. And I readily admit to occasional discomfort at the thought that I appear to be traveling in a different direction from most.

But then I look again at the proffered alternatives, and I realize that none of them is particularly satisfying to me. Choosing another path allows me, for example, to neatly sidestep the sorts of paradoxes that are usually chalked up to "God's mysterious will". It comes with a price of its own, of course, but then again, we all have our crosses to bear ;)

And this is exampled by you, as one who is able to carry on this conversation with their very thoughts.

The fact that I can do as I do is necessarily predicated on others doing as they have done. In a sense, I am a product of everyone that has come before me, and so I owe a certain debt to them - if nothing else, a modicum of respect, at least. I may have no use for religion, but that does not mean that I am prepared to reduce God to a mere object of faith, a simple extension of man, as Feuerbach did. Some days, I think to myself that the fact that we live in a universe that is apparently accessible to reason, and the fact that we are (occasionally) capable of reason, are together more than mere coincidence. But then, other days, I realize that the fishes probably don't see things that way, so maybe it's an accident after all.

Reason does a wonderful job of telling us how things are, but it cannot tell us, so far as I can see, why things are the way they are. Only faith can provide some sort of answer to those questions, so I find faith where I can. The resulting mish-mash is probably silly to some, alarming to others, and incoherent to still others. They may all be correct, in some sense. Then again, I don't feel compelled to evangelize - it works for me, and that's enough ;)

[betty boop]

Which leads one to ask, is there really only one God-truth after all? If so, how do we know which one it is?

One universe = One God. Therefore, one "God-truth." For millennia, human beings have tried to articulate it. As I said, this is a "work in progress," an open question. To refuse to engage it is to destroy one's own humanity. JMHO FWIW.

The asymptotic quality of human consciousness is a condition of human existence; that is, to physically incarnated human being. The spiritual dimension of a man, however, extends beyond the asymptote. For man is more than physically incarnated being.

This has been the great insight of mankind down the ages, West and East.

This also happens to be the "inconvenient fact" that totalizing nihilists driven by the will to power would most like us to forget. It makes for easier prey....

[general_re]

I have re-read your post twice now, and I cannot find anything of substance to disagree with. Which may seem strange ;)

One may assume the obvious, as has the vast bulk of humanity, that there is an omnipotent intelligence behind (within?) the Universe.

I tend to think "behind" rather than "within". But I could be wrong.

There is, as well, a non-rational or emotional element to the discernment of truth, much ignored by the scientists, and that is monumentally significant flashes of insight, in which incredibly complex mathematical structures come fully formed to mind, to be later laboriously deconstructed and made accessible. They "intrude" with incredible force upon the lives of the individuals experiencing them. Both Poincare and Nash are examples (now reading A Beautiful Mind).

I don't know of any good biographies off the top of my head, but if that sort of thing interests you - and I find it interesting as well - then you should look into the life and work of Srinivasa Ramanujan. Hildegard of Bingen I can explain satisfactorily. Ramanujan presents rather more difficulty, although the fact that he was surprisingly wrong about some things makes it a bit easier. ;)

[general_re]

One universe = One God. Therefore, one "God-truth."

Why? While that seems to be the trend in these parts lately, there are plenty of cultures that have, with equal confidence, asserted the existence of whole football-teams worth of gods. Such was the nature of one of Hume's objections to Aquinas.

Of course, Occam's Razor suggests that we should not unnecessarily multiply entities. But that would seem to imply that the most parsimonious explanation is to postulate zero gods. Which I, like you, find rather unsatisfying ;)

[tpaine]

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.