/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6348616]

What is Gnosticism?

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6348620]

A bunch of spooky bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6348622]

neoplatonism but things gradually sour

[Anonymous No.6348623]

>>6348616
Trash.

[Anonymous No.6348625]

>>6348620
from what I know, Gnosticism is supposed to be the divine knowledge that is present universally like pic related.

i want to KNOW!!! I want Gnosis!

[Anonymous No.6348632]

>>6348625

[Anonymous No.6348650]

>>6348625
>islam

In islam do unto others only applies to other muslims, not everyone else.

[Anonymous No.6348675]

Gnosticism is a heretical strain of Christianity which views the God of the Old Testament as evil.

[Anonymous No.6348678]

Gnosticism isn't a single belief.

It's a range of mystical heretical beliefs that are mostly extinct.

The dualistic Gnostics believed Elohim was Yaldabaoth who pretended to be the True God, named YHVH.

Modern day Gnostics often confuse this and believe the Deity known as Jehovah is the Demiurge Yaldabaoth.

Beliefs include, jesus was a Ghost, jesus never died, jesus was a lesser spirit sent to die by Abrasax, Jesus was an Archon, jesus was Evil, jesus was the True God etc.

Wisdom is personified in the "aeon" Sophia, mother of the Demiurge (and he created all)

Depending in form of gnosticism there are multiple heavens and Aeons, each Aeon is both a living being and a Heaven.

It's a mixture of Christianity, Neo-platonism, Egyptian beliefs, kabbalah, and a host of other stuff.

I for one prefer Hermeticism.

[Anonymous No.6348687]

>>6348675

[Anonymous No.6348698]

>>6348616
Euphoric new-age cultish philosophies. E.g. 'hard sci-fi' authors like Greg Egan or Peter Watts are a modern-day example.

[Anonymous No.6348766]

A form of theological and possibly mental dualism, arguing an explanation to the problem of evil. The good is the "spirit", an alien essence which through some cosmic accident or tragedy has become ejected from its home and entrapped within living things in the secondary, material realm, which is evil. The goal is to phone home to the "monad", the original reality and the source of all spiritual essence. It's basically Plato's cosmology, except without apologizing for the demiurge or seeing any laudable harmony. Where Plato didn't talk much about evil, the Gnostics were all about it.

[Anonymous No.6348814]

>>6348698
>Euphoric new-age cultish philosphies

anon

[Anonymous No.6348856]

Basically ancient world equivalent to Scientology. Started by Simon Magus.

[Anonymous No.6348902]

>>6348766
I really don't see the hard sf connection, it's more common to PKD than any of the authors you mentioned and hardly any Gnostic themes have a place in actually hard science fiction, which by definition works to operate within the confines of the laws of physics from a materialist standpoint.
The idea that scientific knowledge=power, glory, and progress isn't unique to Gnosticism. The entire Western intellectual tradition outside of Christianity proper emphasizes this way of thinking, and even Christianity proper isn't averse to the concept of divine knowledge.
Gnosticism is a Christian heresy that has no direct relation to hard SF, unless you're using a faulty definition of 'hard SF' that somehow includes PKD and The Matrix as examples of hard SF that has genuinely Gnostic themes.

[Anonymous No.6348904]

>>6348902
Meant for >>6348698

[Anonymous No.6348943]

>>6348902
a) PKD wasn't a gnostic, he was just a crazy tripping dude. He did not have a consistent religious stance.

b) So-called 'hard SF', Greg Egan style, is _not_ about scientific knowledge! It's about euphorically transcending the plebness of this universe; usually with some anti-scientific trick like transhumanism or artificial intelligence. Sometimes a literal 'ascension' plot device is used -- e.g, the chosen few uploading their consciousness to an AI and slipping between the cracks of string theory while the physical universe is consumed in an explosion of gamma rays.

It seems like you don't understand the core religious beliefs of gnosticism, choosing to focus on an outdated set of ancient middle-east cultural trappings.

Transhumanism, 'post-scarcity society', radical social construct deconstruction, etc., are all telltale signs of gnosticism.

[Anonymous No.6348985]

>>6348943
>PKD wasn't a gnostic, he was just a crazy tripping dude. He did not have a consistent religious stance.
He had a great deal of affinity for Gnosticism, though, and this is well-documented and shows in many of his works.
>So-called 'hard SF', Greg Egan style, is _not_ about scientific knowledge!
So it isn't hard SF and you're making a category mistake.
>It seems like you don't understand the core religious beliefs of gnosticism, choosing to focus on an outdated set of ancient middle-east cultural trappings.
It seems like you don't know that this ancient desert cult is what Gnosticism is. You're making another category mistake here.

That's two, for anyone who's counting. You don't seem to have a substantial understanding of hard SF or of Gnosticism. You can apply whatever label you want to whatever you want, but both of hard SF and Gnosticism are different from what you think they are.

[Ignatius Neworleanus Rex Intel(...) No.6348988]

>>6348616
In Our Time has a good podcast about Gnosticism, and Gnostic beliefs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01s4rhz

[Anonymous No.6348990]

>>6348766
Sounds like the most immature belief ever.

[Anonymous No.6349001]

>>6348990
It pretty much is. It's like a shit-tier form of Christianity crossed with a really terrible understanding of Platonic ontology.

[Anonymous No.6349003]

>>6348985
>So it isn't hard SF and you're making a category mistake.
That's how it's labeled on the cover and that's how its fans call it. I'd rather trust their word than yours.

>It seems like you don't know that this ancient desert cult is what Gnosticism is.
Was, not is. Gnosticism is a living tradition, the cultural trappings of how it was manifested 1500 years ago are not really relevant here. (Especially when you don't understand their core beliefs and choose to focus on irrelevant trivia instead.)

[Anonymous No.6349016]

>>6348988

Also, michael heiser, a PHd in Semitic languages, did a lecture on some shitty book which has lots of references of gnosticism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDyl1qrpj_Q

[Anonymous No.6349019]

>>6349003
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction
>Hard science fiction is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific accuracy or technical detail, or on both.[1][2] The term was first used in print in 1957 by P. Schuyler Miller in a review of John W. Campbell, Jr.'s Islands of Space in Astounding Science Fiction.[3][4][5] The complementary term soft science fiction (formed by analogy to "hard science fiction"[6]) first appeared in the late 1970s. The term is formed by analogy to the popular distinction between the "hard" (natural) and "soft" (social) sciences.
Does that apply to the genre?
>Gnosticism is a living tradition, the cultural trappings of how it was manifested 1500 years ago are not really relevant here. (Especially when you don't understand their core beliefs and choose to focus on irrelevant trivia instead.)
The core beliefs you named are vague enough that people use the same phenomena to justify their belief that the Illuminati or the Frankfurt school are really in control of society. Are those authors even professed Gnostics?

[Anonymous No.6349080]

>What is Gnosticism

One of the many branches of old religion that serve as the basis for pretty neat stories all things considered.

[Anonymous No.6349110]

>>6348678

Hermetic kabbalah is clearly the top tier

[Anonymous No.6349147]

>>6348985
>>6349019
This one is right.
Just in case anyone gets confused by Wronganon.

[Anonymous No.6349162]

>>6349019
>Does that apply to the genre?
No, not anymore.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Egan
> "He specialises in hard science fiction stories"
If you had read Egan you'd know that he's very light on 'scientific accuracy' but very heavy on gnostic eschatology.

>The core beliefs you named are vague enough...
I didn't name any core beliefs. (Yet.)

> Are those authors even professed Gnostics?
Probably not. Conspiracy theorists are very rarely gnostics.

Gnosticism, at the core, is an anti-human theology. Instead of being nihilist psychopaths (which would be stupid, nobody is a kill-all-humans satanist unironically) they couch their anti-humanism as a kind of trans-humanism.

Gnostics always focus on evolving humanity by destroying all social constructs. Another requirement of gnosticism is a belief in a 'chosen few'; only a small part of humanity, and enlightened inner circle, can transcend humanity and become trans-human. (Usually the 'chosen few' is an exclusive group; you can't join it, membership is predetermined by nature/cosmic law.)

Most sci-fi is very heavily gnostic. (Gnosticism is common in other places too: communist ideologies usually have gnostic overtones, SJW/identity politics is sometimes gnostic, etc.)

[Anonymous No.6349190]

>>6349147
Samefagging is a sin.

[Anonymous No.6349220]

>>6348650
You're lying.

[Anonymous No.6349303]

>>6349162
>Gnosticism is common in other places too: communist ideologies usually have gnostic overtones, SJW/identity politics is sometimes gnostic, etc.
This is your fundamental mistake. You know so little about the Western spiritual tradition that you think the word 'Gnostic' applies to such a broad spectrum of phenomena. You're redefining these terms to mean things that they don't mean to anyone but you. You're lumping traits associated with the agents in conspiracy theories and calling those things Gnostic when the word you really want to be using is revolutionary.
>>6349190
He wasn't samefagging.

[Anonymous No.6349636]

>>6348678
>jesus never died
Islam also thinks that way.

[Anonymous No.6349779]

>all these stupid nigger who dont know jack shit about gnosticism ITT

hehe top kek fucking plebs

[Anonymous No.6349828]

>>6349779
What does that image have to do with Gnosticism?

[Anonymous No.6349846]

>>6349779
I love the Hegel conspiracy theory. These people don't understand the concept LD dialectic at all.