In this podcast we comment upon some remarkable passages from Eric Voegelin's New Science of Politics explaining his understanding of what he calls Gnostic "dreamworld", carried over from the Ancient world to modernity. In the first half, after providing some preliminary explanations of Voegelin's terminology, we discuss the theoretical, or rather anti-theoretical, assumption that is a calling card of a Gnostic: a prohibition of questions; we talk about this strange attempt to constrain the intellect while simultaneously advocating for unbridled progress, especially in the paradigmatic example of Karl Marx and communist movement. Also, we point out the genuine anti-theist character of Gnostic intellectuals and the way how modern philosophy for the most part assimilated it. In the second part we talk about the very instructive, yet not so very well known, example of the one specific Gnostic neverland: Yugoslavia. We provide the main features of Yugoslav ideology, the mentality of its adherents, both past and present, and put the phenomenon in the context of our day and age. In conclusion we discuss the hypothesis of the prevalence of Gnostic ideologies in the global politics of today.
Welcome to Kali Tribune. During the course of six years we steadily engaged with our reader’s questions and comments about the range of topics from metaphysics to common political issues of the day we are continuously addressing. In the latter half of 2020 we decided to start a podcast that was meant to deal with more complex questions and address them in the systematical way.
Here we announce that this podcast will become a permanent feature of KT which all new comers can find in the “Ask Kali” section.
No content will be restricted and remains as free as your will and ability to back it.
However, this also means that we are for the first time tying the content we are publishing with the requirement of compensation.
If we are to continue this project and, even more, improve it, there will have to be a modicum of engagement on behalf of our readers. Therefore, the questions eligible to be treated at length in Q&A podcast, will have to be followed by donation whose amount is completely at the discretion of the reader. This doesn’t apply to our Patreon supporters. Also it doesn’t mean that answer to a question or a comment is predicated upon financial support. Comments section remains as it was, only the questions that require an article, essay or podcast size discussion will be treated this way.
In the second part of our Q&A session we answer to questions about what is ethnicity (or people) and can it be defined, whereas Christian dictum of turning the other cheek is at odds with historical reality, why the political community should have origin that its member cannot re-create, how Internet based Right could just be a homosexual grooming operation and much, much more. Also we provide some thoughts on Schopenhauer and the way we discern between what is useful and what is superfluous for the kind of philosophy we practice on KT.
After going through a number of metaphysical notions, now, prompted by reader's query, we finally try to answer the simple question: what is metaphysics? The very fact that one can talk about metaphysics for a long time without explicitly defining what it is gives us an important clue about this type of knowledge, more common that most people think. We sum up some of the notions we expounded upon before and attempt to give definition of "science sought for" in both traditional sense and its modern, we would claim, misconception of the "system of science". Also we touch upon the possible reasons for shunning it by modern thinkers like adherents of "analytical" philosophy and say few words on technology and its latent metaphysical origin.
Basic notions of metaphysics series continues, this time with a twist. We won't be content with simply giving an exposition of the metaphysical notion of infinite but use it as an example how traditional concepts get inverted. The infinite is very good example of not only that, but also of one very important thing: deconstruction of metaphysics is never an annihilation, as its proponents would like you to believe, but always an appropriation and inversion. So lay half an hour of your life at the altar of Kali the destroyer of de-constructors and learn how basic notions of metaphysics are inverted into illusions.
We start our Back Roads to Philosophy series with the first episode on Kant's Kritik der Reinen Vernunft. At this point we provide general introduction to the intention around which this exemplar of modern metaphysics has been formed. We stick to selected passages from the "Preface" and "Preface to Second Edition" as well as the "Introduction to First Edition", and we lay out why Kant's motivation is fundamentally to make an attempt at the new beginning in metaphysics; we explain the significance of some of the metaphors he is prone to use and give definitions of some of the basic terms. Finally, we talk about the structure of the Kritik and why and how, for Kant, it reflects the intrinsic structure of the very human faculty it is intended to analyze - pure mind itself.
Hereby we present new series of videos/webinars in history of philosophy. As we explain at length in introductory video, this will be as much as possible impartial exposition of passages from important philosophers, with minimum criticism, starting from modern age and then moving towards the past - hence "back road"; in the upcoming episodes we'll deal with Immanuel Kant's Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, a premier work of modern metaphysics. In introduction we give preliminary explanation why our way backwards in philosophy starts with him.
In the third and final episode in our series on Nicholas of Cusa's De Visione Dei we address prevalent modern misconception of mystical state as "individual experience" and how God can be known only from His act of knowing us; the act that always points us in the direction of our inner being but at the same time brings to light the fact that we cannot escape participating in it together with our fellow men.