Assessments On 2 Documents -- 2 Types of Philosophers
Updated: May 10
The following article is the result of me receiving a few materials to read by one of this site's readers, which I read and provided my thoughts. The materials that I was given were largely Christian, and were for me a sort of introduction to the Christian world, and thus I was able to better understand the "fuzz" about Jesus Christ and his great influence on the world. After reading the materials, I came up with an interesting idea about him that, while some may consider as "heresy," might nonetheless interest you, whether you are a Christian or not. Thank you and I hope you will benefit from my contemplations. The PDF files of each will be added at the end of this article.
The Three Minds (From the Book "The Great Rebellion" by Samael Aun Weor)
To be sincere, the article in question sounded very condescending to those who disagree with the author/s. The theory of three minds in that regard sounds more like a socio-intellectual hierarchy than something which one can prove that exists, compared to Freud's subconscious, which came out as a theoretical idea and was actually proved to be correct with time.
Those who disagree with the author/s of the article are "clearly," so to speak, on the very bottom of this concept, as they are yet to agree with the perspective of the writer/s and so on. Personally, I'd take that article with a grain of salt not because of my atheist views, but because of the article's very biased towards those who disagree with its premise (calling them ignoramus and other stuff like that). It is difficult, with the article's philosophy, to allow a pluralistic forum and thus, the healthy concept of skepticism, of being "mature" enough, allegedly, to be open to the possibility that one is incorrect.
Additionally, faith and belief are, at least in Hebrew, the same thing, and they are the same in English as well, at least when we use regular speech—"I believe" and "I have faith" are basically the same in their function. So, what need is there, therefore, to use the word "faith" as "knowledge" when by reason and practice it far more aligns with "belief"? In other words, why is there "to have faith in" when one simply says that they know? Is it that necessary to go so far as to change the figure of speech just to make a point?
Regardless, I think the author of this article just finds it hard to accept other opinions. I don't know them personally so I can't be sure of it, and even if we put that aside, it is agreeable that the rhetoric was very aggressive and unwelcoming, and there was more of an attempt to "install" the premise into one's mind rather than to convince one that it is true. Sure, there was the example of the mysterious island that was filled with otherworldly creatures, but that might as well have been a hallucination, experienced either individually or collectively.
2. Thomas' Gospel (A formerly-hidden Christian Document by one of Jesus' Disciples) -- An important document, for sure. It is fascinating to see a writing that managed to survive years of oppression and secrecy. I think it was even the very first original Christian piece that I got to read. Reading the proverbs, I got at least a small sight of why the world at large is so hyped about Jesus. This, of course, comes from a person whose mandatory education never gave him any original Christian teachings, because the Israeli education system puts more of an effort on the Old Testament when it comes to religion.
Putting the excitement aside, it appears that Jesus, at least from this document's narrative, is more of a philosopher than a "Son of God". Similar proverbs I found in Lao Tzu's "Tao Te Ching"—the book that has basically founded Taoism in the Far East.
Unlike some opinions, I don't think I would be put under hellish flames when I say that religion—all religions—are basically philosophies with a more "holier-than-thou" attitude towards certain people, if not the whole of existence. Why is there a need, therefore, to distinguish between religion and philosophy when the very concept itself of whether or not deities exist is such an important, philosophical topic? Is there truly a difference between, for example, "Christian religion" and "Christian philosophy" when they are likely to mean the same?
I think that the methodology of the Far East is excellent when treating intellectual prosperity, because it's not whether or not you are right or wrong, nor be rewarded or tortured in the afterlife based on your ideology—it is all about the exchange of thoughts and beliefs, without using them as a mean of controlling other people to do your bidding.
To conclude both assessments—there are practically two main types of philosophers in existence—those who do not "divinify" themselves, and are "satisfied" in being seen as humans, and those who do. Realizing this difference, the last thing I as a philosopher want to do is to start a cult, let alone, be seen as some kind of god.
If we want to preserve a respected, intellectual exchange of ideas, scepticism is a must as it is the key to keep an open mind to new ideas; that, of course, includes doubting your very own beliefs, even if just for the sake of hearing the other side. Philosophers that portray themselves as some sort of a holy figure, risk sacrificing their philosophy and its followers to stubborn dogmatism that could serve as an obstacle to intellectual growth.