Eschatology v. Archeology

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

The question I want to ask, above all, is whether wisdom springs, first and foremost, from the beginning, which is to say some kind of arche or origin (be it a fundamental principle, substance, or whatever else), or from the end, which is to say a vision of the eschaton or end times that history may or may not be moving toward?

(Note: when I say vision, I do not mean to say a prediction of what will be, but rather a prophecy based on hope and faith-- hope, because it’s what we all long for, and faith, because we trust in its possibility no matter how impossible it may seem…)

In short, is our job as philosophers tantamount to archeology, and digging in the earth in search of a foundation for our thoughts and actions, or eschatology, and having a vision of the end and shaping our thoughts and actions in the here and now in order to realize it?

Clearly, I want to argue that wisdom is not about being consistent with the rules of the universe, whether ordained by God or whomever else, but about knowing how to get from where we are now to where we all want to be, and making this vision we all share (whether atheist or theist or whatever else) a reality.

In other words, can we please stop fighting about what comes first, be it God, a big bang, or whatever else, and start talking about what should come last, and how it is that we can get there? …

Maybe if we find this shared vision we can finally get past our differences and actually make some progress.

2

What you’re calling Eschatology is the primary subject in the political forum, as I understand you- there it’s people fighting over what sort of utopia we should be working towards, mixed with anti-utopians who just want to be left alone by all sweeping moves for progress.

Eschatology is classically not very important to western religion. It took off in post-enlightenment Protestantism, I think because people saw in the future a chance to apply theory and reason to pontificate on what shall be and what must be done, instead of mere obedience.

3

All forums of thought should merge in the end, so yes, inevitably political sphere, and utopianism is definitely along lines of my thinking here. I agree with everything you say, with the special note that “classic” western religion is to root it in Greek inheritance (Platonic ideas, Aristotelian mover), which looks more to the beginning than the end, and that perhaps we’ve lost touch with an even more primordial religious attitude that was eschatologically oriented.

But that all said, the question remains, or at least the upshot of it: can theists and atheists not re-orient discussions to building a shared view of the end-times, and then start talking wisdom, and break from the classical influence on our religious sensibility that, IMO, is only impeding any genuinely fruitful conversation? …

4

Hope for the future provides direction for decisions and relevancy. Without that direction, there can be no wisdom. Hope for the future provides a foundation for thought and direction for the mind. But wisdom is the “how to”, not the “what for”. The how-to portion of getting there comes not at the beginning nor at the end, but along the route (“live in the now” - pay attention). The beginning and end provide orientation and the beginning of rationale. But it is the condition of the path that chooses the wisest steps to be taking.

Agreed. Been there. Done that.

One cannot get to anywhere without being consistent with the universe. The knowledge of what can and cannot be done is what allows for the choice of what is or is not wise to attempt. Although that is also the inspiration for temptations, thus not for the presumptuous or impatient.

No.

And that is why not.
It takes knowledge to know what the future could possibly be and wisdom to understand what of the possible is best and if one can get from here to there. That is why scientists and bankers can’t be allowed to govern, merely advise.

5

Well yes, I suppose they could, but why would they? The atheists genuinely believe the things they are saying, and so to the theists. It’s not as though they are arguing disingenuously about stuff they have no stake in just to waste your time. Atheists and theists disagree because they disagree, not as a means to some other end. Or, to put it another way, can you and the atheists not just re-orient yourselves away from this pointless quest for secular notions of progress and please just become good Catholics already? That is effectively what you are asking.

6

Wisdom is in the eye of the beholder, it is see to reside in the observed actions of each individual, and thus wisdom lives and dies within the lives of those that are wise.
Your question is meaningless. Wisdom is not an external force of nature, absorbed by people from the either.

7

We could spin endlessly in circles about the origin of things (never really knowing). My thinking is that maybe, just maybe, there are folks tired of this on both sides of the fence who might be open to another avenue and possible common ground by shifting attention to the end-times, where we’re all free to envision what it could be, and what we would want it to be, and what the way to that end is.

We might spin endlessly on this as well, both on the end and the way to it, but maybe, once freed from some of the baggage we’re all carrying, we might be able to progress. And I don’t see anything wrong with that. Or why that’s pointless, as you put it.

8

Yeah, wouldn’t say wisdom is that. Rather I think it’s knowing how to move things toward the end, or how to make our vision of the end a reality here and now. It is rooted in a vision of what the world should be, but comes from us as you say.

(Note I said our vision of the end. Not mine. If the vision is to be the source of wisdom, it needs to be collective. Hence the OP.)

9

Is it consistent with the universe that water turn into wine? Or the dead be resurrected? This is a side-line, but I think there’s something to the possibility of the impossible…

No, it takes imagination to know what the future could possibly be, not knowledge. And sure, there might be some wisdom in discerning the best possible end time, but I would think it’s something more like hope, longing, or desire… Wisdom is definitely involved in getting us from here to there though.

10

It is to me. One must pay attention to the reality of now, in order to know and choose wisdom.

My knowledge, whether wise or not, disagrees.

11

There are lots of different people. What may be desired for last can change over time. The question you might want to ask is if there is a unified desired for what is last… maybe there is no last. I think we just find laws that are there, good game theory and stick to it… some game theory is better than others, unless we all become dust, then it doesn’t matter, you can mutilate your genitals and move on with life, for no reason whatsoever.

12

Wisdom can be viewed as a collective, and gathered into books and schools of philosophy. But the appreciation of wisdom in in the action of each of us. But this removes it from archae- or escato- considerations.

13

this is an excellent thread and long overdue. (In other words, I wish I had thought of it)
The archeology of thought is a great way to put it. Most philosophers are part of the archeology
school of thinking. A few of the great ones were philosophers who did both side of the equation.
They said, in so many words, this is what is and this is what should be. those philosophers who did
both sides were Plato, Marx, Hegel and Nietzsche. the rest were about archeology, not eschatology.

On the political side, you have conservatives who are about the archeology and you have liberals
who are about the eschatology side. For conservatives, you learn from the past and tradition is your
guide, whereas the liberal tend to forsake the past and look to the future. Liberals are often accused
of trying to create utopia’s which lead us to believe this idea of liberals looking toward the future.

If you look at the modern political landscape, you are led to believe that our modern leaders
(on both sides) don’t look to the future. There are no visions to what we are to look like in
a few years. This archeology ideal is a part of the problem with the U.S. We have no
vision of the future and thus we have no direction. We desperately work so hard to protect
American ideals from those who wish those ideals harm without asking if those ideals that now have been
so corrupted, are worth protecting? We promote torture as a way to preserve our way of life.
That suggest to me, we are no longer a society or nation worth protecting because we have violated
our basic core values which guided our country for two centuries.

We have engaged in archeology thinking in our lives and not eschatology thinking, for who thinks of the
future now days? Protect what we have without considering the value of what we have. We need a
political version of Nietzsche’s reevaluation of values. We need to do so because those values that were
solid and fixed in my childhood are lost and forsaken today. We must stand for something of value and
not just be about surviving. However the values we should stand for do not need to be the fix and firm values
of my childhood. In our revaluation of values, we need to create the values that are needed in the 21 century.
In other words, we adapt our values to the ever changing present and future. We are creatures of evolution
and we must now learn to adapt our values to the changing present and future. Today values may be of courage
and valor, tomorrow values may be of tenderness and kindness and the following day values may be of
toughness and steadiness. We have to adapt our values to the ever changing landscape we live in.
It will be a tough road to hoe because we are used to set values that last forever and values are
not meant to last forever. That is eschatology at work, creating the values that is needed for tomorrow.
Archeology vs eschatology, values fix in stone or values that change with our needs.

Kropotkin

14

I think that philosophy should have descriptions of reality, and should keep re-evaluating that, - so both. Even if there is a god, one would assume it has some manner of end-game to wit we learners will eventually see and its original philosophy will no longer be required.

Not having industry, science and philosophy like some rudimentary biblical society [living simply], cannot be the right ‘way. This because when we do eventually understand reality, then a simple life will be a different thing and based upon knowledge.

Robots, highly intelligent computers and flying cars would do me. Then we can live simple lives but have fridges etc.

15

Yes, you’re trying to win the argument without having the argument, and get right to the good stuff where everybody talks about how to make the world more like how you want it. I undersand what you’re doing, I’m just trying to explain to you why we’re resistant. As I said, “common ground” doesn’t just mean those silly other people coming to agree with you. It could just as easily mean you coming to agree with them- so like I asked, why dont you just become a good Catholic so we can move on with solving real problems?

Also, I’m not sure about your either/or setup. Why is it you think that all this arguing over the origin of things is taking away from the time spent solving problems? IS there a shortage of people arguing about things such that we need a triage of priorities? Are discussions about religion and origins getting in the way of the Kyoto Protocols or whatever it is you think is more important?

16

Speaking as an archaeologist I have to say that this is nonsense.

You have only to examine one philosopher who actually uses the ‘archeology’ as a concept to see how deeply unrelated and alien to most philosophy is to any “school of thinking” through this concept.
Michel Foucault’s Archaeology of Knowledge, is a remarkable work, but it’s distance from philosophy is remarkable, being an Intellectual History which few philosophers show any interest in.

And though I have qualifications in both areas: archaeology and intellectual history; Michel Foucault’s work is remarkable for the fact that it is neither archaeological nor it is directly philosophical. Since it is a great book, I can forgive michel foucault his colonisation of the term, as it is used cleverly as a metaphor for an historical study of paradigmatic thinking.

However, to suggest that any philosopher is part of an archaeological school of thought is a complete abuse of language, and betrays s deep ignorance of archaeology or the history of philosophy.

Perhaps, were philosophers of a more archaeological bent then the history of ideas would be less dogmatical and less trapped in the milieu of their times as they so tragically are.

17

My working hypothesis is that there is such a desire. And more precisely, that we’d find greater unity if we started associating around this than we would if we continued associating around, say, the typical starting points, such as “I’m an atheist” or “I’m a Christian” (let’s stop focusing on where we come from and start focusing on where we want to get to).

And not only greater unity would come of this but, if I ventured even further, greater wisdom, since this collective vision of the end is, more than anything else, the surest foundation for our thoughts and actions…

18

Let’s not call it an argument then and more a hypothesis that we could test. Instead of starting with where we’re coming from, let’s start with where we want to get to, and see if we can have more fruitful conversations. And if I end up coming to agree with them, very good. I change my mind all the time.

And to your second point, sure, people can keep arguing over origins. That’s fine if they want to. I have noticed though, as a theist, that this automatically labels me, and any atheist will automatically be on the defensive, or offensive, and there is little room for real dialogue, impeded as it is by presumptions about where I am coming from, when in fact we both might want the same thing, and might be able to give insight to each other, if we just focused the conversation appropriately. All else aside, my minimal hope would be to at least side-step this nonsense, and a lot of it is nonsense, and have a real conversation. (I’m hoping a lot of atheists feel the same way.)

19

There is a time for everything. And I like what you say. I would add though, or stress, because I do want to unite archaeology and eschatology, that it seems to me the only thing enduring across history, or with the capability of endurance, is a vision of the end… I believe a vision can unite all times and places no matter what our understanding of reality, of what is possible or impossible, of what values are good or evil…

This collective vision (*if it exists) should shape our values, and be the source of our wisdom, which is to say of what we need to do now in order to move toward that end, or to create the conditions of its possibility. But it should do this not only from the future, but also from the past, since if this vision overarches history then it is also archeology, and comes to us from the past as well (inheritance as much as re-envisioning…). In other words, the end is in the beginning as much as it is in the end. (Hence I love a text like Genesis 1, which I think captures this beautifully, in addition to the collective spirit of the vision and its execution…)

The next step, if we are in alignment, is the vision of the end, and whether or not a collective vision is indeed possible.

20 
 I still have to stick to my first point- we have conversations about where we want to get to all the time. That's political science.  I don't see any more consensus or sign of progress there than I do in religion.  What is it you propose that's different than that?

Ya, plenty of theists and atheists talk about things other than that, and consider other things way more important. Most of them, probably.