Enlightenment Faith

By -
"Reason, as used by Voltaire, is a complex of sentiments and ideas. The fundamental sentiment is the intraworldly faith in a society which finds its coherence through compassion and humanity. Humanity is a general disposition in man arising out of his biological structure. Negatively, the reasonable attitude is characterized by the absence of immediate spiritual experiences. As a consequence of this deficiency, the symbolic expressions of spiritual experiences become opaque and are misunderstood as depending for their validity on their resistance to rational critique." -- Eric Voegelin, From Enlightenment to Revolution, p. 29

The declaration that spiritual experiences as "irrational" is based on no more than:

1) Their absence in the person declaring them so; and
2) His reluctance to admit that this might be a deficiency; no, those who claim to have had such experiences must be deluded!

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell5:38 PM

    Number one is plausible. Number two is speculative. Why would they have felt threatened by not having a spiritual experience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:17 AM

      If these are experiences are real, and, as those who have them often claim, the most important experiences in life, someone could feel a little... inferior... for not having had this important experience!

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell8:13 AM

      It's definitely a rather novel interpretation of things. I'm not so sure I ever heard this point come up with religious conservatives.

      Delete
    3. gcallah9:46 AM

      No, not particularly novel.

      Delete
  2. Unknown8:18 PM

    One of the most awesome things about ethical intuitionism is its justification for experiencing non-spatial things (goodness, for example). But once you can argue for the legitimacy of having cognitive access to the good (which is transcendent to the physical world), you then swing a huge door open: if we can have cognitive access to things that aren't reducible to the physical world, and are transcendent, then we can have cognitive access to 'other' things - like God.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more