/lit/ - Literature

> What exactly is wrong with the assumption that you should follow the spiritual path that feels right to you personally, and that the nature of existence, life, death and what comes after might be outside of the scope of the world's religions?
Nothing is wrong with it, it’s just fake and gay. No, I don’t care about your crystals and no, I don’t give a shit about your vibrations. The vast majority of it is cat-woman tier delusion, and while that’s fine and dandy it won’t prevent me from mocking it.

>>16226643
>it’s just fake and gay
Why?
>crystals
>vibrations
That's not what I'm talking about, though.

>>16226629
"Following your own path" does not necessarily mean new age. New age as a movement is basically what happens when midwits read hermetic works and try to put the pieces together.

>literally every traditional belief about the past says that humans were "higher" beings living in a paradise
>what they meant: they were spiritually enlightened
>what new agers think they meant: Atlantis was basically star trek, with teleporters and replicators and shieeet also alchemy is literal chemistry

>>16226629
Go for it. But as last anon stated, just like any other organized religion or comprehensive philosophy, as soon as you open your mouth about your views they will be subsequently scrutinized, lambasted, tinkered with, satirized and ultimately subjected to a barrage of laughter. You say it's new wave I say it's new trash that's been recycled over and over again and there are core similarities with the basic components. Is it wrong to shroud yourself to the innocence of a modern world without lining backward at the faults and nuances of the past? No - Go for it. You'll be no different than a new born if you adhere solely to the new (basic) wave.

Because 49.5% of Newage "thinkers" are irrational whackjobs, and 49.5% are straight up conartists trying to sell you junk.

This isn't to say that OLD GOOD NEW BAD (99% of Protestant "thinkers" are irrational whackjobs trying to sell you junk), but rather, that there's nothing new under the sun, so anyone claiming to have just now discovered THE TRUTH should be treated with suspicion.

>>16226669
>"Following your own path" does not necessarily mean new age
Wouldn't you call the OP pic new age?

there is no more philosophy
there is no more inquiry
there is no more quality
we have consumed the world

>>16226629
Emotion is illogical. It is a disordering of the human soul to subject reason to emotion. Feeling is not thinking. Truth is known by reason, not emotion. You debase yourself.

>>16226629
If it doesn't have clear empirical implications, it's meaningless.

>>16226994
>>16227003
/r/ifuckinglovescience is that way.

>>16227064
>>>/x/

>>16226629
I like Ken Wilber

>>16227079
>>>/sci/

>>16227064
Read Aquinas.

>>16227098
Why?

>>16226629
Pic related sounds just like christianity or something with extra steps

>>16227225
>extra steps
Fewer, you mean.

>>16227255
No, in Christianity you follow the teachings of Christ which are very simple and straightforward. In OP's "belief" you are trying to decipher the ramblings of a schizophrenic person

>>16227277
What I get from the OP picture is just "when you die, you gain access to a perfect and unconditional afterlife forever". There's nothing to decipher.

>>16227289
So you never even checked any of those links?

>>16227115
Because he's right.

>>16227326
About what?

>>16226629
new age crap like muh maya, muh just sit and mother nature good, is jsut hedonists who try to find a way where they feel righteous

>>16227383
Pretty much everything.

>>16226629
They subconsciously believe that the value of a philosophy is determined only by its complexity and the effort required to grasp it. Hence the endless posturing and cries of pseudointellectualism that characterize the status-striving anons of this board

>>16226629
because the fundamental message of the nu age movement is "just do whatever you want." theres nothing enlightened about this; its just hedonism with the veneer of spirituality. most people who practice new age don't even believe in God.

All religion is silly. But if you don't have centuries of tradition around your absurd supernatural beliefs, it becomes much easier to see how ridiculous they are.

>>16226629
One reason among many why New Age religions and philosophy get dismissed: How to establish truth. New Agers claim truth by:

1. Personal feeling. Something 'feels' true and therefor it is. Reason for dismissal: Obvious, these claims are unsupported and can be contradicted by anyone else, the individual making these claims has no special revelatory power, unless...

2. A new prophet. An individual for whatever reason has special access to the truth and thus is qualified to establish certain things as truly reflecting the nature of reality. Reason for dismissal: Typically, personal failing - most new age prophets end up being exposed in some way or another as frauds, con-men, or perverts. Also most of the time these prophets claim powers which they can't demonstrably manifest. Finally, there already exist thousands of claimed prophets throughout human history and they have millions of people who have claimed these prophets have worked millions of miracles over, without any other assumptions, why are you claimed miracles any more valid than these?

3. Commonality of religions. 'All religions actually teach the same thing dude, they all reflect the same truth' - Reason for dismissal: No, they don't. New Agers (and "Traditionalists" and Bahais for that matter) often are led to believe that there way more things in common among the world religions than there actually are, as they read from sources (see: Huxley) who cherrypick, and then don't read ever outside of those sources. If you actually make a study of say Vedic Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, and 12th Century Catholicism, you will find jackshit in common aside from the idea that more exists outside of what a modern person would call 'the material world' (many cultures and religions don't make a distinction between the two, so New Agers just end up reading this modern western dichotomy into other religions and assuming it justifies them somehow).

4. Ancient sources revealed. Sometimes religious, sometimes not, but New Agers will often claim that ancient documents say something totally different than is generally accepted, or that they have uncovered an ancient document. The various reason for why these interpretations are wrong varies a ton and I won't get into it, but I will say that it typically boils down to a Dunning-Kruger effect - that some uneducated person all of a sudden learn more about archaeology than the average joe, and not knowing actual academics to compare himself to assumes that he has a special talent for deciphering lost wisdom, and therefor a mandate to do so. When this fantasy is challenged, he will crawl back into the time honored American past time of hating on the educated and extolling the natural talent only found in the common man. See: Joseph Smith, as the best historical example of this type, and Graham Hancock nowadays.

>>16227983
my apologies for the poor grammer, I used voice to text and then only half revised it

>>16226669
this poster is correct

>>16227277
lmao checked

>>16227983
good effortpost

>>16227983
>Something 'feels' true and therefor it is.
There's nothing wrong with this.

>>16228036
Only a fool looks at grammar and dismisses the central points.
I've liked your post, this guy touches on similar ideas like your post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVLWssrXgNk

>>16226629
>you should follow the spiritual path that feels right to you personally
Yes, you should. This falls apart because "feels right" is vague. It could mean "What you know to be right", or it could mean "What you opine to be right", or it could mean "What is pleasurable". It very rarely means the first and usually means the second or the third. People should follow what they know to be just. Not their base reactions or what makes them feel good emotionally or physically. But most use "I'm just doing what feels right for me" as a cover for just doing whatever they want.

>>16229152
Intuition is a valuable tool, yes, but it really requires an enormous about of introspection to recognize the source of gut feelings. Many people "intuit" that something is true or right because they learned it in childhood and have just always done things that way. That's not intuiting the truth, that is unconsciously parroting another person's opinions. Many people, and this is a pressing issue today, have opinions because they are oversocialized and timid. Their opinions are not really statements about truth, but a fear of "being the bad guy". For example, someone who refuses to morally condemn a person who victimizes them not because "Everyone deserves forgiveness and a chance to be better" but because "They probably had their reasons and I shouldn't judge". These people do exist, I've run into them more and more often as time goes on. They're not really okay with being victimized, they're afraid of getting angry because they think being angry makes them a bad person so they do everything possible to always be nice even if it also means being a doormat.

These are different feelings from intuition. With ten minutes of introspection one can recognize that a visceral reaction is not intuition but unconscious parroting. But intuited feelings may never be resolved with introspection. For example, I can intuit that being very overweight is extraordinarily bad for you. No amount of introspection can bring me to some pivotal moment where I recognized this, I just kind of know and feel it. So it's intuited. It is simply known.

>>16229152
It's obviously false, and if you can't tell, you are in serious danger.

>>16229485
ooo spooky

>>16229501
Love isn't a feeling, and if you live as though it is, you're going to ruin your life and many other people's lives as well.

>>16229556
Lots of cryptic alarmist statements, very little actual substance.

>>16226643

Fpbp

>>16229583
What's cryptic about saying love is not a feeling? If you pursue relationships believing love is an emotion, you are likely to create dysfunctional relationships that will be directly harmful to you and the one you say you love. You will do things and say things you regret, and you will erode the possibility of happiness in your life. You will measure your love for the other based on how you feel from day to day, which will be unstable and unreliable. Moreover, it will prevent you from demonstrating real love, which exists in self-sacrifice. Rather than seeking the gratification of the one you love, you will look for self-gratification. The one you say you love will become little more than an object of pleasure to you, which you will tire of with time, as nothing will quite match that original exhilaration. You will become confused as you struggle to understand where the feeling went, not recognizing that the feeling is a result of love, not the love itself. You will have lost the feeling of love, because you will have stopped loving them. This could create anxiety, depression, self-loathing, hatred of the one you love, anger, irritation, and so on. In all these, you will respond to your emotions as though they are the thing itself. Your life will fall apart, and you won't understand, because you will have traded truth for feeling.

>>16226629
stupid pederast, only knowledge and truth matter, not philosophy, and truth cannot be "new".

>>16226983

>>16226643
This. Also
>muh Dr. Sebi!!!
Stop, just stop

>>16226983

>>16226669
what the fuck does “spiritual enlightenment” mean in this context beyond what you could get from a Bill and Ted movie

>>16226629
because religious rambling belongs on >>>/x/