My new religion: Enlightenism

[RVFVS]

I have been doing alot of soul searching lately religiously. I was and to a degree still am a strong atheist but have recently come up with a new religion which I cannot help but follow. It may already exist although I am unsure whether it does in the form I describe it. I call it Enlightenism:

It is not a philosophy but a religious belief. Basically I based it off of Plato's cave allegory. There are two forces in the world, not dark and light or evil and good as it generally is but enlightenment and unenlightenment. Enlightenment seeks to spread truth and knowledge to the universe while Unenlightenment thrives on mental weakness and conformity and lies and so seeks to spread lies or create common knowledge and conformity. If one looks at history it is quite apparent that these two forces have always been at war with one another. Whenever a great civilization rises and creates a cultured society enlightenment begins to rule. Over time, as Enlightenment becomes weaker due to it's length of ruling Unenlightenment violently takes control (Greek Dark Ages, Dark Ages, Middle Ages, WW1/2 eras). There is no evil and good in this belief as both sides use any means necessary to meet their gains. An example of Enlightenment gaining power is during the various revolutions that overtook Europe during the 18th century and 19th century. Unenlightenment gaining power is generally more violent, however (as it is the loss of knowledge, truth and reason), such as during WW1 or 2 when all reason was forgotten in order to win. That is not to say during an age of Enlightenment or Unenlightenment there has not been elements of either group intertwined. Today we are in an era of Enlightenment but slowly falling into an era of Unenlightenment as conformity, lies, mental weakness and lack of knowledge set into modern day life.

I find this "religion" far more satisfying then any other as it provides me with something I can guarantee exists. Both Enlightenment (a combo of truth, knowledge and social difference) and Unenlightenment (essentially the opposite of Enlightenment as it is lies, stupidity and conformity) are known to exist in each and every person. My theory is that they are entities that guide every day life. Gods would not be the word but they would be apart of every living thing. Every action is either enlightened or unenlightened and depending on how many of each are prevalent in society determines if humans are controlled by either force.

I posted this so that other may discuss it and CONSTRUCTIVELY criticize it. This is my belief and, although it is utterly raw and perhaps needing more thought it is the closest I have come to a full scale belief in years. I know it is dangerously close to a philosophy but the fact that I worship Enlightenment makes it a religious belief (as well as my philosophy). Discuss

[Spartan90]

Interesting. How much is the tithe I have to pay every week at your church?

But seriously, quite an intriguing idea you have. Best to have a spiritual inclination than none at all. Maybe that's along the same track as being enlightened versus unenlightenment?

[RVFVS]

Interesting. How much is the tithe I have to pay every week at your church?

But seriously, quite an intriguing idea you have. Best to have a spiritual inclination than none at all. Maybe that's along the same track as being enlightened versus unenlightenment?

Somewhat. Religion can be either enlightening or unenlightening depending on the rules, beliefs etc etc. Few modern religions are enlightening as they restrict what one can believe.

@CF

Similar but not the same. Enlightenism (I really should find a fancy latin name for it if I am going to stick with it) has no real Gods or salvation etc etc. It essentially takes what other religions have spoon fed humanity for thousands of years and throws it out the window. The creation of the universe was simply the two sides battle brought to a physical fold. Everything that exists is to serve the two sides. There is no good or bad because each doesn't even care about what it has to do to control. I have to put more thought in it but so far I can find little truly wrong with it, unlike other religions.

[chilon]

No offense but your religion is not mystical enough to attract followers. I suggest you make some changes ala L. Ron Hubbard's playbook that has been proven to work

[cfmonkey45]

So... kinda like Gnosticism?

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

I see a likeness to the 'fear/love' division that is shown by that teacher in Donnie Darko. You're contriving a universe modeled around solely enlightenment and unenlightment, when you don't explain why this dichotomy is so primordial and universal. Perhaps not as gross an oversimplification as the fear/love argument (that fear and love are the only emotions), you are not allowing for acts that aren't guided by knowledge, the pursuit of it, or the rejection of it. I wouldn't say these two 'absolutes' are at war with each other. One is something, and the other is the vaccuum created from absence.

I think you were probably fed a misinterpretation of Plato's allegory of the cave, or perhaps missed the context. I know that my Theory of Knowledge teacher last year took the cave allegory almost completely out of context, barbarised it, and tried to convince us that it was just about some dyad between Truth and ignorance. She waved the phrase "the unexamined life is not worth living" around like a fricken set of trophy panties. So maybe this is what happened to you.
I won't profess to be able to reach any of the lucidity or literary skill as Plato's original, but the allegory of the cave probably deserves some explanation.

The cave is symbolic of the universe. The fire is a crude rendering of the sun (which is a metaphor for knowledge/illumination). The Fire casts shadows of 'real' objects as they between it and a group of chained prisoners facing a wall. These shadows represent the false, illusory nature of our universe, the shadows being only crude representations of the 'real' thing. This whole 'cave' is the life we find ourselves in. Seeing only the shadows and renderings of reality, most are content, thinking this is all that there is. But some, (well, one, in the myth), are forced out of the cave, and the sun (knowledge) illuminates the reality of the world around him (the world of the Forms), and it is blinding at first, then profound. So he goes back into the cave, and tries to convince the other prisoners, to no avail, they mock him and ignore him (Socrates anyone? lol).

Plato's cave is more a myth about the forms and the duty of the philosopher. Knowledge plays an important part, but knowledge is only the tool, not some inherent absolute. The forms are more important than knowledge, hence why the best of the forms is not Truth, but Good.

So you may think you did, but you hardly based it off the cave allegory. Knowledge (enlightenment), and the dialectic process, are tools, not ends. Granted, there is still an important balance between enlightenment and ignorance, but I think you falsely expanded it into too weak a theory.

I would suggest Platonism - ironically? - as a substitute for your religion. Plato has some good things to say, about epistemology, that, if you haven't already read, may be worthwhile.

+rep for making a thread in the EMM, and for dwelling on theories. Its important we all think about it, and all discuss it.

[The Dude]

Baron T above me explained the cave allegory pretty well so there's no need for me to add anything as far as that goes, but I do want to elaborate a bit further on his point concerning the primordial nature of the dichotomy that you propose.

Whenever you think to have found truth in a certain thing you are obliged to yourself to try and trace that truth down to its most fundamental level. If you think that enlightenment and unenlightenment are the forces responsible for shifts in our society, then it's worth asking what that conflict between the two really is.

Plenty philosophers have commented on change/movement as being the result of a conflict between two opposing forces. You might wanna take a look at what Heraclitus has to say on the subject of Strife:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heracli..._is_justice.22

Is that not more what you are talking about? If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss your theory as aphilosophical when it is in fact quite philosophical and is worth investigating further.

[Col. Tartleton]

Interesting.

Basically cosmologically I see a universe that is ordered chaos. There are patterns which we observe as forces of nature but it's so massive in scale we can hardly make sense of it. I think that the destiny of mankind is to improve ourselves through evolution (mentally, physically, and spiritually) so that we can begin to see things clearer and clearer. Currently even our greatest minds can only comprehend a fraction of human understanding let alone the whole story. Its like we put science into categories when it's illusionary. The same forces are behind everything. Essentially we must progress to the point we are all polymaths. If our notions of God are all knowing and all powerful that is where we must head.

If man is a verb, God is simply a future perfect tense.

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

Tartleton, going on your use of man as a verb - a poetic analogy by the way, very nice - What does it mean, to man? (or as aristotle would say, anthropeusthai)... If evolution is to be seen as our way of improvement, what ethical system do you advocate to best achieve this? Do you?

Its an interesting cosmogony, but solely cosmogonic philosophy is pretty much - and should be - relegated to the pre-socratics. Plato helped introduced the dimensions of ethics into the question, and religious thereafter became a bit more ethics-based as well.

Whats your response? I'm interested, as you're nearly always of a high standard here.

[Col. Tartleton]

Tartleton, going on your use of man as a verb - a poetic analogy by the way, very nice - What does it mean, to man? (or as aristotle would say, anthropeusthai)... If evolution is to be seen as our way of improvement, what ethical system do you advocate to best achieve this? Do you?

Its an interesting cosmogony, but solely cosmogonic philosophy is pretty much - and should be - relegated to the pre-socratics. Plato helped introduced the dimensions of ethics into the question, and religious thereafter became a bit more ethics-based as well.

Whats your response? I'm interested, as you're nearly always of a high standard here.

I have a High standard? Are you a drinking man?

Essentially I feel that the action of being human is to live as well as you can. I don't think I can come up with a universal goal for mankind beyond that. It is our freedom as men and women to decide for ourselves what our goals are. I think the only philosophies that hold water are those that can't be debated. If I offered my personal goals for how I would improve my life I am offering my personal goals. Philosophy must be for all people. So as far as philosophy goes I have to be inclusive rather then exclusive. I think the most profoundly true statements are those that are true to every individual in an individual way.

Privately I believe the pinnacle of mankind is a person who is able to balance his creative and destructive natures as well as our personal and societal happiness. We must improve things, not simply alter them. I think philosophy is closely tied to the arts. Living well is like painting beauty. We can't describe beauty, but we know it when we see it. It's hard to explain to someone how to live well, but we know a person who lives well when we see it. There's no one way to do it. But ideally it is balanced.

You look at a sculpture by the Ancient Greeks, or Michelangelo, or the Chinese, etc. and it's not hard to see the incredible skill involved. But that isn't to say that it's superior to more modern artistic endeavors. Art is something unique to the individual. So is right and wrong. People need to do what they feel is right for themselves without being self righteous. It's hard to explain, but It's like the middle path of Buddhism I guess. You have to live well by your own standards. You have to be happy.

The thing is humans aren't Myrmidons, so we have to live for ourselves, but on the other hand we can't live solely on our own, we're still pack animals. So we need to balance our personal desires with our societies best interests. It's not black and white. There needs to be a compromise, but it needs to be the right shade of gray. There needs to be compromise, but it needs to be the most effective compromise, not compromise for the sake of it.

[Helm]

So how would you go about practicing this religion and what would it contribute to society? How would it improve peoples lives and what does it offer? If you want to invent a reliion these are the things you have to think about. You will also have to claim to have some kind of profound mystical knowledge if you really want it to take off, you can't just make stuff up after all, though if Scientology is aything to go by perhaps you can, but you'll need a gimmick to compare with E-meters.

[nasher168]

Both Enlightenment (a combo of truth, knowledge and social difference) and Unenlightenment (essentially the opposite of Enlightenment as it is lies, stupidity and conformity) are known to exist in each and every person. My theory is that they are entities that guide every day life.

What do you mean by the term "entities"? Do you regard them as some kind of force (like a soul (perhaps)), or a phenomenon (like thoughts) or a concept (like data)?

I worship Enlightenment

In what way? Just by quiet appreciation, or full-on worship as a christian might worship Jesus?


It seems to me more of a philosophy than a religion, in the same way that some versions of Buddhism can be considered a philosophy. Much of what you've said I agree with, but I don't feel the need to give a name for it. I value reason; rational thought; honest inquiry and attempts at revealing objective truth. I prefer merely to hold these positions and leave it at that. If I were to give my beliefs a full title it would probably be something like this:
Rationalist agnostic ignostic humanistic atheist.
But why bother giving it a name? In reality it is merely a collection of thoughts and feelings I have. I don't call myself a Humanist, but I agree with them. I don't call myself an agnostic atheist, but I agree with the position. I don't base my decisions on these names. I do what I feel like doing, and that turns out as I have described.

[RVFVS]

What do you mean by the term "entities"? Do you regard them as some kind of force (like a soul (perhaps)), or a phenomenon (like thoughts) or a concept (like data)?


In what way? Just by quiet appreciation, or full-on worship as a christian might worship Jesus?


It seems to me more of a philosophy than a religion, in the same way that some versions of Buddhism can be considered a philosophy. Much of what you've said I agree with, but I don't feel the need to give a name for it. I value reason; rational thought; honest inquiry and attempts at revealing objective truth. I prefer merely to hold these positions and leave it at that. If I were to give my beliefs a full title it would probably be something like this:
Rationalist agnostic ignostic humanistic atheist.
But why bother giving it a name? In reality it is merely a collection of thoughts and feelings I have. I don't call myself a Humanist, but I agree with them. I don't call myself an agnostic atheist, but I agree with the position. I don't base my decisions on these names. I do what I feel like doing, and that turns out as I have described.

I regard them as forces, yes. They are not aware in the classic sense but they have the instinct to try and control. Much like a tornado or a tsunami unintentionally destroys so does this little battle between the two forces.

I don't go to my own little Enlightenship shrine, and frankly I haven't even really thought the idea out. It is utterly raw. It would not require any form of formal worship other then to seek to gain knowledge, avoid conformity and spread the truth even if it is bad.

That occurred to me that Buddhism was very similar in form to my faith. In fact it could also be a philosophy but I see it as more.

@Helm

I have no intention to try and spread this faith. It is simply my personal faith, the only I could make up or find that makes perfect sense. It needs to be thought out more and the principles behind it need to be considered. The thing about the "religion" is it would not improve people's lives necessarily. Let us assume there is a girl who asks you if she looks pretty but she isn't, by the creed of enlightenment you HAVE to tell her that she is ugly to ENLIGHTEN her. Even I don't follow it to that extent. I follow it to a rational amount. I try and keep MYSELF enlightened and others if I can. I have no intention of making this anything more then my private belief. I may share it with some friends thought and if they like it I have no problem with others adopting it.

@Baron Thunder

I looked at Platonism and while it is a very good philosophy (I actually follow pieces of it already) it is not the material for a religious belief. As for the Allegory, I believe you are right as my Philosophy teacer did indeed give an UTTERLY different description then you gave. Nontheless, I believe I shall stick to this, think it out more (keep in mind this "faith" was thought up only a short while ago. I have had little time to actually think about it's concepts, creeds etc etc.) and see how far I can make it go. Now, on the subject of Enlightenment and Unenlightenment, I disagree. To be truly enlightenend (which would be the "paradise" as it were) is to achieve perfection and know all, be utterly truthful and to be yourself. It is a life goal which is basically unachieveable. The basic idea behind it is that if you are more enlightened then unenlightened when you die you become a part of enlightenment (the force) while if it is the opposite then you become a part of unenlightenment. That is why the allegory, to me, is similr because those who are chained in the cave are the unenlightened when they die but those who are free and out of the cave are those who are enlightened.

@The Dude

Not necessarily. The two forces are not aware of their battle they are not Gods in the classic sense. Everything that happens is a result of their battle, however, and in that it is similar. All things are created due to the two force's battle for control. This theory could in fact be a philosophy when looked at objectively. However, when looked at from one side or the other it become a faith as it is no longer a simple creed to follow but a belief with specific creeds. For instance, the philosopher following this theory would follow the idea of enlightenment to the full extent as a philosophy. They do not necessarily believe in the idea of "forces" controlling the world but they follow the idea that they should seek to enlighten themselves and others. A person following it as a faith looks at it different. He believes in the forces and "worships" (for lack of a better word) one of the two. He believes when he dies he will be come apart of either enlightenment or unenlightenment depending on his level of enlightenment. The philosopher can be a christian and still follow the theory. The follower can only be an Enlightenist.

[green tea]

I would say that you should read something about Taoism. Not those texts with fairies and gods and all this religious nonsense, and not those with the search for eternal life- but those texts that deal with the principles of life and the universe. Don´t see it as a religion, more as a philosophy. And I am sorry that this evening my small brain is not able to think and write in acceptable english, so I keep this short.

Edit: I did not mean that your ideas are exactly like those in Taoism, only that you might find it interesting because you think perhaps a little bit like a taoist.

[Helm]

I have no intention to try and spread this faith. It is simply my personal faith, the only I could make up or find that makes perfect sense. It needs to be thought out more and the principles behind it need to be considered. The thing about the "religion" is it would not improve people's lives necessarily. Let us assume there is a girl who asks you if she looks pretty but she isn't, by the creed of enlightenment you HAVE to tell her that she is ugly to ENLIGHTEN her. Even I don't follow it to that extent. I follow it to a rational amount. I try and keep MYSELF enlightened and others if I can. I have no intention of making this anything more then my private belief. I may share it with some friends thought and if they like it I have no problem with others adopting it.

So your religion is the application self gratifying pseudo-intellectual masterbation with the aim of enlightening people with your own personal opinions? How is this different to atheism?

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

I'm curious how your philosophy teacher told it to you, as I am interested in knowing the way some people see the analogy. I feel that the cave is taken as indicative of the Republic as a whole, and even worse, all of the Socratic/Platonic dialogues. The cave is part of the Philosopher king, the divided line, the tripartite soul, the nature of justice, and the role of the philosopher in life.

Your idea that you are quantifiably 'enlightenist' or not is interesting. I like the idea that if you tip a particular point, you get added to the 'force' of enlightenment.
However, it does conflict with how I would see the same thing you have seen. I describe one's greatness (which is kind of what you are touching on - the relevance of a person to x (goal, life, purpose, society, truth, etc)) as an historically relative form of idealisation that changes as the paradigms and zeitgeists of society and humanity dictate new goals, new values, and new characteristics to admire. This is why Pythagoras could be so famous in the 4th century BC, but is now only really remembered, except for in philosophical/classical circles, as the creator of the Pythagorean theory of right-angles triangles; because we now operate on a separate plane of thinking, with the past only imbedded deep into our cultural, residual memory. This is the 'force of enlightenment' as you call it. I see your force as the "social mythos" the collective human memory from millenia of thought, behaviour and action, which now largely affects us psychologically. It is imbedded as a dark memory, like in an individual, the childhood memories create the complexes of their adult life, the 'childhood' or past actions of humanity subconsciously affect the 'organism' of society...

This is why I struggle with identifying primordial forces with 'enlightenment'. I feel that defining it in the occassions it appears (what makes enlightenment qua enlightenment) would be too difficult, due to the relative and shifting nature of epistemology in society.

I would be more likely to identify with the Platonic Good. It is the purest force, but there is no battle. The forms are a source of inspiration and 'law of the universe', not necessarily the background participants in the running of the cosmos.


EDIT: A note on the tripartite soul's relevance to primordial universals
I like the idea of the soul driven by three forces - Reason, Spirit, and Appetite (desire). Plato extrapolates his concept into the idea of the ideal state based on the ideal configuration of the individual, but I think that discourse could be tamed and the relevance of the three-part soul would not be diminished.

The critical element of the tripartite soul is that it provides an explanation - that I agree with - for the actions of men. It justifies actions, as having happened due to the balance, or inbalance, of the three parts. I can't see actions as falling under enlightenment (reason?) and the lack of enlightenment (ignorance?)... My experience with other people my age is that things are not always driven by the pursuit of knowledge. Some people aren't ignorant, but nor are their lives a faithful pursuit of enlightenment. I suppose you could put it on the line between Truth and ignorance, and say these people fall somewhere along it, but it is too simplistic, as I see it. The justification is almost as important as the state of being...

For example, the forms of government (with the exception of anarchy) all justify the use of control in the state. Each form of government invests power and control to the state for the pursuit of a goal, or to the fulfilment of a condition. Totalitarianism - to a particular goal, monarchy - to a king, democracy - (nominally) to the people, Communism - to the state.

The justification is the important part of these forms. Communism and totalitarianism have the chance of looking frightfully similar, and infact some attempts do look like a dictatorship, but the justification puts communism and totalitarianism on the other sides of the political compass.

So the justification of actions is important, I feel, and hence why Spirit and Desire are so useful. They help define why a person behaved in a particular way.

[thelionheart]

So where were enlightment and unenlightment before man kind ?

[RVFVS]

So where were enlightment and unenlightment before man kind ?

Yes. As long as the Universe has been created there has been the two forces. Before the Universe? There was nothing. There is no explanation. The best I can think of is perhaps the two forces did struggle beforehand and then in a climax to their great struggle the universe was created in order to take pressure off the mental aspect. Like I said, this is very much a religion of logic and ideal. These forces are not Gods or self aware but forces of nature. It would tie in with the big bang as when both forces got to the breaking point they were forced to add a new layer to their struggle. That is why the Universe is expanding, to add more and more variables to the struggle.

@Helm

Actually...no. It is my personal belief in a thing that makes utter sense to me. The opinions are not mine but three simple creeds of Enlightenment (truth, knowledge and social difference). I believe and revere the force of Enlightenment. Atheism is to not believe in any higher power, a force of Enlightenment is a higher power...

@Baron

Perhaps...I will think about what you said as it does make sense. Keep in mind my "faith" is very much under construction. I am slowly putting together a group of ideals and beliefs that make sense to me. As of now I have the idea of the two forces struggling for total control of the universe. People must choose to be enlightened or unenlightened and when they die they become apart of one of the two depending on whoch of the two they were. Thus, an unelightened age does not simply end but ends gradually. The end of the Middle Ages was gradual not quick as was the fall of the Roman Empire. As more and more force is given to one side it become stronger but also weaker as it has control. Think of a King who gains power. He fights a civil war for years, although his position is precarious and threatened he is on edge and ready to fight and therefore prepared. When he wins the civil war years pass and he is secure yet no longer prepared and then out of nowhere he is usurped. That is how it basically works except usurpation is much more gradual.

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

Although it is great that you try to explain the universe, I think you have fallen down the path that many philosophers have: that the universe is simple enough to be explained through the concept of 'the one' or the 'two'... This is only my opinion, but what I learn from postmodern philosophies is not that the world is subjective - which it may or may not be, but I believe (with certain qualifications) in the latter - but that it is too complex to be simply described.

The truth/not truth just appears as an oversimplificatin, to the extent it no longer has the relevance that you ascribe it to.

I think the battle between truth and ignorance is important, but it is a minor part of the universe, as I see it.

Though I understand that I don't think we are going to be convinced, either way.

[RVFVS]

Although it is great that you try to explain the universe, I think you have fallen down the path that many philosophers have: that the universe is simple enough to be explained through the concept of 'the one' or the 'two'... This is only my opinion, but what I learn from postmodern philosophies is not that the world is subjective - which it may or may not be, but I believe (with certain qualifications) in the latter - but that it is too complex to be simply described.

The truth/not truth just appears as an oversimplificatin, to the extent it no longer has the relevance that you ascribe it to.

I think the battle between truth and ignorance is important, but it is a minor part of the universe, as I see it.

Though I understand that I don't think we are going to be convinced, either way.

That occurred to me. Perhaps instead of trying to find a reason for the Universe's creation I should just accept that it is beyond my understanding as a human and that only a truly enlightened person can fathom it's creation. Now, on your point about truth and ignorance, keep in mind these are not the two only parts of each force. Remember enlightenment is truth, social difference and knowledge. The way I see it those are the three most important things in the universe. If there was no truth there would be nothing. Nothing would be concrete and everything would shift and change. If there was no social difference everything would conform to the most prevalent idea of the time. If there was no knowledge humans would essentially be husks. This applies to the universe as well as everything is connected by facts. What is an asteroid made of? If there was no truth behind it's creation it would not exist. Thus, above all without truth there is nothing. Social difference and knowledge are primarily for aware creatures but without truth there is nothing.

@Chilon

I have no intention of trying to gain followers. I have shown the religion to TWC and a few close friends. Only one other, a Uni buddy, has chosen to follow it and try and hammer out it's form with me. Frankly, if it ever did get big, which it won't but we are speaking hypothetically, it would probably be taken so far out of context it would not be the same thing.