Philosophy discussion

Is anyone here familiar with Voegelin’s works and if so what are your thoughts?

Additionally are there any tips to uncovering his works?

He is really such a great philosophy but also incredibly niche and mainly known in academic circles… I would love to have a discussion with some familiar with his works.

hana 𐔌՞. .՞𐦯⋆. wrote: "Is anyone here familiar with Voegelin’s works and if so what are your thoughts?

Additionally are there any tips to uncovering his works?

He is really such a great philosophy but also incredibly..." I must admit that I know Voegelin’s work only indirectly, mainly through his analysis of the influence of Gnosticism as a key for interpreting the great political movements of the twentieth century: communism, fascism, and Nazism. There is an initiatory component in many of the political doctrines of the twentieth century, an ambition toward revelation. In this respect, I have always found the comparison with Gnosticism—and with the "mysteries" of pre-Christian religions—particularly interesting, although I have never explored the subject in depth.

hana wrote: "Additionally are there any tips to uncovering his works? ..."

'Incredibly niche' is an apt label. It's one thing to be 'niche' if you're Hans-Georg Gadamer, but this joker?

Rather exemplifies, "sideshow of a sideshow". There's tons of these lesser-known layabouts; and they're 'lesser-known' for good reason. Fad philosophers.

The reason they're languid loungers is that they so often wander off down tangents instead of truly solving anything. They get lost in philosophy which is really more like psychology.

And I would ask: what is more useless than 'abstract' psychology? How does it affect anyone's behavior for the better? What moral improvement does it make? Slim to none.

Spend time with him if you admire his writing --we've all got authors we admire for their style --but don't tarry too long over trifles.

Make sure you stay on the main path: figures like Hegel, Heidegger, Kant, Sartre, Marx, ...

Feliks wrote: "hana wrote: "Additionally are there any tips to uncovering his works? ..."

'Incredibly niche' is an apt label. It's one thing to be 'niche' if you're Hans-Georg Gadamer, but this joker?

Rather ex..."

But aren't you an anarchist? You jump from murderers to anarchists to communists as if they were all the same thing. That's quite a bit of confusion. And don't forget Mao's Little Red Book while you're at it. Look, you've just proved Eric Voegelin right.

Davide wrote: "But aren't you an anarchist?..."

Not at all. I'm a Marxist. Anarchism has nothing to do with Marxism. Marxism is a very sound, very viable, theory of economics. It's also one of the noblest sentiments ever devised by men.

Davide wrote: "You jump from murderers to anarchists to communists as if they were all the same thing. ..."

I would rather say that this confusion is what you have illustrated in all your posts so far. It's why I hardly even bother to read or respond to you.

Maybe sometime in the near future --when you are more advanced in your studies --you will recognize the patently obvious historical fact that Bolshevism is not Marxism?

Let us know when you start down that good path.

Feliks wrote: "Davide wrote: "But aren't you an anarchist?..."

Not at all. I'm a Marxist. Anarchism has nothing to do with Marxism. Marxism is a very sound, very viable, theory of economics. It's also one of the..."

I see. You're one of those people who confuses Bakunin with Marx. Good grief. That explains why you use the name of a criminal as your profile picture. Tell me, do you even know who Felix Dzerzhinsky was? Do you know whose picture you're using?

Davide wrote: "That explains why you use the name of a criminal as your profile picture. Tell me, do you even know who Felix Dzerzhinsky was? Do you know whose picture you're using?..."

Since I deliberately chose the picture, since I have deliberately displayed the picture for +10-12 years (ever since discovering this website and creating an account), one might take it for granted, that obviously I know what I'm doing.

it is on display specifically for posturing, preening fops like yourself, to chivvy me about it. It is placed there to draw the ire of pretentious oafs.

Thus, you have followed suit quite neatly.

To wit: I've already insinuated aloud, that you actually do not know yourself, who's picture this is, (displayed in my avatar) else you would have cited the man by name.

Or do you really think they had such crisp, clear, color photography widely available in Poland in the 1920s?

This is typical photography in that era:


That being said, do you wish to challenge me about Marxism itself? Come on then, and give me some leisure-time amusement.

This is ideally the purpose of what my avatar, to give me some pleasure swatting flies.

I can ask no better of my assumed namesake than to provoke such mock-turtle, right-wing, histrionics as you have trotted out so far.

Again, begging the pardon here, of our group moderator Tyler.

Davide wrote: "I see. You're one of those people who confuses Bakunin with Marx. ..."

Du'oh. Why would I do so, when their split is one of the most famous divides in socialism? Who in their right mind, conflates the two?

Whatever 'people' (people who confuse the two) you're referring to, I'm sure no one knows. What an addle-pated statement for anyone to splutter.

Do you think at all beforehand, about what you spout, before you jabber away? You're almost too incompetent to reply to.

Unfortunately, you're becoming dishonest as well. The photo is of an actor who portrayed him. I assume you know that. The name is the same, and it is not your real name. I don't think you actually know what you're doing.

Which language would you prefer to discuss Marxism in? Ancient Greek, Latin, French, German, or Russian? Or in English?

You're not very good with Ancient Greek or Koine Greek, are you?

Feliks wrote: "Davide wrote: "I see. You're one of those people who confuses Bakunin with Marx. ..."

Du'oh. Why would I do so, when their split is one of the most famous divides in socialism? Who in their right ..."

I can only imagine what kind of culture and education a man must have if he thinks wearing the image of a murderer in order to provoke other people is a good idea. Use your time better. There are many things you can do. You don’t need to hide.

In any case, I have to say that you've made me want to study Voegelin more deeply. That's a good thing. I'm beginning to reassess his interpretation of twentieth-century authoritarian thought in light of the Gnostic tradition. You seem to me to be a fairly good example of how well-founded his interpretation may be.

Don't be offended, and don't get angry. I'm only joking. I know that, for you, Marxism is something of a guide to life. For me, it isn't. We are very different people. We can both live good lives while simply ignoring each other.