[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


 No.18656

you're just a GNOSTIC!!!1! - Eric Voegelin

It's important to examine the the thought of reactionary thinkers. So here I present Eric Voegelin, buddy of Hayek, and conservative thinker.

Essentially his whole thesis is that Marx, Nietschze, and Scientific Positivists are "gnostics". and that Marx was a "speculative gnostic".

>Voegelin understood "gnosis" as a purported direct, immediate apprehension or vision of truth without the need for critical reflection; the special gift of a spiritual and cognitive elite and 'Gnosticism' as a type of thinking that claims absolute cognitive mastery of reality. Relying as it does on a claim to gnosis, gnosticism considers its knowledge not subject to criticism. Gnosticism may take transcendentalizing (as in the case of the Gnostic movement of late antiquity) or immanentizing forms (as in the case of Marxism).


And basically that modern thinkers, by rejecting metaphysics and the origins of things (God) were unconsciously self deceptive but what sets apart Nietschze and Marx is that they were self aware of the self deception and therefore consciously "demonic" or "demono-maniacal".

>Voegelin's work does not lay out a program of reform or offer a doctrine of recovery from what he termed the "demono-maniacal" in modern politics. However, interspersed in his writings is the idea of a spiritual recovery of the primary experiences of divine order. He was not interested so much in what religious dogmas might result in personal salvation but rather a recovery of the human in the classical sense of the daimonios aner (Plato's term for "the spiritual man"). He did not speculate on the institutional forms in which a spiritual recovery might take place but expressed confidence that the current 500-year cycle of secularism would come to an end because he stated that "you cannot deny the human forever."


vidrel is a catholic workers/left wing catholic's take on Voegelin.

According to his critics:

>Eugene Webb criticized Voegelin's conception of gnosis and his analysis of Gnosticism in general. In the article "Voegelin's Gnosticism Reconsidered," Webb explained that Voegelin's concept of Gnosticism was conceived "not primarily to describe ancient phenomena but to help us understand some modern ones for which the evidence is a great deal clearer." Webb continues, "the category (of Gnosticism) is of limited usefulness for the purpose to which he put it… and the fact that the idea of Gnosticism as such has become so problematic and complex in recent years must at the very least undercut Voegelin's effort to trace a historical line of descent from ancient sources to the modern phenomena he tried to use them to illuminate."


<Because Voegelin applied the concept of gnosis to a wide array of ideologies and movements such as Marxism, communism, National Socialism, progressivism, liberalism, and humanism, critics have proposed that Voegelin's concept of Gnosis lacks theoretical precision. Therefore, Voegelin's gnosis can, according to the criticis, hardly serve as a scientific basis for an analysis of political movements. Rather, the term "Gnosticism" as used by Voegelin is more of an invective just as "when on the lowest level of propaganda those who do not conform with one's own opinion are smeared as communists."


what does leftypol think of this line of thought? Why do reactionaries always go to "marxism is satanic and communist are trying to replace God by making a heaven on Earth"?

 No.18657

Not too interested in the Gnostic but perhaps I should check them out

>And basically that modern thinkers, by rejecting metaphysics and the origins of things (God) were unconsciously self deceptive but what sets apart Nietschze and Marx is that they were self aware of the self deception and therefore consciously "demonic" or "demono-maniacal".'


>>Voegelin's work does not lay out a program of reform or offer a doctrine of recovery from what he termed the "demono-maniacal" in modern politics. However, interspersed in his writings is the idea of a spiritual recovery of the primary experiences of divine order. He was not interested so much in what religious dogmas might result in personal salvation but rather a recovery of the human in the classical sense of the daimonios aner (Plato's term for "the spiritual man"). He did not speculate on the institutional forms in which a spiritual recovery might take place but expressed confidence that the current 500-year cycle of secularism would come to an end because he stated that "you cannot deny the human forever."

You can tell this Voegelin guy didn't pay any attention to his Socrates here

Criticizing things as daemonic while advocating for Socrates daemon

It's not even worth getting jimmies rustled over just
sad

 No.18658

Sounds like how TradCaths call everything they don’t like “Gnostic”.

Honestly I think it’s more important to look at thinkers in vogue or who’ve accomplished something notable. Gentile would be a far more interesting read than lolberts.

 No.18659

>>18656
TIKhistory has made a new video about this as well where he tries to lump Marxism in with Nazism and Fascism (again) by painting them all as denominations of gnosticism and he shits on Hegel too, and it’s just, ugh…

 No.18660

>>18659
>uuugghhh
Nice rebuttal
Your losing in the marketplaces of ideas

 No.18661

>>18660
>Your losing in the marketplaces of ideas
Shoo shoo postmodernist cockroach

 No.18662

>>18660
>>18661
marketplace of ideas is a liberal modernist idea not a postmodern one anon

 No.18663

>>18659
don't post this dumbasses videos

 No.18664

>>18662
The underlying ideas had been around for a while, even if they weren't necessarily tied together, but the "marketplace of ideas" specifically seems to come from the 50s and 60s. I'm not sure if I'd call it postmodern, if only because the term is widely abused to mean too much, but its genesis and popularization coincide culturally with late high modernism and early postmodernism. Probably there's a better case to be made that the spin put on it became "postmodern" in effect. It's very similar to Hayek's later and less well-known version of his theory of knowledge.

 No.18665

>>18657
>Criticizing things as daemonic while advocating for Socrates daemon
pretty much

its like sure communism is satanic if you think your gods adversary is lucifer or prometheus and want to stop people from using technology to change the world then yeah communism is trying to escape the demiurge and thats a good thing actually

 No.18666

>>18664
Jefferson already have the idea of a republic of letters in the 18th century anon. The idea of a marketplace of ideas is a enlightenment liberal idea, Hayek's theory of knowledge is a totally different thing which says that tacit knowledge is distributed throughout society and that the market and price signals are a way of communicating that knowledge.

 No.18667

>>18666
>Jefferson already have the idea of a republic of letters in the 18th century anon.
My brother in marx who taught you this garbage

The burgers were late comers and on the fringes of that movement

 No.18668

>>18667
yes im just giving an example, Jeffreson's ideas were based on even earlier theories of Locke and Hume, etc.

 No.18669

>>18668
I suspect if you go read through the primary texts you'll find that the denizens of the republic by and large viewed themselves as searching for truth in dialogue with others like socrates than picking produce from the market place of ideas

To the extent you may be correct it would have been from the fringe gawkers only engaging in the movement through consumption

Ah I believe we may be onto something here on the genealogy of the pomo burger brainrot

>Ah I am an intellectual I read journals publishing letters from the republic picking and choosing truth like I am shopping for a fancy


Here I suspect we have the ur postmodernist cockroach shuttling around feeding off scraps in the dark

 No.18670

>>18669
>republic by and large viewed themselves as searching for truth in dialogue with others like socrates than picking produce from the market place of ideas

whats the difference

 No.18671

>>18666
>Jefferson already have the idea of a republic of letters in the 18th century
The "republic of letters" isn't equivalent to the "marketplace of ideas," and the concept (and term) predated Jefferson by centuries.
>Hayek's theory of knowledge is a totally different thing which says that tacit knowledge is distributed throughout society and that the market and price signals are a way of communicating that knowledge.
That would be the middle period Hayek, more under the influence of Michael Polanyi. For the later Hayek (in "The Fatal Conceit", this summary makes the similarities clearer:
<Strangely for a doctrine that started out so concerned about respect for the inviolate individual and his or her subjectivity, the late Hayek rendered his system internally coherent by admitting that some knowledge did not really persist at the level of the individual mind, for the most part, but was processed and invested with meaning at the suprapersonal level. In a catch phrase, since so much that people actually knew was inaccessible to them, the only entity that really was capable of judging and validating human knowledge was The Market. The key turning point, as Hayek informs us in The Fatal Conceit, was his essay “Competition as a Discovery Procedure” (1968):
>[Epistemology is governed by] competition as a procedure for the discovery of such facts as, without resort to it, would not be known to anyone…. The knowledge of which we speak consists rather of a capacity to find out the particular circumstances, which becomes effective only if the possessors of this knowledge are informed by the market which kinds of things or services are wanted, and how urgently they are wanted… . Knowledge that is used [in a market] is that of all its members. Ends that it serves are the separate ends of all those individuals, in all their variety and contrariness.10
<No longer was knowledge being treated as an elusive thing by Hayek, scattered about in an inconvenient matter; in this version, not only is much human knowledge unable to be retrieved from within by the individual in question but, indeed, there exists a species of knowledge not “known” by any individual human being at all. Here we are cosseted in the realm of Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous “unknown unknowns.”11
<Now what is the message here? The message is that there are no “knowns.” There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know. So, when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say “Well, that’s basically what we see as the situation,” that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns.
<The only recourse of the rational individual in this subpar situation is primarily to acquiesce to the dictates of signals conveyed by The Market, which hint at deeper truths than most humans will ever know.
<But what is this depersonalized and deracinated supra-human knowledge but a new virtual kind of information? This, we think, explains Hayek’s rather uncharacteristic reversion to replacing the term “knowledge” with “information” in his last work, Fatal Conceit (1988). There, he wrote:
>Comprehending the role played by the transmission of information (or of factual knowledge) opens the door to understanding the extended order. Yet these issues are highly abstract, and are particularly hard to grasp for those schooled in the mechanistic, scientistic, constructivist canons of rationality that dominate our educational systems.12
<Sometimes, when it came to this ectoplasmic information, the late Hayek lapsed into his scientistic mode, where evolution had winnowed the elusive truth out of human frailty; but other times, he reverted to full religious mystery: “spontaneous order … cannot be properly said to have a purpose … known to any single person, or relatively small group of persons.”13

 No.18672

>>18661
>>18662
Talk about how schizo it is to call every non-Abrahamicuck a single word, rather than engaging in labelbrain & associationist arguments about the postmodernism boogeyman.

 No.18673

>>18670
>whats the difference
A republic isn't a marketplace, for one. The former is a political notion, with each member having an equal vote and the ability to change the system in substance. A marketplace doesn't suppose such an equality or even a voice in how this market functions, and the consumers exercise influence only on the vendors who operate within it. While the "republic of letters" implies the ability to enact changes in the form and content of the political system, the "marketplace of ideas" implies a more limited control over content and no direct control over the form.


Unique IPs: 13

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]