3 ms·
I disagree - I think more intelligent people have always had a more nuanced view of things like religion and magic, but it wasn’t accepted to talk openly about
by _yb2s 2y ago
I disagree - I think more intelligent people have always had a more nuanced view of things like religion and magic, but it wasn’t accepted to talk openly about it. You don’t need science or modern philosophy to be curious and critical of what you hear. Marcus Aurelius touched on this in his private journal ~2k years ago, and it was clear that he understood magic and religion as useful metaphors.
- mionhe 2y agoAgreed. Interestingly, my understanding is that it was quiet-ishly passed on by monks and clergy through the middle ages. See John of Morigny on Wikipedia as an example.
- _yb2s 2y agoInteresting example, I hadn't heard of Morigny, and will look at his book. I think one reason these things are 'mystical' and 'mysterious' is because the people that understood them did openly talk about them and write about them, but used literary and speaking techniques that give them plausible deniability, and mostly limit the audience to people intelligent enough to decipher them. William Blake is a great example of this- he was writing about ideas so progressive and ahead of their time, many are still today unacceptable to talk about, yet he was able to publish book after book about them in the late 1700s, and was regarded as kooky, rather than dangerous.
- ryandv 2y agoThis idea was discussed in "On the Practice of Esotericism," 1992. https://doi.org/10.2307/2709872 https://doi.org/10.2307/2709872