On Being A Pagan by Alan de Benoist | AGR Book Reviews
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2023
- We are reviewing Alan De Benoist's seminal work: On Being A Pagan. Benoist, a member of the "deplorables" of the New Right, was at once a man of great insight to the core metaphysics of the two great religious traditions of the West: The Christian and the Pagan.
Support Ancient Greece Revisited: 🙏
🌐 Patreon: / ancientgreecerevisited
📺 Become a UA-cam member for exclusive content.
🔔 Subscribe Now:
www.youtube.com/@AncientGreec...
Join Our Community: Share your thoughts and become a part of our exploration into the ancient past in the comments below!
#ancientgreecerevisited #agr #bookreview #paganism
Benoist is a legend. If only Europe had even just 10 more men with his principles and courage.
But Europe has more than 10 like Alan de Benoist. Especially here in Hellas (= Greece) there are, I would dare say, thousands. It is the system of power that suppresses their voice, as well as the fact that most Europeans and Americans are soaked in the Middle Eastern way of thinking. The financial crisis that showed up in the West in 2009 and dominates in Hellas since then is not irrelevant of this fact, because here before that there were two decades of Enlightenment and dispute of christianism, especially of its relationship with the national values and its role throughout History. During that time thousands of Hellenes returned to the ancestral gods and even more became atheists.
Hellas is the mother of the West, but christianity (with all its branches) is its evil step-mother, that wants to make the West hate its real mother, in order to be able to tranform it to some other Middle East (and has, unfortunately, up to some point succeeded). Capitalism and neo-liberalism (as well as communism in the past) are the political expression of the abductors, as it was only partly repelled by the West’s Hellenic substance (this also explains why, e.g. Christians do not amputate their genitals, like Jews and Muslims do). That ’s why the aforementioned political systems present themselves as Democracy, while they have nothing to do with any of the Hellenic political systems. And, of course, they wouldn’t let the West’s internal tendency to return to its own nature, without reaction.
If you recommend it, then I'll read it. Sounds pretty good. I understand Paganism is not exactly Nature worship, but Nature worship is definitely part of Paganism. After all, the Gods themselves were the Children of Gaia as we all are.
Haha same… adding it to my list
Cheers to everyone at AGR! Love to see it!
In this book, I found the arguments to answer the monotheists. An essential document. #MEGA
Thanks for the incredibly eye-opening content, you have been a great help in revealing the world of our ancestors from a unique perspective. Keep up the amazing work
Thank you for this video and the insight provided!
Benoist is certainly a controversial figure but that is only because his points of view are influenced by the various tragedies that France experienced during the 20th century, nonetheless his work in the area of Metaphysics can include quite a bit of insight into what it means to be a “Christian” and what it means to be a “Pagan”.
I would identify my philosophical position as dialectical monism and my theological position as monistic polytheism. Personally, I see no fundamental contradiction between certain forms of Abrahamic mysticism (Kabbalah, Sufism, Eastern Orthodox monasticism, etc.) and forms of mysticism found around the world - including Pagan mysteries or even esoteric Luciferianism, for that matter; they are differently polarized perspectives on the One Reality. I love Nietzsche’s philosophy but I prefer Tolstoy’s politics. Also, there is certainly some overlap between animism and some forms of Paganism. It’s more of a Vanir thing than an Aesir thing in some ways.
In my opinion there are no contradictions between ANY kind of Mysticism, which is why you don't see any. The thing is that Mysticism is NOT the religion it pertains to. Christian Mysticism is NOT Christian. These forms dress up in the vestiges of their respective cultures to pass their knowledge without being burned at some stake or another. That is why mystics can agree while priests throw blame at each other for not following the "true" way. There are many today who mistake one for the other, and say for instance that Islam is all about the "internal Jihad" that is fought against one self. But that is only an internalisation of Mystics, who took an otherwise war-like religion and turned fact into metaphor for something higher. One should not be confused with the other.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Exactly. Something like Sufism isn't islamic at core, it does exist, despite islam. Maybe the same could also be said about Shi'ism, or at least about many aspects of it. I don't say this as an attack to islam, I respect the religion, but the Qur'ān is the most dogmatic and hard law focused book I've ever read. There is a reason why 87-90% of all muslims on this planet are Sunni, because Sunni Islam really does represent the spirit of muhammad the best. If we look at the life of muhammad, we understand, the Qur'ān isn't about mystical metaphors. In fact the Qur'ān and Muhammad (Sunnah) say explicit, that it's all meant literally.
Have been meaning to read that one for a while - thanks for your take on it!
Please more book reviews!
ua-cam.com/video/ZSHgGsM9avI/v-deo.html
Έχει τόσο καιρό που ήθελα να αγοράσω και διαβάσω αυτό το βιβλίο, που με τον καιρό απραξίας που μεσολάβησε, η επιθυμία αυτή ξεθώριασε. Μετά το καταπληκτικό βίντεο αυτό που έφτιαξες, η επιθυμία μου αυτή αναζωπυρώθηκε. Σε ευχαριστώ.
Έχω δει την προσπάθεια με τον Ιδεόκοσμο σας από Facebook. Μπορούμε να μιλήσουμε michael@agr-series.com
@@AncientGreeceRevisited πολύ ευχαρίστως. Θα σου στείλω μήνυμα να τα πούμε
If you can make a video on article "Αρχαίοι Έλληνες φιλόσοφοι σε τοιχογραφίες χριστιανικών ναών μαζί με αγίους!"
Interesting topic indeed! Care to share a link or two?
it's not my political taste but this was unexpected in good way!!!
Προφέρεται, 'Μπενουά'
It's spelled, 'BenouA'
6:15 The worldview you are describing is a common misinterpretation of science. Science does not deny the metaphysical, because it does not concern itself with it. That is not the practice or function of science.
This - if I may say so - is a misunderstanding of the misunderstanding :-)
Modern science is a method (we’ve heard this many times already). In that respect, it’s like a pair of scissors, or a hammer. But for this method to work, certain assumptions about the nature of reality have to be made. It’s these assumptions, formulated during the European enlightenment, that form the “metaphysics of modern science.” So, it’s not about “denying the metaphysical.” Science HAS a metaphysical, albeit one that is very different, even antithetical to that of the ancient world.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited What assumptions, that science has to make in order to work, would contradict a pagan worldview? Because I think you can be a pagan, but still apply the scientific method to evaluate empirical data.
@@Brachiophore The basic assumption that science has to make is that the "part explains the whole." The ancient world stood on the understanding that the "whole explains the part." Before I go into it any further on this thread, please watch our episode on Aristotle's Politics. You'll find a great illustration of what I mean. If you still have questions, let us know ...
I wonder what the writer’s problem with judaism is. I’m not jewish or even religious, but very interested in history and the history of religion, and even I know that the theologies of judaism and christianity as we know them today have evolved quite a lot over time. Judaism and Christianity influenced each other, and were in turn greatly influenced by pagan theology and practices as well as classical philosophy.
The idea of god as a “perfect” being developed gradually over time, as a result of influences from Greek philosophy mainly (i.e. the writings of Aristotle, Plato, Parmenides, Xenophanes, etc.). Archeological evidence shows that Yahweh was originally a storm-god like figure, part of a pantheon, and the Hebrew bible contains references to both other gods and to Yahweh making mistakes and being fallible.
Where de Benoist really makes a fool of himself is where he attributes our current materialist culture to Judeo-Christian theology, seemingly forgetting the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians, Ancient Egyptians, and others, were exceedingly materialist.
Interesting observation. But I think we are confusing ourselves with the word "materialism" here, as it can mean different things to different people. In fact, the (modern) philosopher Allan Watts said it best. He said that, if our culture was indeed "materialist," people in the Western Democracies would come back from work in their beautiful mansion, dressed in bright colours of expensive silk, to find a dinner table full of delicacies, their wives naked among other beautiful women, ready to engage in an orgy at the sound of orchestral music (or something of that sort). What Allan Watts was implying is that we are not really "loves of matter." Our lives are rather "gloomy" in comparison with what a true materialist culture would be. Even our science is not really "materialist" but "abstractist," as it is more fascinated with models or reality than reality itself. So, it's this second, modern kind of materialism that Benoist was referring to. The God of the Bible is in fact a somewhat "abstract" God, and although the Bible makes constant references to God's "hands." "back," "eyes," etc. And even though our own bodies are fashioned according to "the image of God," in actual fact, the Semitic peoples have refrained from any representation of their deity. Benoist in fact reminds us that Jews (as in modern Jews) have a very poor history in the visual arts, and he attributes this to their lack of a religious painting tradition, where European painting began to hone its skills to perfection.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited The issue with this interpretation is that even by Watts’ very literal interpretation of materialism both the Romans and Ancient Greeks and other peoples were not materialist either. I agree that our culture values abstract concepts very highly, often to the detriment of the physical and the sensuous, but this is much more easily traced back to influential ancient (pre-Christian) philosophical thinking than to religious metaphysics. The estimation of abstract, intellectual and metaphysical pursuits over the maligned physical and material concerns is a theme that medieval religious scholars stole wholesale from earlier classical thinkers. A hugely important factor that is neglected in all this is the role of political economic factors, and specifically how an increasingly capitalist system alienates humans from the things they make and places them in an exploitative and detached, instead of symbiotic and entwined, position towards nature. Whilst religious thought plays a role in our conception of the world, it is much more shaped by our conception of the world than the other way around.
Benoist’s argument regarding visual arts is similarly easily disproven, with the consideration of context and parallels. Modern Jews have a very rich history in the visual arts (to name a few: Chagall, Pissarro, Lucien Freud, Modigliani, all either started or were hugely influential in broadly acclaimed movements in painting alone), whereas ancient Jews originally did not have any qualms against portraying Yahweh (in fact, there are archaeological remains of temples/synagogues with depictions of Yahweh dating even after the rule against depicting god was adopted ca. 600 bc) and they conceived of him living in very concrete form in the temple in Jerusalem (exactly like other paganist religions conceived of gods as living in temples). The theology was adapted to fit the circumstances, and not the other way around: the destruction of the first and second temples and the exile of Jewish intelligentsia in Babylon is what gave rise to the idea that Yahweh isn’t tied to one physical place (handy), and the reduced marginalisation and religious persecution Jews experienced towards the beginning of the modern era led to broad adoption of a much more relaxed attitude towards religious dogma and the increased ability of many Jews to participate in and create works of visual art. There is so much evidence that Benoist has to ignore in order to make his argument work. I’d also be interested whether he has considered the rich tradition of visual arts in the Islamic world and other more ancient cultures that do not depict gods predominantly or at all.
@@CaveTuumCanem To answer some of your questions/remakrs:
The examples of Jewish painters that you mentioned would - for Benoist at least - consist *not* a "disproof" but a *proof*, as by contrast with the artd of Greece and later the Renaissance and find it akin with children's drawing (I mean.. especially with Chagall and Pissarro I would tend to agree!). For him, modern art is exactly that: the enforcement of an "untalented" art in the minds of the public.
As for the depiction of Yahweh, I mean, you are really scraping the barrel here. Maybe you can find some, but would you compare him to the cascade of forms and colours that come out of the Greek and Roman world?? We are not looking for absolutes here, but differentials, and when you are looking for religious arts you'll find that Greeks were primary visual (even in their poetry) while Semites primarily auditory. And the "rule against depicting god" is actually a proof of what I'm saying rather than an argument against it. Why did some people impose this restriction and others not?
Finally, as for the abstractions, you can think of the difference between Geometry and Mathematics. The Greeks only had the former, if we are strict with our definitions, exactly because they never moved passed the visual world. Geometry, of course, is an abstraction, but so if any form of representation. The point is that the Greek world never moved passed what is seen and has a direct correspondence with the seen. Mathematics on the other hand move in a world that is "beyond" that of the senses, and it was only during the Enlightenment that this came about.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited You may be aware of this, but there is no point arguing whether art in the classical or renaissance style, by which I think you mean a “realist” style, is somehow objectively better than other styles of art. It is wholly a matter of personal preference, and not a matter of quality or skill. It’s important to note here that both Chagall and Pissarro were classically trained painters, and were absolutely able to paint in the classical realism style - in fact, any painter wishing to make a living from their art would have been expected to be able to do so. That their most famous works are in a different style is a matter of artistic vision, and it is inconceivable that their work would have become as widely known and admired had they painted in a classically realist style, as it was seen as being unimaginative, antiquated and ordinary to paint in that style.
I’m not sure what you are arguing for or against when it comes to depictions of Yahweh. My point was not to argue that these are comparable to how, or how much, ancient Greeks and romans depicted their gods. My point was to argue against Benoist’s essentialist conception of religious art and Judaism, and by extension, his inferences regarding a causal link from a “static” theological viewpoint to our modern worldview, by illustrating how actual history is much more complex and dynamic than would allow for drawing such conclusions. He jumbles things together which might seem to make sense at first glance, but do not pass scrutiny as soon as critical thinking and a bit of in-depth knowledge of the historical context is applied, considering his timeline makes no sense and he disregards important factors that fundamentally alter the equation.
As for the ancient Greeks and mathematics, I’d be hard pressed to think of a book more influential in the field than Euclid’s Stoikheia. The admiration of the abstract, especially through the attainment and description of the impossibly perfect, the development of the principles of logic and reasoning, and above all the insistence on proof provided by ways of abstract logical thinking is the absolute foundation of our modern worldview. It’s further evident in the Ancient Greek fascination with concepts such as the paradox - hypotheticals that defy our sensory perception and invite abstract reasoning - and the entire fields of metaphysics and epistemology. It might even suffice to point to Plato’s allegory of the cave and that of the sun, arguably the famous ideas from his Republic, both of which emphasise that abstract thinking should be thought of as superior and more reliable than sensory perception. Not only did the ancient Greeks move past visual perception, in fact, they regarded visual perception as inferior to abstract thinking.
@@CaveTuumCanemTo speak about Classical Art as "realist" is a sign of our times. No one really looks like Michaelangelo's David, or Praxitelus' Hermes. The fact that the difference between an average athletes' body and Hermes is *smaller* than the difference between a young red-head and Modiglianis' is to miss the subtle point that Classical Art just as much an artistic style as modern art was. So the term "realist" is not really capturing what they did, because it assumes that their goal was the actual depiction of a real body rather than the use of this body to convey an ideal.
Now, what you said about Chagall and Pissarro and their classical training was also said about Picasso, but the truth is that during those days in France, there were countless other draftsmen who painted classically in a much better way. Their training was just what painters did back then. But that is a minor point.
About the most important point, the point about mathematics. Again, you are not being subtle here. Euclid wrote about Geometry, not Algebra. The point is very important. Both are abstractions, but one is rooted in the physical world while the other can be performed by a blind man! In modern days, Euler, once turned blind famously said "Now I will have less distraction." This could have never been said by Euclid or Pythagoras. Modern mathematics presupposes a uniform space of quantities, where there is no specific qualities in shapes themselves but only to the numbers that measure tham.
Ancient Greeks did not believe in many Gods just like how Christians that have saints are not many Gods. Temple of Apollo is no different from temple/church of St. Nicolas. they venerate not worship.
example St Nicholas, saint of the sea, who took over Olympian Poseidon position , and he took over Titan Okianos (ocean), and before that primordial God Pontos (sea). They are not idols but ideas/
Prof. & Fr Metallenos"That Christianity is a spiritual continuation of Hellenism, in almost everything (terminology, symbols, ritual, etc.) and the Hebrew alleloujah is (both literally and etymologically) the sequence from Zeus to Jesus"
I should email you a much longer list of things I found which priest, saints, church fathers, historians, theologians, etc that elaborate how Christianity or more like Orthodoxy is purely Greek. And that the OT is taken completely from Greeks like Plato and it is a much later work from around 270bc and Egyptian with their own spins.
Greek history is twisted by others since to make a new future the past has to be altered or hidden. The majority of uneducated priests and laymen disagree but the Greek tragedy is the ignorance from being the light to the world while being in the dark to hide in Plato's cave.
I think you're misrepresenting Christianity a bit here. Old-school Christians, i.e. the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics, teach Theosis and Deification, respectively, which states that men might become as gods by sharing in God's divinity. This is a central teaching in the Eastern Orthodox faith and I think that's what you're talking about after around the 4 minute mark.
There is a finer point here, which is that God in the Hebrew conception is totally Other to the world as well as man. He is not inside the great ladder of being that goes from worm to the gods, and even higher perhaps. To the degree that Christianity inherits the Jewish worldview, what you say is invalid, to the degree that Christianity inherited, as it did, from the Greek world, there will always be hints (and remember, they are only hints) of exactly what you suggest. I am a Greek Orthodox and I can assure you, there is no suggestion of any “theosis” in the everyday teachings of the church. If you, on the other hand, read the Orthodox mystics, then you will find these suggestions. In conclusion, the time and place of Jesus’ birth and life was a melting pot of many cultures, Greek included. The very idea that God begot a son, even if he did not physically do reform the deed of procreation as would Zeus, is anti-Jewish in essence, which shows the Greek influences that shaped Christianity, Yet, most of its formal content remains Jewish in essence, and that is what Benoist (as well as others) criticizes Its what’s Jewish in Christianity, and it’s the majority in deed.
Few minutes in and the arguments against Christianity are very superficial. Obviously he is ignorant of the eastern Orthodox tradition. What about theosis? Just like Nietzsche and other criticis of Christianity their critique seems only to be applicable to western Christianity.
Like we said in the video, Porphyry was “part of the problem.”
Hail be the Gods
Beyond-Hail be the Lord Christ 😉
The degree of understanding one has about one's subject matter differentiates the critical analyst from the polemicists. De Benoist is in the latter category.
He is not familiar with basic theology. Its just strawmanning for an equally clueless audience.
iI think you are wrong about this one. Christian theology essentially gives you the "inside" view of the religion, and of how those who believe in it see themselves.This is very much how a person in love sees their beloved, while claiming that others simply do not understand her/him. Benoist gives us the "outsiders" view, which is often more objective.
Christianity is full of polemicists and propagandists in its history. I've lost count of the times I've seen Christians talk nonsense about opposing religions and philosophical positions. Most Christians are intellectually and culturally mediocre and lazy
The only definition I hear "here" is from a male perspective on history. As we all know, those in power always "write" history. I wonder what part of this text you are reviewing was not appealing to you and why you did not pursue reading it.
What exactly do you mean?