[maro]

Here's something else by Voegelin I pulled off a website. (There's a website for everything!)

Reality, at its deepest level, is not a `thing' or a `fact,' but an existential tension which is structured, through the
poles of `world' and `Beyond,' as a pull toward the perfect fullness and luminosity of being that is symbolized in
the language of myth by the realm of the divine. The substance of reality, in other words, at least as far as it can be known by man in epistemic experience, is nothing other than the love of God. This is, again, to speak mythically; but to articulate in all of its experiential richness a philosophical penetration into the living depths of existence no other language can be fully effective.

This a a lot of baloney. This is not philosophy; this is sophistry. There's nothing to say about it, because he has said nothing. There are many modes of nihilism; this one is the nihilism of abusing philosophical language to feign the appearance of philosophy, whilst saying nothing. On the left, Foucault; on the right, Voegelin.

[betty boop]

This a a lot of baloney. This is not philosophy; this is sophistry. There's nothing to say about it, because he has said nothing. There are many modes of nihilism; this one is the nihilism of abusing philosophical language to feign the appearance of philosophy, whilst saying nothing. On the left, Foucault; on the right, Voegelin.

I can't tell you how sorry I am that you feel that way, maro. I have this eerie feeling that your critique of Voegelin's critique is coming straight out of a Second Reality...where perchance you have chosen to hole yourself up for the duration....

For the record I note you did not engage any point of V's analysis on substance, merit, technical adequacy, evidence, etc. Instead, you went straight for the ad hominum attack.

Where I come from, this usually is considered to be the sign of a weak argument.