Political quietism in Islam?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_quietism_in_Islam

Quietism in Christian philosophy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietism_(Christian_philosophy)

Quietism in philosophy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietism_(philosophy)

Quietism in philosophy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietism_(philosophy) — fishfry

That one. :_)

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one ought to remain silent.

I always felt some sympathy for poor Madame Guyon.

The "Quietist" heresy was seen to consist of wrongly elevating "contemplation" over "meditation", intellectual stillness over vocal prayer, and interior passivity over pious action in an account of mystical prayer, spiritual growth and union with God (one in which, the accusation ran, there existed the possibility of achieving a sinless state and union with the Christian Godhead).

I recall reading that there was a similar case concerning a Spanish priest who fell foul of the feared General Torquemada of the Inquisition, on account of recommending 'interior stillness' in a manner reminiscent of today's mindfulness meditation training.

As far as the Church was concerned, 'no-one come to the Father but by Me', meant via the auspices and proscribed practices of the Church. In any case, poor Mme Guyon was imprisoned for 8 years, and afterwards forbidden to teach, for writing the incendiary and plainly heretical 'A Short and Easy Method of Prayer'.

Who here subscribes to Quietism? — Posty McPostface

Shhh.

I subscribed to Quietism for a few years. Then they raised the price by $20 a year, while going from a weekly issue to a monthly one. Too many perfume ads, as well. :D

Seriously though, probably most times and in many cases "less is more". More words count less, know when to close the door (as the Tao Te Ching puts it). Having said that, the life and times we find ourselves in tend to provoke some kind of philosophical agitation in many people. Like an oyster working on some irritating sand in its shell. Maybe a pearl follows... or maybe we are just scratching an itch.

Personally I've never understood the coherence of 'quietism': it seems to me that any claim to what we can and cannot say must itself be grounded in account of 'the way things are' (broadly understood), without which no such claim could ever get off the ground. The whole position seems to be shot through with performative contradiction, but then again, I don't think I've ever come across a quietism that ever been rigourously formulated.

Having said that, the life and times we find ourselves in tend to provoke some kind of philosophical agitation in many people. Like an oyster working on some irritating sand in its shell. Maybe a pearl follows... or maybe we are just scratching an itch. — 0 thru 9

I appreciate quietism, but restricted as a subjective experience and not as an applied theoretical practice like a neo-pragmatic tradition. It is more like existential psychotherapy, something I was introduced to in Israel. There is a therapeutic aspect to philosophy, from a psychological and linguistic angle, that ameliorates a clarity and articulates answers we may not be able to do so independent of this philosophical process. We construct how to appreciate or understand things that are related to us. The overall practice and practicality is therefore ambiguous because only we would know ourselves enough to know what is important to us. So, we take away what is necessary from the theoretical and apply it to ourselves. This is in sharp contrast to just being theoretical. It is like the relationship between astrophysics and cosmology.

Declaring something beyond philosophy, one must think both sides of the limit...

Quietism acknowledges the reality of wordless experience. We can speak about such experiences by means of allusion; so no need to be completely quite; just switch off the dialectical chatter will do.

No, one must think beyond both sides of the limit.

What's the difference?

You have to realize that the limit both is and is not something that can be thought depending on which way you approach it.

Bollocks. Whatever view you have that entails this contradiction should be discarded.

Personally I've never understood the coherence of 'quietism': — StreetlightX

Here’s an archtypal instance from the early Buddhist texts:

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

Source

In this passage, ‘the Wanderer Vachagotta’ is a wandering ascetic, who asks the Buddha (‘Blessed One’) questions about what are typically considered metaphysical matters, of which ‘does the self exist?’ is one. (Others include ‘does the world have a beginning? Does the soul exist separately from the body? Does the Blessed One continue to exist after death?)

In the context of early Indian Buddhism, ‘eternalists’ are those who teach that through the right ascetic practice, one might be reborn in perpetuity i.e. forever. The opposite view is that one is not re-born at all. The ‘middle way’ is the understanding of the nature of ‘conditioned origination’ i.e. that everything arises dependent on causes and conditions.

The Buddha’s non-answer in this case is usually described as a ‘noble silence’ and indicative of a refusal to entertain speculative philosophical questions.

Why? There are things we can speak about discursively and things we can only allude to. Of course it depends on what you think philosophy consists in I suppose.

Speaking as someone who isn't a professional philosopher, I think "quietist" philosophers like Wittgenstein, Austin and Ryle have done good and important work in formulating a method by which certain philosophical claims can be analyzed. Quietism as practiced by them has its uses.

Personally I've never understood the coherence of 'quietism': it seems to me that any claim to what we can and cannot say must itself be grounded in account of 'the way things are' (broadly understood), without which no such claim could ever get off the ground. The whole position seems to be shot through with performative contradiction, but then again, I don't think I've ever come across a quietism that ever been rigourously formulated. — StreetlightX

I feel as though Quietism has its roots in Moore's ethical philosophy or naturalistic philosophy. It also adopts the common sense philosophy of Moore to a great deal. I have a hard time finding anything wrong with Moore's common sense ethics. Throw in neo-pragmatism and you'd be hard-pressed to not be a quietist given those prerequisites.

Shhh. — Banno

That reminded me of a TV advert in England, Maybe early 70's.

Sch weppes.

I always felt some sympathy for poor Madame Guyon. — Wayfarer

You've read Madame Guyon? Her stuff is pretty deep. Sort of reminds me of Buddhism in a way, with a Christian interpretation. The whole attempt to achieve union with God sounds like trying to achieve Nirvana, death to self sounds like becoming detached from desire, and so on. Runs a lot deeper than your average religious teaching, anyway.

Sort of reminds me of Buddhism in a way, — Marchesk

No kidding! :D

My feeling has always been that the Christian mystics often skirt (or commit) heresy because they teach ‘the truth within’ - which, by implication, doesn’t necessarily require priestly intermediaries to access. Of course there are many qualifications and nuances, but Mme Guyon seems a pretty clear case.

Sch weppes. — Sir2u

The trouble with quitism is not the quiet, but the ism.

That worked. Quietism wins.

I think quitism wins.

'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent'

Isn't Wittgenstein's famous line an observation rather than an adjuration? Note that he used the word 'must' not 'ought'.

If one cannot speak of it then one is not speaking of it, no matter how hard one might try to do so. It's a bit like 'Those who speak of the Tao do not speak of the true Tao' (or something like that) - to which Alan Watts cheekily adds "... and yet he said that"..

It's "can't", not "ought not".

So is Quietism a decision not to talk of the indescribable because one knows one will be talking nonsense?

If so then my reply is 'what's wrong with talking nonsense'.

Courtesy of Watts again: there was some Zen sage who allegedly said 'From the bathtub to the bathtub I have uttered stuff and nonsense'.