The Philosophy of the Illuminati

[zeroinfinity]

Just wondering if anyone here has read the philisophical treatises of the Illuminati?

 

The works can be found under these author pages at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Mike-Hockney/e/B004KHR7DC

http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Weishaupt/e/B004LXB8GW

http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Faust/e/B004LXBBUA

and should be read in chronological order, if anyone bothers.

 

It is quite a lot of material and should be taken all in in its entirity.  After such, it would be interesting to hear Stefan's (and others) opinions, given that there is some interesting contrast with the general theme of Freedomain Radio, but also some good overlap, etc.

[Kevin Beal]

I think this recent sunday show call is pretty relevant and insightful:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/embed/xw78QZF3chg:560:315]

In it Stef discusses the purpose of history and the importance of principals over facts. It's a perspective I don't think I've heard before and think applies to most debates even. Highly recommended!

[zeroinfinity]

That doesn't really actually relate to the OP.

 

Although I've watched the documentary discussed in the video on what happened with Germany in WW1&2 and, you know, those sort of things. ;-)

 

But the OP is about the books from the Illuminati and the philosophy therein.

[TheRobin]

From the description it seems to be a reasoning that is based on some form of Platonic Realm. This has already been adressed in the "introduction to philosophy"-series (I think it was the second one about Metaphysiks/Reality).You might wanna check that one.

[zeroinfinity]

The philosophy of Illuminism has not been addressed there.  The set of work must be read and understood before it can be addressed.

[Kevin Beal]

I have studied the illuminati a bit (not to the degree you have I'm sure), but the facts, whether these events actually took place, is not, to me, particularly important. But rather the fact that these sorts of things can happen is a problem and statism makes that problem much worse. 

The message that I took from the video is that it's dangerous getting lost in the details arguing over facts when it's the principals that matter.

The 911 conspiracy is another example of this where people get so obsessed with details not realizing that they are being ineffective in actually bringing about positive change: that they come off to most people as weirdos (rightly or wrongly), and push people farther away from critically evaluating the events of 911.

"The devil is in the details" is a quote that has been stuck in my mind since I listened to the sunday show. I thought it was pretty profound. Something much bigger than whether or not 6 million jews were murdered by the nazis (which I also doubt).

Hope that clarifies why I brought up the video. I think it's relevant and important.

Take care!

[zeroinfinity]

I agree that principles matter.  We all know what Nietzsche said about facts.

This is what makes studying the actual principles of Illuminism so important, rather than whatever facts we might think we should associate with it.

It is a philosophy which is based on mathematics, and they are the Pythagorean academy brought forward through 2500 years of development of reason, mathematics, and science.  Not one aspect of the human condition is left out of the work.

[Kevin Beal]

Oh, sorry. I totally misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the Illuminati like the shadowy conspirators who run the world. I wasn't even aware there was an ideology behind it. And I don't know what Nietzsche said about facts, or pretty much anything about his writing, really. I couldn't even use the right "principle". In a lot of ways I'm very much a n00b, especially with regard to the history of philosophy.

I don't plan on reading the books you suggested, but I'm curious what you think about it. 

[zeroinfinity]

They're good books, all about philosophy :-) 

[TheRobin]

The work seems to be based on an invalid premise. This is what is adressed in the mentioned podcast/video.One doesn't need to read through 2000 pages of mathematical theory if it's based on the assumption that 2+2=5.Equally any philosophy that's based on a form of platonic realm is invalid. Since basically it claims to be above common reason, yet uses said reason to be communicated. Basically the author already invalidates his own philosophical claim (that mathematics is the only truth or a higher truth), by using anything but mathematics to communicate it. Furthermore you can't derive anything about the real world simply by using mathematical axioms, so whatever the author derives out of that has nothing to do with our lives and the world we live in by definition.So, why would anyone need to read the books to adress those issues?

[TheRobin]

 

Oh, sorry. I totally misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the Illuminati like the shadowy conspirators who run the world. I wasn't even aware there was an ideology behind it. And I don't know what Nietzsche said about facts, or pretty much anything about his writing, really. I couldn't even use the right "principle". In a lot of ways I'm very much a n00b, especially with regard to the history of philosophy.

I don't plan on reading the books you suggested, but I'm curious what you think about it. 

 

Well, I guess given that one of the authors he links is Weishaupt you were spot on. But as every secret society with crazy plans to take over the world: They usually have a whole set of ideas to ethically validate that what they're doing is not only moral, but absolutely necessary So I'd guess mentioned philosophy comes from those same Illuminati (or at least is claimed to come from those).

[zeroinfinity]

 

The work seems to be based on an invalid premise. This is what is adressed in the mentioned podcast/video.

One doesn't need to read through 2000 pages of mathematical theory if it's based on the assumption that 2+2=5.

Equally any philosophy that's based on a form of platonic realm is invalid. Since basically it claims to be above common reason, yet uses said reason to be communicated. Basically the author already invalidates his own philosophical claim (that mathematics is the only truth or a higher truth), by using anything but mathematics to communicate it. Furthermore you can't derive anything about the real world simply by using mathematical axioms, so whatever the author derives out of that has nothing to do with our lives and the world we live in by definition.

So, why would anyone need to read the books to adress those issues?

 

 

So that you could understand what you're talking about instead of making things up, about material you haven't read?  Unopened books are mysteries, not certain knowledge.

[zeroinfinity]

 

 

Oh, sorry. I totally misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the Illuminati like the shadowy conspirators who run the world. I wasn't even aware there was an ideology behind it. And I don't know what Nietzsche said about facts, or pretty much anything about his writing, really. I couldn't even use the right "principle". In a lot of ways I'm very much a n00b, especially with regard to the history of philosophy.

I don't plan on reading the books you suggested, but I'm curious what you think about it. 

 

Well, I guess given that one of the authors he links is Weishaupt you were spot on. But as every secret society with crazy plans to take over the world: They usually have a whole set of ideas to ethically validate that what they're doing is not only moral, but absolutely necessary So I'd guess mentioned philosophy comes from those same Illuminati (or at least is claimed to come from those).

 

 

 

It helps to understand what was actually happening though, and what the battle being fought actually was.

[TheRobin]

 

 

The work seems to be based on an invalid premise. This is what is adressed in the mentioned podcast/video.

One doesn't need to read through 2000 pages of mathematical theory if it's based on the assumption that 2+2=5.

Equally any philosophy that's based on a form of platonic realm is invalid. Since basically it claims to be above common reason, yet uses said reason to be communicated. Basically the author already invalidates his own philosophical claim (that mathematics is the only truth or a higher truth), by using anything but mathematics to communicate it. Furthermore you can't derive anything about the real world simply by using mathematical axioms, so whatever the author derives out of that has nothing to do with our lives and the world we live in by definition.

So, why would anyone need to read the books to adress those issues?

 

 

So that you could understand what you're talking about instead of making things up, about material you haven't read?  Unopened books are mysteries, not certain knowledge.

 

Well, again, I've read the introduction on the amazon page. Unless you want to tell me it has nothing at all to do with the actual content of the books and that the content uses a completely unrelated epistemology, then my claim is still valid.

[zeroinfinity]

You cannot look at a horse from afar, and conclude how many teeth it has.

[Magnus]

 

You cannot look at a horse from afar, and conclude how many teeth it has.

 

Yes, but the grain of wheat knows not which way the wind blows.  On the other hand, he who knows that enough is enough will always have enough.

[Formelyknown]

We had a idealist metaphysicist with similar philosophy writing on this board no so long ago. I found his aproach invalid. He was saying stuff like the knowledge coming from the scientific method was innate since the one who build the bow was able to do it without learning physic. But learning from observing was the scientific method.

Science is saying the rock fall down when I stop holding it up. Nothing else, the rest is just deriving from observations.

[zeroinfinity]

 

Yes, but the grain of wheat knows not which way the wind blows.  On the other hand, he who knows that enough is enough will always have enough.

 

 

But of course that doesn't actually mean anything relevant here.

[zeroinfinity]

 

We had a idealist metaphysicist with similar philosophy writing on this board no so long ago. I found his aproach invalid. He was saying stuff like the knowledge coming from the scientific method was innate since the one who build the bow was able to do it without learning physic. But learning from observing was the scientific method.

Science is saying the rock fall down when I stop holding it up. Nothing else, the rest is just deriving from observations.

 

 

That person's arguments were wrong, and are nowhere near the level of discussion you will find in those books, if you read them.  The scientific method has a fundamental internal flaw and it is the furthest thing from idealism and rationalism there is.  The scientific metaparadigm is all about materialism, and nothing to do with mental idealism.  Science in fact denies the existence of the mind, so to say that the scientific method is about idealist methaphysics is insane.

[Formelyknown]

He didn't say science was idealist but that the scientific method was limited compared to the idealist metaphysic aproach. Since the mind already had the knowledge the materialist aproach of science was not true. Of course he had more sophisticated mumbo jumbo to tell us. But it boiled down to that. About how the mind and the universe was only different shade of grey of the spectrum. A rock was less conscious then our mind but still conscious.

[zeroinfinity]

 

He didn't say science was idealist but that the scientific method was limited compared to the idealist metaphysic aproach. Since the mind already had the knowledge the materialist aproach of science was not true. Of course he had more sophisticated mumbo jumbo to tell us. But it boiled down to that. About how the mind and the universe was only different shade of grey of the spectrum. A rock was less conscious then our mind but still conscious.

 

 

Thanks for sorting that out as it wasn't clear earlier.

Of course, materialism is entirely idiotic.  Lay-people might accept it because they're uninformed; for a philosopher to believe in material is entirely barbaric.  Knocking on wood and claiming material is there is quite brutish, of course.  Only rationalism can determine the a-priori analytic prerequisites for and of existence; materialism is always contingent and a-posteriori, such as the scientific method and the current scientific metaparadigm, and its "facts", hence is incomplete and can't actually explain the origin of reality at all.  I prefer the rationalist approach, based on a-priori ontological inevitibility, combined with scientific idealism.

[Kody Palmer]

can you please explain how "The scientific method has a fundamental internal flaw?" I was unaware of that flaw. I thought the Scientific Method was a good thing which helped mankind find out the truth.

[zeroinfinity]

 

can you please explain how "The scientific method has a fundamental internal flaw?" I was unaware of that flaw. I thought the Scientific Method was a good thing which helped mankind find out the truth.

 

 

The scientific method and its current metaparadigm is about finding models to simulate reality.  It is fundamentally Kantian, in that true reality is a noumenon which can't actually be known.  All we have is models.  Of course we also have the Popperian aspect of the metaparadigm which says that the only valid scientific theories are ones which are theoretically falisfiable.  This works just fine if the point of science is to create models of reality, which it is.  This produces gadgets for sensing feeling personality types to find truth in.  But it is not good in enough in an absolute rationalist sense if absolute, ufalsifiable knowledge is possible.  Of course this is why science is ultimately Kantian and denies that absolute truth is knowable, and this is where the Popperian aspect comes in.  Science can only be a-posteriori and contingent.  Yes this produces benefits in being able to manipulate matter and energy, but such things are not absolute truth in a philisophical arena.  Science can't say where its own laws of physics are, or why they exist, it just identifies that they're there - this is not knowing why they are there in the first place; it can't explain why reality exists in the first place; it can't say why the Big Bang occured.  This isn't a matter of "not yet", it is a defined philisophical matter of never being able to do so, because science is a-posteriori and contingent.  Only rationalism can determine the a-priori analytic prerequisites for reality, and thus logically explain why reality exists and what the final & a-priori truth of existence is.  Rationalism is about identifying the sufficient reason for why something is one way and not another; for example, why is there something rather than nothing.  Science can't address that empirically, it can only show that something is there, but, we already know that something is there.  The rationalist goal is to identify the "sufficient reason", the logical inevitibility and absolute requirement, that something is there, and not otherwise.  A-priori analytic knowledge, rather than a-posteriori contingent knowledge.

[Magnus]

 

You cannot look at a horse from afar, and conclude how many teeth it has.

 

Yes, but the grain of wheat knows not which way the wind blows.  On the other hand, he who knows that enough is enough will always have enough.

 

[/font]

But of course that doesn't actually mean anything relevant here.

 

No matter how long a felled tree stays in the water, it does not become a crocodile. [/font]

[Formelyknown]

Well the questions like why the reality exist is an invalid question and/or problem. Because it doesn't have any manifestation into reality other then words put together with a question mark at the end. 

Science isn't about building model. Model is only one tool to help our search of knowledge about reality.

[zeroinfinity]

 

Well the questions like why the reality exist is an invalid question and/or problem. Because it doesn't have any manifestation into reality other then words put together with a question mark at the end. 

Science isn't about building model. Model is only one tool to help our search of knowledge about reality.

 

 

Knowledge of reality is incomplete without knowing why reality is there in the first place.  Why reality exists is not an invalid question, it is the only question.  Science is about building models of reality, but the models are not reality itself.  Reality itself is a-priori, and logical ratioanlism can discover the analytic prerequisites for the existence of reality.

[Kody Palmer]

Thanks. I enjoy this debate/thread...

[TheRobin]

 

can you please explain how "The scientific method has a fundamental internal flaw?" I was unaware of that flaw. I thought the Scientific Method was a good thing which helped mankind find out the truth.

 

It's only a flaw for those who wish the contents of their minds be more real/important than what's outside their mind. For all others it's its major advantage

But as you see, basically one can redfine "truth" to mean something different than an accurate claim about reality. and redefine reality as yet another thing etc. and then create a new metaphysics where science is completely bollocks basically.
But as mentoned before, nothing new there, platonic realm reasoning as usual. Before anybody actually presents some concrete evidence by producing something that couldn't be produced using the scientific method it's nothing more than mindgames.

[zeroinfinity]

 

 

can you please explain how "The scientific method has a fundamental internal flaw?" I was unaware of that flaw. I thought the Scientific Method was a good thing which helped mankind find out the truth.

 

It's only a flaw for those who wish the contents of their minds be more real/important than what's outside their mind. For all others it's its major advantage

But as you see, basically one can redfine "truth" to mean something different than an accurate claim about reality. and redefine reality as yet another thing etc. and then create a new metaphysics where science is completely bollocks basically.
But as mentoned before, nothing new there, platonic realm reasoning as usual. Before anybody actually presents some concrete evidence by producing something that couldn't be produced using the scientific method it's nothing more than mindgames.

 

 

But you still have incomlete knowledge on what exactly it is you're trying to think about, and so the limited cogitation on Platonism is incorrect.  It is not nearly so simple as you presume.  Again, materialism is not valid...even science has been able to demonstrate that within its materialist metaparadigm.   It is not about willy-nilly redefinitions of truth, but the only possivble rational truths which are left after everything else has been exhausted.  It is not that difficult to get there once the principle of sufficient reason is understood, and then applied correctly.

[zeroinfinity]

 

It's only a flaw for those who wish the contents of their minds be more real/important than what's outside their mind. 

 

 

So you're saying that you're a philosopher who doesn't value their mind as much as the senses and feelings they get from what is outside their mind...

 

Such a personality type is not generally capable of ratioanlism, and is in general not capable of reading those books from the OP.  You describe a sensing-feeling materialist, whereas rationalism and those books are generally limited to intuitive-thinking rationalists.

[TheRobin]

well, as I said, the day someone can actually prove their claims are more than just their personal mindfucks, I'm happy to accept that line of reasoning (of course "proof" is also redefined to fit the conclusion of said mindfucks usually). But until then it's all just in people's heads and doesn't really have any influence on the reality outside their heads in which I'm currently living.

[Formelyknown]

 I reject any question without a direct or indirect observable inductive manifestation. The knowledge look incomplete only if doesn't solve a valid problem. The " why we exist" is an invalid question because you didn't identify the problem it tries to solve. 

Your premises are rejected. I conclude your are making baseless assertions.

It is impossible for me to continue this debate.

Bye , Have a nice day.

P.s my personality type is Intj. I understand perfecly those book. Those books are only valid for people blind toward their own emotional baggages.

[zeroinfinity]

 

well, as I said, the day someone can actually prove their claims are more than just their personal mindfucks, I'm happy to accept that line of reasoning (of course "proof" is also redefined to fit the conclusion of said mindfucks usually). But until then it's all just in people's heads and doesn't really have any influence on the reality outside their heads in which I'm currently living.

 

 

Read it all and see what comes of it.  Does ratioanlism exist...and is existence rational or not.  Existence is obviously rational or else it wouldn't exist.  Are there rational prerequisites to reality that are logically inevitible?  There are.  If there is no such thing as logical inevitibility, then EVERYTHING is a mind fuck, because then all of reality is abitrary, and unknowable ultimately in the Kantian sense.  We are limited to sense-perception knowledge but can have no knowledge of the noumenon.  But this is wrong and the Kantian position is untennable.  Ultimate incontestible knowledge of reality is possible.

[zeroinfinity]

 

 I reject any question without a direct or indirect observable inductive manifestation. The knowledge look incomplete only if doesn't solve a valid problem. The " why we exist" is an invalid question because you didn't identify the problem it tries to solve. 

Your premises are rejected. I conclude your are making baseless assertions.

It is impossible for me to continue this debate.

Bye , Have a nice day.

P.s my personality type is Intj. I understand perfecly those book. Those books are only valid for people blind toward their own emotional baggages.

 

 

Well you are free to reject all the questions you wish.  But that is obviously an arbitrary convenience, particularly for a philosopher.  The problem to solve is the question "why does reality exist rather than not", then, "how/in what way does it exist", then, "why in that way and not another", etc.  Eventually you can arrive at why "WE" exist but you have to establish the rational prerequisites first, in order to understand what "we" are.  But the starting point is in solving why anything exists at all, rather than nothing; this is a perfectly obvious problem with a clear purpose in determining the answer, and is the most and even only valid question there is to start with, ever.  It is basically the first question philosophy must answer.  Science can't do it.   Saying "reality exists because of the Big Bang" is of course the most stupid thing that stupid people and stupid scientists and stupid philosophers can ever say.

If you haven't actually read those books and are claiming you understand them perectly, then it is you who are making baseless assertions and as such, your premises are not relevant.

[TheRobin]

ah yeah, I forgot. You're also free to redefine "existence" to fit the needs :)Other than that you rather sound like a salesman for the books than a person who wants to bring forth any actual claims/principles which we could analyze and debate about.No one's gonna buy a car if the salesman refuses to even give the basic specs and is unwilling to adress the concerns about them, and no one's gonna read any book if any question in regards to the basics is answered in vague mysterious language (or not answered at all and simply avoided).(apply the usual margin of error to the term "no one")