Re: Theos-World KPJ on historical analysis of the inscrutable
Sep 09, 2004 09:49 AM
--- In email@example.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
> Breasted was a noted atheist, and did have a stake in
> discrediting Judaism.
Well you might read the book before making statements like that. It
contains no indication of discrediting anything. It is almost
entirely focused on the development of early moral thought among the
ancient Egyptians and mentions Moses entirely because he lived there
and was influenced by them. The el story is in Genesis if you care
to read it, and the volcano story is in Exodus. If you want to
believe that thought has not evolved in the last three thousand
years, then you must deny all the evidence.
> And he subscribed to the belief that, if religion was
> destroyed, religious hatred would disappear. Even Freud,
> himself, wrote, "the essay doesn't seem to me to be too
> well substantiated, nor do I like it entirely."
The point of it was that Manetho was right, and that Moses lived
during the time of Akhnaton, a few years earlier than Ramses II, who
was identified by Budge as the reigning king. That the "Habiru" were
rampaging across the countryside during the reign of the mystic king
is testified to by the Tell El Amarna letters which were written
during his reign. Debating whether he lived during the eighteenth
dynasty or the nineteenth does not in any way "discredit" anyone, or
not that I can see anyway. The second part of Freud's book, which
was all psychoanalytic theory, is pure garbage.
Freud did see clearly that our theological ideas are projections of
unconscious contents, but what he did not see is that this does not
bear on their validity. The ancient Christian writers did not have
the understanding we have today of projection, but they saw
accurately that the mind can be considered a sense in addition to the
five external senses identified by Aristotle, and that the mind is
the sense with which we sense things spiritual. This is a profound
insight which is only deepened by the insights of modern psychology.
The ultimate question of whether the things sensed have objective
reality is and will probably remain unsolvable by science.
18680From: Pedro Oliveira <prmoliveira@y...>
Date: Thu Sep 9, 2004 5:55am
Subject: Scholars and Sages: to K. Paul Johnson
> Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" is possibly the very
> foundation of modern rationalism. In it he reasserts,
> with greater sophistication, the role of categories in
> the process of understanding reality. But even Kant,
> one of the most brilliant intellects of his time as
> well as of the history of western philosophical
> thought, conceded, in his well?known statement, that
> "the things in themselves cannot be known". Our
> knowledge, therefore, is a knowledge "about" things,
> not of things in themselves. It is a mediated,
> categorically?induced knowledge. It is not the
> knowledge of what is.
Somehow I am missing your point. The ding an sich cannot be known
because all we can know is the contents of our own consciousness.
That is not a concession but a basic assumption of Kant's whole
argument. If one were to have a mystical experience that would still
be a content of consciousness and not the ding an sich. The question
would still remain whether the ding an sich in this case could be
something external to the perceiver, or merely the result of the way
the brain is wired, and, if something external, what?
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application