It is a good question whether esoteric ideas solve all problems. — Jack Cummins

Lol! No, I meant your particular problems. In particular, that you seemed to be supposing that what I would call, and would have you call, esoteric ideas constitute any kind of knowledge at all. This exemplified in any claim of knowledge of God. Or another way, ideas can be personal; knowledge, on the other hand, implies a public aspect. You have an idea? Go in peace. You claim knowledge? Stand and deliver!

The whole question of personal knowledge in relation to the ones of shared ones is one of central importance. We could ask to what extent were ideas about the underlying aspects of esoteric knowledge meant to be applicable to all human beings, even though some people were seen to be more capable of knowing, or of potential enlightenment?

This seems to embrace a whole spectrum arising from what was could be perceived as esoteric knowledge or understanding. Do we have varying degrees of potential understanding, or is that in itself constructed within social and cultural contexts? Is knowledge and its constructive purely spiritual, in terms of being beyond daily life, or is to be seen as arising from life, and the political aspects of knowledge?

There's just no meaningful communication to be had with someone who claims to have an exalted epistemic (or other) status. (This goes for some philosophy professors and scientists as well.) — baker

How self-assured does that claim need to be for you to abandon communication? If someone came up to you and said "Hi, I'm a Buddhist Oshō" would that be sufficient claim to exalted epistemic status for you to just walk away? Or do they have to actually say "...and I know things you don't"?

the underlying aspects of esoteric knowledge — Jack Cummins

I disqualify "esoteric knowledge" as mumbo-jumbo until and unless you give some substantial definition. What is it?

But that is the big question in itself. I don't really know if esoteric knowledge is mumbo jumbo or not. My understanding is that it is about secret or hidden knowledge. While I enjoy reading literature of this kind, I have to admit that it is open to questions. We probably need a whole exploration of the question of esoteric knowledge and the way it stands within philosophy.

I am sure that some of the most central writers in esoteric philosophy would have been unable to engage in this debate. I believe that there are many faults in esotericism, but at the same time there are probably shortcomings in the philosophy of our times.

I have mentioned Rudolf Steiner a few times, because I have read his writings, but I really don't know how to frame his ideas within the context of current philosophy. I don't know where the fault lies. Is it within esotericism or within philosophy' Who is in the position of being the supreme judge of ranking of ideas in importance?

Or, it could be that these ideas may remain as potentially important ones within a wider perspective of philosophy. We could ask who are are or on what basis can we determine the criteria for determining what topics, or which writers are to be considered as worthy for exploration?. On what basis will those in positions of noteworthy power make the decisions about the questions and writers to be included or excluded within discussion? How do we and, who has power, in determining these boundaries to which we feel bound to adhere to?

But, it may be important, because it is about what areas are seen as worth considering at all within the shared domain of knowledge.

I think that you are maybe wishing to pursue more of a discussion about power and knowledge within philosophy, mainly in a secular context. However, even if my own comment is considered as irrelevant, I think that it does at least pose the question of what do we mean by esoteric? — Jack Cummins

I think that's a fair theme. To the degree that it's mine to decide, I like open discussions. So talking about what we mean by 'esoteric' is fair game. I like the original inner circle metaphor. 'Only for the in-crowd' seems to get it. So it's elitist, but so perhaps, in its own way, is the anti-elitist elitism of critical reason, which I identify as my club, my inner circle (and I think most here also do.)

I disqualify "esoteric knowledge" as mumbo-jumbo until and unless you give some substantial definition. What is it? — tim wood

Gnosis would be another example of esoteric knowledge. Isn't the function of this type of knowledge a realisation that brings the knower closer to higher consciousness? In order to accept this view one needs believe in transcendent wisdom which by definition would be at odds with a scientific worldview. What exactly is the benefit of receiving transcendent wisdom (is it to teach?) and how can we tell the difference between someone how has acquired this or is pulling our leg, or wrong?

That this is the domain of the non-academic. — baker

I think we agree on guilds and communities of skill. We also agree that the 'ideal florist' (ideal sage) doesn't need to advertise or evangelize. The trouble for me is that it's as if your are putting car mechanics and sages in the same bin. Actually I like the idea myself, but I don't think a certain kind defender of esoteric knowledge (Wayf, for instance) has mere skill in mind but something more exalted.

We are pluralistic and we welcome variety: as long as it is superficial.
The process of enslavement is complete once the enslaved believe themselves to be free. We are now our own thought-police. We actually do believe that there is one right way to do things. — baker

I quite agree that we have a 'meta-religion' that keeps the therefore-personalized religions in their cages. The one right way that there is no one right way but this one. (This is something like Spengler's 'ethical socialism' or Kojeve's 'end of history.' I could join you in a gripe about the ways of the world, but I feel about as free as I can hope to feel given the history of the world. If people are given freedom, they'll use it create chains and bind themselves in tribes.

You think it's stopped rotting by now? — baker

I think it's one of the less stinky places.

Knowledge I hold to be like a publicly offered stock. In being offered, that is, it must conform to rules. Thus for knowledge. If you just claim to have ideas, then the rules of knowledge don't apply. E.g., ideas about God? Those can be good, informative, and useful. Knowledge of God? That's a different matter. Agree?

Knowledge, then, is always knowledge of something. If no something, then it's ideas masquerading as knowledge, usually because someone is trying to sell you something. As such, a fraud and worth calling out wherever found.

The Buddha claimed or was said to claim that on becoming enlightened he could remember his past five thousand lives. This is certainly a claim to possession of esoteric knowledge.

Don't forget about those teleological evolutionists... OK ok, they are pretty rare actually (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Bergson come to mind). — emancipate

Good point. I suppose the issue is whether it's intellectually 'cool' or not to talk about evolution going somewhere, building up to something. What gets one whispered about as a flake or a fake? Anecdotally, I don't know biology very well, and I find it plausible that more could be discovered or established that goes 'against the grain' of the puke of chance metaphor that seems dominant. But I'd be slow to emphasize it, since I don't at all want to be associated with ID types. I just don't know, and I know that I don't know. It's just reasonable to my current state of ignorance that we'll keep updating our theories and might be surprised at some point and experience a paradigm shift.

Most would probably be able to reach a surface level understanding of his theories. To reach the level of understanding of Einstein though, would likely be beyond most people's intellective capabilities.

Some individuals are able to reach levels of understanding that others cannot, through hard work and dedication, and possibly also genetic disposition. — Tzeentch

:up:

I see your general point. We might agree that some kind of 'continuous' version of esotericism is involved in the genetic dispositions. Some unspecified amount of inborn knack could be one factor among the others.

Note that special relativity is presented in undergrad physics book while GR, on the other hand, seems to be reserved for grad students, given its greater mathematical complexity.

How do we and, who has power, in determining these boundaries to which we feel bound to adhere to? — Jack Cummins

:up:

It seems to me that reason is a self-criticizing and self-inventing faculty, that the boundaries aren't fixed. As one poster said, logic is a gentleman's agreement. Some thinkers have tried to say once and for all what it is to be reasonable, but they tend to accidentally exclude their own definition.

it's ideas masquerading as knowledge, usually because someone is trying to sell you something. As such, a fraud and worth calling out wherever found. — tim wood

I hear you but I imagine that even the term 'knowledge' is inadequate for the kind of thing we are attempting to describe. Revealed wisdom is another term used. Again inadequate. If you take as your starting position that anything which can't be demonstrated or described in rational terms isn't a thing then the idea of esoteric knowledge is probably never going to convince.

Which is why I have generally defaulted to: show me the difference it makes? Show me a life transformed. The people I have met who were all about the contemplative life, searching for mystical insights were often in pretty poor shape. Jealousy, anxiety, substance use, vanity - were prevalent. The elitism inherent in the lives of many spiritually attuned folk is interesting too. People trying to demonstrate how much closer they were to understanding Taoism or Zen, or better at mediation, or more in touch with 'genuine' Gnosis - looking down on ordinary people who were wallowing in ignorant materialism, etc, etc.

Are the sages any different? And how would we know?

show me the difference it makes? — Tom Storm

Amen! But the distinction between ideas and things still holds. Ideas can, have, do, and will make differences, but for all that they're not things. I'm on about usage and connotation, at the end meaning and significance.

Perhaps the "esoteric" in esoteric knowledge is rightly understood as meaning knowledge of ideas, meaning not knowledge of anything at all, hence not actually knowledge. This transfers bodily into thinking about arithmetic. We can talk about knowing arithmetic, but really mean being familiar with and accepting a body of ideas, there being no thing in or about arithmetic to actually know.

Which is why I have generally defaulted to: show me the difference it makes? Show me a life transformed. The people I have met who were all about the contemplative life, searching for mystical insights were often in pretty poor shape. Jealousy, anxiety, substance use, vanity - were prevalent. The elitism inherent in the lives of many spiritually attuned folk is interesting too. People trying to demonstrate how much closer they were to understanding Taoism or Zen, or better at mediation, or more in touch with 'genuine' Gnosis - looking down on ordinary people who were wallowing in ignorant materialism, etc, etc. — Tom Storm

That's my personal experience too of those talking about esoteric matters. I allow for the possibility of the relatively real thing, but I'm inclined to expect them to take it all metaphorically, to be beyond language not in some indecipherable sense but to see that it's more about a way of living than a way of talking or thinking (embodied virtue-as-skill rather than metaphysical knowledge.)

Gnosis would be another example of esoteric knowledge. Isn't the function of this type of knowledge a realisation that brings the knower closer to higher consciousness? — Tom Storm

Why "higher consciousness"? Why not instead 'altered consciousness', which we know is possible courtesy of psychedelics. If it is possible with psychedelics, then why not via other means?

What is "the knower" knowing when in such altered states? From my own experience I would say there may be creative, poetic insight, visionary seeing, but that nothing determinable, discursive is known. If a sage can teach you anything it might be how to alter your consciousness, and that could have value if that is your aim. If you enter those states you will certainly see things in a radically different way.

Perhaps the "esoteric" in esoteric knowledge is rightly understood as meaning knowledge of ideas, meaning not knowledge of anything at all, hence not actually knowledge. — tim wood

I can't quite follow this one, Tim. Can you expand on knowledge of ideas? I have assumed that esoteric means that which cannot be described but is understood as a kind of revealed wisdom.

Why "higher consciousness"? Why not instead 'altered consciousness', which we know is possible courtesy of psychedelics. If it is possible with psychedelics, then why not via other means? — Janus

I picked 'higher' because that is how people often describe it and the literature often talks about levels of understanding. It is hierarchical. I personally think all our terms are inadequate. What exactly does one accomplish using psychedelics? Does this count as knowledge or is it an 'experience' courtesy of some chemistry? I do think it may be possible to create this kind of effect without substances. But what does this give us - an affordable recreation opportunity when we can't afford to travel?

What exactly does one accomplish using psychedelics? Does this count as knowledge or is it an 'experience' courtesy of some chemistry? I do think it may be possible to create this kind of effect without substances. But what does this give us - an affordable recreation opportunity when we can't afford to travel? — Tom Storm

I think expereinece with psychedelics (and meditation, the arts, fasting and other practices) can alter our ways of seeing. These altered ways often seem "exalted", "epiphanic", "numinous", and so on. Do they point to anything determinate such as an afterlife, a spiritual realm or the like? They may produce such intimations, but there cannot be any rational justification for such beliefs to be found therein it seems.

I think expereinece with psychedelics (and meditation, the arts, fasting and other practices) can alter our ways of seeing. — Janus

As you suggest, altering our ways of seeing can be done in a million ways. The trick may be in which options not to choose. There's almost nothing that doesn't have this capacity - owing a dog alters your way of seeing. Having a child. Going to war.

I met a man 20 years ago who was the most optimistic, buoyant and kind person I have ever met. He'd lost a leg 10 years earlier in a bike accident. I asked him how he remained so positive. He said loosing his leg was the best thing that ever happened to him. Before then he had been morose and a heavy drinker. Losing his leg made him confront some difficult truths about the preciousness of life and, because he didn't die in the accident, the misfortune functioned as an aphrodisiac for living. I would not recommend that people who are morose and depressed go out and loose a leg. But that might be the lesson.

I see that you emphasise esoteric knowledge as being for the 'inner circle', but I am a little unclear what you see as being the purpose of such knowledge. It seems a little confusing to have esoteric knowledge unless it is in the context of some larger system. I am saying that because my own reading of esoteric ideas has been as aspects of specific traditions, like Christianity or Buddhism.

If it is just knowledge with no deeper element, what value is it for the individual or for anyone else at all. I am sure that you see the esoteric as having benefits, but I am a bit confused about your understanding of your understanding of the basis of such knowledge and its role.

I see that you emphasise esoteric knowledge as being for the 'inner circle', but I am a little unclear what you see as being the purpose of such knowledge. — Jack Cummins

I'm more on the side of universalized critical thinking and against esotericism, though I do think there are reasonable ways to think about the esoteric. A naturalized version of the inner circle is any kind of subculture that one has to feel one's way in to. The strong version seems to include some kind of non-conceptual non-universal knowledge that's not just skill or the emotional grip on a metaphor.

As you suggest, altering our ways of seeing can be done in a million ways. The trick may be in which options not to choose. There's almost nothing that doesn't have this capacity - owing a dog alters your way of seeing. Having a child. Going to war. — Tom Storm

:up:

That makes it a little clearer, although I am not sure that ideas which are considered as esoteric are ones which all people would wish to understand. So, it may not just be about those who have knowledge which is regarded as esoteric keeping their views from others but about the wider population not wishing to know the esoteric,and it being excluded. So, I am suggesting that rather than the powerful holding onto it, in some ways it can also be knowledge which is excluded, or cast aside. In other words, it is questionable whether it is esoteric because it serves the powerful, or because it contradicts it.

We can think of times when priests were in power. Then the cynic/critic could understand esoteric truths as the ideology of the ruling class. 'We rule rightfully, since we are the twice-born or the three-eyed.' In these days, where do-it-yourself religion is the norm, it's more an issue of how esoteric types fit into a 'rational' conversation & the kind of rhetorical moves they have to make to do so, to not come off as evangelists or irrationalists. IMO, it's not edgy or disagreeable to defend esoteric 'knowledge' as potentially helpful metaphors or stories (to grasp it as literature.) Nor is it taboo to talk about a lifestyle community in which certain words take on meanings inaccessible to the outside (because even the kids have their slang, right?) Perhaps the issue is just the perceived arrogance. 'I see a higher level of reality.' 'Prove it.' 'Well, you'll need 7 years and 77 levels to get there, but trust me, it's worth it.'

What's more plausible to me is that someone is just cool (magnanimous, un-resentful, playful , flexible,...) and maybe you finally talk to them and fish out some of their influences, but they don't need you to recognize them (beyond the usual good vibe we all appreciate) & have nothing to sell. Their way of being and doing speaks for itself, might as well be the thing itself, tho there's nothing wrong with talking this stuff, because it's fun...it's also a way to celebrate and consolidate the 'I'm OK, You're OK' vibe.

In Plato's Symposium Socrates says the difference between a sage and a philosopher (Ancient Greek: φιλόσοφος, meaning lover of wisdom) was that the sage has what the philosopher seeks. While analyzing the concept of love, Socrates concludes love is that which lacks the object it seeks. Therefore, the philosopher does not have the wisdom sought, while the sage, on the other hand, does not love or seek wisdom, for it is already possessed.

Seems to indicate that ‘the sage’ is superior even to Socrates (and by implication Plato and Aristotle also). — Wayfarer

There is no Socratic dialogue with a sage. It is not that the sage is superior to Socrates but rather that elenchus reveals that no one who professed wisdom or had the reputation for wisdom was wiser than Socrates, and Socrates was wiser than others in that he knew that he did not know.

It should be noted that the image of the philosopher in the Republic is at odds with the philosopher as the lover in pursuit of wisdom. The philosopher of the Republic possessed the wisdom that that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle sought. He exists only in speech, only in poetic images.

There is another important use of the term 'esoteric' as laid out in great detail in Arthur M. Melzer's "Philosophy Between the Lines".

Philosophical esotericism—the practice of communicating one’s unorthodox thoughts “between the lines”—was a common practice until the end of the eighteenth century. The famous Encyclopédie of Diderot, for instance, not only discusses this practice in over twenty different articles, but admits to employing it itself. The history of Western thought contains hundreds of such statements by major philosophers testifying to the use of esoteric writing in their own work or others’. Despite this long and well-documented history, however, esotericism is often dismissed today as a rare occurrence. But by ignoring esotericism, we risk cutting ourselves off from a full understanding of Western philosophical thought. — Melzer

Examples from throughout the history of Western philosophy are given here: https://press.uchicago.edu/sites/melzer/index.html

"between the lines"
:up:

Isn't the function of this type of knowledge a realisation that brings the knower closer to higher consciousness? In order to accept this view one needs believe in transcendent wisdom which by definition would be at odds with a scientific worldview. — Tom Storm

I don't know if generically gnostic beliefs are at odds with science at all. There's a strong streak of dissident spirituality running through the history of science - hermeticism is often mentioned. Many scientists started out seeking a vision of the unity of the cosmos, whether or not they obtained it.

What exactly is the benefit of receiving transcendent wisdom — Tom Storm

In Buddhist texts, the pursuit of gain is discouraged - ‘ no gaining idea’. The Buddha is said to have said ‘I have realised the supreme enlightenment and have gained nothing thereby’.

The philosopher of the Republic possessed the wisdom that that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle sought. He exists only in speech, only in poetic images. — Fooloso4

There were no actual sages?

Several of the schools of Hellenistic philosophy have the sage as a featured figure. Karl Ludwig Michelet wrote that "Greek religion culminated with its true god, the sage"; Pierre Hadot develops this idea, stating that "the moment philosophers achieve a rational conception of God based on the model of the sage, Greece surpasses its mythical representation of its gods." Indeed, the actions of the sage are propounded to be how a god would act in the same situation.

by ignoring esotericism, we risk cutting ourselves off from a full understanding of Western philosophical thought. — Melzer

That would never happen. Not in a million years. Everyone is aware of that.