je ne suis pas du tout d'accord. Votre manière de considérer l'histoire du christianisme ne reflète pas du tout les considérations de cet auteur, qui dit que nous ne pouvons pas comprendre les motivations spirituelles des hommes de cette époque, ce que vous prétendez faire avec des considérations totalement matérialistes.
Vous allez me dire que vous considérez le christianisme comme une trahison, une invention "juive", qui n'a rien à voir avec le néoplatonisme. C'est cependant ignorer la mystique rhénane par exemple ou la pensée d'un Kierkegaard.
Le moyen-âge était chrétien et non dénué de valeurs spirituelles ou sociales (comme les communs).
Writing in French without referring to the very content of the article it is obvious that you just come here to settle score with Laurent in an internal French debate about his courageous work.
L'auteur nous parle des motivations spirituelles de personnes ayant vécu bien avant l'invention du Christianisme et précise clairement que leur lien avec un Dieu situé dans l'éternité n'avait rien à voir avec une chronologie induite par un Dieu comptabilisant après un contrat fondé sur la croyance.
Le soit disant Moyen-âge était-il uniquement Chrétien?
First of all, sorry for the french language, I'm sure you will find the translator ;-)
J'ai écrit en français car je ne suis pas très habitué à écrire en anglais.
Ce n'est pas pour "régler mes comptes dans un débat interne", la preuve c'est que vous connaissez Laurent Guyenot.
Lui affirme juste qu'il suit le même chemin, sans plus d'explication, et je réponds qu'il se trompe.
Un communiste et un catholique peuvent se battre tous deux contre un nazi, mais on ne peut pas dire que c'est pour les mêmes raisons...
Une remarque à propos de votre remarque sur son "courageux travail".
Quel courageux travail ?
- Sur JFK : vous avez parfaitement raison.
- Sur la remise en question de la chronologie de l'histoire?
Il situe l'époque romaine au Moyen-Âge, comme une invention mensongère,
Pourquoi pas ? Mais alors comment s'intègre le néoplatonisme antique dans cette chronologie ?
Elle aussi comme une invention du Moyen-Age ?
- Sur l'origine du christianisme?
Il la considère comme une pure création judaique.
Il se situe comme Nietzsche sur ce point
Or selon moi le christianisme n'est pas une pure destruction du monde Ancien,
il y a un christianisme celtique (Graal, chevalerie) , hellénique (spirituel) , et judaique.
Or Laurent ne voit, selon moi, que le judéo-christianisme, destructeur du monde antique.
C'est pour cela que je pense que son chemin n'est pas le même que celui de l'auteur de ce remarquable texte.
Car je pense que le christianisme a une dimension spirituelle-mystique, certes occultée aujourd'hui mais dont Maitre Ecckart, Tauler, Suso et les mystiques russes sont un exemple.
Dans ce texte Laurent voit:
"After the 1st century CE then, with their successful reclamation of Jerusalem through the tribal consolidation of Jewish identity, as well as scribal fraud and deceit, and bribery to Roman officials, of course, history is no longer merely a method for the recollection, investigation or transmission of significant insights, but testimony to be used in a courtroom. "
et moi je vois:
Our comprehension and understanding of God and metaphysics, our ability to sense or comprehend a reality greater than reality, is surely about more than settling accounts or determining one’s share of the inheritance. Being is much more than merely performing ritual or reciting rites and prayers. The ancients certainly believed so. All of them. From Japan to Gibraltar, this was almost uniformly the case for millennia prior the Roman occupation of the East.
Et je pense que dans le christianisme originel, il y avait une vraie spiritualité sinon les peuple ne l'auraient pas intégré. Ce n'est pas que politique.
Laurent Guyenot est un historien matérialiste qui ne voit que l'aspect politique du christianisme.
Peut-être que l'auteur de ce texte aussi, mais il porte un intérêt pour le néoplatonisme.
Je ne vois pas chez Guyenot un intérêt pour le néoplatonisme.
Forgive me for the typos and misspelling, I should have proof read before sending... Pardonne moi les fautes d'orthographes et de frappes, j'aurais du relire ce que j'ai écris directement avant de l'envoyer.
Je suis aussi Français mais je peux aisément changer de langue à l'écriture. Je ne cherche pas à polémiquer, je suis un clampin, tout comme vous. je n'ai pas de formation universitaire, je suis en revanche très curieux.
J'espère que comme moi, vous venez ici pour vous instruire, éventuellement trouver un espace de débat qu'il nous est impossible de vivre hors de la toile et de Substack de qualité.
C'est donc avec plaisir que je vais vous répondre en espérant que vous ne prendrez pas la mouche si je touche à certaines de vos vaches sacrées/sacred cows.
If Laurent didn't have any interest in neoplatonism, why would he read such a Substack, why would use it to underline his point on his last essay? It appears clearly that with all his flaws, Laurent is searching for the truth. Anyway Phil, if one is serious with neoplatonism he must Practice" and acquire a direct experience of the described realms of existence within the overall scheme of larger reality.
Laurent is courageous because while he is searching, trying to formulate his views while stalking he obviously takes the risk of errors and being attacked.
having read his essays for years now, I have noticed a rare thing:
He is able of admitting having been wrong. He is able to think against himself and entertain different point of view, thus having some kind of bird's eye view.
Maybe you say that he is right on his work on JFK because it goes with your point of view. Fine, but what if another knowledgeable and honest researcher offers another point of view on the subject while usually never shaming to name the Jewish power:
"Il situe l'époque romaine au Moyen-Âge, comme une invention mensongère,
Pourquoi pas ? Mais alors comment s'intègre le néoplatonisme antique dans cette chronologie ?"
Why not ask him this question directly, respectfully? If we were in real life, around a glass of good wine, you just would be delighted to hear for his answer, happy to at last, having a good, meaningful conversation, wouldn't you? Then our differences, our disagreement could be pure joy, couldn't they?
It is indeed a very good question. Trying answering it could be a rewarding challenge for him. Pourquoi ne pas essayer la bienveillance?
As to the fact that he considers Christianity as an Jewish invention, he is not alone in that position, far from it and many have exposed the reasons why so. The latest one in date I heard is this, for instance:
Nietzsche is thus not the only one who questioned the origin of "Christianity". Protestants have recognized the Jewish influence in that role, so much that they put emphasis on the so called "Old Testament".
Let's accept your assertion about a "celtic christianity" or whatever ( I myself have witness an "African christianity" in many different ethnicities and local culture. One can also find that there are different Islamic mystics whether in Indonesia (multiples in fact), Central Asia, Iran, Africa).
What if people couldn't forget all their antic worldviews based on their genuine previous "experiences" of reality of God and insert it in the new framework (Christianity or Islam)? This also because in many cases these Abrahamic religion have been imposed by sheer force and violence, menace or reward of economic advantages to do so.
I don't think so called "Judeo-christianity" really destroy entirely what the people "believed before, just because one can destroy experience of reality. That Experience can take the garment of so called "judeo-Chritianity" or Islam but remain in it's core. It is obvious that in our own countryside, everywhere, people still clang to their practices, experiences, for instance in that case, but I could expend if you want to healing practises:
Jews always say that Catholicism is not pure monotheism but paganism, don't they. In my native town, infertile women used to sit on dedicated rocks to beg for progeny and one can find that kind of practices everywhere in France. Got the point?
Readind Mouraviev, one can learn that Russian Mystic is based on Slavic "experiences" of the reality. that is why Russian Christianism have developed
it's own "color and taste".
The spiritual/mystical dimension is pure experience, being as the author of that most interesting essay says and can take many garments. I even add that one can find the same thing in West Africa.
Le "Christianisme originel", well... Let me quote Bob Marley, "we are sick and tires of your ism, shism...". From my humbe knowledge as a layman, self educated and still wanting to learn, everyday, I don't know what that means.
After Christ/Jesus/Yeshua, there has been an explosion of sects and it took centuries before the dust settled down and pseudo-orthodox church declared to be Christian. One can't brush aside the fact that some even claimed that the Jewish scripture couldn't be reconciled with the Gospels and there has been so many of them before some were considered canonical. Bogomile's influenced so called Cathares late in our own country. Weren't they Christians?
Onece again, if Laurent was only materialist, why would he care about phenomenon like neoplatonism?
Phil, laissez moi finir par un extrait d'un poème et mes meilleurs souhaits à votre égard car ce qui importe, c'est d'éssayer d'être "une bonne personne", humble malgrés nos défauts et passions. Nous sommes ignorants tant que nous n'avons pas experimenté le feu de l'Amour (French version first and then English one as a shorter quote) :
"If Laurent wasn't interested in Neoplatonism, why would he have read such a Substack, and why would he have used it to support his argument in his latest essay?"
Well, precisely, he used it to support his own thesis, that Jahvism is a "religion of contract" and not the Neoplatonic part.
Laurent said:
Jews have a covenant theology, which means they think they have contract with God, a contract binding
to God himself. Their history is a contractual claim. The point is well made by substacker Brado. The Torah, he writes, must be understood primarily “as a means to fabricate a claim to inheritance, to primacy
and precedence, assembled to leverage position under Macedonian and Roman arbitration.”
I agree with him, but does that mean Laurent is a Neoplatonist?
"It is clear that, despite his flaws, Laurent is searching for the truth."
I'm not saying the opposite.
"He places the Roman era in the Middle Ages, as a mendacious invention, why not?" But then how does ancient Neoplatonism fit into this chronology?
Why not ask him the question directly, respectfully? (...) Why not try being kind?
Why claim that I am not benevolent?
Laurent writes: "We are following the same path."
That he and the author follow the same path with regard to the contractual aspect of Judaism is fine, but why should Laurent, in stating this, not point out that, in view of his work, he does not follow the path of Neoplatonism?
In my opinion, the author of this text is asking the question:
How can we rediscover a truly spiritual path?
In our postmodern era, can we return to the time of Neoplatonism without distorting or imitating it?
He dismisses Judaism and Christianity as inappropriate.
I see no problem with that.
What is presented here is the heart of the text:
“The Futility of Post-Modern Revolt”
"If we accept the conceptions of time, belief and history are not only wrong, plainly wrong, but harmful,
then what comes next? What is left?
The inexpressible, mysterious yet intuitively knowable majesty of God, as well as the unity of existence
and the primacy of virtue to both happiness and individual salvation, stands at the heart of Neoplatonism,
as well as at the highest level of many other religious and philosophical systems."
Laurent's problem is not "how to rediscover an authentic spirituality?", but "Shouldn't we revise our entire history, the history of Christianity, the chronology (recentism)?"
I'm not criticizing it, and I find it very interesting.
the author says: "then what comes next? What is left?"
Not Laurent.
So when Laurent says "we are following the same path", I disagree.
Laurent's approach is historical, that of a spiritual author.
Now, this does not detract from Laurent's qualities.
Laurent does not provide any evidence to support his claim.
I still have the right to say that I don't think like him, even though he says this without justifying himself.
You will notice that, contrary to what you said, I justified my remarks, and it is not a "settling of scores".
Laurent is an author. If I am not familiar with his work and I like the author's text on Substrack, I can say to myself, "Hey, I'll read Laurent Guyenot since they follow the same path."
"Well, precisely, he used it to support his own thesis, that Jahvism is a "religion of contract" and not the Neoplatonic part."
Laurent has never claimed to be a neo-platonist, he just appreciate the fact that Jahvism is a contractual religion. When Christianity defined itself in it's orthodoxy it had no neo-platonic elements. At that points, there were clearly many groups who did not accept the orthodox tenets. And up to this day, many oriental Churches have never accepted the Catholic or Orthodoxe vision on the nature of Christ either.
Neo-platonism is an epiphenomenon is Christianity as well as in Islam.
From memory, Laurent underlined the fact that Jesus was an important feature, more like Marcion.
The writer of this Substack doesn't consider himself as a neo-platonist, which by the way is a scholarly definition and not a faith per se.
"Laurent's problem is not "how to rediscover an authentic spirituality?", but "Shouldn't we revise our entire history, the history of Christianity, the chronology (recentism)?""
That is your own task Phil! Why wait for someone like Larent to help you. His task has been to demonstrate that Christianity is a Jahvist religion which only ask for faith and not knowledge.
Of course you have every right to criticize anyone but Laurent doesn't have the pretention to show you le light and the way, that is your task alone.
Ok , you don't settle score proper.
I wish that you find your own path to direct knowledge.
I regret the fact that we have this conversation online and not in real life.
"History and it’s effects, we" The whole its/it's thing is one of English's many baroque ornaments, not to say bêtiseries. I still often get it wrong myself.
Thanks man, so many typos and errors throughout, I have just gotten to revising it. I find I work more efficiently after I make it live, forces me to tidy it up.
Thank you, still revising things a bit but I would like to continue on with analysis of Neoplatonism, Pythagoreanism and many other movements as related to modernity. Excited to start First Alcibiades but want to spend just a bit more time on Iamblichus and the Third Century, a fascinating era.
Hi Brado, you are quoted here: https://www.unz.com/article/jews-against-rome-forever/
Thank for the quote, that's how I discovered that most interesting work
Very inspiring! We’re travelling on the same path.
je ne suis pas du tout d'accord. Votre manière de considérer l'histoire du christianisme ne reflète pas du tout les considérations de cet auteur, qui dit que nous ne pouvons pas comprendre les motivations spirituelles des hommes de cette époque, ce que vous prétendez faire avec des considérations totalement matérialistes.
Vous allez me dire que vous considérez le christianisme comme une trahison, une invention "juive", qui n'a rien à voir avec le néoplatonisme. C'est cependant ignorer la mystique rhénane par exemple ou la pensée d'un Kierkegaard.
Le moyen-âge était chrétien et non dénué de valeurs spirituelles ou sociales (comme les communs).
There had been similar attitude in the Muslim world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hdgsRdbZfE
You are right to consider that among the Christians, some individuals challenged the christian dogma :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEPEmqpBdao
Writing in French without referring to the very content of the article it is obvious that you just come here to settle score with Laurent in an internal French debate about his courageous work.
Phil,
L'auteur nous parle des motivations spirituelles de personnes ayant vécu bien avant l'invention du Christianisme et précise clairement que leur lien avec un Dieu situé dans l'éternité n'avait rien à voir avec une chronologie induite par un Dieu comptabilisant après un contrat fondé sur la croyance.
Le soit disant Moyen-âge était-il uniquement Chrétien?
First of all, sorry for the french language, I'm sure you will find the translator ;-)
J'ai écrit en français car je ne suis pas très habitué à écrire en anglais.
Ce n'est pas pour "régler mes comptes dans un débat interne", la preuve c'est que vous connaissez Laurent Guyenot.
Lui affirme juste qu'il suit le même chemin, sans plus d'explication, et je réponds qu'il se trompe.
Un communiste et un catholique peuvent se battre tous deux contre un nazi, mais on ne peut pas dire que c'est pour les mêmes raisons...
Une remarque à propos de votre remarque sur son "courageux travail".
Quel courageux travail ?
- Sur JFK : vous avez parfaitement raison.
- Sur la remise en question de la chronologie de l'histoire?
Il situe l'époque romaine au Moyen-Âge, comme une invention mensongère,
Pourquoi pas ? Mais alors comment s'intègre le néoplatonisme antique dans cette chronologie ?
Elle aussi comme une invention du Moyen-Age ?
- Sur l'origine du christianisme?
Il la considère comme une pure création judaique.
Il se situe comme Nietzsche sur ce point
Or selon moi le christianisme n'est pas une pure destruction du monde Ancien,
il y a un christianisme celtique (Graal, chevalerie) , hellénique (spirituel) , et judaique.
Or Laurent ne voit, selon moi, que le judéo-christianisme, destructeur du monde antique.
C'est pour cela que je pense que son chemin n'est pas le même que celui de l'auteur de ce remarquable texte.
Car je pense que le christianisme a une dimension spirituelle-mystique, certes occultée aujourd'hui mais dont Maitre Ecckart, Tauler, Suso et les mystiques russes sont un exemple.
Dans ce texte Laurent voit:
"After the 1st century CE then, with their successful reclamation of Jerusalem through the tribal consolidation of Jewish identity, as well as scribal fraud and deceit, and bribery to Roman officials, of course, history is no longer merely a method for the recollection, investigation or transmission of significant insights, but testimony to be used in a courtroom. "
et moi je vois:
Our comprehension and understanding of God and metaphysics, our ability to sense or comprehend a reality greater than reality, is surely about more than settling accounts or determining one’s share of the inheritance. Being is much more than merely performing ritual or reciting rites and prayers. The ancients certainly believed so. All of them. From Japan to Gibraltar, this was almost uniformly the case for millennia prior the Roman occupation of the East.
Et je pense que dans le christianisme originel, il y avait une vraie spiritualité sinon les peuple ne l'auraient pas intégré. Ce n'est pas que politique.
Laurent Guyenot est un historien matérialiste qui ne voit que l'aspect politique du christianisme.
Peut-être que l'auteur de ce texte aussi, mais il porte un intérêt pour le néoplatonisme.
Je ne vois pas chez Guyenot un intérêt pour le néoplatonisme.
Forgive me for the typos and misspelling, I should have proof read before sending... Pardonne moi les fautes d'orthographes et de frappes, j'aurais du relire ce que j'ai écris directement avant de l'envoyer.
Bonjour Phil,
Je suis aussi Français mais je peux aisément changer de langue à l'écriture. Je ne cherche pas à polémiquer, je suis un clampin, tout comme vous. je n'ai pas de formation universitaire, je suis en revanche très curieux.
https://thorstenjpattberg.substack.com/p/pseudoscience
J'espère que comme moi, vous venez ici pour vous instruire, éventuellement trouver un espace de débat qu'il nous est impossible de vivre hors de la toile et de Substack de qualité.
C'est donc avec plaisir que je vais vous répondre en espérant que vous ne prendrez pas la mouche si je touche à certaines de vos vaches sacrées/sacred cows.
If Laurent didn't have any interest in neoplatonism, why would he read such a Substack, why would use it to underline his point on his last essay? It appears clearly that with all his flaws, Laurent is searching for the truth. Anyway Phil, if one is serious with neoplatonism he must Practice" and acquire a direct experience of the described realms of existence within the overall scheme of larger reality.
Laurent is courageous because while he is searching, trying to formulate his views while stalking he obviously takes the risk of errors and being attacked.
having read his essays for years now, I have noticed a rare thing:
He is able of admitting having been wrong. He is able to think against himself and entertain different point of view, thus having some kind of bird's eye view.
Maybe you say that he is right on his work on JFK because it goes with your point of view. Fine, but what if another knowledgeable and honest researcher offers another point of view on the subject while usually never shaming to name the Jewish power:
https://moneycircus.substack.com/p/jfk-and-six-decades-of-assassination
"Il situe l'époque romaine au Moyen-Âge, comme une invention mensongère,
Pourquoi pas ? Mais alors comment s'intègre le néoplatonisme antique dans cette chronologie ?"
Why not ask him this question directly, respectfully? If we were in real life, around a glass of good wine, you just would be delighted to hear for his answer, happy to at last, having a good, meaningful conversation, wouldn't you? Then our differences, our disagreement could be pure joy, couldn't they?
It is indeed a very good question. Trying answering it could be a rewarding challenge for him. Pourquoi ne pas essayer la bienveillance?
As to the Middle Ages, what are we talking about?
https://fr.scribd.com/document/707846235/Le-Moyen-Age-une-imposture-Jacques-Heers
As to the fact that he considers Christianity as an Jewish invention, he is not alone in that position, far from it and many have exposed the reasons why so. The latest one in date I heard is this, for instance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Reh-ADlllUM
Nietzsche is thus not the only one who questioned the origin of "Christianity". Protestants have recognized the Jewish influence in that role, so much that they put emphasis on the so called "Old Testament".
Let's accept your assertion about a "celtic christianity" or whatever ( I myself have witness an "African christianity" in many different ethnicities and local culture. One can also find that there are different Islamic mystics whether in Indonesia (multiples in fact), Central Asia, Iran, Africa).
What if people couldn't forget all their antic worldviews based on their genuine previous "experiences" of reality of God and insert it in the new framework (Christianity or Islam)? This also because in many cases these Abrahamic religion have been imposed by sheer force and violence, menace or reward of economic advantages to do so.
I don't think so called "Judeo-christianity" really destroy entirely what the people "believed before, just because one can destroy experience of reality. That Experience can take the garment of so called "judeo-Chritianity" or Islam but remain in it's core. It is obvious that in our own countryside, everywhere, people still clang to their practices, experiences, for instance in that case, but I could expend if you want to healing practises:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niRGgXmVTgA
Jews always say that Catholicism is not pure monotheism but paganism, don't they. In my native town, infertile women used to sit on dedicated rocks to beg for progeny and one can find that kind of practices everywhere in France. Got the point?
Readind Mouraviev, one can learn that Russian Mystic is based on Slavic "experiences" of the reality. that is why Russian Christianism have developed
it's own "color and taste".
The spiritual/mystical dimension is pure experience, being as the author of that most interesting essay says and can take many garments. I even add that one can find the same thing in West Africa.
Le "Christianisme originel", well... Let me quote Bob Marley, "we are sick and tires of your ism, shism...". From my humbe knowledge as a layman, self educated and still wanting to learn, everyday, I don't know what that means.
After Christ/Jesus/Yeshua, there has been an explosion of sects and it took centuries before the dust settled down and pseudo-orthodox church declared to be Christian. One can't brush aside the fact that some even claimed that the Jewish scripture couldn't be reconciled with the Gospels and there has been so many of them before some were considered canonical. Bogomile's influenced so called Cathares late in our own country. Weren't they Christians?
Onece again, if Laurent was only materialist, why would he care about phenomenon like neoplatonism?
Phil, laissez moi finir par un extrait d'un poème et mes meilleurs souhaits à votre égard car ce qui importe, c'est d'éssayer d'être "une bonne personne", humble malgrés nos défauts et passions. Nous sommes ignorants tant que nous n'avons pas experimenté le feu de l'Amour (French version first and then English one as a shorter quote) :
"Quoi de plus surprenant
Qu’une gazelle voilée
Montrant un jujubier,
Et faisant signe de ses paupières !
***
Une gazelle dont le pâturage
Se trouve entre côtes et entrailles !
Ah quel prodige !
Un jardin au milieu de feux !
***
Mon cœur est devenu capable
D’accueillir toute forme.
Il est pâturage pour gazelles
Et abbaye pour moines !
***
Il est un temple pour idoles
Et la Ka‘ba pour qui en fait le tour,
Il est les Tables de la Thora
Et aussi les feuillets du Coran !
***
La religion que je professe
Est celle de l’Amour.
Partout où ses montures se tournent
L’amour est ma religion et ma foi !"
Pour le poème dans son entièreté :
https://isias.info/spip.php?article1801#EIN
-------
My heart has become capable of every form:
"it is a pasture for gazelles and a convent for Christian monks,
And a temple for idols and the pilgrim's Ka‘bah
and the tables of the Torah and the book of the Qur’an.
I follow the religion of Love: whatever way Love's camels take,
that is my religion and my faith."
Hello Bugey Libre,
"If Laurent wasn't interested in Neoplatonism, why would he have read such a Substack, and why would he have used it to support his argument in his latest essay?"
Well, precisely, he used it to support his own thesis, that Jahvism is a "religion of contract" and not the Neoplatonic part.
Laurent said:
Jews have a covenant theology, which means they think they have contract with God, a contract binding
to God himself. Their history is a contractual claim. The point is well made by substacker Brado. The Torah, he writes, must be understood primarily “as a means to fabricate a claim to inheritance, to primacy
and precedence, assembled to leverage position under Macedonian and Roman arbitration.”
I agree with him, but does that mean Laurent is a Neoplatonist?
"It is clear that, despite his flaws, Laurent is searching for the truth."
I'm not saying the opposite.
"He places the Roman era in the Middle Ages, as a mendacious invention, why not?" But then how does ancient Neoplatonism fit into this chronology?
Why not ask him the question directly, respectfully? (...) Why not try being kind?
Why claim that I am not benevolent?
Laurent writes: "We are following the same path."
That he and the author follow the same path with regard to the contractual aspect of Judaism is fine, but why should Laurent, in stating this, not point out that, in view of his work, he does not follow the path of Neoplatonism?
In my opinion, the author of this text is asking the question:
How can we rediscover a truly spiritual path?
In our postmodern era, can we return to the time of Neoplatonism without distorting or imitating it?
He dismisses Judaism and Christianity as inappropriate.
I see no problem with that.
What is presented here is the heart of the text:
“The Futility of Post-Modern Revolt”
"If we accept the conceptions of time, belief and history are not only wrong, plainly wrong, but harmful,
then what comes next? What is left?
The inexpressible, mysterious yet intuitively knowable majesty of God, as well as the unity of existence
and the primacy of virtue to both happiness and individual salvation, stands at the heart of Neoplatonism,
as well as at the highest level of many other religious and philosophical systems."
Laurent's problem is not "how to rediscover an authentic spirituality?", but "Shouldn't we revise our entire history, the history of Christianity, the chronology (recentism)?"
I'm not criticizing it, and I find it very interesting.
the author says: "then what comes next? What is left?"
Not Laurent.
So when Laurent says "we are following the same path", I disagree.
Laurent's approach is historical, that of a spiritual author.
Now, this does not detract from Laurent's qualities.
Laurent does not provide any evidence to support his claim.
I still have the right to say that I don't think like him, even though he says this without justifying himself.
You will notice that, contrary to what you said, I justified my remarks, and it is not a "settling of scores".
Laurent is an author. If I am not familiar with his work and I like the author's text on Substrack, I can say to myself, "Hey, I'll read Laurent Guyenot since they follow the same path."
Well, I don't think that's entirely the case...
Bonjour Phil,
"Well, precisely, he used it to support his own thesis, that Jahvism is a "religion of contract" and not the Neoplatonic part."
Laurent has never claimed to be a neo-platonist, he just appreciate the fact that Jahvism is a contractual religion. When Christianity defined itself in it's orthodoxy it had no neo-platonic elements. At that points, there were clearly many groups who did not accept the orthodox tenets. And up to this day, many oriental Churches have never accepted the Catholic or Orthodoxe vision on the nature of Christ either.
Neo-platonism is an epiphenomenon is Christianity as well as in Islam.
From memory, Laurent underlined the fact that Jesus was an important feature, more like Marcion.
The writer of this Substack doesn't consider himself as a neo-platonist, which by the way is a scholarly definition and not a faith per se.
"Laurent's problem is not "how to rediscover an authentic spirituality?", but "Shouldn't we revise our entire history, the history of Christianity, the chronology (recentism)?""
That is your own task Phil! Why wait for someone like Larent to help you. His task has been to demonstrate that Christianity is a Jahvist religion which only ask for faith and not knowledge.
Of course you have every right to criticize anyone but Laurent doesn't have the pretention to show you le light and the way, that is your task alone.
Ok , you don't settle score proper.
I wish that you find your own path to direct knowledge.
I regret the fact that we have this conversation online and not in real life.
Respectfully
This is such an interesting analysis and take on the history of religion that I haven’t seen before. Thank you
“Jan assman” hehehe 🤭
An excellent read. I genuinely am looking forward to the next! Good writing too. I admire the attention to the context of Chalcis.
"History and it’s effects, we" The whole its/it's thing is one of English's many baroque ornaments, not to say bêtiseries. I still often get it wrong myself.
Outstanding work. I look forward to the next installment.
Thanks man, so many typos and errors throughout, I have just gotten to revising it. I find I work more efficiently after I make it live, forces me to tidy it up.
Thank you, still revising things a bit but I would like to continue on with analysis of Neoplatonism, Pythagoreanism and many other movements as related to modernity. Excited to start First Alcibiades but want to spend just a bit more time on Iamblichus and the Third Century, a fascinating era.