The Gods (Who Inspired) the Philosophers

Amanda Jackson5 said:If you ask me, a Lacanian analysis wouldn't help us grasp much of anything, really. Religion and mythology sometimes say the exact same things as philosophy, but they deliver them through imagery and raw emotion rather than direct statements. In other words, it hits you right in the gut. The only exception in mythology is that hidden esoteric knowledge camouflaged within the tales—take astronomical insights like the precession of the equinoxes, which Santillan and Dechend illustrated brilliantly in their book Hamletian Mill.
Joseph Campbell believed that true insight into human existence could only be reached through mythology, while he dismissed philosophy as mere "juggling with concepts." However, we have to remember he was specifically targeting Anglo-American analytic philosophy, which can indeed feel like just shuffling terms around. Neither he, nor most Americans, really had a clue about "Continental" philosophy after Immanuel Kant; in other words, speculative philosophy.
So, what we end up with is philosophy sitting in the middle, rationally explaining what we know or can possibly know; on one side, you have mythology and religion telling similar stories in an operatic style; and on the other, you have the French who turned rational philosophy into its own kind of opera, using such baroque, over-the-top language that they managed to cloud everything that was once perfectly clear. Reading Jacques Derrida or Jacques Lacan feels a bit like listening to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel try to explain his theories after polishing off a duck à l'orange and knocking back four large liters of German beer.

I guess I kind of agree with that critique when you're looking at analyzing an individual ( ). But then again, the whole centralized thing about religion, the state, or any power structure starts from this idea where the image of others gets totally twisted; you know, how customs and laws shift depending on who's in charge, so the significance and meaning of certain names change along with political tides. So, maybe when you're trying to analyze the link between a person and their environment—like looking at the flaws or strengths of entire societies—it might actually help to have a more fluid approach to the images and connections that the linguistic structure itself creates...

Religion and mythology sometimes say the exact same things as philosophy, but they do it through imagery and raw emotion rather than being direct. It’s like, it hits you straight in the brain. The only exception in mythology is that secret knowledge that hides behind mythological tales.

I mean, religions and mythologies have these foundations and influences that overlap with how we normally experience the world, which is why deconstructing them is pretty worthwhile... Plus, it's necessary because of the damage they usually do by ignoring their own flaws and lacking any real, free-thinking criticism.

[/So we have philosophy right in the middle, rationally laying out what we know or can know; and on one side, we have mythology and religion telling us something similar, just in a sort of operatic style;

Theater, churches, even sports stadiums—they all share a lot of common ground. And besides mythology, which presents old ways of thinking in such a vague way, those preserved fairy tales are probably just leftovers from ancient religions (like the stuff about Isis and the 7 scorpions...).

I sort of view philosophy as being one of the extremes, mostly because it misses that part of epistemology that deals with how our surroundings affect learning, how we gain knowledge through different paths, and how we actually apply what we've learned, among other things... Like the Pythagoreans, the Talmud, yoga 😁 ...

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:I guess I kind of agree with that critique when you're looking at analyzing an individual ( ). But then again, the whole centralized thing about religion, the state, or any power structure starts from this idea where the image of others gets totally twisted; you know, how customs and laws shift depending on who's in charge, so the significance and meaning of certain names change along with political tides. So, maybe when you're trying to analyze the link between a person and their environment—like looking at the flaws or strengths of entire societies—it might actually help to have a more fluid approach to the images and connections that the linguistic structure itself creates...

Religion and mythology sometimes say the exact same things as philosophy, but they do it through imagery and raw emotion rather than being direct. It’s like, it hits you straight in the brain. The only exception in mythology is that secret knowledge that hides behind mythological tales.

I mean, religions and mythologies have these foundations and influences that overlap with how we normally experience the world, which is why deconstructing them is pretty worthwhile... Plus, it's necessary because of the damage they usually do by ignoring their own flaws and lacking any real, free-thinking criticism.

[/So we have philosophy right in the middle, rationally laying out what we know or can know; and on one side, we have mythology and religion telling us something similar, just in a sort of operatic style;

Theater, churches, even sports stadiums—they all share a lot of common ground. And besides mythology, which presents old ways of thinking in such a vague way, those preserved fairy tales are probably just leftovers from ancient religions (like the stuff about Isis and the 7 scorpions...).

I sort of view philosophy as being one of the extremes, mostly because it misses that part of epistemology that deals with how our surroundings affect learning, how we gain knowledge through different paths, and how we actually apply what we've learned, among other things... Like the Pythagoreans, the Talmud, yoga 😁 ...

Oh, I think you're quite a bit off base there; philosophy isn't some isolated vacuum stripped of environmental influence, collective consciousness, or intersubjectivity. If anything, it’s a direct reflection of all that. Take Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit," for example—the whole thing is built on that premise. That "Spirit" mentioned in the title is essentially the "I" becoming "we," or rather, the "we" being expressed through the "I." Every single socio-historical era carries its own distinct "zeitgeist."

Amanda Jackson5 said:Oh, I think you're quite a bit off base there; philosophy isn't some isolated vacuum stripped of environmental influence, collective consciousness, or intersubjectivity. If anything, it’s a direct reflection of all that. Take Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit," for example—the whole thing is built on that premise. That "Spirit" mentioned in the title is essentially the "I" becoming "we," or rather, the "we" being expressed through the "I." Every single socio-historical era carries its own distinct "zeitgeist."

And look, I didn't just list those other stuff for no reason. Like, take the Peripatetics—the name comes from "walking around" (like in a garden or something). Supposedly, Aristotle had his best breakthroughs while out for a stroll, and maybe even Friedrich Nietzsche did too, and even Josip Broz Marshall (according to some unverified sources, anyway) 😁 ... so, besides logic and language and all that, I'm trying to point toward these other factors—they're almost kind of "magical"—as ways to reach higher states of consciousness than what we usually experience...

Art can act as a mirror for both individual and collective psychology, especially when its purpose is to serve as a bridge toward perception, insight, and true understanding...
__________________
all of that is out there
medicine has a hundred different branches
psychology has a hundred different branches too

Honestly, I think the best move for any individual is just to adapt to the present. Everything has already been figured out; there’s nothing left to discover. And what defines an individual? An individual is someone who works tirelessly to make their own life run smoothly. Meanwhile, the unemployed types love gathering around in the afternoon just to talk. They don't care about things running smoothly; they just care about the social aspect.

All those mythological stories are "true," just not in the grand, sweeping way people experience them today while reading. All those tales unfolded in very small, primitive environments. Those heroes were just ordinary people who possessed exceptional potential, and they essentially just wowed the masses of unthinking people—basically sheep. It’s a little harder to do that nowadays... but the principle remains the same.

In the past, people created symbols because they didn't have the luxury of writing or storing information digitally. Today, that’s practically irrelevant. Modern structures are much simpler; they’re built purely for utility. No artist just draws randomly; they all have a vision. And a "vision" is really just a cluster of activated neurons that processed information through the eyes, ears, and so on...

Regarding the astrological calendar: everything is technically accurate. The creation and technology behind it were entirely possible. People weren't so dim that they failed to notice patterns and start studying statistics. Even my cat knows where the warm spots and cold spots are in the house.

As for genetic evolution, the cosmos, and all that... I think we’re far too small to be preoccupied with those questions. We don't need some grand enlightenment. A person who actually possesses knowledge doesn't feel the need to go playing experimenter. Just enjoy the secondary things while you can. Nowadays, humans are so well-cared for that they actually have the time to devote themselves to things no previous generation could ever dream of. Besides, our primary needs are all identical for everyone: eat, drink, sleep, and die.

If people actually worked with true knowledge, it would be as if they were already prepared to die. That’s why we spend every single second adapting to new experiences.