Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!
Good question. I learned magic is all about ciffers.
And ciffers means 'it is right'. That what you can calculate on is what you can trust on and rely.
Philosophy is not so much against that at all.
But rather explains it.
Some think what a magician is is fool the audiance. In reality that is what fools them. A trick works on basics of logic other wise it can not work and will fail even so the attempt.
That is correct. People are always scared of what you don't understand. I think we learn that early on in childhood sadly. It unfortunately carries into adult life for many.
Yes. I think Lust for Results is a first step in this ironically, since it leads to Socratic Questioning of all symbols, speech, movement and drama in the ritual or spell.
I think reading Agrippa or Barrett or Levi will turn you into a philosopher.
I think the idea of Question Everything as seen on bumper stickers implies the human is made to question, to test limits. The Magus goes beyond limits and therefore needs a foundation of philosophy.
Which is funny because I equally detest history and philosophy.
From I guess the 17th or 18th century onward there was a tendency to abstract philosophy away from religion and other domains of human practice, as some purely analytical activity, with the corollary that magic, mythology, ritual, etc. was something else and any philosophers caught doing those were somehow lapsing into superstition or losing their philosophical rigor. So that's a very distorted and relatively recent way of thinking, which is entirely inadequate in understanding what philosophy is, especially in pre-modern contexts.
With regards to magic, I don't really see how it can be done without philosophy, even if we don't accept the idea that it's a branch of philosophy, or even the highest philosophy, which many magicians held. As soon as I wonder, What is a soul? What is magic? What is a spirit? How do I know this works? I'm asking philosophical questions. If I'm content with bare assertions that seem plausible enough then I am liable to deceive myself. If I dismiss philosophy what I'm really doing is dismissing the examination of my own ideas, preconceptions, etc, which leaves me prone to getting taken in by con artists, human or otherwise.
So I have to engage with philosophy, and I also would argue it's equally important to engage with the history of ideas in a really open-ended way, not taking any school's presentation at face value, because so many concepts that get taken for granted have arisen from a bewildering array of contradictions and mutations; supposedly eternal principles are maybe not so ancient, and bear the indelible stamp of the era in which they arose; likewise seemingly stable traditions are not stable at all.
So I would say it really is worth the time to study pre-socratics, Plato, the Stoics, Plotinus, Iamblichus, the Corpus Hermeticum, and the times where this stuff emerged. Likewise people who incorporate Indian or Chinese concepts would do well to really look to the sources, where they might find that a lot of stuff that seemed straightforward or settled is anything but. And for our times, a bit of Hegel and Marx helps too. And this study shouldn't be seen as some prerequisite to be endured but a joyful journey to the heart of thought, which frees one from dogmatism and unnecessary deference to authorities and supposedly ancient models.
I'm not sure magickal concepts can even exist without a person signing up to some form of romanticism or even solipsism.
To look into magick at all is to accept a few basic principles - thought alone can create changes in the material world, consciousness exists as an energetic force beyond brainwaves, and all organic matter shares quantum (for want of a better word) connections.
Maybe that's not a complete philosophy but those ideas are certainly the pillars you could build a philosophy on.
Also as the work develops - workings become more elobrate, symbolism becomes more focused etc then a fully developed philosophy becomes essential..
Nods. Yes that sounds right. But wait… what do we mean by experience? And what’s intellect? I vaguely recall now that the Latin intellectus was the equivalent of the Greek nous. And according to many thinkers- Platonist, Hermetist, Christian- it is through the nous that we attain gnosis. Uh oh.
Nods. Yes that sounds right. But wait… what do we mean by experience? And what’s intellect? I vaguely recall now that the Latin intellectus was the equivalent of the Greek nous. And according to many thinkers- Platonist, Hermetist, Christian- it is through the nous that we attain gnosis. Uh oh.
This isn’t really a problem for me, the point I was trying to convey was simply to not only understand the theory and logistics of it but to also have an unwavering emotional belief that can only come through experience.
No it's not needed. Philosophy is a human construct and things exist whether we philosophize about them or not, so philosophy isn't needed. Gravity will work just fine without philosophy, same with magic.
No it's not needed. Philosophy is a human construct and things exist whether we philosophize about them or not, so philosophy isn't needed. Gravity will work just fine without philosophy, same with magic.
it possible to NOT have a philosophy (on some level)? Philosophical ideas are a natural function of mind... I would argue of course that magic is a natural function of the mind as well.
The choice is to focus and work on such matters or not..
it possible to NOT have a philosophy (on some level)? Philosophical ideas are a natural function of mind... I would argue of course that magic is a natural function of the mind as well.
The choice is to focus and work on such matters or not..
I mean, does magic NEED philosophy to work? I guess not. The wind blows, the sun shines, the birds fly, etc. But do you, as a human being, want to actually know what you’re doing and why? Do you want to at least tease out some coherent principles for practice? Then you’re going to be leaning on some kind of philosophy. I think it’s best to at least do some of the thinking yourself- otherwise someone is doing it for you, whether you realize it or not.
If every human on the planet ceases to exist, the concept of 1+1=2 will still exist, the reality that 2 of the same things can be "added" together will still be accurate. Philosophizing about math is a separate thing from math itself.
It's like when people say if a tree falls in the forest with nobody around did it make a sound?
Yes it did, there was simply nobody there to hear it. The sun exists even if blind people can't see it. Math exists whether even if humans aren't around to philosophize about it. Even some animals have to employ math in their everyday life, and they clearly don't have the intelligence or self awareness required to philosophize about it.
If every human on the planet ceases to exist, the concept of 1+1=2 will still exist, the reality that 2 of the same things can be "added" together will still be accurate.
Well of course, the monad and dyad are eternal emanations of the imperishable nous!
But seriously, you are saying concepts- mental representations- exist outside of or beyond minds. Hardly an inarguable position but one with a long and respectable history. Perhaps investigating the history of this doctrine would be more helpful than accepting it as a self-evident fact?
I gotta agree with Xingtian. Let’s take the following definition of philosophy:
The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.
In this case, math absolutely is philosophy. As mentioned, the concept of a simple equation does not exist out in the world naturally. Yes, groups of objects that can be counted and manipulated using numbers are out there, but until an intelligent mind applies logical reasoning using symbols (numbers), then there is no math. It can be helpful to consider the notion of “doing” rather than “being” as constituting existence. 1 + 1 = 2 does absolutely nothing. The symbols do something - they are emitting light and thereby communicating a message. But the concept of the equation itself…. poof. It does not exist.
A similar notion applies to magic. It can be done without philosophy, sure. But the second you start considering it logically (i.e. thinking “Did it work? Was this change the result of my actions?”) you have begun to use philosophy.
If a gazelle is confronted by two lions it doesn't need a mental representation to realize that it is now facing two predators and has to be more careful about where it runs and how to escape. Animals can count just fine even with their low intelligence and their lack of self awareness.
The fact that animals respond differently when faced with multiple predators than they do when they are faced with one, proves that they have the ability to do basic math (count). They may not have the abstract concept of the number "2" in their minds, but they can still acknowledge the fact that they are now facing two predators so they can't run in X direction where the 2nd predator is.
Yes, very easily too, with a video camera that records audio. In fact anytime you watch a video like this the concept is proven (unmanned camera recordings of the forest at night):
All the sounds, sights, etc happen whether a human mind (or any mind) is there to perceive it or not. Even if you removed all of the insects and animals in existence the wind would still make a sound as it rattles the leaves of trees.
Video and audio recordings would literally cease to function if this wasn't true lol.
If you could only see things that you were physically present to watch in real time, and you could only hear things that you were physically present to hear in real time, we literally could not consume any modern media (movies, tv, music, etc).
It can be done without philosophy, sure. But the second you start considering it logically (i.e. thinking “Did it work? Was this change the result of my actions?”) you have begun to use philosophy.
That doesn't have anything to do with the question OP asked, which is whether magic NEEDS philosophy, not if humans will involuntarily philosophize about magic by virtue of thinking. You are arguing something completely separate from the question asked.
Also I may be wrong, but I think you are being a bit broad and loose with your definition of philosophy there, because with your wording EVERYTHING is philosophy, and if everything is philosophy, NOTHING is philosophy.
If I take a dump in the toilet and I merely start thinking "was that a good bowel movement" am I now engaging in the philosophy of taking dumps?
Y'all are really taking this too far lol. It sounds like you're saying merely thinking about something is tantamount to philosophizing about it, and at that point, there's no reason for us to even use the word philosophy to distinguish it from regular thought.
That doesn't have anything to do with the question OP asked, which is whether magic NEEDS philosophy, not if humans will involuntarily philosophize about magic by virtue of thinking. You are arguing something completely separate from the question asked.
Also I may be wrong, but I think you are being a bit broad and loose with your definition of philosophy there, because with your wording EVERYTHING is philosophy, and if everything is philosophy, NOTHING is philosophy.
If I take a dump in the toilet and I merely start thinking "was that a good bowel movement" am I now engaging in the philosophy of taking dumps?
Y'all are really taking this too far lol. It sounds like you're saying merely thinking about something is tantamount to philosophizing about it, and at that point, there's no reason for us to even use the word philosophy to distinguish it from regular thought.
I’m not gonna bother fucking around with the quote system, so I’ll just respond to your paragraphs in order.
Sure it does. I stated at the beginning “It can be done without philosophy”, which directly addresses OP’s question. Pay attention if you’re going to dig your heels in every time you discuss a topic. The rest was an additional opinion. Take it or leave it as you see fit.
That definition comes from the American Heritage Dictionary. Definitions for the word are many and varied; such a multifaceted concept is tough to pin down. Therefore I stand by my choice to use that definition for the sake of this debate, as I feel it gives an accurate blanket definition. If you are basing your opinion from a different definition, then you should provide it for clarity.
Yes, absolutely, as silly as it may seem. To think “That was a good dump.” is not philosophy, but to ask the question “Was that a good dump?” (and then proceed through the mire of deciding what a good or bad dump is, and progress through more specific subsequent logical questions) is philosophy.
I’ve also gotta mention your tree falling in the forest trail cam idea. That becomes a question of quantum physics, and should be approached as such. A trail cam or other recording device acts as an observer in such a situation, ensuring that wave functions will collapse into particles that are then measurable. The question is a fun one because it is unanswerable - the second you retrieve evidence, you guarantee an outcome.
If we are going to address philosophy, perhaps one interested in philosophy should offer up the philosopher of choice. While Plato or Heidigger may both have points on magic, it doesn't help folks that are philosophy challenged such as myself. Not everyone digs philosophy.
Yet, the greats as I know them, Agrippa, Barrett, Levi, Crowley all used philosophy. The question then might be what did each discuss, and is there a central point? I would say something like "What is Alchemy"?
No it doesn't. It's really no different than a rock as far as reality is concerned. It's a clump of organic and inorganic materials meshed together in a specific way, but it isn't any more of an observer than a rock is. If every human on the planet disappeared the camera would still carry out it's function and record all of the video and audio the exact same way. There'd just be nobody left alive with the intelligence and tools required to retrieve the data and watch the video.
An observer is not required for phenomenon to take place. If every being on the planet was blind, light would still exist, we'd just be unable to perceive it. In fact think about this, we can't even perceive all of the spectrum of light that other animals can. Would you say that the infrared spectrum doesn't exist because we can't perceive it with our eyes alone?
The Mantis Shrimp has 16 color-receptive cones (humans only have 3), it can detect ten times more color than a human, and probably sees more colors than any other animal on the planet. They can see in ultraviolet, infrared, and even polarized light. Things exist whether you can perceive it or not.
I've heard about the double slit experiment and there's a lot of reasons that they could have gotten the results they did, including what tools they used to "observe", because they were experimenting with very small things (photons).
The outcome happened whether you gathered the evidence or not. If you leave a wad of $100 bill on a park bench, leave the area and come back in one hour lol. Things happen whether you are around to perceive or not, someone will take that money because they can perceive the value of it whether you are there or not. You'll probably say "well it's another human mind so it's not a good example", well swap food in place of money, a bird will take it or insects will get to it, it doesn't matter if a human mind is present, reality still happens, it doesn't revolve around us.
You must be one of those Solipsist types
I'll stop the back and forth here, you can believe whatever you want.
I often wonder one thing, we all come out with various spiritual or magical experiences and knowledge which is either self-learned or learned from some sources or taught by somebody.
Everyone of us can share some of his cool stuff, but how many of you can support it philosophically?
There is a very close relationship between magic and religious spirituality, in that both deal with spiritual world or spirits, but one big difference between magic and religions is that religions are well-shod philosophically.
For ex. if you go ask some knowledgeable priest to support his God philosophically, he will have no problem with that, in fact there is no question of yours which could surprise him or catch him unprepared, up to the point where belief in God is absolutely not needed because all can be argumented by logic.
Take for ex. Anselm's ontological argument or Aristotel's argument for God, this is hard to refute logically.
However when it comes to magic, there is almost no philosophy to be found or heard, you can for sure find many sources but no arguments at all.
Of course there are some philosophical books about magic such as "Three Books of Occult Philosophy" but these are several centuries old, there is nothing modern to be found.
This made me wonder, does magic need philosophy?
Of course major reason perhaps why philosophy in magic is undeveloped is because there is no central body and no funding like in organized religions.
Another issue is probably lack of interest or many kinds of magic and rituals.
So, do you think magic needs philosophy and what could be done about that?
Im an example of self learning. Several more exist more powerful than I. I cannot support it philosophically, because im not hip to philosophy, its not one of my favorites nor an area I excelled in. I flunked 19th Century Philosophy because I didn't have a basic philosophy understanding,. Logic yes, and introspection yes, but my comprehension of any of it was piss-poor. I literally had two coached for it, one of which was a grad student with a Bachelors in Philosophy. So no, I cannot support anything philosophical more than some greater force than I exists and has for quite some time.
As for the second part, no comment.
Sure there is, Three Books of Occult Philosophy, The Magus, Plant Spagyrics, The Doctrine and Ritual of High Magic, these all contain philosophy. Perhaps Agrippa said it all. Perhaps he doesn't need your musings on Nietzche or the likes. Not saying I couldn't benefit from your musings, but just saying the greats are called greats for a reason.
The rest, well, I guess if you love phoilosophy nd think there is a place for it, feel free to write on it.
