Philosophy Discussion Forums

Nowadays, science and esoterism are considered two seperate branches. Some of the discoverers of Quantum Physics actually had an esoteric interpretation. Anyway, you nowadays have esoterism which is both practiced by amateurs, if they are people which practice forgery is something I don't know, I haven't tested them, but they are very different from organizations like the Freemasons and the Rosicrucians which seem to have an esoteric tradition which actually developed and can be studied, there are even Academic Studies into this esoteric tradition of these organizations and their contribution to our society in some universities in Europe.

Anyway, it might surprise you, but a lot of people like Einstein and Newton were involved in esoterism. They got a lot of inspiration from it and they probably also believed in it up to some extent. Like we know, Newton was involved in alchemy and although some people don't really look at that, it's interesting to know that he was involved in both science and esoterism. The same with Nicola Tesla, which also claimed 'supernatural phenomena' (although those actually don't exist, as all phenomena are by definition natural, but what I mean with this is phenomena which don't fit in our scientific model).

It's really only in the 21st century and in the last part of the 20th century that most scientists aren't involved in esoterism anymore, but in all other ages a certain part of the scientists were. My question is what you think of the relationship between science and esoterism and why so much known scientists in the past were involved in it? It doesn't matter if you believe in in it or not, I also mean the psychological effect of involvement in esoterism on those scientists.

I find your topic very interesting, however it suffers from a rather serious flaw. The proper term is "esotericism", not "esoterism". The root word is "esoteric", not "esoter". But misspelling notwithstanding, I think it's a very interesting topic.

The problem, however, is that most people don't have a clear understanding of what "esoteric doctrine" is, and you have not defined it in your post. This is bound to lead to a wayward discussion. Why do you not elaborate on how you understand the nature of esotericism first, so that we can all understand your perspective?

Atreyu wrote:I find your topic very interesting, however it suffers from a rather serious flaw. The proper term is "esotericism", not "esoterism". The root word is "esoteric", not "esoter". But misspelling notwithstanding, I think it's a very interesting topic.

The problem, however, is that most people don't have a clear understanding of what "esoteric doctrine" is, and you have not defined it in your post. This is bound to lead to a wayward discussion. Why do you not elaborate on how you understand the nature of esotericism first, so that we can all understand your perspective?

Atreyu, my first language isn't English and this is one of the problems with English being the international language, as I don't have a 'feeling' what the correct use is and I simply used a dictionary, but thanks for your correction.

What I mean with esoteric doctrine is in itself a very difficult and interesting question. I haven't only read about philosophy, but I have also read about organizations like freemasonry and although these organizations have certain distinct features, the things which they have in common are basically the belief that God can be found in man himself, some of the doctrines believe that people can influence the world with their thoughts, there is also the belief that the physical world is an illusion and that everything is thought (this basically is the philosophical concept of idealism, which is replaced by materialism nowadays). Maybe you think of buddhism when I describe this and if so, I can only agree with you that buddhism basically has all the basic features of esoteric doctrine.

As these doctrines often call themselves 'secret teachings', I can only explain you what the most important people in the field of esoteric doctrine have written themselves about it and what they wanted to disclose to everyone, of course, as the organizations are secret, there are aspects which we simply can only know by being part of such an organization or by finding it out ourselves without them (which is what shamanists do, I guess).

One book which is most important for this subject is the secret doctrine from H. Blavatsky, this book basically describes the belief that materialistic science was predicted by ancient writings and would be proven wrong according to her and it describes the origin of the universe in a similar way as the Hindu-religion, a cyclical development.

It's very interesting to know that some of the foundations of nazism weren't actually invented by themselves but that Hitler adapted those ideas from another volume of the secret doctrine, those ideas however are Blavatskys ideas and as far as I know most other people involved in esoteric doctrine don't support her in this theory, you won't find it among freemasons for example.

Also Manly P. Hall is a good author which writes about 'secret teachings' and freemasonry, in which he has a high degree himself. I really wonder why there aren't a lot of academic studies in this subject, as it's actually a very interesting philosophy to read about, the esoteric doctrine is a bit like the Abrahamic religions without the idiotic ideas and instead making some sense, this is also why they were prosecuted a lot of course by the main Abrahamic religions.

What is most interesting about this, if we return to the subject, is that people like Einstein read books like Blavatskys the secret doctrine, but contributed to a materialistic scientific world.

Ok, I get you now. You do appear to get the gist of esotericism.

The reason why it was more common for scientists of the past to also have studied and/or practiced esotericism is because it was more typical for the scientist of the past to have a true yearning for knowledge, for truth. Modern science has become more of a "profession", has become more accessible to the masses, and therefore has attracted to itself a "lower caliber" of an individual --- one that perhaps gets into science not because of an impassioned quest for knowledge, but rather as a means to make money or acquire fame. In conjunction with this, modern science has become fairly dogmatic nowadays, and dogmatism is inherently opposed to esoteric doctrine. Esotericism is inherently "out of the mainstream", and modern science is very "mainstream" today.

BTW, since you seem to perhaps be ready, here's the "real primer" of esoteric doctrine --- "In Search of the Miraculous" by P.D. Ouspensky. It's non-fiction. Check it out and tell me what you think.

Atreyu wrote:Ok, I get you now. You do appear to get the gist of esotericism.

The reason why it was more common for scientists of the past to also have studied and/or practiced esotericism is because it was more typical for the scientist of the past to have a true yearning for knowledge, for truth. Modern science has become more of a "profession", has become more accessible to the masses, and therefore has attracted to itself a "lower caliber" of an individual --- one that perhaps gets into science not because of an impassioned quest for knowledge, but rather as a means to make money or acquire fame. In conjunction with this, modern science has become fairly dogmatic nowadays, and dogmatism is inherently opposed to esoteric doctrine. Esotericism is inherently "out of the mainstream", and modern science is very "mainstream" today.

BTW, since you seem to perhaps be ready, here's the "real primer" of esoteric doctrine --- "In Search of the Miraculous" by P.D. Ouspensky. It's non-fiction. Check it out and tell me what you think.

Very well put. I personally believe in esotericism, the studies and practices with it. It should be reviewed closer, with the tools of which we possess today from science. It's a shame that "mainstream" deny it, when it is just a simple strive for truth, and knowledge. One day we will break this, and the people will find interest and passion in truth once more.

Roel wrote:My question is what you think of the relationship between science and esoterism and why so much known scientists in the past were involved in it? It doesn't matter if you believe in in it or not, I also mean the psychological effect of involvement in esoterism on those scientists.

Science is normally exoteric, directed outwardly. Scientific methods can also be directed inwardly to some extent.

However, there are some limitations. Only one esoteric scientist may have access to what is being studied, making it totally esoteric in the exclusive sense of word, not verifiable by other scientists or subject to peer review - although multiple esoteric scientists could potentially report similar results which may be of exoteric interest.

Also, if the observer is observing the observer, then any changes to the observer could affect the observation.

Perhaps fewer scientists are interested in esotericism now than in the past because the less exclusive option of psychology has become more established?

-0+ wrote:

Roel wrote:My question is what you think of the relationship between science and esoterism and why so much known scientists in the past were involved in it? It doesn't matter if you believe in in it or not, I also mean the psychological effect of involvement in esoterism on those scientists.

Science is normally exoteric, directed outwardly. Scientific methods can also be directed inwardly to some extent.

However, there are some limitations. Only one esoteric scientist may have access to what is being studied, making it totally esoteric in the exclusive sense of word, not verifiable by other scientists or subject to peer review - although multiple esoteric scientists could potentially report similar results which may be of exoteric interest.

Also, if the observer is observing the observer, then any changes to the observer could affect the observation.

Perhaps fewer scientists are interested in esotericism now than in the past because the less exclusive option of psychology has become more established?

Psychology however leans more on exoteric science too, psychology hugely uses neurological knowledge and everything related to esoteric doctrine, well a lot of it at least, is often regarded as 'magical thinking' or 'not in accordance with reality'. But there the problem starts, what is reality? Plato wondered about it, but modern psychology seems to be 100% sure that they know what the truth and what reality is, the materialistic interpretation, which might SEEM to be true due to the evidence and research, but if you look at the FOUNDATION of it and you realize that the foundations of materialism are dependent on your consciousness, you start to see what the problem is. If our consciousness is uncertain, how can we be certain about materialism? If I try to explain this to materialists however, they often reply with: that's all philosophical mumbo-jumbo, why would I care if science gives me answers? Well yes, they get answers indeed, but those answers only apply to a certain awareness and interpretation of reality. I don't support frauds which use 'paranormal powers' to get 300 dollars for 1 session of ignorant people, but I neither support 'scientists' which aren't even real scientists as they don't even want to question the foundations of our materialistic world view and the instrument which is used to perceive it and our certainities about it. We can know that things happen in our brain, but how can you be sure that the electric signals in our brain aren't actually the CAUSE, but a CONSEQUENCE of our consciousness? If humans are physical and lamps and computers too, how is it possible that humans have a consciousness while we consist of physical elements, which is a feature which lamps and computers have too while not having a consciousness.

These are just some things which I wonder about in daily life and which practically have made me lose my materialistic world view which I temporarily had, when I started to ask questions I started to realize that materialism and 'paranormal belief' are both just dogmatic systems which don't encourage open thinking and critical analysis of reality as we perceive it.

What I actually see in psychology and science is that they lend on an unbreakable belief in the current world view of the majority of society and the scientific world. Instead of questioning reality, which leads to real answers about reality, we are, in contrary to Taoism which is closer to reality than materialism/protestantism/catholicism/judaism, trying to explain things and phenomena, and yes, those might be right in our interpretations in the scientific world, but the problem is that if you say: this phenomena can be explained without other interpretations (magic, possible events in which things are connected while no physical contact happens, for example a phone rings and somebody always knows who the person is, this is something which can't be explained in the scientific world and is often considered coincidence, which is an interpretation of the event but not an explanation which is in accordance to reality, as you first need to deliver proof that it indeed is coincidence)), you are neglecting the fact that although a phenomena could be reproduced by certain methods, for example an image of a ghost on a photo by using a piece of paper, this doesn't mean that all occurences of the event actually use your method (a piece of paper). You are only giving a possible explanation, but the problem with organizations like the Sceptics Society is that your explanations and alternatives for phenomena don't necessarily mean that they are the only possible right explanations. The only way to know if a paranormal claim is true is by checking it ourselves under the right conditions, if we assume that our thoughts influence experience, you can't rely on other peoples research in the subject (like amateurs, people which claim to have paranormal powers, sceptics, scientists) as those people influence the experiment in a certain way which you don't know, as you can't read their thoughts. The only way to know if a paranomal phenomena exists, is by trying to reproduce it yourself, as you are 100% sure that you aren't financed by certain organizations which could try to only publish certain results (lobbying) and you can be sure that you yourself don't have a certain agenda by claiming that a phenomena is true or not, while both sceptics and frauds (people which claim paranormal powers to steal money from ignorant people) have certain intentions by doing paranormal experiments, which could, if we believe in a reality influenced by thoughts influence the results, we can only have reliable results by reproducing results ourselves without external sources.