 |
 |
Glenn Magee is unfortunately leaving the academy, at least for the nonce, but he is I believe finishing up a manuscript -- I think a short book -- on Swedenborg and Kant. He gave a chapter of it at the ASE last June in Davis. Chris Lehrich Alan Pritchard wrote: > There is a book on 'Hegel and the Hermetic tradition' by Magee > (Cornell UP, 2001). I haven't managed to see it yet, but the > description sounds as though it would cover this area: > > Glenn Alexander Magee's controversial book argues that Hegel was > decisively influenced by the Hermetic tradition, a body of thought > with roots in Greco-Roman Egypt. In the middle ages and modern period, > the Hermetic tradition became entwined with such mystical strands of > thought as alchemy, Kabbalism, Millenarianism, Rosicrucianism, and > theosophy. Recent scholarship has drawn connections between the > Hermetic "counter-tradition" and many modern thinkers, including > Leibniz and Newton. > > Magee contends that Hegel accepted the central Hermetic teaching that > God is complete only when he becomes known by the Hermetic adept. > Magee traces the influence on Hegel of such Hermetic thinkers as > Baader, Böhme, Bruno, and Paracelsus, and shows that he shared their > entire range of interests, including a fascination with occult and > paranormal phenomena. > > Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition covers Hegel's entire philosophical > corpus, showing that his engagement with Hermeticism lasted throughout > his entire career and intensified during his final years in Berlin. > Viewing Hegel as a Hermetic thinker has implications for a more > complete understanding of the modern philosophical tradition, and > German idealism in particular. > > Quite a bit on Leibniz. > > Best wishes > Alan Pritchard MPhil FCLIP MBCS > > ALCHEMY: a bibliography of English-language writings > 2nd (Internet) edition at > http://www.cix.co.uk/~apritchard <http://www.cix.co.uk/%7Eapritchard> > On 4/17/07, *Brian Morton* <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Oh, I guess I should introduce myself > I'm Brian Morton a professor of philosophy from Indiana State > University, with some interests in what magic and philosophy have > to say > to each other. > > Hegel scholars often point to the influence of Jacob Boehme on Hegel. > Boehme wrote often of the three principles of alchemy, so its not > impossible that Hegel was influenced by the alchemical tradition > through > Boehme on this. Likewise, a lot of Hegel's heretical protestant stuff > about the role of geist in history, looks like Boehme or the earlier > Joachim of Fiore. The idea in these guys is that the Hebrew's lived > mostly under the shadow of God the Father, the early/medieval > Christians > under the shadow of God the Son, but that in the near future > (Fiore), or > present (Boehme/Hegel), the 3rd person, God the Holy Spirit will > be the > primary engine of history. Its certainly a mystical view of history, > but magical? maybe. Right after Hegel, his follower Marx, took the > dialectic and turned it into the Material Dialectic. Its pretty > hard to > look at Hegel these days without the shadow of Marx getting in the > way. > Likewise, Hegel was popular in late 19th century Britain, but 20th > century British philosophy was built on rejecting him. In > philosophy he > might be beginning to re-emerge from Marx's shadow again a little > (as in > the thought of Brandom, McDowell, or Singer). Fukayama had a very > Hegel > influenced (and very neo-conservative) book a few years ago, but I > haven't seen a lot of other history that was particularly Hegelian, > (unless it was also relatively Marx-influenced) recently. Have any of > you? > > >>> Mandrake of Oxford <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 4/17/2007 12:52 PM > >>> > Sebastian > > Welcome - interesting thoughts - my main encounter with Hegel is > through > Borchardt's 'Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy' - which i > believe is > a Hegelian view of history with much talk of the Geist - i wonder > whether > this view of history in terms of 'spirit of an age' is also quite a > 'magical' view - and how this sits with modern history writing?? > > mogg > > > > : ) .....................................: ) > Mandrake.uk.net <http://Mandrake.uk.net> > Publishers > PO Box 250, Oxford, OX1 1AP > +44 1865 243671 > homepage: <http://www.mandrake.uk.net> > Blogs = > http://www.mogg-morgan.blogspot.com > <http://www.mogg-morgan.blogspot.com> > http://mandox.blogspot.com > secure page for credit card <http://www.mandrake.uk.net/books.htm> > paypal > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic > [mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]On Behalf Of Sebastian > Alexis > Ghelerman > Sent: 17 April 2007 14:51 > To: [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] magic and logic > > > Hello everyone. Ím new on the list. Ím a social anthropologyst > from > Argentina. Ím really interested in magic and its development along > history. > > A hint regarding this topic: > > Have you considered that the hegelian dialectic has much in common > with > some philosophical bases of the alchemy?. For e.g: the process > Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis uses the same logic pattern as the "Solve > et > Coagula", where "Solve" is the dissolution of the prime matter, "et" > is > related to the purification process of the stone and "Coagula" is the > solidification of the result of the other two. My thought, and it́s > only an > hypothesis, is that during medieval times and beyond, as other author > describe, the philosophical abstraction was integrated with the > religious > contents and magical "thought" and it́s only through Bacon, Newton, > Descartes and so on, that the science as an abstracted system of > thought was > set appart from the "illussion" of the other ways of seeing the > universe. > Hegel, is "victim of the spirit of his times", which was the time of > progress and rational thought. > > It́s a nice discussion. > > See you. > > Sebastian > > > > > > > On 4/16/07, Brian Morton <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > Actually the story of Medieval Logic is pretty cool. > > Dialectic was the Platonic form of logic, and that of the Stoics > and > the Skeptics and most other Greek and Hellenistics, but Aristotle > and > Euclid, used very monological styles even in the Ancient world. > > Right before the collapse of Rome, there was a form of heresy > called > Arianism, that became a big threat to the authorities in Rome, and > Arians loved using Aristotle, so Clement of Alexandria decided to > make > it a policy to teach all Christian priests just enough > Aristotlean > logic > to be able to oppose the Arians. When Rome fell, the Stoic and > Skeptical arts of dialectic were mostly lost, and what survived > was > Aristotelian logic, and a fair bit of Plato (via Boethius). > > The medievals rebuilt a style of dialogue based argumentation on > their > own, that had little to do with the older dialectic forms (it was > probably partly based on Roman legal practices). This medieval > "dialectic" was the 2nd part of the trivium, and part of the > education > off all educated medievals. Aquinas, and the other philosophers > and > theologians, are intensely dialectical in their style, but not at > all in > the way the Stoics were. And it had lots of interesting > developments > (see http://www.pvspade.com/Logic/ for lots of detailed > downloadables > on medieval dialectics). Also the medieval faux-dialogues, are > often > edited versions of real dialogues called quodlibets, that were > ancestors > to the modern thesis defense, rather than hypothetical dialogues. > The > Black Plague killed off this stuff, and later humanists developed > Topical logics, and then Term logics that were quite different. > From > 1350-1800's European logics are not very dialectical. > > Kant re-introduces the notion of the dialectic, which for him > means > "a > logic of appearances" rather than a logic of how things actually > are > (related to Aristotle's grudging use). Hegel, knows enough > history > of > logic to recognize the Kantian, Medieval, and Platonic notions > and > try > to play with them all. He's drawing on Christian stuff (both > mystical > types like Boehm, and non-mystics like Ockham) and Deist stuff > like > Kant, and older pagan stuff like Socrates or Plato (but probably > not > folks like Sextus or Chrysippus). > > >>> Sharon Stravaigne <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 4/14/2007 11:06 > AM > >>> > > In a message dated 4/14/2007 7:59:12 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> writes: > > Presumably the Hegelian dialectic is part of that classical > (pagan) > tradition -?? > i'm assuming that 'dialectic' was not such > a strong part of the christian tradition?? > > bb > > mogg > > > > > Both styles seem to have been in use in early Christian > times, > though > in one case it may have been an actual conversation > recalled, > they > weren't much on fiction until later. > > The monograph style dominated later I think, but there is > something > I noticed which may be a kind of hybrid, or you could view > it > as left > over from dialog style. This is where in a monograph, the > speaker > says, "but if someone should say blah blah, then I would > answer > blah blah." This is almost like a dialogue but one that is > obviously > hypothetical instead of presented as if real like in a > play, > and then > of course you have the arguments between people writing > letters > and yelling at each other in debates. > > I haven't read all of it, I glanced at Aquinas years ago, > and > I > recall > that in his presentation of all the arguments pro and con > on > every > conceivable matter, which was tedious, I suppose you could > say > that he dialectized on both sides. > > Sharon > > > > ************************************** See what's free at > http://www.aol.com. > > > > -- Christopher I. Lehrich Assistant Professor of Religion Associate Director, Division of Religious and Theological Studies Boston University