Philosophers and Philosophicules

Theosophy as a synthesis

In this article Blavatsky examines philosophy from the theosophical point of view. At the beginning of the article the author complains about the spreading in the UK of misinformation, which causing, in her view, the damage of theosophy. Obviously, it was disappointing due to the views expressed by reporters that theosophy can not be taken seriously (as philosophy) because it is just another religious cult. She writes: "The proposition now generally adopted by the flippant press that 'Theosophy is not a philosophy, but a religion', and 'a new sect'."

Blavatsky believed that theosophy deserves respect as a serious intellectual activity, basing on publicly voiced philosophical principles. Pervasive same opinion about the "new sect" was known "refrain", which, it seems, especially her annoyed. Kalnitsky wrote in his thesis: "Despite the preponderance of explicitly religious priorities, and the undeniable social facts suggesting sect-like organisation, Blavatsky strongly tried to maintain the stance that theosophy was more than, or different than, the unwanted stereotype portrayed in the press." To avoid confusion, she say that theosophy cannot be reduced to a single form of knowledge or intellectual activity: "Theosophy is certainly not a philosophy, simply because it includes every philosophy as every science and religion."

Essence of philosophy

Blavatsky fully convinced that theosophy should be "life blood" of philosophy, which is defined as "the science of things divine and human, and the causes in which they are contained." And she believes that only theosophy has the "keys" to these causes.

Claiming that philosophy was "crystallization point" of various forms of knowledge, Blavatsky writes about it this way:

"When applied to god or gods, it became in every country theology; when to material nature, it was called physics and natural history; concerned with man, it appeared as anthropology and psychology; and when raised to the higher regions it becomes known as metaphysics. Such is philosophy—'the science of effects by their causes'—the very spirit of the doctrine of Karma, the most important teaching under various names of every religious philosophy, and a theosophical tenet that belongs to no one religion but explains them all. Philosophy is also called 'the science of things possible, inasmuch as they are possible'."

Next Blavatsky apparently trying to get a "legitimation" her theosophical ideas, arguing that they are not at variance with the views of Hegel on the essence of philosophy:

"Hegel regards it as 'the contemplation of the self-development of the Absolute', or in other words as 'the representation of the Idea' (Darstellung der Idee). The whole of the Secret Doctrine—of which the work bearing that name is but an atom—is such a contemplation and record, as far as finite language and limited thought can record the processes of the Infinite."

In The Secret Doctrine first fundamental proposition is: "The Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless and Immutable Principle, on which all speculation is impossible—beyond the range and reach of thought—the One Absolute Reality, Infinite Cause, the Unknowable, the Unmoved Mover and Rootless Root of all—pure Be-ness—Sat." Thus, according to Blavatsky, Secret Doctrine is the most complete and "mature" expression "of philosophical activity", which is carried out as "such a contemplation and record" of the Absolute. Turning to the Hegelian theory and trying to find herein "substantial doctrinal parallels," she aims to consolidate her philosophical authority. Hegel's system, like most other idealist trends in philosophy, gave many useful concepts theosophists, but in most cases, theosophical views differed with them due to a number of distinctions in basic positions. In terms of theosophists philosophical activity was considered barren without occult and mystical assumptions, and intelligent searches have been justified only if they have provided evidence of their beliefs.

Defining "theosophical speculation" as an act of true philosophy, Blavatsky states that the commonality of purposes eliminates traditional religious restrictions: "Thus it becomes evident that Theosophy cannot be a 'religion', still less 'a sect', but it is indeed the quintessence of the highest philosophy in all and every one of its aspects."

Apparently, Blavatsky's statement that Theosophy is the "synthesis" and something "big" compared to any discipline or type of knowledge is inevitably present certain amount of linguistic confusion and contradictions. She claims that her theosophy should be regarded as "the quintessence of the highest philosophy in all and every one of its aspects" and that it "cannot be a religion." Trying to preserve the religious, philosophical and scientific tradition, she insists on prevailing over all synthetic and inclusive status of theosophy, using a rhetorical technique, when a seems minor compared to the. Thus, theosophy is not simply a religion, philosophy or science, but the more authoritative and reliable source that covers and synthesizes them. In this case, theosophy seems "the quintessence of the highest philosophy." It should be noted "continual irritation" of the author against any attempt to interpret theosophy as a privileged religion or sect, which is a challenge for her, requiring immediate transition to protection by the proclamation that theosophy avoids dogmatism and aims to be inclusive.

Blavatsky was sure that she was able to prove that Theosophy can match with any definition of philosophy, and that there is a general philosophical principles which the Theosophy does not contradict. She quotes Hamilton, who said that philosophy is "a search for principles, sensible and abstract truths," as well as the use of reason "to its legitimate objects." She believes that theosophy is completely legitimate and reliable means of achieving these goals, especially relating to the nature of "the Ego, or mental Self" and the relationship between "the ideal and the real." That is why in theory she perceive theosophy, albeit with some limitations, as the equivalent of philosophy. According to Blavatsky, "he who studies Theosophy, studies the highest transcendental philosophy." Linking theosophical system with the tradition of philosophical reasoning, and assuming similar purposes, she trying to achieve for herself greater respectability and authority.

Unspiritual philosophism

At the end of the article Blavatsky resorts to accusatory rhetoric, trying once again to show that theosophy often is beyond the horizon of the people who might recognize it. "She compares her situation to that of Socrates," claiming that if his teachings was would rejected because of the charges against him, then knowledge, which was transmitted through Plato and philosophers-neoplatonists would never came up to us. Blavatsky, again turning her attention to modern philosophical mood, contemptuously speaks of those, who engage in unspiritual philosophizing. Speaking about the "true philosophers," she makes the following observation:

A sceptic can never aspire to that title. He who is capable of imagining the universe with its handmaiden Nature fortuitous, and hatched like the black hen of the fable, out of a self-created egg hanging in space, has neither the power of thinking nor the spiritual faculty of perceiving abstract truths; which power and faculty are the first requisites of a philosophical mind. We see the entire realm of modern Science honeycombed with such materialists, who yet claim to be regarded as philosophers. They either believe in naught as do the Secularists, or doubt according to the manner of the Agnostics.

Blavatsky believed that a priori assumption about the spiritual basis of reality determines the truth of any philosophy. In the final part of the article she "exalts" deductive reasoning of Plato, comparing it with inductive reasoning of modern thinkers: "None of our present Darwinians, and materialists and their admirers, our critics, could have studied philosophy otherwise than very 'superficially'. Hence while Theosophists have a legitimate right to the title of philosophers—true 'lovers of Wisdom'—their critics and slanderers are at best Philosophicules—the progeny of modern Philosophism."

Criticism

Solovyov wrote that Blavatskyan theosophy based only "on the assumption that there is some kind of secret wisdom", and described it as a doctrine not only "anti-religious" and "anti-scientific", but also "antiphilosophic".

Guénon named Blavatskyan theosophy "theosophism" and described it in his book as a "pseudo-religion." He wrote that presented by Theosophical Society's leaders assertion about the alleged "Eastern origin" of their doctrine was false, and its initial tendency was overtly anti-Christian. According to him, between the doctrine of the Theosophical Society, or, at least, that ones was proclaimed and theosophy in the true sense of the word, there is absolutely no affinity:

"It is after all only a confused mixture of Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Jewish Kabbalah, Hermeticism, and occultism, the whole of it being gathered as well as can be expressed around two or three ideas which, whether one likes it or not, are of completely modern and purely Western origin."

A Russian philosopher Lesevich, firmly believing philosophical ignorance of Blavatsky, tartly noted:

"What kind of audience they [the theosophists] will snared, you can see from the witty expose the charlatanical tricks of Mme Blavatsky, who began a discuss the philosophy of Plato and talked a lot of all kinds of nonsense. Exposing all this nonsense shows full justice to the characteristics of the logical methods unscrupulous author of Isis Unveiled, who, appears, imagines itself that if she said anything a three-fold, the sentence has to be considered proven."

Publications