Critique On Idealistic Philosophy

With the advent of the "New Age" movement, there have been a plethora of reactionary philosophies of Idealist metaphysics that are embraced by many people of a potentially radical persuasion. They might reconsider if they had a better understanding of the crafty template of lies that is being layered into their brains through the subtle semantic threads woven by self-interested frauds. These sublime superficialists range from the brilliant like the late Manly P. Hall, to the laughably trite like Dick Sutphen, with his soulmate mythology and his commercialized pop-metaphysics.

Idealism is a veneer that tries to gloss over the evil and suffering in the world, by attributing all disharmony and pain as being part of a higher perfection; incomprehensible to the human mind, except for the human minds of philosophical idealists who alone can fit incomprehensible truths within their comprehensible ideas. So if they say the universe is meaningful, then it is comprehensible within their belief systems.

If you say the cosmos is meaningless, then they will assert that the cosmos is beyond your understanding because it is infinite. But the ideas of philosophical idealists can encompass infinity and bottle it within insipid concepts; and that's O.K. This is a trick of obscurantist rhetoric where because they say something is incomprehensible, anything you say has to be wrong, whereas if they say something about the same thing it must be right, because they are saying comprehensible things about the incomprehensible, that are proven correct because they are saying them. Thus the Universe is unknowable to you and your philosophy because of your finite mind. But their ideas describing the universe are knowable to them because they think their minds are not finite when they are pontificating their ideas, because they are an elect with secret knowledge. This is the elitist conceit that idealists must resort to, it is necessary to obfuscate their contradictions.

Their main error is in qualifying the unqualifiable, and insisting that their half-truth is a whole truth. What they do not see is if the universe is infinitely meaningful, it is also infinitely meaningless, because you cannot limit the limitless to only one half of the total hypotheosis, when it comprises both in every variation. This holism can only be interpreted in relative terms by the mind and by each person. The existential truth is infinitely variable. So for those who experience the universe as meaningful, they are right only for themselves. Those who say the Universe is meaningless, are closer to the universal truth in that Life is obviously meaningless for more people than it is meaningful; and since the Absolute can only be interpreted in relative terms any theory is as good as any other, and this is meaningless. The Totality is meaningless, in terms of the total field of cognition, and those who see meaning in it are creating their own meanings and ideas and attributing it to the Totality outside of themselves. In light of these ideas I would advocate Nihilism as a philosophy of radical empiricism based on the experience of the individual, and not based on groundless ideas concerning the universal.

If Karma is a law of perfect universal order, why does it negate its perfection by allowing disorderly and chaotic forces to exist to contradict it that it that it has to thus bring into balance? This disequalibrium would indicate some kind of imperfection in the universal order that requires correction, and thus Karma could not be ordering everything perfectly due to this imperfection, thus this makes karma an imperfect law. Also if Karma orders everything perfectly, where is the law of its perfect order in ordering you so you will violate its Law and suffer bad Karma? And if there is free-will apart from it, it can only order those beings without free-will, so it is not ordering everything perfectly because it is failing to order beings with free-will that are thumbing their nose at it, and these free-will beings are part of the everything it is failing to order. So how can it not control you when you are doing what it wants and then control you when you are not, and vice versa, and have that be inclusive of the total rather than the partial volition of all that it is said to control? These questions cannot be answered, because they are ABSURD!!!! These are just some of the many viable ontological absurdities of which Philosophical Idealism has in abundance.

Making the incomprehensible; comprehensible to them in an incomprehensible way, and incomprehensible to you in a comprehensible way, is another one of its ludicrosities. You say that there is no such word as ludicrosities! Well that's because it is incomprehensible to you, right??!! LOL!! And you cannot seperate the Ultimate Ground Of Reality from being Ultimately responsible for everything that It manifests within and outside of Time, AND Space, without divorcing attributes of the relative from the Absolute, in which case according to Platonic Idealism, the relative would then have no Absolute essence to derive its existence from and thus would not exist. So by Idealism's thesis; any being outside of Divine control is devoid of essence and thus existence, so this enstranged being could not be subject to good or bad karma, because it does not exist. Yet the idealists say that by magic this being devoid of essence to sustain it does exist, and pays for its lack of essence and goodness by suffering bad karma, and even more absurd, being able to manipulate the whole universe into aligning itself into blasting this essence-less creature with divine wrath for its puny actions!! I think the point has been made. So where does the truth lie? That is up to you.

Has what I have just said a complex deconstructivist thesis; or just a montage of rambling absurdities? That is up to you. My sense could be your nonsense and that does not make you wrong. Nihilism means stoic individualism in the forging of ones own truth; and transforming one's self and ideational constructs into the will-to-power, or the will-to negation. Put in more basic terms, it means fight or run. You can battle and bend your corner of the world into your own image, or you can nihilate the world and choose the path of renunciation and withdrawal from it. Both are viable paths. There is also the dark hermeticism of the Left-Hand Path, in both engagement and withdrawal. The magick of the idealists is moribund in its forms, praising the blind heavens and the grotesque perfidity of Nature. The magick of Nihilism is up to you to create. Some people prefer the wand, I prefer the fist!!!