Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Raruto

2011-06-05T18:54:14Z

Harpakhrad11: Repetitive text

'''''Raruto''''' is a Spanish webcomic by Jesús García Ferrer (Jesulink); ''Raruto'' parodies the Japanese anime and manga series ''[[Naruto]]''. The series has been available in "[[:es:Salón del Manga|salón del manga]]" events in [[Spain]].<ref name="Punzano">Punzano, Israel. "[http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cataluna/comic/nipon/triunfa/bibliotecas/elpepiespcat/20081102elpcat_17/Tes El cómic nipón triunfa en las bibliotecas]." ''[[El País]]''. 2 November 2008. Retrieved on 21 October 2010. "En el Salón del Manga se pueden comprar fanzines y series independientes imposibles de encontrar en las tiendas tradicionales, como Raruto, de Jesulink, una parodia de Naruto. Pero para disfrutar del manga no hace falta pasar por caja."</ref> As of 2008 about 40,000 people in Spain read his comic.<ref>"[http://www.diarioinformacion.com/cultura/2008/09/08/cultura-rebeldia-creatividad/794946.html Rebeldía y creatividad]." ''[[Diario de Información]]''. 8 September 2008. Retrieved on 21 October 2010. "Relacionado también con el manga y con el universo cómic se encuentra "Raruto". Del lápiz de Jesús García Ferrer nació esta parodia de un cómic japonés y ahora ya cuenta con unos 40.000 lectores por toda España."</ref> Because of ''Raruto'' and other Spanish manga-inspired works, García became famous on the internet.<ref>"[http://www.universia.es/html_estatico/portada/actualidad/noticia_actualidad/param/noticia/jjfci.html La Universidad de Huelva acoge el I Ciclo de Cultura Japonesa]." ''[[Universia]]''. Retrieved on 21 October 2010. "Posteriormente, tiene la palabra el dibujante Jesús García (Jesulink), autor del manga ‘5 Elementos’ y de ‘Raruto’, parodia del popular manga ‘Naruto’ de Masashi Kishimoto, el cual hablará sobre su experiencia como dibujante español de manga, lanzado a la fama a través de Internet, y sobre sus series."</ref> ''Raruto'' has translations in [[Catalan language|Catalan]], [[Chinese language|Chinese]], [[English language|English]], [[French language|French]], [[Italian language|Italian]], and [[Portuguese language|Portuguese]].<ref>"[http://www.murcia.com/lastorresdecotillas/noticias/2010/06/11-creador-raruto-impartira-taller-sobre.asp El creador de "Raruto" impartirá un taller sobre dibujo manga en Las Torres de Cotillas]." Murcia.com. 11 June 2010. Retrieved on 21 October 2010. "Raruto", la creación de "Jesulink" pronto caló en todo el mundo y su obra ha sido traducida al catalán, al portugués, al italiano, al francés, al inglés y al chino y se calcula que sólo en España debe tener unos 40.000 seguidores"</ref> Rik translated the first six chapters in English, while Leecherboy translated the subsequent chapters in English.<ref name="RarutoEngdl">"[http://jesulink.com/descargas.php?sub=rarutoenglish Raruto English]." Jesulink Website. Retrieved on 30 October 2010.</ref> Jesulink received an award for being the best Spanish artist at an ExpoManga event.<ref>"[http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2010/05/28/valencia/1275076054.html Valencia, territorio 'otaku']." ''[[El Mundo]]''. 29 May 2010. Retrieved on 30 October 2010. "Dentro del espacio de autores, el salón contará con la presencia de Jesulink, responsable del ya célebre 'Raruto', recientemente galardonado en Expomanga como el mejor dibujante español."</ref> ''Raruto'' began on 30 October 2005.<ref name="RarutoEngdl"/>

==Creation and conception==
Originally ''Raruto'' was a hobby of Jesulink, but as time passed he felt that the series became a "responsibility" (''responsabilidad'') for him, and he became careful with how he portrayed the characters so his readers would be satisfied. ''Raruto'' was created to satirize anime and manga properties that already existed.<ref>Tapia, José Carlos. "[http://www.fantasymundo.com/articulos/1701/entrevista_jesulink Entrevista a Jesulink]." ''[[FantasyMundo]]''. 9/11/2008. "Ser el creador de Raruto pasó de ser un juego a ser una responsabilidad, he intentado cuidar con cariño al personaje para que los lectores sigan estando satisfechos." and "Raruto es una sátira de un Manga que existe"</ref>

==Characters==
{{mainarticle|List of Raruto characters}}
* '''Zumomaki Raruto''' - A parody of [[Naruto Uzumaki]], Raruto is a boy from Torroja village who possesses a demon fox inside of him. Jesulink named the character "Raruto" because ''[[The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker]]'' has a character, Laruto, named in the Japanese version "Sage Raruto." Jesulink chose the name "Raruto" because ''[[The Legend of Zelda]]'' series video games are his favourite video games. In addition in Spanish "raro" means "weird," so his name could be translated as "Weirdto."<ref name="Glossary1-1">Raruto Volume 1 (English), PDF 2, Glossary.</ref> The family name "Zumomaki" is also a pun. In [[Spanish language|Spanish]] "zumo" means "[[juice]]." The translator says "but it makes no sense..."<ref name="Glossary1-2">Raruto Volume 1 (English), PDF 2, Glossary.</ref>
* '''Kuchilla Saske''' - A parody of [[Sasuke Uchiha]], Saske says that he hates "everything, white rice above all."<ref>Raruto Volume 1 (English), PDF 2, Chapter 02: Trial of the Hams, Comic Book Page 2.</ref> The name "Saske" originates from "Sasuke" of the original character, and is pronounced the same as the name of the original character.<ref name="Glossary1-1"/> In Spanish "cuchilla" means "[[blade]]."<ref name="Glossary1-2"/>
* '''Margarina Flora''' - A parody of [[Sakura Haruno]]. In Spanish "Flora" refers to [[plant]]s, and a "Flor" refers to a [[flower]]. The character's name refers to the original character's name, "[[Sakura]]," meaning "cherry blossom."<ref name="Glossary1-1"/> In Spanish "Margarina" means "[[margarine]]," and a brand of margarine in Spain is "Margarina Flora."<ref name="Glossary1-2"/>
* '''Kagate Kakasi''' ('''Kágate Kakasí''') - A parody of [[Kakashi Hatake]]. In Spanish "caca" refers to feces and "sí" means yes, so his name means "Yes, poopoo."<ref name="Glossary1-1"/> In Spanish "cagate" means to [[defecation|defecate]].<ref name="Glossary1-2"/>

==Places==
* '''Torroja''' - A parody of [[Konoha Village]]. "Torroja" is an abbreviation for "toda" and "roja," so the village name means "all red." The translator says "it doesn't makes any sense, I know... it just sounds funny."{{sic}} In Spanish "ja" is pronounced like the "ha" in Konoha.<ref name="Glossary1-1"/>
* '''The Rave Country'''<ref name="Glossary1-2"/> - A parody of the [[Land of Waves]].<ref name="Glossary1-2"/>

==Terminology==
* '''Bigbosses'''<ref name="Glossary1-1"/> ('''Jefazo''') - They are the parody of the [[List_of_Naruto_characters#Hokage|Hokage]]. The name is intentionally written as "Bigbosses" in [[English language|English]].<ref name="Glossary1-1"/>
* '''Technica Kagon, Gran Bola de Fuego'''<ref name="Glossary1-2"/> - The technique is a parody of Katon, Gōkyakyū no Jutsu. Because the words "kagón" and "katon" are related, the author of ''Raruto'' kept much of the name of the technique being parodied. "Cagón" means a person who defecates a lot, and uses his posterior to produce a fiery flatulence.<ref name="Glossary1-2"/>
* '''Ninja-Dex''', a parody of the [[Pokédex]] from the [[Pokémon]] series.<ref name="Glossary1-3">Raruto Volume 1 (English), PDF 3, Glossary.</ref>
* '''Sharinflan''' ('''Sharinflán'''), a parody of the [[Sharingan]]. The word "[[Crème caramel|flan]]" refers to a caramel custard popular in Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries.<ref name="Glossary1-3"/>
* '''Chiton Dragon no Jutsu''' parodies the technique of the same name in ''Naruto''. The author said that he kept the parody's name the same as that of the original technique because of the "Chiton-Suitón thing."<ref name="Glossary1-3"/>
* '''ANBU-Lance'''<ref name="Glossary2-2">Raruto Volume 2 (English), PDF 2, Glossary.</ref> - A parody of [[ANBU]]. The name is a pun of the English word "[[ambulance]]."<ref name="Glossary2-2"/>
* '''Picha-Gordi-Chi''' - The term, which refers to the trio of Clara Pichamaru, Achimichi Gordi, and Yamaja Chino, is a parody of the term "Ino-Shika-Cho," referring to [[Ino Yamanaka]], [[Shikamaru Nara]], and [[Choji Akimichi]]. In Spanish "Picha-Gordi-Chi" can be read as "Fat-Dick-Yeah."<ref name="Glossary2-2"/>
* '''Inodora-no-Jutsu''' - A parody of Hiru Bansho Boka no Jutsu. Inodora means toilet in Spanish.<ref name="Glossary2-2"/>
* '''Sobaco Soso''' or '''Funeral Arenoso''' - This is a parody of "Desert Funeral" (Sabaku Sōsō). In Spanish "Funeral Arenoso" means Sand Funeral and "Sobaco Soso" means "dull armpit."<ref name="Glossary2-3">Raruto Volume 2 (English), PDF 3, Glossary.</ref>
* '''Combo Culon''' - A parody of the "Lion Combo." In Spanish "Culon" refers to buttocks, so "Combo Culon" means "Assly Combo."<ref name="Glossary2-4">Raruto Volume 2 (English), PDF 4, Glossary.</ref>
* '''Pechuga''' - This is a parody of Getsuga. "Pechuga" means breast meat of a poultry, such as a chicken. In Spanish someone threatening to make a ''pechuga'' of someone means threatening to do major harm to him or her.<ref name="Glossary2-6">Raruto Volume 2 (English), PDF 6, Glossary.</ref>
* '''Yunque''' - A parody of Juken. In Spanish a "yunque" is an anvil.<ref name="Glossary2-6"/>
* '''Soplon''' ('''Soplón''') - A parody of Futon. In Spanish a "soplón" is a "blowhard."<ref name="Glossary3-5">Raruto Volume 3 (English), PDF 5, Glossary.</ref>
* '''Pichori''' - A parody of Chidori. The name is a combination of "Chidori" and "[[Pikachu]]," a Pokémon. In addition it is a reference to the "minish" in the ''[[Legend of Zelda]]'' series, known as "picori" in Japanese.<ref name="Glossary3-5"/>

==See also==
{{Portalbox|Spain|Comics}}
* [[Dōjinshi]]
{{-}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://jesulink.com/rarutoenglish/ Raruto]
** [http://jesulink.com/descargas.php?sub=rarutoenglish List of English chapters] (3 volumes)
* [http://jesulink.com/raruto/ Raruto] {{es icon}}
** [http://jesulink.com/descargas.php?sub=rarutocapitulos List of Spanish chapters] (7 volumes)
*[http://stores.lulu.com/raruto_eng?fContentOffset=3 English ''Raruto'' chapters] at [[Lulu.com]]
*[http://jesulink.com Jesulink] {{es icon}}
*[http://www.youtube.com/user/rarutovideo Raruto and Five Elements] Official [[YouTube]] {{es icon}}
[[Category:Anime and manga inspired webcomics]]
[[Category:Parody webcomics]]
[[Category:Spanish comics]]
[[Category:Naruto]]
[[Category:2005 comic debuts]]
[[Category:Dōjinshi]]
[[ca:Raruto]]
[[es:Raruto]]
[[eu:Raruto]]
[[fr:Raruto]]
[[pl:Raruto]]
[[pt:Raruto]]

User:Harpakhrad11

2010-03-03T17:25:46Z

Harpakhrad11: ←Blanked the page

List of Nazi ideologues

2009-06-15T21:51:49Z

Harpakhrad11: /* Intellectuals indirectly associated with Nazism */

{{Nazism sidebar}}
This is a list of people whose ideas became part of [[Nazi ideology]]. The ideas, writings, and speeches of these thinkers were incorporated into what became [[Nazism]], including [[antisemitism]], [[eugenics]], [[racial hygiene]], the concept of the [[master race]], and [[lebensraum]]. The list includes people whose ideas were incorporated, even if they did not live in the Nazi era.

==Philosophers and sociologists ==
* [[Alfred Baeumler]] (1887-1968), German philosopher in Nazi Germany. He was a leading interpreter of [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]'s philosophy as legitimizing Nazism. [[Thomas Mann]] read Baeumler's work on Nietzsche in the early 1930's, and characterized passages of it as "Hitler prophecy."<ref>Thomas Mann und Alfred Baeumler, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 1989, p. 185</ref>
* [[Alfred Rosenberg]] (1893–1946), considered one of the main authors of key Nazi ideological creeds, including the [[racial policy of Nazi Germany]], [[antisemitism]], [[Lebensraum]], abrogation of the [[Treaty of Versailles]], and opposition to [[degenerate art]]. He is also known for his rejection of [[Christianity]], while playing a role in the development of [[Positive Christianity]]. At Nuremberg he was tried, sentenced to death, and executed by hanging as a war criminal.<ref>{{cite book
|last=Evans
|first=Richard J.
| authorlink =Richard J. Evans
| coauthors =
|title=The Coming of the Third Reich
|publisher=Penguin Books
|date= 2004
|location=London
|pages=178–179
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=unXu2Ygk2AgC&pg=PA178&dq=This+was+intended+to+provide+the+Nazi+Party+with+a+major+work+of+theory
| quote = This was intended to provide the Nazi Party with a major work of theory. The book had sold over a million copies by 1945 and some of its ideas were not without influence.
|isbn=0-141-00975-6 }}</ref>
* [[Martin Heidegger]] (1889-1976), German philosopher whose work remains controversial due to its supposed inherent irrationality, but also Heidegger's political involvement with National Socialism. The relations between Martin Heidegger and Nazism remain controversial, although no one denies his historical engagement for the NSDAP, which he joined on May 1, 1933, nearly three weeks after being appointed Rector of the University of Freiburg. Heidegger resigned the Rectorship about one year later, in April 1934, but remained a member of the NSDAP until the end of World War II. His first act as Rector was to eliminate all democratic structures, including those that had elected him Rector. There were book burnings on his campus (though he successfully stopped some of them), as well as some student violence. He was a member of the Nazi party.<ref>Hannah Arendt/Martin Heidegger - E Ettinger - Yale University Press - 1995 - ISBN 0300072546 [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1UaRXIFHULcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=%22Martin+Heidegger%22+Nazi&ots=Prehnw5sKp&sig=tRwa3wfIPz74bmhBs3Aw08ifYL0]</ref>

* [[Robert Michels]] (1876-1936), a German sociologist who wrote on the political behavior of intellectual elites and contributed to [[elite theory]]. He is best known for his book [[Political Parties]], which contains a description of the [[iron law of oligarchy]].<ref>From Socialism to Fascism: The Relation Between Theory and Practice in the Work of Robert Michels II. - The Fascist Ideologue - D Beetham - Political Studies, 1977 - Blackwell Synergy. [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119628811/abstract]</ref>
* Herman Schmalenbach (1885-1950), who refined the concepts of [[Gemeinschaft]] and [[Bund]].<ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Herman Schmalenbach on Society and Experience |year=1977 |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |quote=Some of the terms that he had earlier refined such as [[Gemeinschaft]] and [[Bund]], were incorporated into the Nazi ideology. ... | url=http://books.google.com/books?id=OSl-WCUm3o0C&pg=PA14&dq=his+ideas+were+incorporated+into+nazi+philosophy&ei=mjpZSbqKMYKEzgTEv6iKAg |isbn=0226738655 }}</ref>
*[[Lothrop Stoddard]] (1883–1950), American political theorist, historian, eugenicist, and anti-immigration advocate who wrote a number of prominent books on [[scientific racism]]. He developed the concept of the [[untermensch]].


==Scientists and physicians==
* [[Hans F. K. Günther]] (1891-1968), German race researcher and [[eugenicist]] in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich, also known as "Rassengünther" (Race Günther) or "Rassenpapst" (Race Pope). He is considered to be a major influence on National Socialist racialist thought, and was a member of the Nazi party.<ref>Christopher Hale. ''Himmler's Crusade: the True Story of the 1938 Nazi Expedition into Tibet'' Bantam, 2004. ISBN 978-0553814453</ref>

* [[Alfred Ploetz]] (1860-1940), German physician, biologist, and eugenicist who introduced the concept of [[racial hygiene]] in Germany. He was a member of the Nazi party.<ref>"Die Tüchtigkeit unserer Rasse und der Schutz der Schwachen", 1893, p. 141, 142. cited by Massimo Ferari Zumbini: The roots of evil. Gründerjahre des Antisemitismus: Von der Bismarckzeit zu Hitler , Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt a. M. 2003, ISBN 3-465-03222-5 , p.406</ref> His brother Ernst Rüdin, also a committed National Socialist, praised him in 1938 as a man who "by his meritorious services has helped to set up our Nazi ideology."<ref>Ernst Ruedin: "Honor of Prof. Dr. Alfred Ploetz," in ARGB, Bd 32 / S.473-474, 1938, p.474 </ref>

* [[Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer]] (1896-1969), German human biologist and [[eugenicist]] primarily concerned with [[racial hygiene]] and [[twin research]].

==Others==
*[[Richard Walther Darré]] (1895-1953), one of the leading Nazi [[blood and soil]] ideologists. He served as Reich Minister of Food and Agriculture from 1933 to 1942.
*[[Anton Drexler]] (1884-1942), German Nazi political leader of the 1920s. He joined the Fatherland Party during World War I. He was a poet and a member of the völkisch agitators who, together with journalist Karl Harrer, founded the [[German Workers' Party]] (DAP) in Munich with Gottfried Feder and Dietrich Eckart in 1919.
*[[Lanz von Liebenfels]] (1874-1954), monk and theologian who influenced Nazi ideology by inventing a blend of theology and biology called [[theozoology]].
* [[Dietrich Eckart]] (1868-1923), who developed the ideology of a "genius higher human," based on writings by [[Lanz von Liebenfels]]. He was a member of the Nazi party.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Eckart.html |title=Dietrich Eckart |accessdate=2009-01-04 |quote=Later on, he developed an ideology of a 'genius higher human,' based on earlier writings by Lanz von Liebenfels; he saw himself in the tradition of Arthur Schopenhauer and Angelus Silesius, and also became fascinated by Mayan beliefs, but never had much sympathy for the scientific method. Eckart also loved and strongly identified with Henrik Ibsen's Peer Gynt. |publisher=[[Jewish Virtual Library]] }}</ref><ref>Nazi Ideology: Some Unfinished Business - BM Lane - Central European History, 1974 - jstor.org [http://www.jstor.org/pss/4545691]</ref>
*[[Gottfried Feder]] (1883-1941), economist and one of the early key members of the [[NSDAP|Nazi party]]. He was their economic theoretician. Initially, it was his lecture in 1919 that drew Hitler into the party.<ref> ''Munich 1923'', John Dornberg, Harper & Row, NY, 1982. pg 344 </ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Friedlander |first=Henry |authorlink=Henry Friedlander |coauthors= |title=The Holocaust: Ideology, Bureaucracy, and Genocide |year=1977 |publisher= |quote=Gottfried Feder gave technocratic ideology a racist twist. ... arouses interest because he helped to shape Nazi ideology during the early 1920's. ... | url= |isbn= }}</ref>
* [[Jakob Wilhelm Hauer]] (1881-1962), German Indologist and religious studies writer. He was the founder of the [[German Faith Movement]].<ref>Jung, Carl G. (1970); Collected Works, Volume 10; Routledge and Kegan Paul, London; ISBN 0 7100 1640 9; p 190-191. </ref>
* [[Gregor Strasser]] (1892-1934) Involved in the [[Kapp Putsch]] he formed his own völkischer Wehrverband ("popular defense union") which he merged into the NSDAP in 1921. Initially a loyal supporter of Adolf Hitler, he took part in the Beer Hall Putsch and held a number of high positions in the Nazi Party. Soon however, Strasser became a strong advocate of the socialist wing of the party, arguing that the national revolution should also include strong action to tackle poverty and should seek to build working class support.
* [[Julius Streicher]] (1885-1946), the founder and publisher of [[Der Stürmer]] newspaper, which became a central element of the Nazi propaganda machine. His portrayal of Jews as subhuman and evil played a critical role in the dehumanization and marginalization of the Jewish minority in the eyes of common Germans – creating the necessary conditions for the later perpetration of the Holocaust. He was a member of the Nazi party.<ref>The Number One Nazi Jew-baiter: A Political Biography of Julius Streicher, Hitler's Chief Anti- …
WP Varga - 1981 - Carlton Press</ref>

==Intellectuals indirectly associated with Nazism==
Some writers came before the Nazi era and their writings were incorporated into Nazi ideology:
*[[Madame Blavatsky]] (1831-1891), founder of [[Theosophy]] and the [[Theosophical Society]]. [[Guido von List]] took up some of Blavatsky's racial theories, and mixed them with nationalism to create [[Ariosophy]], a precursor of [[Nazi ideology]]. Ariosophy emphasized intellectual expositions of racial evolution. The [[Thule Society]] was one of several German occult groups drawing on Ariosophy to preach Aryan supremacy. It provides a direct link between occult racial theories and the racial ideology of Hitler and the emerging Nazi party.<ref> {{cite journal|title=Hitler's Racial Ideology: Content and Occult Sources.|journal=Simon Wiesenthal Center Annual|date=1986|first=Jackson|last=Spielvogel|coauthors=David Redles|volume=3|issue=|pages=|id= |url=http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395043|format=|accessdate=2007-08-22 }}</ref>
* [[Emile Burnouf]] (1821-1907) was a racialist whose ideas influenced the development of theosophy and [[Aryanism]].<ref>DİN BİLİMLERİNİN TARİHÇESİ - Dr. Jacques WAARDENBURG - 2004/1 (281-295 s.) [http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:ly6V5prfMDUJ:sbe.erciyes.edu.tr/dergi/sayi_16/16_adibelli.pdf%3Fref%3DSaglikAlani.Com+%22Emile+Burnouf%22+Nazi]</ref>
* [[Houston Stewart Chamberlain]] (1855-1927) was a British-born author of books on political philosophy, and natural science. His two-volume book ''Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts'' (1899) became a manual for Nazi racial philosophy including the concept of the [[master race]].<ref>[[William L. Shirer|Shirer, William L.]] ''[[The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich]]'', 1959, p.105 of 1985 Bookclub Associates Edition.</ref>


* [[Bernhard Förster]] (1843-1889), German [[antisemite]] teacher who wrote on the [[Jewish question]], where he characterizes Jews as constituting a "parasite on the German body".<ref>Friedrich Nietzsche - Antisemit oder Judenfreund? - T Hanke - 2003 - GRIN Verlag [http://www.grin.com/e-book/34198/friedrich-nietzsche-antisemit-oder-judenfreund]</ref>

* [[Francis Galton]] (1822–1911), half-cousin of Charles Darwin, was an English Victorian polymath who coined the term [[eugenics]].<ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=A Life of Sir Francis Galton: From African Exploration to the Birth of Eugenics |url=http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/perspectives_in_biology_and_medicine/v045/45.3gilman.html |quote=Using Galton's photographs, the anthropologist Hans F. K. Günther, whose anthropology of the Jews was a standard work of Nazi science during the 1930s and ... |work=[[Perspectives in Biology and Medicine]] |date=2002 |accessdate=2009-01-04 }}</ref>

* [[Arthur de Gobineau]] (1816-1882) was a French aristocrat, novelist and man of letters who developed the racialist theory of the Aryan [[master race]] in his book ''[[An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races]]'' (1853-1855). De Gobineau is credited as being the father of modern racial demography.<ref>Essai sur l’inégalité
des races humaines - A de Gobineau, H Juin - 1940 - uqac.ca. [http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:KrHRnpW8xgwJ:www.uqac.ca/zone30/Classiques_des_sciences_sociales/classiques/gobineau/essai_inegalite_races/essai_inegalite_races_1.pdf+%22Arthur+de+Gobineau%22+nazi]</ref>

* [[Madison Grant]] (1865-1937), American lawyer, known primarily for his work as a [[eugenics|eugenicist]] and [[conservationist]]. As a eugenicist, Grant was responsible for one of the most widely read works of [[scientific racism]], and played an active role in crafting strong [[Immigration Act of 1924|immigration restriction]] and [[anti-miscegenation laws]] in the United States.<ref> The New Race Consciousness: Race, Nation, and Empire in American Culture, 1910-1925 – Matthew Pratt – Journal of Word History – Volume 10, Number , Fall 1999 pp.307-352.[http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_world_history/toc/jwh10.2.html]</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Solkoff |first=Norman |authorlink=Norman Solkoff |coauthors= |title=Beginnings, Mass Murder, and Aftermath of the Holocaust |year=2001 |publisher=University Press of America |quote=The book by the American lawyer Madison Grant ... was turned on its head by Nazi ideology. ... | url=http://books.google.com/books?id=sCJnAAAAMAAJ&q |isbn=0761820280 }}</ref>

* [[Paul de Lagarde]] (1827-1891) was a German biblical scholar and orientalist. His Deutsche Schriften (1878-1881) became a nationalist text.<ref>Stern, Fritz ''The Politics of Cultural Despair: a study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology'', 1961 (see Chapter I, "Paul de Lagarde and a Germanic Religion").</ref>

* [[Guido Karl Anton List]] (1848-1919), his concept of renouncing [[Christianity]] and returning to the [[paganism]] of the ancient Europeans found supporters within the [[Nazi party]]. He created [[Ariosophy]], a precursor of [[Nazi ideology]].

* [[Martin Luther]] (1483–1546), German theologian who wrote ''[[On the Jews and Their Lies]]'' in 1543.<ref name=Michael110>Michael, Robert. ''Holy Hatred: Christianity, [[Antisemitism]], and the Holocaust''. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, p. 110.</ref> He argued that the Jews were "devil's children".<ref>{{cite book |last=Luther |first=Martin |authorlink=Martin Luther |coauthors= |title=[[On the Jews and their Lies]] |year=1543 |publisher= |quote=Our Lord also calls them a "brood of vipers"; furthermore in John 8 [:39,44] he states: "If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today. | url=http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1543_luther_jews.html |isbn= }}</ref> He wrote that the synagogue was a "defiled bride ... an incorrigible whore and an evil slut".<ref name=Michael112>Michael, Robert. ''Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust''. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, p. 112.</ref> and Jews were full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."<ref>Obermann, Heiko. ''Luthers Werke''. Erlangen 1854, 32:282, 298, in Grisar, Hartmann. ''Luther''. St. Louis 1915, 4:286 and 5:406, cited in Michael, Robert. ''Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust''. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, p. 113.</ref> He advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish [[Siddur|prayerbooks]], forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time."<ref>Luther, Martin. "On the Jews and Their Lies," ''Luthers Werke''. 47:268-271.</ref> He also seemed to sanction their murder,<ref name=Roberts1985>Michael, Robert. "Luther, Luther Scholars, and the Jews," ''Encounter'', 46 (Autumn 1985) No.4:343.</ref> writing "We are at fault in not slaying them."<ref>Luther, Martin. ''On the Jews and Their Lies'', cited in Michael, Robert. "Luther, Luther Scholars, and the Jews," ''Encounter'' 46 (Autumn 1985) No. 4:343-344.</ref> His statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their [[synagogue]]s burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed were revived and used in propaganda by the [[National Socialist German Workers Party|Nazis]] in 1933–1945.<ref>McKim, Donald K. (ed.) ''The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther''. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003, 58; [[Michael Berenbaum|Berenbaum, Michael]]. "Anti-Semitism," ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'', accessed January 2, 2007. For Luther's own words, see Luther, Martin. "On the Jews and Their Lies," tr. Martin H. Bertram, in Sherman, Franklin. (ed.) ''Luther's Works''. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971, 47:268–72.</ref> Some scholars see Luther's influence as limited, and the Nazis' use of his work as opportunistic. Johannes Wallmann argues that Luther's writings against the Jews were largely ignored in the 18th and 19th centuries, and that there is no continuity between Luther's thought and Nazi ideology.<ref>Johannes Wallmann, "The Reception of Luther's Writings on the Jews from the Reformation to the End of the 19th century", ''Lutheran Quarterly'', n.s. 1 (Spring 1987) 1:72-97.</ref> [[Martin Brecht]] argues that there is a difference between Luther's beliefs and the Nazis' ideology of racial antisemitism.<ref>[[Martin Brecht|Brecht]] 3:351.</ref>

*[[Oswald Arnold Gottfried Spengler]] (1880-1936), German historian and philosopher. He is best known for his book ''[[The Decline of the West]]'' and the cyclical theory of the rise and decline of civilizations. He wrote extensively throughout [[World War I]] and the interwar period, and supported German hegemony in Europe. The National Socialists held Spengler as an intellectual precursor but he was ostracized after 1933 for his pessimism about Germany and Europe's future, and his refusal to support Nazi ideas of racial superiority.

* [[Adolf Stoecker]] (1835-1909), court chaplain to Kaiser Wilhelm and an [[antisemitic]] German theologian who founded one of the first [[antisemitic]] political parties in Germany, the [[Christian Social Party]]. He proposed severely limiting the civil rights of Jews in Germany. In September of 1879 he delivered a speech entitled "What we demand of modern Jewry", in which he spelled out several demands of German Jews.<ref>Journal of Church and State - JC Fout - Adolf Stoecker Antisemitism – 1975. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=info:MC2YmJt4Y3gJ:scholar.google.com/&output=viewport&pg=1]</ref>

*[[Richard Wagner]] (1813-1883), composer whose nationalistic ''[[Der Ring des Nibelungen]]'' was a catalyst for Nazi ideology.<ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=How the Nazis took flight from Valkyries and Rhinemaidens |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,,2117058,00.html |quote=According to Jonathan Carr, author of the forthcoming book The Wagner Clan, Hitler himself was obsessed by "the Master". But the party faithful were not, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to performances at Hitler's insistence. |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=3 July 2007 |accessdate=2008-12-28 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Wagner.html |title=The Controversy Over Richard Wagner|accessdate=2008-12-29 |quote=All these ideas, together with the ultranationalistic character of his operas, especially ''[[The Ring]]'' provided a fertile feeding ground for Nazi ideology and cultural conception. |publisher=[[Jewish Virtual Library]] }}</ref>

* [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] (1844-1900), German philosopher who developed the concept of [[Übermensch]].<Ref>The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany: 1890 -1990 - SE Aschheim - 1992 - University of California Press - ISBN 0520085558[http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=coGtV0CgjIIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=%22Nietzsche%22+Nazi&ots=j7gB2ryHNM&sig=bgeJuyDYkUke_203uUgmpesh6Rw#PPP1,M1]</ref> Nazi ideology appears to be similar to ideas expressed by Nietzsche. <ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=The Roots of Evil |year=1992 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |quote=Many Nazi beliefs and ideals seem to be highly similar to those expressed by Nietzsche. | url=http://books.google.com/books?id=29u-vt_KgGEC&pg=PA111&dq=Friedrich+Nietzsche+%22nazi+ideology%22&ei=V_hhSbOYA6OOyQTrhZyCDg |isbn=0521422140 }}</ref>


==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Nazism]]
{{Nazism}}
{{Fascism}}

List of Nazi ideologues

2009-06-15T21:51:17Z

Harpakhrad11: /* Philosophers and sociologists */

{{Nazism sidebar}}
This is a list of people whose ideas became part of [[Nazi ideology]]. The ideas, writings, and speeches of these thinkers were incorporated into what became [[Nazism]], including [[antisemitism]], [[eugenics]], [[racial hygiene]], the concept of the [[master race]], and [[lebensraum]]. The list includes people whose ideas were incorporated, even if they did not live in the Nazi era.

==Philosophers and sociologists ==
* [[Alfred Baeumler]] (1887-1968), German philosopher in Nazi Germany. He was a leading interpreter of [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]'s philosophy as legitimizing Nazism. [[Thomas Mann]] read Baeumler's work on Nietzsche in the early 1930's, and characterized passages of it as "Hitler prophecy."<ref>Thomas Mann und Alfred Baeumler, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 1989, p. 185</ref>
* [[Alfred Rosenberg]] (1893–1946), considered one of the main authors of key Nazi ideological creeds, including the [[racial policy of Nazi Germany]], [[antisemitism]], [[Lebensraum]], abrogation of the [[Treaty of Versailles]], and opposition to [[degenerate art]]. He is also known for his rejection of [[Christianity]], while playing a role in the development of [[Positive Christianity]]. At Nuremberg he was tried, sentenced to death, and executed by hanging as a war criminal.<ref>{{cite book
|last=Evans
|first=Richard J.
| authorlink =Richard J. Evans
| coauthors =
|title=The Coming of the Third Reich
|publisher=Penguin Books
|date= 2004
|location=London
|pages=178–179
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=unXu2Ygk2AgC&pg=PA178&dq=This+was+intended+to+provide+the+Nazi+Party+with+a+major+work+of+theory
| quote = This was intended to provide the Nazi Party with a major work of theory. The book had sold over a million copies by 1945 and some of its ideas were not without influence.
|isbn=0-141-00975-6 }}</ref>
* [[Martin Heidegger]] (1889-1976), German philosopher whose work remains controversial due to its supposed inherent irrationality, but also Heidegger's political involvement with National Socialism. The relations between Martin Heidegger and Nazism remain controversial, although no one denies his historical engagement for the NSDAP, which he joined on May 1, 1933, nearly three weeks after being appointed Rector of the University of Freiburg. Heidegger resigned the Rectorship about one year later, in April 1934, but remained a member of the NSDAP until the end of World War II. His first act as Rector was to eliminate all democratic structures, including those that had elected him Rector. There were book burnings on his campus (though he successfully stopped some of them), as well as some student violence. He was a member of the Nazi party.<ref>Hannah Arendt/Martin Heidegger - E Ettinger - Yale University Press - 1995 - ISBN 0300072546 [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1UaRXIFHULcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=%22Martin+Heidegger%22+Nazi&ots=Prehnw5sKp&sig=tRwa3wfIPz74bmhBs3Aw08ifYL0]</ref>

* [[Robert Michels]] (1876-1936), a German sociologist who wrote on the political behavior of intellectual elites and contributed to [[elite theory]]. He is best known for his book [[Political Parties]], which contains a description of the [[iron law of oligarchy]].<ref>From Socialism to Fascism: The Relation Between Theory and Practice in the Work of Robert Michels II. - The Fascist Ideologue - D Beetham - Political Studies, 1977 - Blackwell Synergy. [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119628811/abstract]</ref>
* Herman Schmalenbach (1885-1950), who refined the concepts of [[Gemeinschaft]] and [[Bund]].<ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Herman Schmalenbach on Society and Experience |year=1977 |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |quote=Some of the terms that he had earlier refined such as [[Gemeinschaft]] and [[Bund]], were incorporated into the Nazi ideology. ... | url=http://books.google.com/books?id=OSl-WCUm3o0C&pg=PA14&dq=his+ideas+were+incorporated+into+nazi+philosophy&ei=mjpZSbqKMYKEzgTEv6iKAg |isbn=0226738655 }}</ref>
*[[Lothrop Stoddard]] (1883–1950), American political theorist, historian, eugenicist, and anti-immigration advocate who wrote a number of prominent books on [[scientific racism]]. He developed the concept of the [[untermensch]].


==Scientists and physicians==
* [[Hans F. K. Günther]] (1891-1968), German race researcher and [[eugenicist]] in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich, also known as "Rassengünther" (Race Günther) or "Rassenpapst" (Race Pope). He is considered to be a major influence on National Socialist racialist thought, and was a member of the Nazi party.<ref>Christopher Hale. ''Himmler's Crusade: the True Story of the 1938 Nazi Expedition into Tibet'' Bantam, 2004. ISBN 978-0553814453</ref>

* [[Alfred Ploetz]] (1860-1940), German physician, biologist, and eugenicist who introduced the concept of [[racial hygiene]] in Germany. He was a member of the Nazi party.<ref>"Die Tüchtigkeit unserer Rasse und der Schutz der Schwachen", 1893, p. 141, 142. cited by Massimo Ferari Zumbini: The roots of evil. Gründerjahre des Antisemitismus: Von der Bismarckzeit zu Hitler , Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt a. M. 2003, ISBN 3-465-03222-5 , p.406</ref> His brother Ernst Rüdin, also a committed National Socialist, praised him in 1938 as a man who "by his meritorious services has helped to set up our Nazi ideology."<ref>Ernst Ruedin: "Honor of Prof. Dr. Alfred Ploetz," in ARGB, Bd 32 / S.473-474, 1938, p.474 </ref>

* [[Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer]] (1896-1969), German human biologist and [[eugenicist]] primarily concerned with [[racial hygiene]] and [[twin research]].

==Others==
*[[Richard Walther Darré]] (1895-1953), one of the leading Nazi [[blood and soil]] ideologists. He served as Reich Minister of Food and Agriculture from 1933 to 1942.
*[[Anton Drexler]] (1884-1942), German Nazi political leader of the 1920s. He joined the Fatherland Party during World War I. He was a poet and a member of the völkisch agitators who, together with journalist Karl Harrer, founded the [[German Workers' Party]] (DAP) in Munich with Gottfried Feder and Dietrich Eckart in 1919.
*[[Lanz von Liebenfels]] (1874-1954), monk and theologian who influenced Nazi ideology by inventing a blend of theology and biology called [[theozoology]].
* [[Dietrich Eckart]] (1868-1923), who developed the ideology of a "genius higher human," based on writings by [[Lanz von Liebenfels]]. He was a member of the Nazi party.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Eckart.html |title=Dietrich Eckart |accessdate=2009-01-04 |quote=Later on, he developed an ideology of a 'genius higher human,' based on earlier writings by Lanz von Liebenfels; he saw himself in the tradition of Arthur Schopenhauer and Angelus Silesius, and also became fascinated by Mayan beliefs, but never had much sympathy for the scientific method. Eckart also loved and strongly identified with Henrik Ibsen's Peer Gynt. |publisher=[[Jewish Virtual Library]] }}</ref><ref>Nazi Ideology: Some Unfinished Business - BM Lane - Central European History, 1974 - jstor.org [http://www.jstor.org/pss/4545691]</ref>
*[[Gottfried Feder]] (1883-1941), economist and one of the early key members of the [[NSDAP|Nazi party]]. He was their economic theoretician. Initially, it was his lecture in 1919 that drew Hitler into the party.<ref> ''Munich 1923'', John Dornberg, Harper & Row, NY, 1982. pg 344 </ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Friedlander |first=Henry |authorlink=Henry Friedlander |coauthors= |title=The Holocaust: Ideology, Bureaucracy, and Genocide |year=1977 |publisher= |quote=Gottfried Feder gave technocratic ideology a racist twist. ... arouses interest because he helped to shape Nazi ideology during the early 1920's. ... | url= |isbn= }}</ref>
* [[Jakob Wilhelm Hauer]] (1881-1962), German Indologist and religious studies writer. He was the founder of the [[German Faith Movement]].<ref>Jung, Carl G. (1970); Collected Works, Volume 10; Routledge and Kegan Paul, London; ISBN 0 7100 1640 9; p 190-191. </ref>
* [[Gregor Strasser]] (1892-1934) Involved in the [[Kapp Putsch]] he formed his own völkischer Wehrverband ("popular defense union") which he merged into the NSDAP in 1921. Initially a loyal supporter of Adolf Hitler, he took part in the Beer Hall Putsch and held a number of high positions in the Nazi Party. Soon however, Strasser became a strong advocate of the socialist wing of the party, arguing that the national revolution should also include strong action to tackle poverty and should seek to build working class support.
* [[Julius Streicher]] (1885-1946), the founder and publisher of [[Der Stürmer]] newspaper, which became a central element of the Nazi propaganda machine. His portrayal of Jews as subhuman and evil played a critical role in the dehumanization and marginalization of the Jewish minority in the eyes of common Germans – creating the necessary conditions for the later perpetration of the Holocaust. He was a member of the Nazi party.<ref>The Number One Nazi Jew-baiter: A Political Biography of Julius Streicher, Hitler's Chief Anti- …
WP Varga - 1981 - Carlton Press</ref>

==Intellectuals indirectly associated with Nazism==
Some writers came before the Nazi era and their writings were incorporated into Nazi ideology:
*[[Madame Blavatsky]] (1831-1891), founder of [[Theosophy]] and the [[Theosophical Society]]. [[Guido von List]] took up some of Blavatsky's racial theories, and mixed them with nationalism to create [[Ariosophy]], a precursor of [[Nazi ideology]]. Ariosophy emphasized intellectual expositions of racial evolution. The [[Thule Society]] was one of several German occult groups drawing on Ariosophy to preach Aryan supremacy. It provides a direct link between occult racial theories and the racial ideology of Hitler and the emerging Nazi party.<ref> {{cite journal|title=Hitler's Racial Ideology: Content and Occult Sources.|journal=Simon Wiesenthal Center Annual|date=1986|first=Jackson|last=Spielvogel|coauthors=David Redles|volume=3|issue=|pages=|id= |url=http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395043|format=|accessdate=2007-08-22 }}</ref>
* [[Emile Burnouf]] (1821-1907) was a racialist whose ideas influenced the development of theosophy and [[Aryanism]].<ref>DİN BİLİMLERİNİN TARİHÇESİ - Dr. Jacques WAARDENBURG - 2004/1 (281-295 s.) [http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:ly6V5prfMDUJ:sbe.erciyes.edu.tr/dergi/sayi_16/16_adibelli.pdf%3Fref%3DSaglikAlani.Com+%22Emile+Burnouf%22+Nazi]</ref>
* [[Houston Stewart Chamberlain]] (1855-1927) was a British-born author of books on political philosophy, and natural science. His two-volume book ''Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts'' (1899) became a manual for Nazi racial philosophy including the concept of the [[master race]].<ref>[[William L. Shirer|Shirer, William L.]] ''[[The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich]]'', 1959, p.105 of 1985 Bookclub Associates Edition.</ref>


* [[Bernhard Förster]] (1843-1889), German [[antisemite]] teacher who wrote on the [[Jewish question]], where he characterizes Jews as constituting a "parasite on the German body".<ref>Friedrich Nietzsche - Antisemit oder Judenfreund? - T Hanke - 2003 - GRIN Verlag [http://www.grin.com/e-book/34198/friedrich-nietzsche-antisemit-oder-judenfreund]</ref>

* [[Francis Galton]] (1822–1911), half-cousin of Charles Darwin, was an English Victorian polymath who coined the term [[eugenics]].<ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=A Life of Sir Francis Galton: From African Exploration to the Birth of Eugenics |url=http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/perspectives_in_biology_and_medicine/v045/45.3gilman.html |quote=Using Galton's photographs, the anthropologist Hans F. K. Günther, whose anthropology of the Jews was a standard work of Nazi science during the 1930s and ... |work=[[Perspectives in Biology and Medicine]] |date=2002 |accessdate=2009-01-04 }}</ref>

* [[Arthur de Gobineau]] (1816-1882) was a French aristocrat, novelist and man of letters who developed the racialist theory of the Aryan [[master race]] in his book ''[[An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races]]'' (1853-1855). De Gobineau is credited as being the father of modern racial demography.<ref>Essai sur l’inégalité
des races humaines - A de Gobineau, H Juin - 1940 - uqac.ca. [http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:KrHRnpW8xgwJ:www.uqac.ca/zone30/Classiques_des_sciences_sociales/classiques/gobineau/essai_inegalite_races/essai_inegalite_races_1.pdf+%22Arthur+de+Gobineau%22+nazi]</ref>

* [[Madison Grant]] (1865-1937), American lawyer, known primarily for his work as a [[eugenics|eugenicist]] and [[conservationist]]. As a eugenicist, Grant was responsible for one of the most widely read works of [[scientific racism]], and played an active role in crafting strong [[Immigration Act of 1924|immigration restriction]] and [[anti-miscegenation laws]] in the United States.<ref> The New Race Consciousness: Race, Nation, and Empire in American Culture, 1910-1925 – Matthew Pratt – Journal of Word History – Volume 10, Number , Fall 1999 pp.307-352.[http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_world_history/toc/jwh10.2.html]</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Solkoff |first=Norman |authorlink=Norman Solkoff |coauthors= |title=Beginnings, Mass Murder, and Aftermath of the Holocaust |year=2001 |publisher=University Press of America |quote=The book by the American lawyer Madison Grant ... was turned on its head by Nazi ideology. ... | url=http://books.google.com/books?id=sCJnAAAAMAAJ&q |isbn=0761820280 }}</ref>

* [[Paul de Lagarde]] (1827-1891) was a German biblical scholar and orientalist. His Deutsche Schriften (1878-1881) became a nationalist text.<ref>Stern, Fritz ''The Politics of Cultural Despair: a study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology'', 1961 (see Chapter I, "Paul de Lagarde and a Germanic Religion").</ref>

* [[Guido Karl Anton List]] (1848-1919), his concept of renouncing [[Christianity]] and returning to the [[paganism]] of the ancient Europeans found supporters within the [[Nazi party]]. He created [[Ariosophy]], a precursor of [[Nazi ideology]].

* [[Martin Luther]] (1483–1546), German theologian who wrote ''[[On the Jews and Their Lies]]'' in 1543.<ref name=Michael110>Michael, Robert. ''Holy Hatred: Christianity, [[Antisemitism]], and the Holocaust''. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, p. 110.</ref> He argued that the Jews were "devil's children".<ref>{{cite book |last=Luther |first=Martin |authorlink=Martin Luther |coauthors= |title=[[On the Jews and their Lies]] |year=1543 |publisher= |quote=Our Lord also calls them a "brood of vipers"; furthermore in John 8 [:39,44] he states: "If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today. | url=http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1543_luther_jews.html |isbn= }}</ref> He wrote that the synagogue was a "defiled bride ... an incorrigible whore and an evil slut".<ref name=Michael112>Michael, Robert. ''Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust''. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, p. 112.</ref> and Jews were full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."<ref>Obermann, Heiko. ''Luthers Werke''. Erlangen 1854, 32:282, 298, in Grisar, Hartmann. ''Luther''. St. Louis 1915, 4:286 and 5:406, cited in Michael, Robert. ''Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust''. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, p. 113.</ref> He advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish [[Siddur|prayerbooks]], forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time."<ref>Luther, Martin. "On the Jews and Their Lies," ''Luthers Werke''. 47:268-271.</ref> He also seemed to sanction their murder,<ref name=Roberts1985>Michael, Robert. "Luther, Luther Scholars, and the Jews," ''Encounter'', 46 (Autumn 1985) No.4:343.</ref> writing "We are at fault in not slaying them."<ref>Luther, Martin. ''On the Jews and Their Lies'', cited in Michael, Robert. "Luther, Luther Scholars, and the Jews," ''Encounter'' 46 (Autumn 1985) No. 4:343-344.</ref> His statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their [[synagogue]]s burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed were revived and used in propaganda by the [[National Socialist German Workers Party|Nazis]] in 1933–1945.<ref>McKim, Donald K. (ed.) ''The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther''. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003, 58; [[Michael Berenbaum|Berenbaum, Michael]]. "Anti-Semitism," ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'', accessed January 2, 2007. For Luther's own words, see Luther, Martin. "On the Jews and Their Lies," tr. Martin H. Bertram, in Sherman, Franklin. (ed.) ''Luther's Works''. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971, 47:268–72.</ref> Some scholars see Luther's influence as limited, and the Nazis' use of his work as opportunistic. Johannes Wallmann argues that Luther's writings against the Jews were largely ignored in the 18th and 19th centuries, and that there is no continuity between Luther's thought and Nazi ideology.<ref>Johannes Wallmann, "The Reception of Luther's Writings on the Jews from the Reformation to the End of the 19th century", ''Lutheran Quarterly'', n.s. 1 (Spring 1987) 1:72-97.</ref> [[Martin Brecht]] argues that there is a difference between Luther's beliefs and the Nazis' ideology of racial antisemitism.<ref>[[Martin Brecht|Brecht]] 3:351.</ref>

*[[Oswald Arnold Gottfried Spengler]] (1880-1936), German historian and philosopher. He is best known for his book ''[[The Decline of the West]]'' and the cyclical theory of the rise and decline of civilizations. He wrote extensively throughout [[World War I]] and the interwar period, and supported German hegemony in Europe. The National Socialists held Spengler as an intellectual precursor but he was ostracized after 1933 for his pessimism about Germany and Europe's future, and his refusal to support Nazi ideas of racial superiority.

* [[Adolf Stoecker]] (1835-1909), court chaplain to Kaiser Wilhelm and an [[antisemitic]] German theologian who founded one of the first [[antisemitic]] political parties in Germany, the [[Christian Social Party]]. He proposed severely limiting the civil rights of Jews in Germany. In September of 1879 he delivered a speech entitled "What we demand of modern Jewry", in which he spelled out several demands of German Jews.<ref>Journal of Church and State - JC Fout - Adolf Stoecker Antisemitism – 1975. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=info:MC2YmJt4Y3gJ:scholar.google.com/&output=viewport&pg=1]</ref>

*[[Richard Wagner]] (1813-1883), composer whose nationalistic ''[[Der Ring des Nibelungen]]'' was a catalyst for Nazi ideology.<ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=How the Nazis took flight from Valkyries and Rhinemaidens |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,,2117058,00.html |quote=According to Jonathan Carr, author of the forthcoming book The Wagner Clan, Hitler himself was obsessed by "the Master". But the party faithful were not, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to performances at Hitler's insistence. |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=3 July 2007 |accessdate=2008-12-28 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Wagner.html |title=The Controversy Over Richard Wagner|accessdate=2008-12-29 |quote=All these ideas, together with the ultranationalistic character of his operas, especially ''[[The Ring]]'' provided a fertile feeding ground for Nazi ideology and cultural conception. |publisher=[[Jewish Virtual Library]] }}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Nazism]]
{{Nazism}}
{{Fascism}}

User:Harpakhrad11

2009-02-10T20:07:44Z

Harpakhrad11: ←Created page with 'Harpakhrad11's website: [http://www.frompicturestoportraits.com/ | From Pictures to Portraits]'

Harpakhrad11's website: [http://www.frompicturestoportraits.com/ | From Pictures to Portraits]

Herbert Spencer

2009-01-23T03:45:06Z

Harpakhrad11: Added Spencer's signature. --~~~~

{{Otherpeople}}
{{Infobox Philosopher |


region = Western Philosophy|
era = [[19th-century philosophy]]|
color = #B0C4DE |


image_name =Spencer1.jpg |
image_caption =Herbert Spencer |
signature =HS_steel_portrait_sig.jpg |


name =Herbert Spencer |
birth ={{birth date|1820|4|27|df=y}} |
death ={{death date and age|1903|12|8|1820|4|27|df=y}} |
school_tradition = [[Evolutionism]], [[Positivism]], [[Classical liberalism]] |
main_interests = [[Evolution]], [[Positivism]], [[Laissez-faire]], [[utilitarianism]] |
influences = [[Charles Darwin]], [[Auguste Comte]], [[John Stuart Mill]], [[George Henry Lewes]], [[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck]], [[Thomas Huxley]]|
influenced = [[Charles Darwin]], [[Henry Sidgwick]], [[William Graham Sumner]], [[Thorstein Veblen]], [[Murray Rothbard]], [[Emile Durkheim]], [[Alfred Marshall]], [[Henri Bergson]], [[Nikolay Mikhaylovsky]], [[Auberon Herbert]], [[Roderick Long]], [[Grant Allen]], [[Yen Fu]], [[Tokutomi Soho]] |
notable_ideas = [[Survival of the fittest]]|
}}
'''Herbert Spencer''' (27 April 1820 – 8 December 1903) was an [[England|English]] [[philosopher]], prominent [[Classical liberalism|classical liberal]] [[political theorist]], and sociological theorist of the [[Victorian era]].

Spencer developed an all-embracing conception of [[evolutionism|evolution]] as the progressive development of the physical world, biological organisms, the human mind, and human culture and societies. As a [[polymath]], he contributed to a wide range of subjects, including [[ethics]], [[religion]], [[economics]], [[politics]], [[philosophy]], [[biology]], [[sociology]], and [[psychology]].

He is best known for coining the [[phrase]] "[[survival of the fittest]]," which he did in ''Principles of Biology'' (1864), after reading [[Charles Darwin]]'s ''[[On the Origin of Species]]''.<ref name=sotf>{{cite web |url=http://educ.southern.edu/tour/who/pioneers/spencer.html |title=Pioneers of Psychology [2001 Tour] - School of Education & Psychology |accessdate=2007-08-29 |format= |work=}}  {{cite web |url=http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=maurice_stucke |title=Better Competition Advocacy |accessdate=2007-08-29 |author=Maurice E. Stucke |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |format=pdf |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=Herbert Spencer in his ''Principles of Biology'' of 1864, vol. 1, p. 444, wrote “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called ‘natural selection’, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.”}}</ref> This term strongly suggests [[natural selection]], yet as Spencer extended evolution into realms of sociology and ethics, he made use of [[Lamarckism]] rather than natural selection.

==Life==
Herbert Spencer was born in [[Derby]], [[England]], on [[April 27]], [[1820]], the son of William George Spencer (generally called George). Spencer’s father was a religious dissenter who drifted from [[Methodism]] to [[Quaker]]ism, and who seems to have transmitted to his son an opposition to all forms of authority. He ran a school founded on the progressive teaching methods of [[Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi]] and also served as Secretary of the [[Derby Philosophical Society]], a scientific society which had been founded in the 1790s by [[Erasmus Darwin]], the grandfather of Charles.

Spencer was educated in empirical science by his father, while the members of the Derby Philosophical Society introduced him to pre-Darwinian concepts of biological evolution, particularly those of Erasmus Darwin and Jean Baptiste Lamarck. His uncle, the Reverend Thomas Spencer, vicar of Hinton Charterhouse near [[Bath, England|Bath]], completed Spencer’s limited formal education by teaching him some mathematics and physics, and enough [[Latin]] to enable him to translate some easy texts. Thomas Spencer also imprinted on his nephew his own firmly free-trade and anti-statist political views. Otherwise, Spencer was an autodidact who acquired most of his knowledge from narrowly focused readings and conversations with his friends and acquaintances.<ref> Duncan, ''Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer'' pp. 53-55</ref>

As both an adolescent and a young man Spencer found it difficult to settle to any intellectual or professional discipline. He worked as a civil engineer during the railway boom of the late 1830s, while also devoting much of his time to writing for provincial journals that were nonconformist in their religion and radical in their politics. From 1848 to 1853 he served as sub-editor on the free-trade journal ''[[The Economist]]'', during which time he published his first book, ''[[Social Statics]]'' (1851), which predicted that humanity would shortly become completely adapted to the requirements of living in society with the consequential withering away of the state.

Its publisher, [[John Chapman (publisher)|John Chapman]], introduced him to his salon which was attended by many of the leading radical and progressive thinkers of the capital, including [[John Stuart Mill]], [[Harriet Martineau]], [[George Henry Lewes]] and Mary Ann Evans ([[George Eliot]]), with whom he was briefly romantically linked. Spencer himself introduced the biologist [[Thomas Henry Huxley]], who would later win fame as 'Darwin’s Bulldog' and who remained his lifelong friend. However it was the friendship of Evans and Lewes that acquainted him with John Stuart Mill’s ''A System of Logic'' and with [[Auguste Comte]]’s [[Positivism]] and which set him on the road to his life’s work; he strongly disagreed with Comte.<ref> Duncan, ''Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer'' p. 113</ref>

The first fruit of his friendship with Evans and Lewes was Spencer's second book, ''Principles of Psychology'', published in 1855, which explored a physiological basis for psychology. The book was founded on the fundamental assumption that the human mind was subject to natural laws and that these could be discovered within the framework of general biology. This permitted the adoption of a developmental perspective not merely in terms of the individual (as in traditional psychology), but also of the species and the race. Through this paradigm, Spencer aimed to reconcile the [[associationist psychology]] of Mill’s ''Logic'', the notion that human mind was constructed from atomic sensations held together by the laws of the association of ideas, with the apparently more 'scientific' theory of [[phrenology]], which located specific mental functions in specific parts of the brain.

Spencer argued that both these theories were partial accounts of the truth: repeated associations of ideas were embodied in the formation of specific strands of brain tissue, and these could be passed from one generation to the next by means of the [[Lamarckism|Lamarckian]] mechanism of use-inheritance. The ''Psychology'', he modestly believed, would do for the human mind what [[Isaac Newton]] had done for matter.<ref> Duncan, ''Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer'' p. 75</ref> However, the book was not initially successful and the last of the 251 copies of its first edition was not sold until June 1861.

Spencer's interest in psychology derived from a more fundamental concern which was to establish the universality of natural law<ref> Duncan, ''Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer By David Duncan'' p. 537</ref>. In common with others of his generation, including the members of Chapman's salon, he was possessed with the idea of demonstrating that it was possible to show that everything in the universe—including human culture, language, and morality—could be explained by laws of universal validity. This was in contrast to the views of many theologians of the time who insisted that some parts of creation, in particular the human soul, were beyond the realm of scientific investigation. Comte's ''Systeme de Philosophie Positive'' had been written with the ambition of demonstrating the universality of natural law, and Spencer was to follow Comte in the scale of his ambition. However, Spencer differed from Comte in believing it was possible to discover a single law of universal application which he identified with progressive development and was to call the principle of [[evolutionism|evolution]].

[[Image:Spencer Herbert Age 38.jpg|right|thumb|Spencer at age 38]]

In 1858 Spencer produced an outline of what was to become the System of Synthetic Philosophy. This immense undertaking, which has few parallels in the English language, aimed to demonstrate that the principle of evolution applied in biology, psychology, sociology (Spencer appropriated Comte's term for the new discipline) and morality. Spencer envisaged that this work of ten volumes would take twenty years to complete; in the event it took him twice as long and consumed almost all the rest of his long life.

Despite Spencer's early struggles to establish himself as a writer, by the 1870s he had become the most famous philosopher of the age<ref> Duncan, ''Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer'' p. 497</ref>. His works were widely read during his lifetime, and by 1869 he was able to support himself solely on the profit of book sales and on income from his regular contributions to Victorian periodicals which were collected as three volumes of ''Essays''. His works were translated into German, Italian, Spanish, French, Russian, Japanese and Chinese, and into many other languages and he was offered honors and awards all over Europe and North America. He also became a member of the [[Athenaeum]], an exclusive Gentleman's Club in London open only to those distinguished in the arts and sciences, and the [[X Club]], a dining club of nine founded by [[Thomas Henry Huxley|T.H. Huxley]] that met every month and included some of the most prominent thinkers of the Victorian age (three of whom would become presidents of the [[Royal Society]]).

Members included physicist-philosopher [[John Tyndall]] and Darwin's cousin, the banker and biologist [[Sir John Lubbock]]. There were also some quite significant satellites such as liberal clergyman [[Arthur Stanley]], the Dean of Westminster; and guests such as [[Charles Darwin]] and [[Hermann von Helmholtz]] were entertained from time to time. Through such associations, Spencer had a strong presence in the heart of the scientific community and was able to secure an influential audience for his views. Despite his growing wealth and fame he never owned a house of his own.

The last decades of Spencer's life were characterized by growing disillusionment and loneliness. He never married, and after 1855 was a perpetual hypochondriac who complained endlessly of pains and maladies that no physician could diagnose. By the 1890s his readership had begun to desert him while many of his closest friends died and he had come to doubt the confident faith in progress that he had made the center-piece of his philosophical system. His later years were also ones in which his political views became increasingly conservative. Whereas ''Social Statics'' had been the work of a radical democrat who believed in votes for women (and even for children) and in the nationalization of the land to break the power of the aristocracy, by the 1880s he had become a staunch opponent of female suffrage and made common cause with the landowners of the [[Liberty and Property Defence League]] against what they saw as the 'socialism' of the administration of [[William Ewart Gladstone]]. Spencer's political views from this period were expressed in what has become his most famous work, ''The Man versus the State.''

[[Image:Spencer Herbert grave.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Grave of Herbert Spencer in [[Highgate Cemetery]]. It is a coincidence that his grave is near that of Karl Marx.]]

The exception to Spencer's growing conservativism was that he remained throughout his life an ardent [[Anti-imperialism|opponent of imperialism]] and [[Anti-militarism|militarism]]. His critique of the [[Boer War]] was especially scathing, and it contributed to his declining popularity in Britain.<ref> Duncan, ''Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer'' p. 464</ref>

In 1902, shortly before his death, Spencer was nominated for the [[Nobel Prize for literature]]. He continued writing all his life, in later years often by dictation, until he succumbed to poor health at the age of 83. His ashes are interred in the eastern side of London's [[Highgate Cemetery]] facing [[Karl Marx]]'s grave. At Spencer's [[funeral]] the Indian nationalist leader [[Shyamji Krishnavarma]] announced a donation of £1,000 to establish a lectureship at [[University of Oxford|Oxford University]] in tribute to Spencer and his work.<ref> Duncan, ''Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer,'' p. 537 </ref>

== The System of Synthetic Philosophy ==
The basis for Spencer's appeal to many of his generation was that he appeared to offer a ready-made system of belief which could substitute for conventional religious faith at a time when orthodox creeds were crumbling under the advances of modern science. Spencer's philosophical system seemed to demonstrate that it was possible to believe in the ultimate perfection of humanity on the basis of advanced scientific conceptions such as the [[first law of thermodynamics]] and [[biological evolution]].

In essence Spencer's philosophical vision was formed by a combination of [[Deism]] and [[Positivism]]. On the one hand, he had imbibed something of eighteenth century Deism from his father and other members of the Derby Philosophical Society and from books like [[George Combe]]'s immensely popular ''The Constitution of Man'' (1828). This treated the world as a cosmos of benevolent design, and the laws of nature as the decrees of a 'Being transcendentally kind.' Natural laws were thus the statutes of a well governed universe that had been decreed by the Creator with the intention of promoting human happiness. Although Spencer lost his Christian faith as a teenager and later rejected any 'anthropomorphic' conception of the Deity, he nonetheless held fast to this conception at an almost sub-conscious level. At the same time, however, he owed far more than he would ever acknowledge to Positivism, in particular in its conception of a philosophical system as the unification of the various branches of scientific knowledge. He also followed Positivism in his insistence that it was only possible to have genuine knowledge of phenomena and hence that it was idle to speculate about the nature of the ultimate reality. The tension between Positivism and his residual Deism ran through the entire System of Synthetic Philosophy.

Spencer followed Comte in aiming for the unification of scientific truth; it was in this sense that his philosophy aimed to be 'synthetic.' Like Comte, he was committed to the universality of natural law, the idea that the laws of nature applied without exception, to the organic realm as much as to the inorganic, and to the human mind as much as to the rest of creation. The first objective of the Synthetic Philosophy was thus to demonstrate that there were no exceptions to being able to discover scientific explanations, in the form of natural laws, of all the phenomena of the universe. Spencer’s volumes on biology, psychology, and sociology were all intended to demonstrate the existence of natural laws in these specific disciplines. Even in his writings on ethics, he held that it was possible to discover ‘laws’ of morality that had the status of laws of nature while still having normative content, a conception which can be traced to Combe’s ''Constitution of Man''.

The second objective of the Synthetic Philosophy was to show that these same laws led inexorably to Progress. In contrast to Comte, who stressed only the unity of scientific method, Spencer sought the unification of scientific knowledge in the form of the reduction of all natural laws to one fundamental law, the law of evolution. In this respect, he followed the model laid down by the Edinburgh publisher [[Robert Chambers]] in his anonymous ''[[Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation]]'' (1844). Although often dismissed as a lightweight forerunner of [[Charles Darwin]]’s ''[[The Origin of Species]]'', Chambers’ book was in reality a programme for the unification of science which aimed to show that [[Laplace]]’s [[Nebular Hypothesis]] for the origin of the solar system and Lamarck’s theory of species transformation were both instances (in Lewes' phrase) of 'one magnificent generalization of progressive development.' Chambers was associated with Chapman’s salon and his work served as the unacknowledged template for the Synthetic Philosophy.

==Concept of evolution==
The first clear articulation of Spencer’s [[evolutionism|evolutionary]] perspective occurred in his essay 'Progress: Its Law and Cause' published in Chapman's ''[[Westminster Review]]'' in 1857, and which later formed the basis of the ''First Principles of a New System of Philosophy'' (1862). In it he expounded a theory of evolution which combined insights from [[Samuel Taylor Coleridge]]'s essay 'The Theory of Life'—itself derivative from [[Friedrich von Schelling]]'s [[Naturphilosophie]]—with a generalization of [[Karl Ernst von Baer|von Baer]]’s law of embryological development. Spencer posited that all structures in the universe develop from a simple, undifferentiated, homogeneity to a complex, differentiated, heterogeneity, while being accompanied by a process of greater integration of the differentiated parts. This evolutionary process could be found at work, Spencer believed, throughout the cosmos. It was a universal law, applying to the stars and the galaxies as much as to biological organisms, and to human social organization as much as to the human mind. It differed from other scientific laws only by its greater generality, and the laws of the special sciences could be shown to be illustrations of this principle.

This attempt to explain the [[evolution of complexity]] was radically different to that to be found in Darwin’s ''[[Origin of Species]]'' which was published two years later. Spencer is often, quite erroneously, believed to have merely appropriated and generalized Darwin’s work on [[natural selection]]. But although after reading Darwin's work he coined the phrase '[[survival of the fittest]]' as his own term for Darwin's concept,<ref name=sotf/> and is often misrepresented as a thinker who merely applied the Darwinian theory to society, he only grudgingly incorporated natural selection into his preexisting overall system. The primary mechanism of species transformation that he recognized was [[Lamarckism|Lamarckian]] use-inheritance which posited that organs are developed or are diminished by use or disuse and that the resulting changes may be transmitted to future generations. Spencer believed that this evolutionary mechanism was also necessary to explain 'higher' evolution, especially the social development of humanity. Moreover, in contrast to Darwin, he held that evolution had a direction and an end-point, the attainment of a final state of 'equilibrium.'

==Sociology==
The evolutionary progression from simple, undifferentiated homogeneity to complex, differentiated, heterogeneity was exemplified, Spencer argued, by the development of society. He developed a theory of two types of society, the militant and the industrial, which corresponded to this evolutionary progression. Militant society, structured around relationships of hierarchy and obedience, was simple and undifferentiated; industrial society, based on voluntary, contractually assumed social obligations, was complex and differentiated. Society, which Spencer conceptualized as a 'social organism' evolved from the simpler state to the more complex according to the universal law of evolution. Moreover, industrial society was the direct descendant of the ideal society developed in ''Social Statics'', although Spencer now equivocated over whether the evolution of society would result in anarchism (as he had first believed) or whether it pointed to a continued role for the state, albeit one reduced to the minimal functions of the enforcement of contracts and external defence.

==Ethics==
[[Image:Herbert Spencer.jpg|right|180px|thumb]]
The end point of the evolutionary process would be the creation of 'the perfect man in the perfect society' with human beings becoming completely adapted to social life, as predicted in Spencer’s first book. The chief difference between Spencer’s earlier and later conceptions of this process was the evolutionary timescale involved. The psychological—and hence also the moral—constitution which had been bequeathed to the present generation by our ancestors, and which we in turn would hand on to future generations, was in the process of gradual adaptation to the requirements of living in society. For example, aggression was a survival instinct which had been necessary in the primitive conditions of life, but was maladaptive in advanced societies. Because human instincts had a specific location in strands of brain tissue, they were subject to the Lamarckian mechanism of use-inheritance so that gradual modifications could be transmitted to future generations. Over the course of many generations the evolutionary process would ensure that human beings would become less aggressive and increasingly altruistic, leading eventually to a perfect society in which no one would cause another person pain.

However, for evolution to produce the perfect individual it was necessary for present and future generations to experience the 'natural' consequences of their conduct. Only in this way would individuals have the incentives required to work on self-improvement and thus to hand an improved moral constitution to their descendants. Hence anything that interfered with the 'natural' relationship of conduct and consequence was to be resisted and this included the use of the coercive power of the state to relieve poverty, to provide public education, or to require compulsory vaccination. Although charitable giving was to be encouraged even it had to be limited by the consideration that suffering was frequently the result of individuals receiving the consequences of their actions. Hence too much individual benevolence directed to the 'undeserving poor' would break the link between conduct and consequence that Spencer considered fundamental to ensuring that humanity continued to evolve to a higher level of development.

Spencer adopted a [[utilitarian]] standard of ultimate value—the greatest happiness of the greatest number—and the culmination of the evolutionary process would be the maximization of utility. In the perfect society individuals would not only derive pleasure from the exercise of altruism ('positive beneficence') but would aim to avoid inflicting pain on others ('negative beneficence'). They would also instinctively respect the rights of others, leading to the universal observance of the principle of justice – each person had the right to a maximum amount of liberty that was compatible with a like liberty in others. 'Liberty' was interpreted to mean the absence of coercion, and was closely connected to the right to private property. Spencer termed this code of conduct 'Absolute Ethics' which provided a scientifically-grounded moral system that could substitute for the supernaturally-based ethical systems of the past. However, he recognized that our inherited moral constitution does not currently permit us to behave in full compliance with the code of Absolute Ethics, and for this reason we need a code of 'Relative Ethics' which takes into account the distorting factors of our present imperfections.

== Agnosticism ==
Spencer's reputation among the Victorians owed a great deal to his [[agnosticism]], the claim that it is impossible for us to have certain knowledge of God. He rejected [[theology]] as representing the 'impiety of the pious.' He was to gain much notoriety from his repudiation of traditional religion, and was frequently condemned by religious thinkers for allegedly advocating atheism and materialism. Nonetheless, unlike Huxley, whose agnosticism was a militant creed directed at ‘the unpardonable sin of faith’ (in Adrian Desmond’s phrase), Spencer insisted that he was not concerned to undermine religion in the name of science, but to bring about a reconciliation of the two.

Starting either from religious belief or from science, Spencer argued, we are ultimately driven to accept certain indispensable but literally inconceivable notions. Whether we are concerned with a Creator or the substratum which underlies our experience of phenomena, we can frame no conception of it. Therefore, Spencer concluded, religion and science agree in the supreme truth that the human understanding is only capable of 'relative' knowledge. This is the case since, owing to the inherent limitations of the human mind, it is only possible to obtain knowledge of phenomena, not of the reality ('the absolute') underlying phenomena. Hence both science and religion must come to recognize as the 'most certain of all facts that the Power which the Universe manifests to us is utterly inscrutable.' He called this awareness of 'the Unknowable' and he presented worship of the Unknowable as capable of being a positive faith which could substitute for conventional religion. Indeed, he thought that the Unknowable represented the ultimate stage in the evolution of religion, the final elimination of its last anthropomorphic vestiges.

== Political views==
{{Unreferencedsection|date=January 2009}}
Spencerian views in 21st century circulation derive from his political theories and memorable attacks on the reform movements of the late 19th century. He has been claimed as a precursor by [[Libertarianism|libertarians]] and [[philosophical anarchists]].

Politics in late Victorian Britain moved in directions that Spencer disliked, and his arguments provided so much ammunition for conservatives and individualists in Europe and America that they still are in use in the 21st century.

By the 1880s he was denouncing "the new Toryism" (that is, the social reformist wing of Prime Minister [[William E. Gladstone]]). In ''The Man versus the State'' (1884), he attacked Gladstone and the Liberal party for losing its proper mission (they should be defending personal liberty, he said) and instead promoting paternalist social legislation. Spencer denounced Irish land reform, compulsory education, laws to regulate safety at work, prohibition and temperance laws, free libraries, and welfare reforms. His main objections were threefold: the use of the coercive powers of the government, the discouragement given to voluntary self-improvement, and the disregard of the "laws of life." The reforms, he said, were tantamount to "[[socialism]]", which he said was about the same as "slavery" in terms of limiting human freedom. Spencer vehemently attacked the widespread enthusiasm for annexation of colonies and imperial expansion, which subverted all he had predicted about evolutionary progress from ‘militant’ to ‘industrial’ societies and states.

Spencer anticipated many of the analytical standpoints of later libertarian theorists such as [[Friedrich Hayek]], especially in his "law of equal liberty", his insistence on the limits to predictive knowledge, his model of a spontaneous social order, and his warnings about the "unintended consequences" of collectivist social reforms.

===Social Darwinism===
Spencer created the [[Social Darwinist]] model that applied the law of the survival of the fittest to society. Humanitarian impulses had to be resisted as nothing should be allowed to interfere with nature's laws, including the social struggle for existence. This interpretation has its primary source in [[Richard Hofstadter]]'s ''Social Darwinism in American Thought'', which is frequently cited in the secondary literature as an authoritative account of the Synthetic Philosophy. Through constant repetition Hofstadter's Spencer has taken on a life of its own, his views and arguments represented by the same few passages, usually cited not directly from the source but from Hofstadter's rather selective quotations.

However, to regard Spencer as any kind of Darwinian, even of the 'Social' variety, is a gross distortion. He could never bring himself to abandon the idea that evolution equated to progress, that it involved the unfolding of a pre-existent pattern, and that there would be a final resting point—'equilibrium'—in which an ultimate state of perfection was attained. Darwinian natural selection, with its open-ended process of change based on random variations that prospered or failed depending on their adaptation to environmental conditions, was thus far removed from Spencer’s vision of progressive development, and he struggled hard to find a place for it within his overall system. Against this background, his use of the theory of natural selection could never be more than window dressing as it threatened the idea of universal evolutionary progress and thus the scientific foundation for morality that he hoped to establish. In contrast to the harsh and unforgiving imperative that the weak must be made to go to the wall, his main political message was essentially an anti-political one about the efficacy of self-improvement rather than collective action in bringing about the promised future state of human perfection.

==General influence==
While most philosophers fail to achieve much of a following outside the academy or their professional peers, by the 1870s and 1880s Spencer had achieved an unparalleled popularity, as the sheer volume of his sales indicate. He was probably the first, and possibly the only, philosopher in history to sell over a million copies of his works during his own lifetime. In the United States, where pirated editions were still commonplace, his authorized publisher, Appleton, sold 368,755 copies between 1860 and 1903. This figure did not differ much from his sales in his native Britain, and once editions in the rest of the world are added in the figure of a million copies seems like a conservative estimate. As [[William James]] remarked, Spencer "enlarged the imagination, and set free the speculative mind of countless doctors, engineers, and lawyers, of many physicists and chemists, and of thoughtful laymen generally."<ref>James, William. "Herbert Spencer". ''The Atlantic Monthly'', Vol. XCIV (1904), p. 104.</ref> The aspect of his thought that emphasized individual self-improvement found a ready audience in the skilled working class.

Spencer's influence among the leaders of thought was also immense, although it was most often expressed in terms of their reaction to, and repudiation of, his ideas. As his American follower [[John Fiske]] observed, Spencer's ideas were to be found "running like the weft through all the warp" of Victorian thought.<ref>Quoted in Offer, John (2000), ''Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments'', p. 613. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0415181852.</ref> Such varied thinkers as [[Henry Sidgwick]], [[T.H. Green]], [[G.E. Moore]], William James, [[Henri Bergson]], and [[Emile Durkheim]] defined their ideas in relation to his. Durkheim’s ''Division of Labour in Society'' is to a very large extent an extended debate with Spencer from whose sociology, many commentators now agree, Durkheim borrowed extensively.<ref> Robert G. Perrin, "Émile Durkheim's Division of Labor and the Shadow of Herbert Spencer," ''Sociological Quarterly'' 36#4 pp 791-808</ref> In post-[[January Uprising|1863-Uprising]] [[Poland]], many of Spencer's ideas became integral to the dominant [[ideology]], "[[Positivism in Poland|Polish Positivism]]." The leading Polish writer of the period, [[Bolesław Prus]], adopted Spencer's [[metaphor]] of society-as-organism, giving it a striking poetic presentation in his 1884 story, "[[Mold of the Earth]]," and highlighting the concept in the introduction to his most universal novel, ''[[Pharaoh (novel)|Pharaoh]]'' (1895).

The early 20th century was hostile to Spencer. Soon after his death his philosophical reputation went into a sharp decline. Half a century after his death his work was dismissed as a "parody of philosophy",<ref>Himmelfarb, Gertrude (1968). ''Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution'', p. 222. Quoted in Richards, Robert J. (1989), ''Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior'', p. 243. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226712001.</ref> and the historian [[Richard Hofstadter]] called him "the metaphysician of the homemade intellectual, and the prophet of the cracker-barrel agnostic."<ref>Hofstadter, Richard (1992). ''Social Darwinism in American Thought'', p. 32. Beacon Press. ISBN 0807055034.</ref> Nonetheless, Spencer’s thought had penetrated so deeply into the Victorian age that his influence did not disappear entirely. In the late 20th century, however, much more positive estimates have appeared.<ref> See Francis (2007)</ref>

=== Political influence ===
Despite his reputation as a Social Darwinist, Spencer's political thought has been open to multiple interpretations. His political philosophy could both provide inspiration to those who believed that individuals were masters of their fate, who should brook no interference from a meddling state, and those who believed that social development required a strong central authority. In ''[[Lochner v. New York]]'', conservative justices of the [[United States Supreme Court]] could find inspiration in Spencer's writings for striking down a New York law limiting the number of hours a baker could work during the week, on the ground that this law restricted [[liberty]] of [[contract]]. Arguing against the majority's holding that a "right to free contract" is implicit in the [[due process clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], [[Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.]] wrote: "The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics." On the other hand, Spencer has also been described as a quasi-[[anarchism|anarchist]], as well as an outright anarchist. [[Georgi Plekhanov]], in his 1909 ''Anarchism and Socialism'', labeled Spencer a "conservative Anarchist."<ref>Plekhanov, Georgiĭ Valentinovich (1912), trans. Aveling, Eleanor Marx. ''Anarchism and Socialism'', p. 143. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Company.</ref>

Spencer's ideas became very influential in [[China]] and [[Japan]] largely because he appealed to the reformers' desire to establish a strong nation-state with which to compete with the Western powers. He was translated by the Chinese scholar [[Yen Fu]], who saw his writings as a prescription for the reform of the [[Qing]] [[state]].<ref>Schwartz, Benjamin ''In Search of Wealth and Power'' (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1964).</ref> Spencer also influenced the Japanese Westernizer [[Tokutomi Soho]], who believed that Japan was on the verge of transitioning from a "militant society" to an "industrial society," and needed to quickly jettison all things Japanese and take up Western ethics and learning.<ref>Pyle, Kenneth ''The New Generation in Meiji Japan'' (Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1969) </ref> He also corresponded with [[Kaneko Kentaro]], warning him of the dangers of imperialism.<ref>Spencer to Kaneko Kentaro, 26 August 1892 in ''the Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer'' ed. David Duncan, 1908 p 296.</ref>

===Influence on literature===
Spencer also exerted a great influence on [[literature]] and [[rhetoric]]. His 1852 essay, “The Philosophy of Style,” explored a growing trend of [[Formalism (literature)|formalist]] approaches to [[writing]]. Highly focused on the proper placement and ordering of the parts of an English sentence, he created a guide for effective [[composition (language)|composition]]. Spencer’s aim was to free [[prose]] [[writing]] from as much "[[friction]] and [[inertia]]" as possible, so that the reader would not be slowed by strenuous deliberations concerning the proper context and meaning of a sentence. Spencer argued that it is the writer's ideal "To so present ideas that they may be apprehended with the least possible [[Mind|mental]] [[effort]]" by the reader.

He argued that by making the meaning as readily accessible as possible, the writer would achieve the greatest possible [[communication|communicative]] [[efficiency]]. This was accomplished, according to Spencer, by placing all the subordinate clauses, objects and phrases before the subject of a sentence so that, when readers reached the subject, they had all the information they needed to completely perceive its significance. While the overall influence that “The Philosophy of Style” had on the field of rhetoric was not as far-reaching as his contribution to other fields, Spencer’s voice lent authoritative support to [[Formalism (literature)|formalist]] views of [[rhetoric]].

Spencer also had an influence on [[literature]], as many [[novelist]]s came to address his ideas in their work. [[George Eliot]], [[Leo Tolstoy]], [[Thomas Hardy]], [[Bolesław Prus]], [[Abraham Cahan]] and [[D. H. Lawrence]] all referenced Spencer. [[Arnold Bennett]] greatly praised [http://praxeology.net/HS-SP.htm#firstprinciples ''First Principles''], and the influence it had on Bennett may be seen in his many novels. [[Jack London]] went so far as to create a character, ''[[Martin Eden]]'', a staunch Spencerian. [[H.G. Wells]] used Spencer's ideas as a theme in his [[novella]], ''[[The Time Machine]]'', employing them to explain the [[evolution]] of [[man]] into two [[species]]. It is perhaps the best testimony to the [[influence]] of Spencer’s beliefs and writings that his reach was so diverse. He influenced not only the administrators who shaped their societies’ inner workings, but also the artists who helped shape those societies' ideals and beliefs.

==Primary sources==
*[http://archives.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/dispatcher.aspx?action=search&database=ChoiceArchive&search=IN=MS791 Papers of Herbert Spencer in Senate House Library, University of London]
* [http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Author.php?recordID=0236 Most of Spencer's books are available online]
*"On The Proper Sphere of Government" (1842)
*[http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=273 ''Social Statics: or, The Conditions Essential to Human Happiness Specified, and the First of Them Developed''] (1851)
**[http://www.panarchy.org/spencer/ignore.state.1851.html "The Right to Ignore the State"], Chapter XIX of the first edition of ''Social Statics''
**''Social Statics: [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=96054973 Abridged and Revised]'' (1892)
*"A Theory of Population" (1852)
*[http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1394 ''Principles of Psychology''] (1855), first edition, issued in one volume
*[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98953755 ''Education'' (1861)]
*''[http://praxeology.net/HS-SP.htm System of Synthetic Philosophy]',' in ten volumes
**''[http://praxeology.net/HS-SP.htm#firstprinciples First Principles]'' ISBN 0-89875-795-9 (1862)
**''Principles of Biology'' (1864, 1867; revised and enlarged: 1898), in two volumes
***Volume I — Part I: ''The Data of Biology''; Part II: ''The Inductions of Biology''; Part III: ''The Evolution of Life''; Appendices
***Volume II — Part IV: ''Morphological Development''; Part V: ''Physiological Development''; Part VI: ''Laws of Mutiplication''; Appendices
**''Principles of Psychology'' (1870, 1880), in two volumes
***Volume I — Part I:'' The Data of Pscyhology''; Part II: ''The Inductions of Pscyhology''; Part III: ''General Synthesis''; Part IV: ''Special Synthesis''; Part V: ''Physical Synthesis''; Appendix
***Volume II — Part VI: ''Special Analysis''; Part VII: ''General Analysis''; Part VIII: ''Congruities''; Part IX: ''Corollaries''
**''Principles of Sociology'', in three volumes
***Volume I (1874-75; enlarged 1876, 1885) — Part I: ''Data of Sociology''; Part II: ''Inductions of Sociology''; Part III: ''Domestic Institutions''
***Volume II — Part IV: ''Ceremonial Institutions'' (1879); Part V: ''Political Institutions'' (1882); Part VI [published here in some editions]: ''Ecclesiastical Institutions'' (1885)
***Vollume III — Part VI [published here in some editions]: ''Ecclesiastical Institutions'' (1885); Part VII: ''Professional Institutions'' (1896); Part VIII: ''Industrial Institutions'' (1896); References
**[http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Spencer0236/PrinciplesEthics/HTMLs/0155-02_Pt05_Apps.html ''The Principles of Ethics''] (1897), in two volumes
***Volume I — Part I: ''[http://fair-use.org/herbert-spencer/data-of-ethics The Data of Ethics]'' (1879); Part II: ''The Inductions of Ethics'' (1892); Part III: ''The Ethics of Individual Life'' (1892); References
***Volume II — Part IV: ''The Ethics of Social Life: Justice'' (1891); Part V: ''The Ethics of Social Life: Negative Beneficence'' (1892); Part VI: ''The Ethics of Social Life: Positive Beneficence'' (1892); Appendices
*[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=96277756 ''The Study of Sociology'' (1873, 1896)]
*[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=3559105 ''An Autobiography''] (1904), in two volumes

: See also {{cite book | author = Spencer, Herbert | title = An Autobiography | year = 1904 | publisher = D. Appleton and Company | location = | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=gUozqCwTGkEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=herbert+spencer&as_brr=1#PPR3,M2 }}
*[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=7900182 v1 ''Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer'' by David Duncan] (1908)
*[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54665737 v2 ''Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer'' by David Duncan] (1908)
*''Descriptive Sociology; or Groups of Sociological Facts,'' parts 1-8, classified and arranged by Spencer, compiled and abstracted by David Duncan, Richard Schepping, and James Collier (London, Williams & Norgate, 1873-1881).
Essay Collections:
*''Ilustrations of Universal Progress: A Series of Discussions'' (1864, 1883)
*[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=96054973 ''The Man Versus the State'' (1884)]
*''Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative'' (1891), in three volumes:
**Volume I (includes "The Development Hypothesis," "Progress: Its Law and Cause," "The Factors of Organic Evolution" and others)
**Volume II (includes "The Classification of the Sciences," [http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/8phil10.txt ''The Philosophy of Style''] (1852), The Origin and Function of Music," "The Physiology of Laughter," and others)
**Volume III (includes "The Ethics of Kant," "State Tamperings With Money and Banks," "Specialized Administration," "From Freedom to Bondage," "The Americans," and others)
*''Various Fragments'' (1897, enlarged 1900)
* ''[http://praxeology.net/HS-FC.htm Facts and Comments]'' (1902)

==Philosophers' critiques==
*[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99533534 ''Herbert Spencer: An Estimate and Review'' by Josiah Royce (1904)]
*[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14557498 ''Lectures on the Ethics of T.H. Green, Mr. Herbert Spencer, and J. Martineau'' by Henry Sidgwick (1902)]
*[http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1884/06/herbert-spencer.htm ''A Few Words with Mr Herbert Spencer'' by Paul Lafargue (1884)]

==See also==
*[[Auberon Herbert]]
*[[Classical liberalism]]
*[[Cultural evolution]]
*[[Liberalism]]
*[[Contributions to liberal theory]]
*[[Libertarianism]]
*''[[Mold of the Earth]]'' (a story by [[Bolesław Prus]], inspired by a concept of Spencer's)
*[[Scientism]] and [[Positivism (philosophy)|positivism]]
*[[Etherscope]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

==References==
* Carneiro, Robert L. and Perrin, Robert G. "Herbert Spencer's 'Principles of Sociology:' a Centennial Retrospective and Appraisal." ''Annals of Science'' 2002 59(3): 221-261 online at Ebsco
* Duncan, David. ''The life and letters of Herbert Spencer'' (1908) [http://books.google.com/books?id=trlCAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:herbert+intitle:spencer&lr=&num=30&as_brr=3 online edition]
*Elliot, Hugh. ''Herbert Spencer''. London: Constable and Company, Ltd., 1917
*Elwick, James. "[http://www.shpltd.co.uk/elwick-spencer.pdf Herbert Spencer and the Disunity of the Social Organism]." ''History of Science'' 41, 2003, pp. 35-72.
*Elliott, Paul 'Erasmus Darwin, Herbert Spencer and the origins of the evolutionary worldview in British provincial scientific culture', ''Isis'' 94 (2003), 1-29
*Francis, Mark, ''Herbert Spencer and the Invention of Modern Life''. Newcastle UK: Acumen Publishing, 2007 ISBN 0801445906
* Harris, Jose. "Spencer, Herbert (1820–1903)", ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,''(2004) [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/36208 online], a standard short biography
*Hofstadter, Richard, ''Social Darwinism in American Thought''. Boston: Beacon Press, 1955.
*Kennedy, James G. ''Herbert Spencer''. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1978
*Lightman, Bernard, ''The Origins of Agnosticism: Victorian unbelief and the limits of knowledge''. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.
*Mandelbaum, Maurice, ''History, Man, and Reason : a study in nineteenth-century thought''. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971.
*Rafferty, Edward C.; “[http://www.historians.org/annual/2006/06program/precirculated/Session145_Rafferty.pdf The Right to the Use of the Earth].,” Herbert Spencer, the Washington Intellectual Community, and American Conservation in the Late Nineteenth Century.
*Richards, Robert J. ''Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior'' Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
*Taylor, Michael W., ''Men versus the State: Herbert Spencer and Late Victorian Individualism''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
*Taylor, Michael W., ''The Philosophy of Herbert Spencer''. London: Continuum, (2007)
*{{cite book | author=Three Initiates | title=The Kybalion | location=Chicago | publisher=The Yogi Publication Society/Masonic Temple | year=1912 | id= }}
*Turner, Jonathan H., ''Herbert Spencer: A Renewed Appreciation''. Sage Publications, Inc., 1985. ISBN 0803924267
*Versen, Christopher R.,'' Optimistic Liberals: Herbert Spencer, the Brooklyn Ethical Association, and the Integration of Moral Philosophy and Evolution in the Victorian Trans-Atlantic Community.'' Florida State University, 2006.

===By Spencer===
* Spencer, Herbert. ''Spencer: Political Writings'' (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought) edited by John Offer (1993) [http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521437407 excerpt and text search]
* Spencer, Herbert. ''Social Statics: The Man Versus the State''
* Spencer, Herbert. '' The study of sociology'' [http://www.amazon.com/dp/1418188417 excerpt and text search]; also [http://www.questia.com/read/96277756?title=The%20Study%20of%20Sociology full text online free]
* Spencer, Herbert. ''The Principles of Psychology'' [http://www.amazon.com/dp/1402182716 excerpt and text search]; [http://books.google.com/books?id=hTBVAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:herbert+inauthor:spencer&lr=&num=30&as_brr=3 full text online]
* Spencer, Herbert. ''Social Statics, Abridged and Revised: Together with the Man Versus the State'' (1896), highly influential among libertarians [http://www.questia.com/read/96054973?title=Social%20Statics%2c%20Abridged%20and%20Revised%3a%20Together%20with%20the%20Man%20Versus%20the%20State full text online free]
* Spencer, Herbert. ''Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical'' (1891) 283pp [http://books.google.com/books?id=gztMAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:herbert+inauthor:spencer&lr=&num=30&as_brr=3 full text online]
* Spencer, Herbert. ''An Autobiography'' (1905, 2 vol) [http://books.google.com/books?id=gUozqCwTGkEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:herbert+inauthor:spencer&lr=&num=30&as_brr=3 full text online]
* [http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=30&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=3&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=herbert+spencer&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn= online writings of Spencer]

==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
{{wikisource author}}
'''Biographical'''
*{{sep entry|spencer|Herbert Spencer|David Weinstein|2008-02-27}}
*The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: [http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spencer.htm Herbert Spencer] by William Sweet.
*[http://www.bolender.com/Dr.%20Ron/SOC4044%20Sociological%20Theory/Class%20Sessions/Sociological%20Theory/Spencer,%20Herbert/spencer,_herbert.htm Extensive biography and overview of works]
*[http://www.bolenderinitiatives.com/sociology/herbert-spencer-1820-1903 Review materials for studying Herbert Spencer]
* [http://www.bolender.com/Dr.%20Ron/SOC4044%20Sociological%20Theory/Class%20Sessions/Sociological%20Theory/Spencer,%20Herbert/spencer,_herbert.htm Spencer's ideas]
'''Sources'''
*[http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=165&Itemid=28 Works by Herbert Spencer at the Online Library of Liberty] (HTML, facsimile PDF, reading PDF)
*[http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=mediatype%3A(texts)%20-contributor%3Agutenberg%20AND%20(subject%3A%22Spencer%2C%20Herbert%2C%201820-1903%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Spencer%2C%20Herbert%2C%201820-1903%22) Works by & about Herbert Spencer] at [[Internet Archive]] (scanned books original editions color illustrated)
* {{gutenberg author| id=Herbert+Spencer | name=Herbert Spencer}} (plain text and HTML)
*[http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=SpeFirs.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all "First principles"] Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library.
* [http://praxeology.net/HS-SP.htm#firstprinciples First Principles Herbert's 'First Principles' online]
* [http://www.constitution.org/hs/ignore_state.htm The Right to Ignore the State] by Herbert Spencer.
* [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/spencer-darwin.html Excerpts from ''Progress: Its Law and Cause''] available from the [[Internet Modern History Sourcebook]]
* [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/spencer-darwin.html Modern History Sourcebook: Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinism, 1857]
*[http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long3.html "Herbert Spencer: The Defamation Continues"] - a vindication by [[Roderick T. Long]]

{{Persondata
|NAME=Spencer, Herbert
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES=Спенсер, Герберт (Russian)
|SHORT DESCRIPTION=English philosopher
|DATE OF BIRTH=[[27 April]] [[1820]]
|PLACE OF BIRTH=[[Derby, England|Derby]]
|DATE OF DEATH=[[8 December]] [[1903]]
|PLACE OF DEATH=
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Spencer, Herbert}}
[[Category:1820 births]]
[[Category:1903 deaths]]
[[Category:19th century philosophers]]
[[Category:Classical liberals]]
[[Category:English agnostics]]
[[Category:English libertarians]]
[[Category:English economists]]
[[Category:English philosophers]]
[[Category:English anthropologists]]
[[Category:Anthropologists]]
[[Category:Former anarchists]]
[[Category:Libertarian theorists]]
[[Category:Minarchists]]
[[Category:Rhetoricians]]
[[Category:People from Derby]]
[[Category:Functionalism]]
[[Category:Burials at Highgate Cemetery]]
[[Category:British political theorists]]

[[af:Herbert Spencer]]
[[ar:هيربرت سبينسر]]
[[az:Herbert Spenser]]
[[bg:Хърбърт Спенсър]]
[[bs:Herbert Spencer]]
[[ca:Herbert Spencer]]
[[cs:Herbert Spencer]]
[[da:Herbert Spencer]]
[[de:Herbert Spencer]]
[[es:Herbert Spencer]]
[[eo:Herbert Spencer]]
[[fa:هربرت اسپنسر]]
[[fr:Herbert Spencer]]
[[gl:Herbert Spencer]]
[[ko:허버트 스펜서]]
[[hr:Herbert Spencer]]
[[id:Herbert Spencer]]
[[is:Herbert Spencer]]
[[it:Herbert Spencer]]
[[he:הרברט ספנסר]]
[[nl:Herbert Spencer]]
[[ja:ハーバート・スペンサー]]
[[no:Herbert Spencer]]
[[pl:Herbert Spencer]]
[[pt:Herbert Spencer]]
[[ro:Herbert Spencer]]
[[ru:Спенсер, Герберт]]
[[sq:Herbert Spencer]]
[[simple:Herbert Spencer]]
[[sk:Herbert Spencer]]
[[sr:Херберт Спенсер]]
[[fi:Herbert Spencer]]
[[sv:Herbert Spencer]]
[[vi:Herbert Spencer]]
[[tr:Herbert Spencer]]
[[zh:赫伯特·斯宾塞]]

Talk:David Ray Griffin

2008-04-26T03:00:35Z

Harpakhrad11: /* More Theology */ new section

{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=B|priority=Low|s&a-work-group=yes|listas=Griffin, David Ray}}
{{WikiProject Oregon|class=B|importance=Low}}

==Delusional thinking==
Id anyone else disturbed by that fact that Rosie O' Donnald wanted to interview David Griffin about his book Debunking the debunking of the offical 9/11 conspiracy? I mean, the guy has a doctorate in religion and theology! How does that qualify him for being able to 'debunk' phyics, material science, and engineering? Just because you have a doctorate in something, that doesn't mean you know everything.

I read his interview with Nick Welsh. Griffin's paranoid ranting shows that this guy is delusional. This is worse than believing that "space aliens kidnapped Elvis Presley" delusional. [[User:RK|RK]]

Maybe instead of the above derogatory comment you (RK) should explain, intelligently, why you think Griffin is delusional and that believing any of his critique of the official 9/11 account is "worse than believing that space aliens kidnapped Elvis Presley." Then we could have an intelligent discussion about this, instead of empty ad hominem attacks.

:Question - And the other smoking guns?
:
:Answer - The second strongest piece of evidence I would say is the crash at the Pentagon. The physical evidence contradicts so violently the official account, that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 — Flight 77, that is. The physical evidence, photographs, and eyewitness testimony say that the Pentagon was hit by something that caused a hole no larger than 18 feet in diameter. The story the Pentagon put out, and was published by the Washington Post, was that the hole in the Pentagon was five stories high and 200 feet wide. If you look at the photographs taken by Tom Horan of the Associated Press — that’s just not the size of the hole.
:
:But if the hole was only 18 feet wide, it had to have been created by something other than a Boeing. Whatever went into the Pentagon pierced six reinforced walls. This was the west wing, the part of the Pentagon being refurbished and reinforced. These walls were extra strong, and yet whatever it was went through six walls creating a hole about seven feet in diameter in the sixth wall. This had to have been something with a very powerful head on it. A Boeing 757 has a very fragile nose, and would not have pierced through all those walls; it would have been crushed by hitting the Pentagon. And given that it only penetrated these three rings, the rest of the aircraft would have been sitting outside on the yard.

:::Totally against laws of physics. If you put a marshmallow on the head of a hammer and hit the hood of your car, it will make a dent. Wings of aircraft only penetrate buildings in cartoons. The structure that penetrates is the tubular body.--[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 22:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

::::How is an aluminium tube any stronger structurally than aluminium wings with large solid spars in them to keep them rigid? That argument is a non-starter. If the WINGS were to crumple against the wall, then by extension the un-stressed aluminium tube that is the fuselage should crumple like an empty coke can.

And yet the photographs taken just as the fire trucks got there — very shortly after the crash — show no plane whatsoever.

:::Totally false and easy to debunk. There are a number of photos that show debris on the lawn, including a very large piece of an airliner with airline colors.[/media/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Pentagon_wreckage.jpg]. Analyzing a low resolution JPG photo for evidence is like taking a magnifying glass to this Monet painting and concluding there is no water depicted in the painting.[http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/monet/first/impression/impression.jpg] --[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 22:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

::::Wrong. Your assertion that this is totally false is an outright lie. There was NOT "debris on the lawn"; rather, there was ONE piece of debris, large-scale photographs of which could not be matched to any piece of a Boeing 757 at a nearby airport. You can see just from the dimensions and the shape of this piece of strategically placed debris that it does not come from an airliner.

:
:Question - What do they show?
:Answer- They show no aircraft whatsoever. And everyone agrees on this...

:::Totally false.--[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 22:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

::::You, sir, are either an idiot or a liar. To claim "totally false" with no proof whatsoever is childish in the extreme, and highlights a personality that either wants to argue for the sake of it, or one who steadfastly refuses to look obvious facts in the face.

:
:Question - If what you’re saying is accurate — that it was a missile — then what happened to the plane and all the people on it?
:Answer - That’s why I stress I’m not trying to give an account of what really happened. I have no idea what happened to Flight 77.
:
:Question - You suggest that the World Trade Center buildings must have been detonated with explosives to account for the heat generated and the speed the structures collapsed on themselves. That sounds extreme. What’s the evidence?
:
:Answer - The evidence is cumulative — several things that point to controlled demolition. First, a steel-framed building, according to all the reading I’ve done, has never collapsed solely because of fire. They will bend and buckle in a very large all-consuming fire that lasts for a very long time. But they have never collapsed.
::Um, since when has there been comprehensive tests done to the structural integrity of buildings that were collided with by passenger jets; especially those full of fuel? They are out there, but usually related to "hardened" targets such as nuke reactors. Also, by merely suggesting this was an "inside job" that is giving a lot of credit to the US government itself. Way way waaaayy tooo much credit. Hell, with all that leaks out of the military, White House, and various agencies (Scooter Libby, anyone?), you think the open spigot (more like the fire hose) that is the American government can keep a conspiracy this nasty a secret? Right. Keep dreaming. [[User:Shadowrun|Shadowrun]] 11:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:''Thinking Unthinkable Thoughts: Theologian Charges White House Complicity in 9/11 Attack'' by Nick Welsh. The Santa Barbara Independent Online

:::Numerous independent structural studies demonstrate how and why the building collapsed the way they did. The criticisms on this page are modest and barely scratch the surface. If anything they should be expanded.--[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 22:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

::::"Numerous structural studies"? Conducted by whom? Please point to these studies. Once more, lots of invective, not much to back it up. Also please explain how a falling building generates the energy to expel chunks of steel hundreds of feet and pulverise concrete.

Until the government can explain how a flash fire ( explosion ) of kerosene ( jet fuel ) that lasts for seconds, followed by a fire of paper and office material can melt steel ( so that all rivets, etc melt and weaken at exactly the same second - and not once but twice - forget trying to explain how the third building collapsed, try the two big ones first ) I will continue with my opinion I had when I saw the two towers collapse "Bullsh.t"

Steel doesn't have to melt to lose structrial integrity, just get real hot. Anyone who has ever witnessed a machine gun barrel slump and the bullets exit the side of the barrel will understand this. The steel will reach a plastic state before it 'melts' I.E. becomes molten. This property of steel is commonly understood and this is why no structural engineer or materials scientist has come forth to challenge the governments account of the structural collapse of the WTC. Like the moon hoaxers, one thing all of the critics have in common is lack a serious backgrounds in science and engineering.The only bullshit I see here is from the hoaxers. If you wish to disprove the offical account, I suggest you pursue a career in the hard sciences or an engineering discipline starting with a degree from an accredited instution of higher learning.

At a minimum, take your concerns to the engineering department of a large university and have a professor or a doctorial sudent discuss them with you.[[User:69.241.40.207|69.241.40.207]] 21:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:Oh yes. Your parallel with the gun barrel getting hot is accurate, as it's one of the many reasons the US military doesn't use a fully automatic m16/4. Aside from just wasting ammunition, it wears out the components faster. Yes, I especially love the argument "But there was no debris on the lawn! How could an aluminum airplane cut into a building??" A basic pass at an introduction to physics class will answer that.

==WaPo review==

The ''[[Washington Post]]'' review of ''New Pearl Harbor'' focused on the (false) claims about Flight 77 while ignoring the other 90% of the book -- a clue that the rest of the material is evidence that the establishment media would rather ignore. (comment by [[user:4.243.3.230]] moved from article)

Or a clue they have limited space to deal with the matter and chose to througly dispute one point. Once you establish one has questionable methodology, the rest of the assertions become of a very minimal value.[[User:69.241.40.207|69.241.40.207]] 21:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

== Beware false authority ==

This is from the [[WP:RS]] page
"Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities? Likewise, you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics. Just as actors in TV commercials don white lab coats to make viewers think they are serious scientists, people with degrees in one field are not necessarily experts in any other. Watch out for false claims of authority.

Try to use sources who have degrees in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field for the undergraduate level or higher: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject."

:As such, I submit that David Ray Griffin is not a reputable source on the issue of what did or didn't happen on 9/11. [[User:Morton devonshire|Morton devonshire]] 20:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Then who IS a reputable source on the issue? The Bush Admin? The 9/11 Ommission Commission? What qualifications exactly are needed to discuss and debunk obvious lies? I personally am not a demolition expert, yet I have seen enough controlled demolitions to know that the WTC buildings (including Building 7 which was conveniently not mentioned by the Omission Commission) were brought down by controlled explosion; if your mind is not completely closed you can even SEE this happening. Have you actually READ anything by David Ray Griffin, or is this just the usual pro-establishment debunkery?

Beware of Albert Einstein and anything he said - he had a degree in Education, he only tinkered in physics.

'''Graduated in 1900 from the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (the Federal Polytechnic) in Zurich in mathematics and physics. Earned a doctorate from the University of Zurich in 1905 for a thesis on a new determination of molecular dimensions.'''

Any more lies about Einstein you care to make?[[User:69.241.40.207|69.241.40.207]] 21:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

==Customary==
Dear [[User:Kaimiddleton]] -- It's customary on Wikipedia to discuss things before you make a revert of changes. Thanks. [[User:Morton devonshire|Morton devonshire]] 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
: [[Howard Zinn]] is a noted author who has been writing for over forty years. He has written on topics germane to the political issues encompassed in the discussion of David Ray Griffin. It seems to me that his contribution to this debate is worthy in establishing David Ray Griffin as an authoritative source. The mention of Zinn is neither egregious nor irrelevant therefore I think deleting mention of it, effectively reverting another wikipedia editors change, is inappropriate. [[User:Kaimiddleton|Kaimiddleton]] 02:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear [[User:Morton devonshire|Morton devonshire]]: pot, meet kettle. You have just removed a sentence without answering [[User:Kaimiddleton]] post here on the talk page.[[User:Jayvdb|Jayvdb]] 08:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

== Griffin's latest 9/11 book ==

I just had to restore the following line that someone else deleted:
* ''Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action'', Westminster John Knox Press, (2006) ISBN 0664231179
The book has already been published, and is creating a stir in some quarters. I am recording the title as a fact of publishing, not because I take a view about its contents either way. [[User:David Haslam|DFH]] 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
:My bad, I was trying to revert the title, not delete the book. Sorry. --[[User:Peephole|Peephole]] 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for explanation & apology. We all make such mistakes. [[User:David Haslam|DFH]] 16:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

== Conspiracy theorist v. theorist ==

Doesn't NPOV stipulate that editing should refrain from smearing someone as a "conspiracy theorist" because they disagree with the "official" government version? And a sizable segment of Americans agree that the official story is phony, given all the unanswered questions... ...not that I agree with Griffin, but tarring him a "conspiracy theorist" does not obey NPOV.
*Does he advance conspiracy theories? Yes. Thus, he is a conspiracy theorist.
***Um *Sigh*. How many times do I have to stress this to everyone? Whether or not you believe the government endorsed-theory, we are ALL conspiracy theorists. The official account of 9/11 is ALSO a conspiracy theory. If you're confused about the actual definition of 'conspiracy theory', look it up in a good proper dictionary. The only difference between the official conspiracy theory and the alternative conspiracy theory are the agent provocateurs.. Other than that, both sides to the story are ALL conspiracy theories.[[User:Vlag|Vlag]] ([[User talk:Vlag|talk]]) 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Vlag

**That's your opinion, subjective slant and a smear and insult against him. Calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is akin to calling him crazy. You may disagree with his research, but tarring him a "conspiracy theorist" is to pronounce judgment against his character. We don't label critics of [[global warming]] conspiracy theorists, even though all the peer reviewed journals (100%) sway against them. It can be written that many consider his research to be "conspiracy theory" but even 30-40%+ of Americans do not believe the official 9/11 commission reports. It's not a conspiracy theory because you say it is, as like you could call something black red...
***I'm not calling him a CT, the washingtonpost is. --[[User:Peephole|Peephole]] 17:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
****And that is opinion too. Since when is Washington Post gospel? Maybe it's a shade bettter than Pravda, but official truth it is not. So please, please adhere to NPOV and drop the namecalling -- it is an insult (negative material) and your editorial input injected.
*****You consider it an insult. Washingtonpost is a reliable source who claims he's a conspiracy theorist. Reflecting that in the article is perfectly ok. --[[User:Peephole|Peephole]] 19:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
******Please stop reverting my edit. First, just because a reporter or editorial lobs an insult of "conspiracy theorist" does not make it so. It is '''negative material''' and does not adhere to NPOV. It is generally accepted that "conspiracy theorist" is an insult, and a [[genetic fallacy]] argument -- it is disrespectful of accomplished author, and YOU are the one injecting editorial, non-NPOV content. If you must add "conspiracy theorist", you must preface it by stating that "many people feel/believe" or qualify it. You've reverted my edit multiple times and keep injecting your editorial slant whereas I corrected with proper link and adopt NPOV and removed insult. Good Lord, since when has the Washington Post been gospel? Just like Malaysisan Times or Pravda?
******Again, please cease and desist from reverting my edit that removes '''negative material''' and violates '''NPOV'''. [[User:J henry waugh|J henry waugh]] 14:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The Washington Post is not Pravda. It's a reputable source according to Wikipedia standards. See [[WP:RS]]. [[User:Morton devonshire|Morton devonshire]] 20:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
* It's still reporter opinion and negative material for an accomplished author. Not a reliable source and opinion that violates NPOVand hurls insult at author without citing any FACTS. - [[User:J henry waugh|J henry waugh]] 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
::Please sign your posts. Also, this is not ED. Here on Wikipedia, we use colons to separate our comments. Just add one more per response. Thanks. [[User:Morton devonshire|Morton devonshire]] 20:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not that the quote appears, so much as its placement that is problematic. It would be like starting an article on Barry Goldwater by leveling the "warmonger" label at him in the first paragraph. It doesn't matter how well you cite it or from where. It is, by its placement, predjudicial. Move it. [[User:150.199.110.146|150.199.110.146]] 17:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

::So moved. [[User:MerricMaker|MerricMaker]] 18:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be OK to write that "the Washington Post refereed to Griffing as a 'conspiracy theorist''... " and then duly provide a verifiable citation. It is a violation of the NPOV neutral language policy to use the language in the article without a quotation. Apparently, Wikipedia has a higher standard than the Washington Post. If you don't like the policy,, write for the Washington Post instead of Wikipedia. However, my guess is that someone writing an op ed piece might have called him that. I doubt the Washington Post allows that sort of pejorative language from its reporters.. --[[User:Cplot|Cplot]] 05:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:Hmm, I see you folks are having, yet another, interesting discussion, perhaps we should consider conspiracy as one of those "words to avoid". Is there a motion about such take, if so, let me know… and ''btw'' Morton's opinion doesn't count… he is way to biased to have any say on this… as for my, unfortunately it's in [[quantum entanglement]] with Morton's cruft… & if such cruft is meritum, then no one should be labeled with the term conspiracy. [[User:Lovelight|Lovelight]] 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:::See, the problem here with regard to the 9/11 theories is that the ones that contradict the official government theory are simply labelled as 'conspiracy theories'. The term 'Conspiracy theory' make 'alternative 9/11 conspiracy theories' look irrational and that is the reason why believers of the 'official 9/11 conspiracy theory' tactically smear alternative 9/11 theorists and theories as 'conspiracy theorists' and 'conspiracy theories'. To date, all theories are still Conspiracy Theories, including the official story. If we are to equally discriminate between the two camps, then we should correctly call the government endorsed theory as the 'official conspiracy theory' and the alternative conspiracy theories as 'alternate conspiracy theories'. Simply labelling the official story as just 'official story/theory' and naming everyone and everything else as 'conspiracy theorists' and 'conspiracy theories' is unfounded.[[User:Vlag|Vlag]] ([[User talk:Vlag|talk]]) 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Vlag

::Your opinion about whether the term is or isn't pejorative is irrelevant -- we do not publish [[WP:OR]]. If the NYTimes, Washington Post, or other reputable sources call him a conspiracy theorist, then that's what he is here, regardless of what 911.wtc.magicbullet.kookytheory.net says about it. [[User:Morton_devonshire|'''  MortonDevonshire ''']][[User talk:Morton_devonshire| Yo ]] · 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, but neither of those sources have to deal with Morton & his cruft, do they? [[User:Lovelight|Lovelight]] 22:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Eh? I cite policy, you cite personality. [[User:Morton_devonshire|'''  MortonDevonshire ''']][[User talk:Morton_devonshire| Yo ]] · 05:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

==Baer's updated position with footnote: DO NOT DELETE UNLESS YOU WANT A LONG ARBITRATION AND MORE BAD PUBLICITY ==

I understand that admin Tom Harrison and Dr. Rubin are possibly paid by their employers for their edits here and that they work as a team to use arcane rules to keep relevant footnotes off pages so that the page is spun to their employer's liking..

I am not paid for my edits here, and I have 4 years of experience as a journalist.

I smell a rat that needs to be exposed..

I will report both Tom Harrison and Rubin if they continue to vandalize this page by deleting footnoted facts that are relevant.
thank you
freyfaxi
[[User:Freyfaxi|Freyfaxi]] 13:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:If you approach it that way, I'm not even going to discuss it with you. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] [[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]] 13:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Harrison,

Really, Mr. Harrison, you evade the question. Why not simply answer the question and discuss the footnoted change in a civilized manner instead of changing it back and waiting for me to violate the three edit rule, that you easily get around using legalism, and it seems, an army of paid cronies here?

You are on-line quite a lot-- about 30 seconds after i made the edit both yesterday and today.... Hmmmmm..... Do you have an alarm system that alerts you to a change within 30 seconds?

Are you willing to state unequivocably that you are not being paid by either a government agency or a private PR agency-- to monitor this page and maintain your version of spin? I would wager big money that you are being paid a fairly nice wage.

I'd be happy to discus the matter in a civilized fashion, but since you have stated that you refuse to engage in a truthful, open and civilized disucssion, that speaks volumes as to your credential as an administrator and as a resonpisble wikipedan leader who artibrates in a truly fair and balanced manner..

Are you willing to state publicly that you do not get paid for your work at Wikipedia and that you are not prompted by your employer to spin pages?

Are you willing to talk in a civilized manner about an edit that simply updates Baer's posiiton?

I would wager that you are not the least bit interested in talking about the edit....because it chips away at the spin on this page....and that you will continue to undo it wil not discusion whatwsoever, in violation of Wikipedia policy...

:I assure you that I'm not paid by my employer to edit here, although I have, from time to time, used Wikipedia to research some statistical results. In fact, I think they might be upset under my employer's confilct of interest guidelines, even though they would have no justification. The anon, on the other hand, may be encouraged to edit here by suggestions on a certain web site. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 15:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:Speaking only for myself, it seems likely that if a [[WP:RS]] that Baer's position changed can be found, then we can include it in the article. The questionable sources you've provided might be allowed in an article about Baer, but probably not this one. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

== Baer's updated opinion BAER HAS CHANGED HIS MIND. DO NOT DELETE. ==

Baer, who later changed his mind about the official NIST explanation for 911, added in an Amazon.com editorial review of the Griffin's subsequent book, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory:"
<blockquote>
"Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation--not one based on 'confession' extracted by torture--we will never know what happened on 9/11. David Griffin will never let this go until we get the truth." [[http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/product-description/156656686X]]
</blockquote>

[[User:Freyfaxi|Freyfaxi]] 00:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

== WATCH "Terrorstorm" and the history of false flag operations ==

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947

For those who are unable to actually read David Ray Griffin's books, ( most who comment here have not even bothered to read Griffin's books....)

..... then I implore you to watch the movie Terrorstorm in full before you continue to edit this page in an uniformed manner. Terrorstorm describes the many instances of state sponsored terror, (also known as Flase Flag operations) that have happenend in the last century here and overseas. These well planned operations are now occuring at home- with dire ( and planned) consequence for our civil liberties:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947

Please watch the film with an open mind.
[[User:Freyfaxi|Freyfaxi]] 00:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

== More Theology ==

For a article on a theologian there is remarkably little on the subject of theology to be found on this entry. [[User:Harpakhrad11|Harpakhrad11]] ([[User talk:Harpakhrad11|talk]]) 03:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Eugenics

2007-10-25T23:50:21Z

Harpakhrad11: /* Documentary film */

{{Mergefrom|Dysgenics|Talk:Eugenics#Merger proposal|date=August 2007}}
[[Image:Eugenics congress logo.png|right|thumb|275px|"Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution": Logo from the [[Second International Eugenics Conference]] [http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/12/5/219], 1921, depicting it as a tree which unites a variety of different fields.]]
'''Eugenics''' is a social [[philosophy]] which advocates the improvement of [[human]] [[hereditary]] traits through various forms of intervention.<ref name="Osborn1937">The exact definition of ''eugenics'' has been a matter of debate since the term was coined. The definition of it as a "social philosophy" (that is, a philosophy with implications for social order) is not meant to be definitive, and is taken from "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy" by [[Frederick Osborn]] in ''[[American Sociological Review]]'', Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jun., 1937) , pp. 389-397.</ref> Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a [[social responsibility]], an [[altruism|altruistic]] stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more [[intelligence (trait)|intelligent]] people, to save [[economics|resources]], and lessen human [[suffering]]. More controversially, some, such as the [[Nazism|Nazi]] regime in Germany, used eugenics as a pretext for [[racism|racial discrimination]].

Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on [[selective breeding]], while modern ones focus on [[prenatal testing]] and [[fetal screening|screening]], [[genetic counseling]], [[birth control]], [[in vitro fertilization]], and [[genetic engineering]]. Opponents argue that eugenics is [[immoral]] and is based on, or is itself, [[pseudoscience]]. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored [[discrimination]] and human rights violations, such as [[forced sterilization]] of persons who are claimed to have genetic defects, the killing of the [[Institutionalisation|institutionalized]] population and, in some cases, outright [[genocide]] of races perceived as inferior or undesirable.

The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir [[Francis Galton]] in [[1865]], drawing on the recent work of his cousin [[Charles Darwin]]. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including [[Alexander Graham Bell]], [[George Bernard Shaw]], and [[Margaret Sanger]]. G. K. Chesterton was against the philosophy of eugenics and he expresses this in his book, [[''Eugenics and Other Evils'']]. {{Fact|date=October 2007}} Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities. Funding was provided by prestigious sources such as the [[Rockefeller Foundation]], the [[Carnegie Institution of Washington]], and the [[Mary Williamson Averell|Harriman family]].<ref>Allen, Garland E., [http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v5/n5/full/7400158.html Was Nazi eugenics created in the US?], Embo Reports, 2004</ref> Three [[International Eugenics Conference]]s presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenics' scientific reputation started to tumble in the 1930s, a time when [[Ernst Rüdin]] began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the [[Racial policy of Nazi Germany|racial policies]] of [[Nazi Germany]].

Since the [[World War II|postwar]] period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with [[Nazism|Nazi]] abuses, such as enforced [[racial hygiene]], [[human experimentation]], and the [[extermination]] of undesired population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about what exactly constitutes the meaning of ''eugenics'' and what its ethical and moral status is in the modern era.

==Meanings and types of eugenics==
The word ''eugenics'' [[etymology|etymologically]] derives from the [[Greek language|Greek]] word ''eu'' (''good'' or ''well'') and the suffix ''-genēs'' (''born''), and was coined by [[Sir Francis Galton]] in 1883.

Eugenics has, from the very beginning, meant many different things to many different people. Historically, the term has referred to everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization and [[euthanasia]]. Much debate took place in the past, and takes place today, as to what exactly counts as eugenics.<ref>A discussion of the shifting meanings of the term can be found in Diane Paul, ''Controlling human heredity: 1865 to the present'' (New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1995). ISBN 1-57392-343-5.</ref>
Some types of eugenics, such as race-based eugenics and class-based eugenics, are sometimes
called 'pseudo-eugenics' by proponents of strict eugenics that deals only with perceived beneficial and detrimental genetic traits.

The term ''eugenics'' is often used to refer to movements and social policies that were influential during the early 20th century. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities". It is sometimes broadly applied to describe any human action whose goal is to improve the [[gene pool]]. Some forms of [[infanticide]] in ancient societies, present-day [[reprogenetics]], preemptive abortions and [[designer babies]] have been (sometimes controversially) referred to as eugenic.

Because of its [[normative]] goals and historical association with [[scientific racism]], as well as the development of the science of [[genetics]], the western scientific community has mostly disassociated itself from the term "eugenics", although one can find advocates of what is now known as ''[[liberal eugenics]]''.

Ideological [[social determinism|social determinists]], some of which have obtained college degrees in fields relevant to eugenics, often describe eugenics as a pseudoscience.
Modern inquiries into the potential use of genetic engineering have led to an increased invocation of the history of eugenics in discussions of [[bioethics]], most often as a cautionary tale. Some [[bioethics|ethicists]] suggest that even non-coercive eugenics programs would be inherently unethical{{Fact|date=July 2007}}, though this view has been challenged by such thinkers as [[Nicholas Agar]].<ref>For example, [[Nicholas Agar]], ''Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement'' (Blackwell, 2004).</ref>

Eugenicists advocate specific policies that (if successful) would lead to a perceived improvement of the human gene pool. Since defining what improvements are desired or beneficial is perceived by many as a [[cultural]] choice rather than a matter that can be determined objectively (e.g., by empirical, scientific inquiry), eugenics has often been deemed a [[pseudoscience]]. The most disputed aspect of eugenics has been the definition of "improvement" of the human gene pool, such as what is a beneficial characteristic and what is a defect. This aspect of eugenics has historically been tainted with [[scientific racism]].

Early eugenicists were mostly concerned with perceived [[intelligence (trait)|intelligence]] factors that often correlated strongly with [[social class]]. Many eugenicists took inspiration from the [[selective breeding]] of animals (where [[purebred]]s are often strived for) as their analogy for improving human society. The mixing of races (or [[miscegenation]]) was usually considered as something to be avoided in the name of [[racial purity]]. At the time this concept appeared to have some scientific support, and it remained a contentious issue until the advanced development of [[genetics]] led to a scientific consensus that the division of the human species into unequal races is unjustifiable. Some see this as an ideological consensus, since equality, just like inequality, is a [[cultural]] choice rather than a matter that can be determined objectively.

Eugenics has also been concerned with the elimination of [[hereditary diseases]] such as [[hemophilia]] and [[Huntington's disease]]. However, there are several problems with labeling certain factors as "genetic defects":
* In many cases there is no scientific consensus on what a "genetic defect" is. It is often argued that this is more a matter of social or individual choice.
* What appears to be a "genetic defect" in one context or environment may not be so in another. This can be the case for genes with a [[heterozygote advantage]], such as [[sickle cell anemia]] or [[Tay-Sachs disease]], which in their [[Zygosity|heterozygote]] form may offer an advantage against, respectively, [[malaria]] and [[tuberculosis]].
* Although some birth defects are uniformly lethal, disabled persons can succeed in life.
* Many of the conditions early eugenicists identified as inheritable ([[pellagra]] is one such example) are currently considered to be at least partially, if not wholly, attributed to environmental conditions.
Similar concerns have been raised when a [[prenatal diagnosis]] of a [[congenital disorder]] leads to [[abortion]] (see also [[preimplantation genetic diagnosis]]).

Eugenic policies have been conceptually divided into two categories:

'''Positive eugenics''' is aimed to encourage reproduction among the genetically advantaged. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning.<ref>Glad, 2008</ref>

'''Negative eugenics''' is aimed at lowering fertility among the genetically disadvantaged. This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.<ref>Glad, 2008</ref>

Both positive and negative eugenics can be coercive. [[Abortion]] by "[[fit]]" women was illegal in [[Nazi Germany]] and in the [[Soviet Union]] between 1936 and 1968.

During the 20th century, many countries enacted various eugenics policies and programs, including:
*Genetic screening
*[[Birth control]]
*Promoting differential birth rates
*Marriage restrictions
*Segregation (both [[racial segregation]] as well as segregation of the mentally ill from the normal)
*[[Compulsory sterilization]]
*Forced [[abortions]], or, conversely, forced pregnancies
*[[Genocide]]

Most of these policies were later regarded as coercive, restrictive, or genocidal, and now few jurisdictions implement policies that are explicitly labeled as eugenic or unequivocally eugenic in substance (however labeled). However, some private organizations assist people in [[genetic counseling]], and [[reprogenetics]] may be considered as a form of non-state-enforced "liberal" eugenics.

There are 3 main ways by which the methods of eugenics can be applied. They are:
*'''mandatory eugenics''', in which the government mandates a eugenics program.
*'''promotional voluntary eugenics''', in which eugenics is voluntarily practiced and promoted to the general population, but not officially mandated.
*'''private eugenics''', which is practiced voluntarily by individuals and groups, but not promoted to the general population.

==History==
===Pre-Galtonian eugenic philosophies===

The basic ideals of eugenics can be found from the beginnings of Western civilization. The philosophy was most famously expounded by [[Plato]], who believed human reproduction should be monitored and controlled by the state. The basic eugenic principle from Plato’s [[The Republic]] was, “The best men must have intercourse with the best women as frequently as possible, and the opposite is true of the very inferior."{{Fact|date=October 2007}} Plato understood that this form of government control would not be readily accepted, and proposed that the truth be concealed from the public via a fixed lottery. Mates, in Plato’s Republic, would be chosen by a “marriage number” in which the quality of the individual would be quantitatively analyzed, and persons of high numbers would be allowed to procreate with other persons of high numbers. In theory, this would lead to predictable results and the improvement of the human race. However, Plato acknowledged the failure of the “marriage number” since “gold soul” persons could still produce “bronze soul” children.{{Fact|date=October 2007}} This might have been one of the earliest attempts to mathematically analyze genetic inheritance, which was not perfected until the development of [[Mendel]]ian genetics and the mapping of the [[human genome]]. Other ancient civilizations, such as [[Rome]] and [[Sparta]], practiced [[infanticide]] as a form of phenotypic selection. In Sparta, newborns were inspected by the city's elders, who decided the fate of the infant. This would be done through abandonment of “weak” or undesirable babies on the slopes of Mount Taygetos, and trials for babies which included bathing them in wine and exposing them to the elements. To Sparta, this would ensure that only the strongest survived and procreated.<ref>Allen G. Roper, ''Ancient Eugenics'' (Oxford: Cliveden Press, 1913), text at [http://www.euvolution.com/articles/ancient.htm]</ref>

The 12 Tables of Roman Law, established early in the formation of the Roman Republic, stated in the fourth table that deformed children would be put to death. In addition, patriarchs in Roman society were given the right to "discard" infants at their discretion. This was often done by drowning undesired newborns in the [[Tiber River]]. The practice of infanticide in the ancient world did not subside until the [[Christianity|Christianization]] of the Roman empire.

===Galton's theory===

[[Image:Francis Galton 1850s.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Sir [[Francis Galton]] initially developed the ideas of eugenics using social statistics.]]

During the 1860s and 1870s, Sir [[Francis Galton]] systematized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his cousin [[Charles Darwin]]. After reading Darwin's ''[[Origin of Species]]'', Galton built upon Darwin's ideas whereby the mechanisms of [[natural selection]] were potentially thwarted by human [[civilization]]. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest. Only by changing these social policies, Galton thought, could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity", a phrase that he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "[[regression towards the mean]]".<ref>See Chapter 3 in [[Donald A. MacKenzie]], ''Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The social construction of scientific knowledge'' (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981).</ref>

Galton first sketched out his theory in the 1865 article "Hereditary Talent and Character", then elaborated it further in his 1869 book ''Hereditary Genius''.<ref>Francis Galton, [http://www.mugu.com/galton/essays/1860-1869/galton-1865-hereditary-talent.pdf "Hereditary talent and character"], ''Macmillan's Magazine'' 12 (1865): 157-166 and 318-327; [[Francis Galton]], [http://www.mugu.com/galton/books/hereditary-genius/ ''Hereditary genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences''] (London: Macmillan, 1869).</ref> He began by studying the way in which human intellectual, moral, and personality traits tended to run in families. Galton's basic argument was that [[inheritance of intelligence|"genius" and "talent" were hereditary traits in humans]] (although neither he nor Darwin yet had a working model of this type of heredity). He concluded that, since one could use [[artificial selection]] to exaggerate traits in other animals, one could expect similar results when applying such models to humans. As he wrote in the introduction to ''Hereditary Genius'':

:I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations.<ref>Galton, ''Hereditary Genius'': 1.</ref>

According to Galton, society already encouraged [[Dysgenics|dysgenic]] conditions, claiming that the less intelligent were out-reproducing the more intelligent. Galton did not propose any selection methods; rather, he hoped that a solution would be found if social [[mores]] changed in a way that encouraged people to see the importance of breeding.

Galton first used the word ''eugenic'' in his 1883 ''Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development'',<ref>{{harvnb|Larson|2004|p=179}} "Galton coinced the word "eugenics" in his 1883 book, ''Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development''.</ref> a book in which he meant "to touch on various topics more or less connected with that of the cultivation of race, or, as we might call it, with 'eugenic' questions." He included a footnote to the word "eugenic" which read:

:That is, with questions bearing on what is termed in Greek, ''eugenes'' namely, good in stock, hereditarily endowed with noble qualities. This, and the allied words, ''eugeneia'', etc., are equally applicable to men, brutes, and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognisance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. The word ''eugenics'' would sufficiently express the idea; it is at least a neater word and a more generalised one than ''viriculture'' which I once ventured to use.<ref>Francis Galton, [http://www.mugu.com/galton/books/human-faculty/ ''Inquiries into human faculty and its development''] (London, Macmillan, 1883): 17, fn1.</ref>

In 1904 he clarified his definition of eugenics as "the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage."<ref>Francis Galton, [http://www.mugu.com/galton/essays/1900-1911/galton-1904-am-journ-soc-eugenics-scope-aims.htm "Eugenics: Its definition, scope, and aims,"] ''The American Journal of Sociology'' 10:1 (July 1904).</ref>

Galton's formulation of eugenics was based on a strong [[statistics|statistical]] approach, influenced heavily by [[Adolphe Quetelet]]'s "social physics". Unlike Quetelet, however, Galton did not exalt the "average man" but decried him as mediocre. Galton and his statistical heir [[Karl Pearson]] developed what was called the [[biometrics|biometrical]] approach to eugenics, which developed new and complex statistical models (later exported to wholly different fields) to describe the heredity of traits. However, with the rediscovery of [[Gregor Mendel]]'s hereditary laws, two separate camps of eugenics advocates emerged. One was made up of statisticians, the other of biologists. Statisticians thought the biologists had exceptionally crude mathematical models, while biologists thought the statisticians knew little about biology.<ref>See Chapters 2 and 6 in MacKenzie, ''Statistics in Britain''.</ref>

Eugenics eventually referred to human selective reproduction with an intent to create children with desirable traits, generally through the approach of influencing [[differential birth rates]]. These policies were mostly divided into two categories: ''positive eugenics'', the increased reproduction of those seen to have advantageous hereditary traits; and ''negative eugenics'', the discouragement of reproduction by those with hereditary traits perceived as poor. Negative eugenic policies in the past have ranged from attempts at [[Racial segregation|segregation]] to [[compulsory sterilization|sterilization]] and even [[genocide]]. Positive eugenic policies have typically taken the form of awards or bonuses for "fit" parents who have another child. Relatively innocuous practices like [[marriage counseling]] had early links with eugenic ideology.

Eugenics differed from what would later be known as [[Social Darwinism]]. While both claimed intelligence was hereditary, eugenics asserted that new policies were needed to actively change the status quo towards a more "eugenic" state, while the Social Darwinists argued society itself would naturally "check" the problem of "dysgenics" if no welfare policies were in place (for example, the poor might reproduce more but would have higher mortality rates).

===Sparta===
{{Expand-section|date=October 2007}}
In [[Sparta]], eugenics was practised,<ref name="Free Library">{{cite web
|first=
|last=
|authorlink=
|author=
|coauthors=
|title=Freedom in Sparta and Athens: the stark contrast between ancient Sparta and Athens makes abundantly clear that cultural achievement occurs only where men are free
|url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Freedom+in+Sparta+and+Athens:+the+stark+contrast+between+ancient...-a0146956837
|format=
|work=
|publisher=The Free Library
|id=
|pages=
|page=
|date=
|accessdate=
|language=English
|quote=Sparta pursued a rigorous eugenics program, encouraging husbands to give their wives to men considered to be exceptional in order to produce exceptional children in turn. At childbirth the father had the right of infanticide, but even if the child survived this first parental judgment, life was by no means assured. Children were next brought before a council of inspectors to be appraised. Any child found unfit by this council was thrown from a cliff of Mt. Taygetus. }}</ref> not scientifically but selectively and judged by the infant's ability to live.<ref>http://www.sikyon.com/Sparta/agogi_eg.html</ref><ref>http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/image_header.pl?id=622&detailed=0</ref> If the child was deemed incapable of living, it was usually thrown from the [[Taygetus]] mountain.<ref name="Free Library"/> It was more common for girls than boys to be killed this way.<ref>http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/n-s/spartans1.html</ref><ref>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/182260/the_true_story_behind_300_and_spartas.html</ref>

Adolf Hitler considered Sparta to be the first "[[Völkisch]] State," and much like [[Ernst Haeckel]] before him, praised [[Sparta]] due to its primitive form of eugenics practice of selective infanticide policy which was applied on deformed children.<ref>{{cite web
|first=
|last=
|authorlink=
|author=[[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel, Ernst]]
|coauthors=
|title=The History of Creation, vol. I
|url=http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Radical%20Ecology.htm#EUGENICS%20JUSTIFIED%20BY%20NATURE
|format=
|work=
|publisher=New York: D. Appleton
|id=
|pages=pp. 170
|page=
|date=1876
|accessdate=
|language=English
|quote=Among the Spartans all newly born children were subject to a careful examination or selection. All those that were weak, sickly, or affected with any bodily infirmity, were killed. Only the perfectly healthy and strong children were allowed to live, and they alone afterwards propagated the race. }}</ref><ref>{{cite book
| author = [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler, Adolf]]
| title = [[Hitler's Secret Book]]
| year = 1961
| publisher = Grove Press
| location = New York
| language = English
| isbn = 0394620038
| oclc = 9830111
| pages = pp. 8-9, 17-18
| quote = http://books.google.com/books?id=SszNCxSKmgkC&pg=PA276&dq=Hitler%27s+Secret+Book+sparta&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=q5g40V7M6bHFNX8pm4ZD65FxH6s#PPA276,M1
| quote = At one time the Spartans were capable of such a wise measure, but not our present, mendaciously sentimental, bourgeois patriotic nonsense. The rule of six thousand Spartans over three hundred and fifty thousand Helots was only thinkable in consequence of the high racial value of the Spartans. But this was the result of a systematic race preservation; thus Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses. }}</ref><ref>{{cite book
| author = Hawkins, Mike
| title = Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945: nature as model and nature as threat
| year = 1997
| publisher = Cambridge University Press
| language = English
| isbn = 052157434X
| oclc = 34705047
| pages = pp. 276
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=SszNCxSKmgkC&pg=PA276&dq=Hitler%27s+Secret+Book+sparta&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=q5g40V7M6bHFNX8pm4ZD65FxH6s#PPA276,M1 }}</ref>

=== Shōwa Japan ===
''main article : [[Eugenics in Showa Japan]]''

In the first part of the [[Shōwa era]], Japanese governments promoted increasing the number of healthy Japanese, while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions that led to them being viewed as "inferior" contributions to the Japanese gene pool.<ref>"The National Eugenic Law" The 107th law that Japanese Government promulgated in 1940　(国民優生法) 第一条　本法ハ悪質ナル遺伝性疾患ノ素質ヲ有スル者ノ増加ヲ防遏スルト共ニ健全ナル素質ヲ有スル者ノ増加ヲ図リ以テ国民素質ノ向上ヲ期スルコトヲ目的トス, Kimura, Jurisprudence in Genetics, http://www.bioethics.jp/licht_genetics.html </ref>

The ''Leprosy Prevention laws'' of 1907, 1931 and 1953, the last one only repealed in 1996, permitted the segregation of patients in sanitarium where forced abortions and sterilization were common and authorized punishmement of patients "disturbing peace". <ref>''Hansen's sanitarium were houses of horrors,'' http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20050128a1.html, ''Abolition of leprosy isolation policy in Japan'', http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-1556743_ITM </ref> Under the colonial Korean ''Leprosy prevention ordinance'', Korean patients were also sujected to hard labor <ref>''Korean Hansens patients seek redress'', http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20040226a4.html</ref>. The Hansen's disease patient who had survived received the guarantee from Japanese Government though the number of Hansen's disease patients in South Korea decreased greatly by the slaughter by the [[South Korea]] government. Moreover, Eugenics of Japan was succeeded to the South Korea government, and sterilization and the aborticide were compelled in South Korea until the latter half of 1980's.
<Ref>[[JoongAng Ilbo]] January 17, 2006
[http://japanese.joins.com/article/article.php?aid=71802&servcode=400&sectcode=400]</Ref>

The ''Race Eugenic Protection Law'' was submitted from 1934 to 1938 to the Diet. After four amendments, this draft was promulgated as a ''National Eugenic Law'' in 1940 by the [[Konoe]] government <ref> "The Eugenic Protection Law" (国民優生法)The 107th law that Japanese Government promulgated in 1940　(国民優生法) 第二条　本法ニ於テ優生手術ト称スルハ生殖ヲ不能ナラシムル手術又ハ処置ニシテ命令ヲ以テ定ムルモノヲ謂フ , http://www.res.otemon.ac.jp/~yamamoto/be/BE_law_04.htm</ref>. According to the ''Eugenic Protection Law'' (1948), sterilization could be enforced on criminals "with genetic predisposition to commit crime", patients with genetic diseases such as total color-blindness, [[hemophilia]], [[albinism]] and [[ichthyosis]], and mental affections such as [[schizophrenia]], manic-depressiveness and [[epilepsy]]. <ref>http://www.soshiren.org/shiryou/yuseihogohou.html</ref>. The mental sicknesses were added in 1952.

===Nazi Germany===
{{mainarticle|Nazi eugenics}}
[[Image:EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg|thumb|left|Nazi propaganda for their compulsory [[T-4 Euthanasia Program|"euthanasia" program]]: "This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 [[German Reichsmark|Reichsmark]] during his lifetime. Fellow Germans, that is your money, too."]]
[[Image:Wir stehen nicht allein.jpg|thumb|200px|"We do not stand alone": Nazi poster from 1936 with flags of other countries with [[compulsory sterilization]] legislation.]]

[[Nazi Germany]] under [[Adolf Hitler]] was infamous for eugenics programs which attempted to maintain a "pure" German race through a series of programs that ran under the banner of "[[racial hygiene]]". Among other activities, the Nazis performed extensive experimentation on live human beings to test their genetic theories, ranging from simple measurement of physical characteristics to the horrific experiments carried out by [[Josef Mengele]] for [[Otmar von Verschuer]] on twins in the concentration camps. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Nazi regime forcibly sterilized hundreds of thousands of people whom they viewed as mentally and physically "unfit", an estimated 400,000 between 1934 and 1937. The scale of the Nazi program prompted American eugenics advocates to seek an expansion of their program, with one complaining that "the Germans are beating us at our own game".<ref>Quoted in Selgelid, Michael J. 2000. Neugenics? ''Monash Bioethics Review'' 19 (4):9-33</ref> The Nazis went further, however, killing tens of thousands of the institutionalized disabled through compulsory "[[euthanasia]]" programs.<ref>The Nazi eugenics policies are discussed in a number of sources. A few of the more definitive ones are Robert Proctor, ''Racial hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis'' (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988) and Dieter Kuntz, ed., ''Deadly medicine: creating the master race'' (Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2004) ([http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/deadlymedicine/ online exhibit]). On the development of the [[racial hygiene]] movement before National Socialism, see Paul Weindling, ''Health, race and German politics between national unification and Nazism, 1870-1945'' (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).</ref>

They also implemented a number of "positive" eugenics policies, giving awards to "[[Aryan race|Aryan]]" women who had large numbers of children and encouraged a service in which "racially pure" single women could deliver illegitimate children. Allegations that such women were also impregnated by [[Schutzstaffel|SS]] officers in the ''[[Lebensborn]]'' are common, but unproven. Also, "racially valuable" children from occupied countries were forcibly removed from their parents and adopted by German people. Many of their concerns for eugenics and racial hygiene were also explicitly present in their systematic killing of millions of "undesirable" people including [[Jew]]s, [[Roma people|Gypsies]], [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] and [[homosexuality|homosexuals]] during [[the Holocaust]] (much of the killing equipment and methods employed in the death camps were first developed in the euthanasia program). The scope and coercion involved in the German eugenics programs along with a strong use of the rhetoric of eugenics and so-called "racial science" throughout the regime created an indelible cultural association between eugenics and the [[Third Reich]] in the postwar years.<ref>See Proctor, ''Racial hygiene'', and Kuntz, ed., ''Deadly medicine.''</ref>

The alleged relation between eugenics and the Jewish [[Holocaust]] is also questioned. Contrary to popular beliefs Hitler did not regard the Jews as intellectually inferior and did not send them to the concentration camps on these grounds. In fact, in the 1930s Germans regarded the Jews as a highly talented people.{{Fact|date=October 2007}} Hitler had different reasons for his genocidal policies toward the Jews.<ref>http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol4no1/rl-black.html</ref> [[Seymour W. Itzkoff]] writes that [[the Holocaust]] was "a vast dysgenic program to rid Europe of highly intelligent challengers to the existing Christian domination by a numerically and politically minuscule minority". Therefore, according to Itzkoff, "the Holocaust was the very antithesis of eugenic practice."<ref>{{cite book
|url = http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:9N0JmKW9S_4J:www.whatwemaybe.org/txt/Glad.John.2008.FHE.Meisenberg-abridgement.doc+itzkoff+antithesis+eugenic+practice&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=se&client=firefox-a
|title = Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century
|accessdate =
|accessdaymonth =
|accessmonthday =
|accessyear =
|author = Glad, John
|last =
|first =
|authorlink =
|coauthors =
|date =
|year = 2006
|month =
|format =
|work =
|publisher = Hermitage Publishers
|pages =
|language = English
|doi =
|isbn = 1557791546
|archiveurl =
|archivedate =
|quote = I would like to add a comment to Dr. Glad’s clear and decisive puncturing of the balloon of myths surrounding the Nazi perversion of eugenics. (For that matter, they also claimed to be a party of socialism!) If we define eugenics as encompassing programs of human betterment, physical as well as mental, practices that benefit community in the local sense as well as the species in general, we can say that the Holocaust was the antithesis of eugenic practice.
}}</ref>

===Eugenics and the United States, 1890s–1945===
One of the earliest modern advocates of eugenics (before it was labeled as such) was [[Alexander Graham Bell]]. In 1881, Bell investigated the rate of [[deaf]]ness on [[Martha's Vineyard]], [[Massachusetts]]. From this he concluded that deafness was hereditary in nature and recommended a marriage prohibition against the deaf ("Memoir upon the formation of a deaf variety of the human Race") despite his own marriage to a deaf woman. Like many other early eugenicists, Bell proposed controlling immigration for the purpose of eugenics, and warned that boarding schools for the deaf could possibly be considered as breeding places of a deaf human race.

In [[1907]], [[Indiana]] became the first of more than thirty states to adopt legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain
individuals.<ref>Indiana Supreme Court Legal History Lecture Series,
"Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough:"
Reflections on 100 Years of Eugenics in Indiana, at [http://www.in.gov/judiciary/citc/special/eugenics/index.html]</ref> Although the law was overturned by the [[Indiana Supreme Court]] in [[1921]],<ref>''Williams v. Smith'', 131 NE 2 (Ind.), 1921, text at [http://www.bioethics.iupui.edu/Eugenics/SMith%20vs%20Williams.pdf] </ref> the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld the constitutionality of a [[Buck v. Bell|Virginia law]] allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in [[1927]].<ref>{{harvnb|Larson|2004|p=194-195}} Citing [[Buck v. Bell]] 274 U.S. 200, 205 (1927)</ref>

Beginning with [[Connecticut]] in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or [[feeble-minded]]" from marrying. In 1898 [[Charles Benedict Davenport|Charles B. Davenport]], a prominent American [[biology|biologist]], began as director of a biological research station based in [[Cold Spring Harbor]] where he experimented with evolution in plants and animals. In 1904 Davenport received funds from the [[Carnegie Institution]] to found the Station for Experimental Evolution. The [[Eugenics Record Office]] opened in 1910 while Davenport and [[Harry H. Laughlin]] began to promote eugenics.<ref>The history of eugenics in the United States is discussed at length in Mark Haller, ''Eugenics: Hereditarian attitudes in American thought'' (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1963) and [[Daniel Kevles]], ''In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity'' (New York: Knopf, 1985), the latter being the standard survey work on the subject.</ref>

During the 20th century, researchers became interested in the idea that mental illness could run in families and conducted a number of studies to document the heritability of such illnesses as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression. Their findings were used by the eugenics movement as proof for its cause. State laws were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s to prohibit marriage and force sterilization of the mentally ill in order to prevent the "passing on" of mental illness to the next generation. These laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927 and were not abolished until the mid-20th century. By 1945 over 45,000 mentally ill individuals in the United States had been forcibly sterilized.{{Fact|date=October 2007}} All in all, 60,000 Americans suffered from sterilization.<ref name="sfgate"/>

In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the [[psychology|psychologist]] [[Henry H. Goddard]] and the conservationist [[Madison Grant]] (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the "unfit". (Davenport favored [[immigration restriction]] and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his ''[[The Kallikak Family]]''; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.)<ref>See Kevles, ''In the name of eugenics.''</ref> Though their methodology and research methods are now understood as highly flawed, at the time this was seen as legitimate scientific research.<ref>See Pg. 23 " 'Human Progress’ through Eugenics" from Psychology of Mental Fossils, toward an Archeo-psychology by Douglas Keith Candland at [http://www.douglascandland.com/images/chapter7.pdf] </ref> It did, however, have scientific detractors (notably, [[Thomas Hunt Morgan]], one of the few [[Mendel]]ians to explicitly criticize eugenics), though most of these focused more on what they considered the crude methodology of eugenicists, and the characterization of almost every human characteristic as being hereditary, rather than the idea of eugenics itself.<ref>Hamilton Cravens, ''The triumph of evolution: American scientists and the heredity-environment controversy, 1900-1941'' (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978): 179.</ref>

Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. The [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled in the [[1927]] ''[[Buck v. Bell]]'' case that the state of [[Virginia]] could sterilize those it thought unfit. The most significant era of [[compulsory sterilization|eugenic sterilization]] was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.<ref>Paul Lombardo, "Eugenic Sterilization Laws," essay in the Eugenics Archive, available online at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html.</ref> A favorable report on the results of sterilization in [[California]], the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist [[Paul Popenoe]] and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. When Nazi administrators went on trial for [[war crimes]] in [[Nuremberg]] after [[World War II]], they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration.<ref name="sfgate">The connections between U.S. and Nazi eugenicists is discussed in Edwin Black, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection]", ''San Francisco Chronicle'' ([[9 November]] [[2003]]), as well as Black's ''War Against the Weak'' (New York: Four Wars Eight Windows, 2003). Stefan Kühl's work, ''The Nazi connection: Eugenics, American racism, and German National Socialism'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), is considered the standard scholarly work on the subject.</ref>

[[Image:Kallikaks chart1.jpg|200px|right|thumb|A [[pedigree]] chart from ''[[The Kallikak Family]]'' meant to show how one illicit tryst could lead to an entire generation of imbeciles.]]

The idea of "genius" and "talent" is also considered by [[William Graham Sumner]], a founder of the American Sociological Society (now called the American Sociological Association). He maintained that if the government did not meddle with the social policy of ''laissez-faire'', a class of genius would rise to the top of the system of social stratification, followed by a class of talent. Most of the rest of society would fit into the class of mediocrity. Those who were considered to be defective (mentally retarded, handicapped, etc.) had a negative effect on social progress by draining off necessary resources. They should be left on their own to sink or swim. But those in the class of delinquent (criminals, deviants, etc.) should be eliminated from society ("Folkways", 1907).

[[Image:Anthropometry exhibit.jpg|250px|thumb|right|[[Anthropometry]] demonstrated in an exhibit from a 1921 eugenics conference.]]

Eugenics is today often associated with [[racism]]. It was not always so; both [[W.E.B. DuBois]] and [[Marcus Garvey]] supported eugenics or ideas resembling eugenics as a way to reduce [[African American]] suffering and improve their stature.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}. However, methods of eugenics were applied to reformulate more restrictive definitions of white racial purity in existing state laws banning [[interracial marriage]]: the so-called [[anti-miscegenation laws]]. The most famous example of the influence of eugenics and its emphasis on strict racial segregation on such "anti-[[miscegenation]]" legislation was Virginia's [[Racial Integrity Act of 1924]]. The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] overturned this law in 1967 in [[Loving v. Virginia]], and declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.

With the passage of the [[Immigration Act of 1924]], eugenicists for the first time played a central role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from eastern and southern Europe. This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to 15 percent from previous years, to control the number of "unfit" individuals entering the country. The new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial superiority of "old stock" white Americans as members of the "[[Nordic theory|Nordic race]]" (a form of [[white supremacy]]), strengthened the position of existing laws prohibiting race- mixing.<ref>Paul Lombardo, "Eugenics Laws Restricting Immigration," essay in the Eugenics Archive, available online at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay9text.html.</ref> Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of [[incest]] laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many [[anti-miscegenation laws]].<ref>Paul Lombardo, "Eugenic Laws Against Race-Mixing," essay in the Eugenics Archive, available online at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay7text.html.</ref>

Various authors, notably [[Stephen Jay Gould]], have repeatedly asserted that restrictions on [[immigration]] passed in the United States during the 1920s (and overhauled in 1965 with the [[Immigration and Nationality Act]]) were motivated by the goals of eugenics, in particular, a desire to exclude races considered to be inferior from the national gene pool. During the early 20th century, the United States and Canada began to receive far higher numbers of Southern and Eastern European immigrants. Influential eugenicists like [[Lothrop Stoddard]] and [[Harry Laughlin]] (who was appointed as an expert witness for the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in 1920) presented arguments that these were inferior races that would pollute the national gene pool if their numbers went unrestricted. It has been argued that this stirred both Canada and the United States into passing laws creating a hierarchy of nationalities, rating them from the most desirable [[Anglo-Saxons|Anglo-Saxon]] and [[Nordic race|Nordic]] peoples to the Chinese and Japanese immigrants, who were almost completely banned from entering the country.<ref>See Lombardo, "Eugenics Laws Restricting Immigration"; and [[Stephen Jay Gould]], ''The mismeasure of man'' (New York: Norton, 1981).</ref> However, several people, in particular [[Franz Samelson]], [[Mark Snyderman]] and [[Richard Herrnstein]], have argued that, based on their examination of the records of the congressional debates over immigration policy, Congress gave virtually no consideration to these factors. According to these authors, the restrictions were motivated primarily by a desire to maintain the country's [[culture|cultural]] integrity against a heavy influx of foreigners.<ref>[[Richard Herrnstein]] and [[Charles Murray]], ''[[The Bell Curve]]'' (Free Press, 1994): 5; and [[Mark Syderman]] Richard Herrnstein, "Intelligence tests and the Immigration Act of 1924," ''American Psychologist'' 38 (1983): 986-995.</ref> This interpretation is not, however, accepted by most historians of eugenics.

Some who disagree with the idea of eugenics in general contend that eugenics legislation still had benefits. [[Margaret Sanger]] (founder of [[Planned Parenthood of America]]) found it a useful tool to urge the legalization of [[contraception]]. In its time eugenics was seen by many as scientific and progressive, the natural application of knowledge about breeding to the arena of human life. Before the death camps of [[World War II]], the idea that eugenics could lead to [[genocide]] was not taken seriously.

===Canada===
In Canada, the eugenics movement took place early in the 20th Century, particularly in [[compulsory sterilization|Alberta]], and was quite popular. The [[Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta]] was enacted in 1928, focusing the movement on the sterilization of [[mental deficiency|mentally deficient]] individuals, as determined by the [[Alberta Eugenics Board]]. The campaign to enforce this action was backed by groups such as the United Farm Women's Group, including key member [[Emily Murphy]].

Individuals were assessed using [[IQ tests]] like the Stanford-Binet. This posed a problem to new [[Canadian immigrants|immigrants]] arriving in Canada, as many had not mastered the English language, and often their scores denoted them as having impaired intellectual functioning. As a result, many of those sterilized under the Sexual Sterilization Act were immigrants who were unfairly categorized.

The popularity of the eugenics movement peaked during the [[Great Depression|depression]]. Individuals sought an explanation for the financial problems of the nation, and the notion of defective breeding became a [[scapegoat]]; citizens blamed individuals considered to be subhuman. The end of the Canadian eugenics movement was brought about when the Sexual Sterilization Act was repealed in 1972.

===Australia===
The policy of removing Aboriginal children from their parents emerged from an opinion based on Eugenics theory in late [[19th century|nineteenth]] and early [[20th century|twentieth-century]] Australia that the 'full-blood' [[tribal]] Aborigine would be unable to sustain itself, and was doomed to inevitable extinction.<ref>Russell McGregor, ''Imagined Destinies. Aboriginal Australians and the Doomed Race Theory, 1880-1939'', Melbourne: MUP, 1997</ref> An [[ideology]] at the time held that mankind could be divided into a civilisational hierarchy. This white supremacist notion supposed that Northern [[Europe]]ans were superior in civilisation and that Aborigines were inferior. According to this view, the increasing numbers of mixed-descent children in Australia, labelled as 'half-castes' (or alternatively 'crossbreeds', 'quadroons' and 'octoroons'), were widely seen to be a threat to [[racial purity]].
In the first half of the twentieth century, this led to policies and legislation that resulted in the removal of children from their parents.<ref>[http://nla.gov.au/nla.aus-vn672744-2x Aborigines Act of 1905]</ref>
The stated aim was to [[Cultural assimilation|culturally assimilate]] [[multiracial|mixed-descent]] people into contemporary Australian society. In all states and territories legislation was passed in the early years of the twentieth century which gave Aboriginal protectors guardianship rights over Aborigines up to the age of sixteen or twenty-one. Policemen or other agents of the state (such as Aboriginal Protection Officers), were given the power to locate and transfer babies and children of mixed descent, from their mothers or families or communities into institutions. In these Australian states and territories, half-caste institutions (both government or [[missionary]]) were established in the early decades of the twentieth-century for the reception of these separated children.<ref>[http://www.tim-richardson.net/misc/stolen_generation.html Stolen Generation by Tim Richardson]</ref><ref>[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special//rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen13.html Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - Bringing them Home - The Report]</ref> The 2002 movie ''Rabbit-Proof Fence'' portrays this system and the harrowing consequences of attempting to overcome it.

In [[1915]] [[A.O. Neville]] was appointed the second Western Australia State ''[[Protector of Aborigines|Chief Protector of Aborigines]]''. During the next quarter-century, he presided over the now notorious 'Assimilation' policy of removing mixed-race [[Australian Aborigine|Aboriginal]] children from their parents. This policy in turn created the [[Stolen Generations]] and set in motion a grieving process that through the now widely accepted concept of trans-generational grief, would affect many generations to come. In 1936 Neville became the ''Commissioner for Native Affairs'', a post he held until his retirement in [[1940]].

Neville believed that biological absorption was the key to 'uplifting the Native race.' Speaking before the [[Moseley Royal Commission]], which investigated the administration of Aboriginals in 1934, he defended the policies of [[Forced settlement of Australian aboriginals|forced settlement]], removing children from parents, surveillance, discipline and punishment, arguing that "they have to be protected against themselves whether they like it or not. They cannot remain as they are. The sore spot requires the application of the surgeon's knife for the good of the patient, and probably against the patients will."

In his twilight years Neville continued to actively promote his policy. Towards the end of his career, Neville published ''Australia's Coloured Minority'', a text outlining his plan for the biological absorption of aboriginal people into white Australia. It is a classic example of the eugenics policies popular at the time in the Western world.<ref>{{cite book | | last=Jacobs | first=Pat | title=Mister Neville, A Biography | publisher=Fremantle Arts Centre Press | id=ISBN 0-949206-72-5 | year=1990}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite book | | last=Kinnane| first=Stephen | title=Shadow Lines | publisher=Fremantle Arts Centre Press | id=ISBN 1-86368-237-6 | year=2003}}</ref>

===Sweden===
{{See also|Homo Sapiens 1900|Herman Lundborg}}
From just prior to World War II until 1975, [[Sweden]] forcibly sterilized more than 62,000 people with [[Herman Lundborg]] in the lead of the project.<ref>http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~d95-nwa/rasII.html</ref> Sweden's large-scale eugenics program targeted ethnic or racial minorities, and the mentally ill. As was the case in other programs, ethnicity and race were believed to be connected to mental and physical health. While many Swedes disliked the program, politicians generally supported it; the ruling left supported it more as a means of promoting social health, while amongst the right it was more about racial protectionism. (Not until 1999 did the Swedish government begin paying compensation to the victims and their families.)

===Britain===
[[Image:Galton class eugenics.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Galton's view of the British class structure was the basis and emphasis of the eugenics movement in Britain.]]

In Britain, eugenics never received significant state funding. Furthermore, its emphasis was more upon class, rather than race.<ref>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/shis/1999/00000024/00000002/art00002?crawler=true</ref> Indeed, Galton expressed these views during a lecture in 1901 in which he placed the British society into groups. These groupings are shown in the figure and indicate the proportion of society falling into each group and their perceived genetic worth. Galton suggested that negative eugenics (i.e. an attempt to prevent them from bearing offspring) should be applied only to those in the lowest social group (the "Undesirables"), while positive eugenics applied to the higher classes. However, he appreciated the worth of the higher working classes to society and industry.

Sterilisation programmes were never legalised, although some were carried out in private upon the mentally ill by clinicians who were in favour of a more widespread eugenics plan.<ref>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/shis/1999/00000024/00000002/art00002?crawler=true</ref> (Sterilisation had, in fact, been carried out to prevent masturbation in mentally ill patients since the 1820s, long before the eugenics movement.) Indeed, those in support of eugenics shifted their lobbying of Parliament from enforced to voluntary sterilization, in the hope of achieving more legal recognition.<ref>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/shis/1999/00000024/00000002/art00002?crawler=true</ref>

The popularity of eugenics in Britain was reflected by the fact that only two universities established courses in this field ([[University College London]] and [[Liverpool University]]), but the position of a professorship in eugenics was never created at either. The [[Galton Institute]], affiliated to UCL, was headed by Galton's protégé, [[Karl Pearson]].

===Other countries===

Almost all non-Catholic Western nations adopted some eugenic legislations. In July 1933 [[Germany]] passed a law allowing for the involuntary sterilization of "hereditary and incurable drunkards, sexual criminals, lunatics, and those suffering from an incurable disease which would be passed on to their offspring."<ref>"Sterilisation of the unfit - Nazi legislation," ''The Guardian'' (26 July 1933). Available online at [http://century.guardian.co.uk/1930-1939/Story/0,6051,126942,00.html].</ref> Two provinces in Canada carried out thousands of [[compulsory sterilization]]s, and these lasted into the 1970s. Many [[First Nations]] (native Canadians) were targeted, as well as immigrants from Eastern Europe, as the program identified racial and ethnic minorities to be genetically inferior{{Fact|date=May 2007}}. Besides the large-scale program in the [[United States]], other nations included [[Australia]], [[Norway]], [[France]], [[Finland]], [[Denmark]], [[Estonia]], [[Iceland]], and [[Switzerland]] with programs to sterilize people the government declared to be mentally deficient. [[Singapore]] practiced a limited form of eugenics that involved discouraging marriage between [[university]] graduates and the rest through segregation in matchmaking agencies, in the hope that the former would produce better children.<ref>There are a number of works discussing eugenics in various countries around the world. For the history of eugenics in Scandinavia, see Gunnar Broberg and Nils Roll-Hansen, eds., ''Eugenics And the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Demark, Sweden, Norway, and Findland'' (Michigan State University Press, 2005). Another international approach is Mark B. Adams, ed., ''The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil, and Russia'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).</ref>

===Marginalization after World War II===
[[Image:Eugenics Quarterly to Social Biology.jpg|right|thumb|300px|In the decades after [[World War II]], eugenics became increasingly unpopular within academic science. Many organizations and journals that had their origins in the eugenics movement began to distance themselves from the philosophy, such as when ''Eugenics Quarterly'' became ''Social Biology'' in 1969.]]

After the experience of [[Nazi Germany]], many ideas about "racial hygiene" and "unfit" members of society were publicly renounced by politicians and members of the scientific community. The [[Nuremberg Trials]] against former Nazi leaders revealed to the world many of the regime's genocidal practices and resulted in formalized policies of medical ethics and the 1950 [[UNESCO]] statement on race. Many scientific societies released their own similar "race statements" over the years, and the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]], developed in response to abuses during the Second World War, was adopted by the [[United Nations]] in 1948 and affirmed, "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm | title=Universal Declaration of Human Rights | accessdate=2006-08-26}}</ref> In continuation, the 1978 [[UNESCO]] declaration on race and racial prejudice states that the fundamental equality of all human beings is the ideal toward which ethics and science should converge.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_prejud.htm | title=Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice | accessdate=2006-08-26}}</ref>

In reaction to Nazi abuses, eugenics became almost universally reviled in many of the nations where it had once been popular (however, some eugenics programs, including sterilization, continued quietly for decades). Many pre-war eugenicists engaged in what they later labeled "crypto-eugenics", purposefully taking their eugenic beliefs "underground" and becoming respected anthropologists, biologists and geneticists in the postwar world (including [[Robert Yerkes]] in the U.S. and [[Otmar von Verschuer]] in Germany). Californian eugenicist [[Paul Popenoe]] founded [[marriage counseling]] during the 1950s, a career change which grew from his eugenic interests in promoting "healthy marriages" between "fit" couples.<ref>A discussion of the general changes in views towards genetics and race after World War II is: Elazar Barkan, ''The retreat of scientific racism: changing concepts of race in Britain and the United States between the world wars'' (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).</ref>

The [[American Life League]], an opponent of abortion, charges that eugenics was merely "re-packaged" after the war, and promoted anew in the guise of the population-control and environmentalism movements. They claim, for example, that [[Planned Parenthood]] was funded and cultivated by the Eugenics Society for these reasons. [[Julian Huxley]], the first Director-General of [[UNESCO]] and a founder of the [[World Wildlife Fund]] was also a Eugenics Society president and a strong supporter of eugenics<ref>American Bioethics Advisory Commission, [http://www.all.org/abac/eugen02.htm "Eugenics,"] ABAC website</ref>

<blockquote>[E]ven though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable. --Julian Huxley<ref>''UNESCO: Its Purpose and its Philosophy'' (Washington D.C. 1947), cited in Liagin, Excessive Force: Power Politics and Population Control, at 85 (Washington, D.C.: Information Project for Africa 1996)</ref></blockquote>

High school and college textbooks from the 1920s through the '40s often had chapters touting the scientific progress to be had from applying eugenic principles to the population. Many early scientific journals devoted to heredity in general were run by eugenicists and featured eugenics articles alongside studies of heredity in nonhuman organisms. After eugenics fell out of scientific favor, most references to eugenics were removed from textbooks and subsequent editions of relevant journals. Even the names of some journals changed to reflect new attitudes. For example, ''Eugenics Quarterly'' became ''Social Biology'' in 1969 (the journal still exists today, though it looks little like its predecessor). Notable members of the [[American Eugenics Society]] (1922–94) during the second half of the 20th century included [[Joseph Fletcher]], originator of [[Situational ethics]]; Dr. [[Clarence Gamble]] of the [[Procter & Gamble]] fortune; and [[Garrett Hardin]], a [[population control]] advocate and author of ''[[The Tragedy of the Commons (book)|The Tragedy of the Commons]]''.

In the United States, the eugenics movement had largely lost most popular and political support by the end of the 1930s while forced sterilizations mostly ended in the 1960s with the last performed in 1981.<ref>See Broberg and Nil-Hansen, ed., ''Eugenics And the Welfare State'' and Alexandra Stern, ''Eugenic nation: faults and frontiers of better breeding in modern America'' (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005)</ref> Many US states continued to prohibit biracial marriages with "anti-miscegenation laws" such as Virginia's [[Racial Integrity Act|The Racial Integrity Act]] of 1924, until they were over-ruled by the Supreme Court in 1967 in [[Loving v. Virginia]].<ref>http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay_7_fs.html</ref> The [[Immigration Act of 1924|Immigration Restriction Act]] of 1924, which was designed to limit the immigration of "dysgenic" Italians, and eastern European Jews, was repealed and replaced by the [[Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965|Immigration and Nationality Act]] in 1965.<ref>http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay_9_fs.html</ref>

However, some prominent academics continued to support eugenics after the war. In 1963 the [[Ciba Foundation]] convened a conference in London under the title “Man and His Future,” at which three distinguished biologists and Nobel laureates ([[Hermann Muller]], [[Joshua Lederberg]], and [[Francis Crick]]) all spoke strongly in favor of eugenics.<ref>John Glad: "Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century", Hermitage Publishers</ref>

A few nations, notably, [[Canada]] and [[Sweden]], maintained large-scale eugenics programs, including forced sterilization of mentally handicapped individuals, as well as other practices, until the 1970s.

==Modern eugenics, genetic engineering, and ethical re-evaluation==
Beginning in the 1980s, the history and concept of eugenics were widely discussed as knowledge about [[genetics]] advanced significantly. Endeavors such as the [[Human Genome Project]] made the effective modification of the human species seem possible again (as did Darwin's initial theory of evolution in the 1860s, along with the rediscovery of [[Mendelian inheritance|Mendel's laws]] in the early 20th century). The difference at the beginning of the 21st century was the guarded attitude towards eugenics, which had become a watchword to be feared rather than embraced.

===Suggestions and ideas===
A few scientific researchers such as psychologist [[Richard Lynn]], psychologist [[Raymond Cattell]], and doctor [[Gregory Stock]] have openly called for eugenic policies using modern technology, but they represent a minority opinion in current scientific and cultural circles.<ref>See, i.e., [[Richard Lynn]], ''Eugenics: A Reassessment (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence)'' (Praeger Publishers, 2001).</ref> One attempted implementation of a form of eugenics was a "[[Repository for Germinal Choice|genius sperm bank]]" (1980–99) created by [[Robert Klark Graham]], from which nearly 230 children were conceived (the best known donor were [[Nobel Prize]] winners [[William Shockley]] and [[J.D.Watson]]): other Laureates including Maurice Wilkins destroyed their invitation letters. ). In the U.S. and Europe, though, these attempts have frequently been criticized as in the same spirit of classist and racist forms of eugenics of the 1930s. Because of its association with compulsory sterilization and the racial ideals of the Nazi Party, the word ''eugenics'' is rarely used by the advocates of such programs.

Eugenicists have argued that immigration from countries with low [[national IQ]] is undesirable. According to [[Raymond Cattell]] "when a country is opening its doors to immigration from diverse countries, it is like a farmer who buys his seeds from different sources by the sack, with sacks of different average quality of contents."<ref>Cattell, R. B. (1987). Beyondism: Religion from science. New York: Praeger, p. 187</ref>

===China===
Only a few governments in the world have any law resembling eugenic programs today, the most notable being [[People's Republic of China|China]]. In 1993, the Chinese government announced a law, "On Eugenics and Health Protection", designed to "avoid new births of inferior quality and heighten the standards of the whole population".[http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/grhf-asia/suchana/0100/h025.html] In 1994, China passed the "Maternal and Infant Health Care Law", which includes mandatory premarital screenings for "genetic diseases of a serious nature" and "relevant mental disease". Those who are diagnosed with such diseases are required not to marry or to agree to "long-term contraceptive measures" or to submit to sterilization in order to marry. Divorces have been granted for reasons such as [[schizophrenia]].<ref>DLFZW.com. [http://www.dlfzw.com/shownews.asp?newsid=3423 News article.] {{zh icon}}</ref> (See also: [[One-child policy]])

===Cyprus===
A similar screening policy (including prenatal screening and abortion) intended to reduce the incidence of [[thalassemia]] exists on both sides of the island of [[Cyprus]]. Since the program's implementation in the 1970s, it has reduced the ratio of children born with the hereditary blood disease from 1 out of every 158 births to almost zero.

In the government controlled areas, tests for the gene are compulsory for both partners, prior to marriage.

===United States===

There are some states that require a blood test prior to marriage.<ref>http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws2.htm</ref> While these tests are typically restricted to the detection of the [[sexually transmitted disease]] [[Syphilis]] (which was the most common STD at the time these laws were enacted), some partners will voluntarily test for other diseases and genetic incompatibilities.

Harris polls in 1986 and 1992 recorded majority public support for limited forms of germ-line intervention, especially to prevent "children inheriting usually fatal genetic disease".<ref>http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/0300126.html</ref>

In 1971, lobbying by the US organisation [[EngenderHealth|The International Association for Voluntary Sterilization]] (AVS), led politicians and officials at the Office for Equal Opportunity to pay for voluntary sterilization of low income Americans for birth-control purposes. AVS also focused on the International community, and its lobbying led to a US foreign policy and funding from the [[USAID|U.S. Agency for International Development]] to encourage [[Third World]]/[[Developing World]] countries to utilise abortion and sterilization in order to control their population growth. For further information see [[EngenderHealth]].

===Dor Yeshorim===
{{main|Dor Yeshorim}}
Dor Yeshorim, a program which seeks to reduce the incidence of [[Tay-Sachs disease]], [[Cystic Fibrosis]], [[Canavan disease]], [[Fanconi anemia]], [[Familial Dysautonomia]], [[Glycogen storage disease]], [[Bloom's Syndrome]], [[Gaucher Disease]], [[Niemann-Pick Disease]], and [[Mucolipidosis IV]] among certain [[Orthodox Judaism|Jewish communities]], is another screening program which has drawn comparisons with [[liberal eugenics]]. [http://www.shidduchim.info/medical.html] In [[Israel]], at the expense of the state, the general public is advised to carry out genetic tests to diagnose these diseases before the birth of a baby. If an unborn baby is diagnosed with one of these diseases among which Tay-Sachs is the most commonly known, the pregnancy may be terminated, subject to consent. Most other [[Ashkenazi]] Jewish communities also run screening programs because of the higher incidence of genetic diseases. In some Jewish communities, the ancient custom of matchmaking (shidduch) is still practiced, and in order to attempt to prevent the tragedy of infant death which always results from being [[homozygous]] for Tay-Sachs, associations such as the strongly observant Dor Yeshorim (which was founded by a rabbi who lost four children to Tay-Sachs with the purpose of preventing others from suffering the same tragedy) test young couples to check whether they carry a risk of passing on fatal conditions. If both the young man and woman are Tay-Sachs carriers, it is common for the match to be broken off. Judaism, like numerous other religions, discourages abortion unless there is a risk to the mother, in which case her needs take precedence. The effort is not aimed at eradicating the hereditary traits, but rather at the occurrence of homozygosity. The actual impact of this program on [[allele]] frequencies is unknown, but little impact would be expected because the program does not impose genetic selection. Instead, it encourages [[disassortative mating]].

===Ethical re-assessment===
In modern bioethics literature, the history of eugenics presents many moral and ethical questions. Commentators have suggested the new "eugenics" will come from reproductive technologies that will allow parents to create so-called "[[designer baby|designer babies]]" (what the biologist [[Lee M. Silver]] prominently called "[[reprogenetics]]"). It has been argued that this "non-coercive" form of biological "improvement" will be predominantly motivated by individual competitiveness and the desire to create "the best opportunities" for children, rather than an urge to improve the species as a whole, which characterized the early 20th-century forms of eugenics. Because of this non-coercive nature, lack of involvement by the state and a difference in goals, some commentators have questioned whether such activities are eugenics or something else altogether. But critics note {{Fact|date=February 2007}} that [[Francis Galton]], did not advocate for coercion when he defined the principles of eugenics. In other words, eugenics does not mean coercion. It is, according to Galton who originated the term, the proper label for bioengineering of "better" human beings.

[[Daniel Kevles]] argues that eugenics and the conservation of natural resources are similar propositions. Both can be practiced foolishly so as to abuse individual rights, but both can be practiced wisely.

Some disability activists argue that, although their impairments may cause them pain or discomfort, what really disables them as members of society is a sociocultural system that does not recognize their right to genuinely equal treatment. They express skepticism that any form of eugenics could be to the benefit of the disabled considering their treatment by historical eugenic campaigns.

[[James D. Watson]], the first director of the [[Human Genome Project]], initiated the [[Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program]] (ELSI) which has funded a number of studies into the implications of human genetic engineering (along with a prominent website on the history of eugenics), because:

:In putting ethics so soon into the genome agenda, I was responding to my own personal fear that all too soon critics of the Genome Project would point out that I was a representative of the [[Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory]] that once housed the controversial [[Eugenics Record Office]]. My not forming a genome ethics program quickly might be falsely used as evidence that I was a closet eugenicist, having as my real long-term purpose the unambiguous identification of genes that lead to social and occupational stratification as well as genes justifying racial discrimination.<ref>[[James D. Watson]], ''A passion for DNA: Genes, genomes, and society'' (Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2000): 202.</ref>

Distinguished geneticists including Nobel Prize-winners [[John Sulston]] ("I don't think one ought to bring a clearly disabled child into the world")<ref>Quoted in Brendan Bourne, "Scientist warns disabled over having children" ''The Sunday Times (Britain)'' ([[13 October]] [[2004]]). Available online at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1337781,00.html.</ref> and Watson ("Once you have a way in which you can improve our children, no one can stop it")<ref>Quoted in Mark Henderson, "Let's cure stupidity, says DNA pioneer", ''The Times'' ([[28 February]] [[2003]]). Available online at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-593687,00.html.</ref> support [[genetic screening]]. Which ideas should be described as "eugenic" are still controversial in both public and scholarly spheres. Some observers such as [[Philip Kitcher]] have described the use of genetic screening by parents as making possible a form of "voluntary" eugenics.<ref>[[Philip Kitcher]], ''The Lives to Come'' (Penguin, 1997). Review available online at http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/geneticsandsociety/hg16f009.html.</ref>

Some modern [[subculture]]s advocate different forms of eugenics assisted by [[human cloning]] and [[human genetic engineering]], sometimes even as part of a [[new religious movement]] (see [[Raëlism]], [[Cosmotheism]], or [[Prometheism (eugenics)|Prometheism]]). These groups also talk of "neo-eugenics". "conscious evolution", or "genetic freedom".

Behavioral traits often identified as potential targets for modification through [[human genetic engineering]] include intelligence, depression, schizophrenia, alcoholism, sexual behavior (and orientation) and criminality.

==Criticism==
{{ActiveDiscuss}}

===Diseases vs. traits===
While the science of [[genetics]] has increasingly provided means by which certain characteristics and conditions can be identified and understood, given the complexity of human genetics, culture, and psychology there is at this point no agreed objective means of determining which traits might be ultimately desirable or undesirable. Eugenic manipulations that reduce the propensity for criminality and violence, for example, might result in the population being enslaved by an outside aggressor it can no longer defend itself against. On the other hand, [[Genetic disorder|genetic diseases]] like [[hemochromatosis]] can increase susceptibility to illness, cause physical deformities, and other dysfunctions. Eugenic measures against many of these diseases are already being undertaken in societies around the world, while measures against traits that affect more subtle, poorly understood traits, such as criminality, are relegated to the realm of speculation and science fiction. The effects of diseases are essentially wholly negative, and societies everywhere seek to reduce their impact by various means, some of which are eugenic in all but name. The other traits that are discussed have positive as well as negative effects and are not generally targeted at present anywhere.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}

===Slippery slope===
A common criticism of eugenics is that it inevitably leads to measures that are unethical (Lynn 2001). A hypothetical scenario posits that if one racial [[minorities|minority]] group is on average less intelligent than the racial majority group, then it is more likely that the racial minority group will be submitted to a eugenics program rather than the least intelligent members of the whole population. For example, Nazi Germany's eugenic program within the German population resulted in protests and unrest, while the persecution of the Jews was met with silence.

H. L. Kaye wrote of "the obvious truth that eugenics has been discredited by Hitler's crimes," (Kaye 1989). R. L. Hayman argued "the eugenics movement is an anachronism, its political implications exposed by the Holocaust," (Hayman 1990).

[[Steven Pinker]] has stated that it is "a conventional wisdom among left-leaning academics that genes imply genocide." He has responded to this "conventional wisdom" by comparing the history of [[Marxism]], which had the opposite position on genes to that of Nazism:

<Blockquote>But the 20th century suffered "two" ideologies that led to genocides. The other one, Marxism, had no use for race, didn't believe in genes and denied that human nature was a meaningful concept. Clearly, it's not an emphasis on genes or evolution that is dangerous. It's the desire to remake humanity by coercive means (eugenics or social engineering) and the belief that humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/tbs/media_articles/2002_10_30_upi.html | title=United Press International: Q&A: Steven Pinker of 'Blank Slate | accessdate=2006-08-26}}</ref></Blockquote>

[[Richard Lynn]] broadens his criticism of eugenics, by arguing that any social philosophy is capable of ethical misuse. Though Christian principles have aided in the abolition of slavery and the establishment of welfare programs, he notes that the Christian church has also burned many dissidents at the stake and allowed for the killing of large numbers of innocent people by [[Crusades|Crusaders]]. Lynn argues the appropriate response is to condemn these killings, but believes Christianity does not "inevitably [lead] to the extermination of those who do not accept its doctrines," (Lynn 2001).

===Genetic diversity===
Eugenic policies could also lead to loss of [[genetic diversity]], in which case a culturally accepted improvement of the gene pool would very likely, as evidenced in numerous instances in isolated island populations (e.g. the [[Dodo]], Raphus cucullatus, of Mauritius) result in extinction due to increased vulnerability to disease, reduced ability to adapt to environmental change and other factors both known and unknown. A long-term eugenics plan might lead to a scenario similar to this because the elimination of traits deemed undesirable would reduce genetic diversity by definition. (Galton 2001, 48).

Proponents of eugenics argue that in any one generation any realistic program would make only minor changes in the gene pool, giving plenty of time to reverse direction if unintended consequences emerge, reducing the likelihood of the elimination of desirable genes. Proponents of eugenics argue that any appreciable reduction in diversity is so far in the future that little concern is needed for now.<ref>Edward M. Miller: "Eugenics: Economics for the Long Run", 1997</ref>

The possible elimination of the [[autism]] [[genotype]] is a significant political issue in the [[autism rights movement]], which claims autism is a form of [[neurodiversity]]. Many advocates of Down Syndrome rights also consider Down Syndrome (Trisomy-21) a form of neurodiversity.{{Fact|date=August 2007}}

===Heterozygous recessive traits===
In some instances efforts to eradicate certain single-gene mutations would be nearly impossible. In the event the condition in question was a [[Zygosity|heterozygous]] [[recessive trait]], the problem is that by eliminating the visible unwanted trait, there are still as many genes for the condition left in the gene pool as were eliminated according to the [[Hardy-Weinberg principle]], which states that a population's genetics are defined as pp+2pq+qq at equilibrium. With [[genetic testing]] it may be possible to detect all of the heterozygous recessive traits, but only at great cost with the current technology. Under normal circumstances it is only possible to eliminate a dominant allele from the gene pool. Recessive traits can be severely reduced, but never eliminated unless the complete genetic makeup of all members of the pool was known, as aforementioned. As only very few undesirable traits, such as [[Huntington's disease]], are dominant, the practical value for "eliminating" traits is quite low.

However, there are already examples of successful eugenic programs aimed to eliminate recessive traits. The elevated incidence of genetically transmitted diseases suffered by a highly inbred Jewish population ([[Tay-Sachs]], [[Cystic Fibrosis]], Canavan's disease and Goucher's disease), has been largely eliminated in current populations by the application of genetic screening.<ref>http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/18624/The_Book_Shelf.html</ref>

==Counterarguments==

===Dysgenics===
{{main|Dysgenics}}
Some supporters of eugenics allege that a [[dysgenic]] decline in intelligence is occurring, which may lead to the collapse of civilization, and justify eugenic programs on that basis.

===Potential benefits===
Small differences in average IQ at the group level might theoretically have large effects on social outcomes. [[Richard Herrnstein]] and [[Charles Murray (author)|Charles Murray]] altered the mean IQ (100) of the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth's population sample by randomly deleting individuals below an IQ of 103 until the population mean reached 103. This calculation was conducted twice and averaged together to avoid error from the random selection. This test showed that the new group with an average IQ of 103 had a poverty rate 25% lower than a group with an average IQ of 100. Similar substantial correlations in high school drop-out rates, crime rates, and other outcomes were measured.{{Fact|date=July 2007}}

Indeed, many studies suggest that IQ correlates with various socioeconomic factors. However, to what extent IQ is a cause of these socioeconomic factors, as opposed to a consequence of them, is disputed. Studies have suggested, for example, that education increases an individual's IQ -- although other studies have shown that education has little to no effect.{{Fact|date=July 2007}}

==See also==
* [[Liberal eugenics]]
* [[Alberta Eugenics Board]]
* [[A.O. Neville]]
* [[Biological determinism]]
* ''[[Gattaca]]''
* [[Genetic determinism]]
* [[Genetics and violence]]
* [[Inheritance of intelligence]]
* [[Leilani Muir]]
* [[John M. MacEachran]]
* [[Nature versus nurture]]
* [[Nazi eugenics]]
* [[One-child policy]]
* [[Race and intelligence]]
* [[Repository for Germinal Choice]]
* [[Social Darwinism]]
* [[Social Justice]]
* [[Stolen Generation]]
* [[State racism]], a concept coined by [[Michel Foucault]]
* [[Transhumanism]]

==Notes==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

==References==

*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Larson
| Given = Edward J.
| Authorlink = Edward J. Larson
| Year = 2004
| Title = Evolution
| Publisher = Modern Library
| ID = ISBN 0-679-64288-9
}}
;Histories of eugenics (academic accounts)
*Elof Axel Carlson, ''The Unfit: A History of a Bad Idea'' (Cold Spring Harbor, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Press, 2001). ISBN 0-87969-587-0
*[[Daniel Kevles]], ''In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity'' (New York: Knopf, 1985).
*Dieter Kuntz, ed., ''Deadly medicine: creating the master race'' (Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2004). [http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/deadlymedicine/ online exhibit]
*[[Ruth C. Engs]], ''The Eugenics Movement: An Encyclopedia.'' (Westport CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005). ISBN 0-313-32791-2.
*John Glad, ''Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century.'' (Hermitage Publishers, 2008). ISBN 1-55779-154-6. [http://whatwemaybe.org/txt/Glad.John.2008.FHE.Meisenberg-abridgement.pdf]

;Histories of hereditarian thought
*Elazar Barkan, ''The retreat of scientific racism: changing concepts of race in Britain and the United States between the world wars'' (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
*[[Stephen Jay Gould]], ''The mismeasure of man'' (New York: Norton, 1981).
*Ewen & Ewen, ''Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality'' (New York, Seven Stories Press, 2006).
;Criticisms of eugenics, historical and modern
*[[Edwin Black]], ''War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race'' (Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003). [http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/] ISBN 1-56858-258-7
*[[Dinesh D'Souza]], ''The End of Racism'' (Free Press, 1995) ISBN 0-02-908102-5
*[[Galton, David]], ''Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century'' (Abacus, 2002) ISBN 0-349-11377-7
*Robert L. Hayman, ''Presumptions of justice: Law, politics, and the mentally retarded parent''. ''Harvard Law Review'' 1990, 103, 1202-71. (p. 1209)
*Joseph, J. (2004)[http://www.jayjoseph.net/GeneIllusion.html . ''The Gene Illusion: Genetic Research in Psychiatry and Psychology Under the Microscope''.]New York: Algora. (2003 United Kingdom Edition by PCCS Books)
*Joseph, J. (2005). The 1942 “Euthanasia” Debate in the American Journal of Psychiatry. ''History of Psychiatry, 16,'' 171-179.
*Joseph, J. (2006). [http://www.jayjoseph.net/MissingGene.html''The Missing Gene: Psychiatry, Heredity, and the Fruitless Search for Genes''.]New York: Algora.
*H. L. Kaye, ''The social meaning of modern biology'' 1987, New Haven, CT Yale University Press. (p. 46)
*[[Tom Shakespeare]], "Back to the Future? New Genetics and Disabled People", ''Critical Social Policy'' 46:22-35 (1995)
*Wahlsten, D. (1997). Leilani Muir versus the Philosopher King: eugenics on trial in Alberta. ''Genetica'' '''99''': 185-198.
*[[Tom Shakespeare]], ''Genetic Politics: from Eugenics to Genome'', with Anne Kerr (New Clarion Press, 2002).
*Nancy Ordover, ''American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism'' (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 2003). ISBN 0-8166-3559-5
*Gina Maranto, "Quest for Perfection: The Drive to Breed Better Human Beings" Diane Publishing Co. (June 1996) ISBN 0-7881-9431-3

==Documentary film==
*''[[Homo Sapiens 1900]]'', Director: [[Peter Cohen]], 2000
*''[http://endgamethemovie.com End Game]'', Director: [[Alex Jones]], 2007

==External links==
{{commons|Eugenics}}
===Pro-eugenics websites===
*[http://www.onelife.com/ethics/eugenics.html Eugenics - a planned evolution for life]
*[http://www.eugenics.net Future Generations Eugenics Portal]
*[http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm Millennium Eugenics Section]
*[http://www.mankindquarterly.com/ Mankind Quarterly]
*[http://www.whatwemaybe.org/ Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century by John Glad]
*[http://www.euvolution.com Creative Conscious Evolution: A Eugenics Directory]
*[http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol4no1/toq-editnote4-1.html ''Scandalizing the Science of Eugenics''], editor's note, ''The Occidental Quarterly'' 4:1 (Spring 2004).

===Anti-eugenics and historical websites===
*[http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/ Eugenics Archive - Historical Material on the Eugenics Movement] (funded by the [[Human Genome Project]])
*[http://www.shoaheducation.com/pNEW.html Shoaheducation.com:Eugenics]
*[http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/library/historical/eugenics/index.cfm University of Virginia Historical Collections: Eugenics]
*[http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/deadlymedicine/ "Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race"] (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum exhibit)
*[http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/ Vermont Eugenics: A documentary history]
*[http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dna/episode5/ DNA: Pandora's Box] - [[PBS]] documentary about DNA, the [[Human Genome Project]], and questions about a "new" eugenics
* [http://www.wfu.edu/~caron/ssrs/Dorr.rtf ''Fighting Fire with Fire: African Americans and Hereditarian Thinking, 1900-1942''] - article on the support of eugenics by African American thinkers
* [http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html "Eugenics -- Breeding a Better Citizenry Through Science"], a historical critique from physical anthropologist [[Jonathan Marks]]
*[http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2000/9/22/article_02.htm "The Quest for a Perfect Society"], from ''[[Awake!]]'' magazine ([[September 22]], [[2000]])
*[http://dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/eugenics.htm "Eugenics and other Evils"],G K Chesterton's "Eugenics and other Evils." (1922)
*[http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/publications/scopenotes/sn28.htm "Eugenics"] - National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature Scope Note 28, features overview of eugenics history and annotated bibliography of historical literature

===Other===
*[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=437879 "Do not have children if they won't be healthy!"] Tamara Traubmann, [[Haaretz]] [[June 16]], [[2004]].
*[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEED8113AF932A15754C0A9629C8B63&sec=health&pagewanted=1 "As Gene Test Menu Grows, Who Gets to Choose?"] Amy Harmon, ''New York Times'' ([[21 July]] [[2004]]).
*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0228786/ "The Crimson Rivers"] -- a fiction movie in [[2000]].
*[http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/021500-02.htm Yale Study: U.S. Eugenics Paralleled Nazi Germany by David Morgan] Published on Tuesday, [[February 15]], [[2000]] in the [[Chicago Tribune]]
*[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1683254&blobtype=pdf Eugenics: past, present, and the future]



[[Category:Eugenics|*]]
[[Category:Bioethics]]
[[Category:Applied genetics]]
[[Category:Population]]
[[Category:Human evolution]]
[[Category:Social philosophy]]
[[Category:Social movements]]
[[Category:Race and intelligence controversy]]
[[Category:Racism]]


[[cs:Eugenika]]
[[da:Eugenik]]
[[de:Eugenik]]
[[es:Eugenesia]]
[[fr:Eugénisme]]
[[it:Eugenetica]]
[[he:אאוגניקה]]
[[kk:Еугеника]]
[[lt:Eugenika]]
[[hu:Eugenika]]
[[nl:Eugenetica]]
[[ja:優生学]]
[[no:Eugenikk]]
[[pl:Eugenika]]
[[pt:Eugenia]]
[[ro:Eugenism]]
[[ru:Евгеника]]
[[simple:Eugenics]]
[[sk:Eugenika]]
[[fi:Eugeniikka]]
[[sv:Rashygien]]
[[tr:Öjenik]]
[[uk:Євґеніка]]
[[zh:優生學]]
ō

Gnosticism

2007-10-25T23:02:49Z

Harpakhrad11: /* See also */

{{expert-subject|Religion}}
'''Gnosticism''' (from [[Greek (language)|Greek]] ''gnōsis'', [[knowledge]]) refers to a diverse, [[syncretistic]] [[religious movement]] consisting of various [[belief systems]] generally united in the teaching that humans are divine [[soul]]s trapped in a [[material world]] created by an imperfect spirit, the [[demiurge]], who is frequently identified with the [[Abrahamic]] [[God]]. The demiurge may be depicted as an embodiment of evil, or in other instances as merely imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy permits. This demiurge exists alongside another remote and unknowable [[supreme being]] that embodies good. In order to free oneself from the inferior material world, one needs [[gnosis]], or [[esoteric]] spiritual knowledge available only to a learned elite. [[Jesus of Nazareth]] is identified by some (though not all) Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the Earth.

Gnosticism was popular in the [[Mediterranean]] and [[middle east]]ern regions in the first centuries [[Common Era|CE]], but it was suppressed<ref>[[Bart D. Ehrman]], Lost Christianities. (Oxford University press, 2003) P.188-202</ref> as a [[dualistic]] [[heresy]] in areas controlled by the [[Roman Empire]] when [[Christianity]] became its official religion in the fourth century. Conversion to [[Islam]] greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the [[middle ages]], though a few isolated communities continue to exist to the present. Gnostic ideas became influential in the philosophies of various [[esoteric]] [[mystical]] movements of the late [[19th century|19th]] and [[20th century|20th centuries]] in [[Europe]] and [[North America]], including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier gnostic groups.

{{Gnosticism}}

==Nature and structure of Gnosticism==
===A typological model: the main features of gnosticism===
Difficulties have arisen in offering a definitive, categorical definition of Gnosticism (see [[# 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category|below]]), and various strategies have been applied in overcoming the problem, with varying degrees of success. It is therefore appropriate to discuss a typological model of those ancient philosophical movements typically called Gnostic; the model offered is adapted from Christoph Markschies's version, as described in 'Gnosis: An Introduction'.

Gnostic systems are typically marked by:

# The notion of a remote, supreme [[monad (Gnosticism)|monadic]] divinity - this figure is known under a variety of names, including '[[Pleroma]]' and '[[Bythos]]' (Greek 'deep');
# The introduction by emanation of further divine beings, which are nevertheless identifiable as aspects of the God from which they proceeded; the progressive emanations are often conceived metaphorically as a gradual and progressive distancing from the ultimate source, which brings about an instability in the fabric of the divine nature;
# The subsequent identification of [[the Fall of Man]] as an occurrence with its ultimate foundations within ''divinity itself'', rather than as occurring either entirely or indeed partially through human agency; this stage in the divine emanation is usually enacted through the recurrent Gnostic figure of [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]] (Greek 'Wisdom'), whose presence in a wide variety of [[Gnostic texts]] is indicative of her central importance;
# The introduction of a distinct creator god, who is named as in the [[Platonist]] tradition ''demiurgos''. Evidence exists that the conception of the [[demiurge]] has derivation from figures in Plato's ''[[Timaeus]]'' and ''[[The Republic (Plato)|Republic]]''. In the former, the demiurge is the benevolent creator of the universe from pre-existent matter, to whose limitations he is enthralled in creating the cosmos; in the latter, the description of the leontomorphic 'desire' in [[Socrates]]' model of the [[Psyche (psychology)|psyche]] bears a strong resemblance to descriptions of the demiurge as being in the shape of the lion. Elsewhere this figure is called '[[Demiurge|Ialdabaoth]]', 'Samael' ([[Aramaic]] ''sæmʕa-ʔel'', 'blind god') or 'Saklas' ([[Syriac]] ''sækla'', 'the foolish one'), who is sometimes ignorant of the superior God, and sometimes opposed to it; thus in the latter case he is correspondingly malevolent. The demiurge typically creates a group of coactors named '[[Archons]]', who preside over the material realm and, in some cases, present obstacles to the soul seeking ascent from it;
# The estimation of the world, owing to the above, as flawed or a production of 'error' but nevertheless as good as its constituent material might allow. This world is typically an inferior [[simulacrum]] of a higher-level reality or consciousness. The inferiority may be compared to the technical inferiority of a [[painting]], [[sculpture]], or other [[handicraft]] to the thing(s) those crafts are supposed to be a [[Mimesis|representation]] of. In certain other cases it is also perceived as evil and constrictive, a deliberate prison for its inhabitants;
# The explanation of this state through the use of a complex mythological-cosmological drama in which a divine element 'falls' into the material realm and lodges itself within certain human beings; from here, it may be returned to the divine realm through a process of awakening (leading towards salvation). The salvation of the individual thus mirrors a concurrent restoration of the divine nature; a central Gnostic innovation was to elevate individual redemption to the level of a cosmically significant event;
# Knowledge of a specific kind as a central factor in this process of restoration, achieved through the mediation of a redeemer figure ([[Christ]], or, in other cases, [[Seth]] or [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]]).

The model limits itself to describing characteristics of the [[# Major gnostic schools and their texts|Syrian-Egyptian]] school of Gnosticism. This is for the reason that the greatest expressions of the [[# Major gnostic schools and their texts|Persian gnostic school]] - [[Manicheanism]] and [[Mandaeanism]] - are typically conceived of as religious traditions in their own right; indeed, the typical usage of 'Gnosticism' is to refer to the Syrian-Egyptian schools alone, while 'Manichean' describes the movements of the Persia school.

The relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity during the early first and the whole of the second century is vital in helping us to further understand the main doctrines of Gnosticism, due in part to the fact that much of what we know today about gnosticism has only been preseved in the teachings of early church fathers. The age of the Gnostics was highly diverse religiously, and due to there being no fixed church authority, syncretism with pre-existing belief systems as well as new religions was often embraced. Above all, the central idea of Gnosticism (a knowledge superior to and independent of faith) made it welcome to many who were half-converted from paganism to Christianity. According to gnostics, faith was for the multitude, knowledge for the few.

Irenaeus declares (Adversus Haereses, II, 27, 1. PG, VI, 802) it subjected everything to the caprice of the individual, and made any fixed rule of faith impossible. It destroyed, as Clement puts it (Stromata., II, 3, pp. 443-4) the efficacy of Baptism (that is, it set at naught faith, the gift conferred in that sacrament). The Gnostics professed to impart a knowledge "greater and deeper" (Iren. I, 31, 2) than the ordinary doctrine of Christians. This knowledge, to those who were capable of it, was the means of redemption; indeed, in most of the Gnostics systems it was the one and sufficient passport to perfect bliss. But it kept the resemblance of Christianity for in nearly all the Gnostic systems Christ occupied a central place. Without its Christian element, it could not have entered into such close conflict with the Church; without its mythological garb, it would have missed its popularity.

The conception of Gnosticism here has in recent times come to be challenged(see [[# 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category|below]]). Despite this, the understanding presented above remains the most common and is useful in aiding meaningful discussion of the phenomena that compose Gnosticism.

===Dualism and monism===
Typically, Gnostic systems are loosely described as being 'dualistic' in nature, meaning that they had the view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities. Within this definition, they run the gamut from the 'extreme' or 'radical dualist' systems of Manicheanism to the 'weak' or 'mitigated dualism' of classic gnostic movements; Valentinian developments arguably approach a form of [[monism]], expressed in terms previously used in a dualistic manner.

* '''Radical Dualism''' - or absolute Dualism which posits two co-equal divine forces. Manichaeism conceives of two previously coexistent realms of light and darkness which become embroiled in conflict, owing to the chaotic actions of the latter. Subsequently, certain elements of the light became entrapped within darkness; the purpose of material creation is to enact the slow process of extraction of these individual elements, at the end of which the kingdom of light will prevail over darkness. Manicheanism likely inherits this dualistic mythology from [[Zoroastrianism]], in which the eternal spirit [[Ahura Mazda]] is opposed by his antithesis, [[Angra Mainyu]]; the two are engaged in a cosmic struggle, the conclusion of which will likewise see Ahura Mazda triumphant. The Mandaean creation myth witnesses the progressive emanations of Supreme Being of Light, with each emanation bringing about a progressive corruption resulting in the eventual emergence of Ptahil, the god of darkness who had a hand in creating and henceforward rules the material realm. Additionally, general Gnostic thought (specifically to be found in Iranian sects; for instance, see '[[The Hymn of the Pearl]]') commonly included the belief that the material world corresponds to some sort of malevolent intoxication brought about by the powers of darkness to keep elements of the light trapped inside it, or literally to keep them 'in the dark', or ignorant; in a state of drunken distraction.
* '''Mitigated Dualism''' - where one of the two principles is in some way inferior to the other. Such classical Gnostic movements as the Sethians conceived of the material world as being created by a lesser divinity than the true God that was the object of their devotion. The spiritual world is conceived of as being radically different from the material world, co-extensive with the true God, and the true home of certain enlightened members of humanity; thus, these systems were expressive of a feeling of acute alienation within the world, and their resultant aim was to allow the soul to escape the constraints presented by the physical realm.
* '''Qualified Monism''' - where it is arguable whether or not the second entity is divine or semi-divine. Elements of Valentinian versions of Gnostic myth suggest to some that its understanding of the universe may have been monistic rather than a dualistic one: 'Valentinian gnosticism [...] differs essentially from dualism' ([[Elaine Pagels]], ''The Gnostic Gospel'', [[1978]]); 'a standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally monistic' (William Schoedel, 'Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth' in ''The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.1: The School of Valentinus'', edited by Bentley Layton, E.J.Brill, Leiden, [[1980]]). In these myths, the malevolence of the demiurge is mitigated; his creation of a flawed materiality is not due to any moral failing on his part, but due to his honest ignorance of the superior spiritual world above him. As such, Valentinians already have more cause to treat physical reality with less contempt than might a Sethian Gnostic. Perhaps for this reason Valentinus appears to conceive of materiality, rather than as being a separate substance from the divine, as attributable to an ''error of perception''. Thus it follows that the Valentinian conception of the universe may be of a fundamentally monistic nature, in which all things are aspects of the divine; our ordinary view which is limited to the material realm is owing to our errors of perception, which become symbolized mythopoetically as the demiurge's act of creation.

===Moral and ritual practice===
The question of Gnostic morality can only be resolved by reading the claims of their contemporaries. Numerous Christian writers accused some Gnostic teachers of claiming to eschew the physical realm, while simultaneously freely indulging their physical appetites. We can only rely upon contemporary written claims and accounts, but this writer will attempt to grapple with some evidence to show that there is reason to question the accuracy of these claims.

Evidence in the source texts indicates Gnostic moral behaviour as being generally [[asceticism|ascetic]] in basis, expressed most fluently in their sexual and dietary practice. Many monks would deprive themselves of food, water, or necessary needs for living. This presented a problem for the heresiologists writing on gnostic movements: this mode of behavior was one which they themselves favoured and supported, so the Church Fathers, it seemed, would be required perforce to offer support to the practices of their theological opponents. In order to avoid this, a common heresiological approach was to avoid the issue completely by resorting to slanderous (and, in some cases, excessive) allegations of [[libertinism]], or to explain Gnostic asceticism as being based on incorrect interpretations of scripture, or simply duplicitous in nature. [[Epiphanius of Salamis|Epiphanius]] provides an example when he writes of the 'Archontics' 'Some of them ruin their bodies by dissipation, but others feign ostensible fasts and deceive simple people while they pride themselves with a sort of [[abstinence]], under the disguise of monks' (''[[Panarion]]'', 40.1.4).

In other areas of morality, Gnostics were less rigorously ascetic, and took a more moderate approach to correct behaviour. Ptolemy's ''Epistle to Flora'' lays out a project of general asceticism in which the basis of action is the moral inclination of the individual:

{{Quotation|External physical fasting is observed even among our followers, for it can be of some benefit to the soul if it is engaged on with reason (''[[logos]]''), whenever it is done neither by way of limiting others, nor out of habit, nor because of the day, as if it had been specially appointed for that purpose.|[[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]]|Letter to Flora}}

This extract marks a definite shift away from the position of orthodoxy, that the correct behaviour for Christians is best administered and prescribed by the central authority of the church, as transmitted through the apostles. Instead, the internalised inclination of the individual assumes paramount importance; there is the recognition that ritualistic behaviour, though well-intentioned, possesses no significance or effectiveness unless its external prescription is matched by a personal, internal motivation.

Charges of Gnostic libertinism find their source in the works of [[Irenaeus]]. According to this writer, [[Simon Magus]] (whom he has identified as the prototypical source of Gnosticism) founded the school of moral freedom ('[[amorality|amoralism]]'). Irenaeus reports that Simon's argument, that those who put their trust in him and his consort Helen, need trouble themselves no further with the biblical prophets or their moral exhortations and are free 'to do what they wish', as men are saved by his (Simon's) grace, and not by their 'righteous works' (adapted from ''[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Adversus Haereses]]'', I.23.3).

Simon is not known for any libertinistic practice, save for his curious attachment to Helen, typically reputed to be a prostitute. There is, however, clear evidence in the [[Testimony of Truth]] that followers of Simon did, in fact, get married and beget children, so a general tendency to asceticism can likewise be ruled out.

Irenaeus reports of the Valentinians, whom he characterizes as eventual inheritors of Simon, that they are lax in their dietary habits (eating food that has been 'offered to idols'), sexually promiscuous ('immoderately given over to the desires of the flesh') and guilty of taking wives under the pretence of living with them as adopted 'sisters'. In the latter case, Michael Allen Williams has argued plausibly that Irenaeus was here broadly correct in the behaviour described, but not in his apprehension of its causes. Williams argues that members of a cult might live together as 'brother' and 'sister': intimate, yet not sexually active. Over time, however, the self-denial required of such an endeavour becomes harder and harder to maintain, leading to the state of affairs Irenaeus criticizes.

Irenaeus also makes reference to the Valentinian practise of the Bridal Chamber, a ritualistic [[sacrament]] in which sexual union is seen as analogous to the activities of the paired [[syzygy|syzygies]] that constitute the Valentinian [[Pleroma]]. Though it is known that Valentinus had a more relaxed approach to sexuality than much of the orthodox church (he allowed women to hold positions of ordination in his community), it is not known whether the Bridal Chamber was a ritual involving actual intercourse, or whether human sexuality is here simply being used in a metaphorical sense.

Of the [[Carpocratians]] Irenaeus makes much the same report: they 'are so abandoned in their recklessness that they claim to have in their power and be able to practise anything whatsoever that is ungodly (irreligious) and impious ... they say that conduct is only good or evil in the eyes of man' (''Adversus Haereses'', I.25.4). Once again a differentiation might be detected between a man's actions and the grace he has received through his adherence to a system of ''gnosis''; whether this is due to a common sharing of such an attitude amongst Gnostic circles, or whether this is simply a blanket-charge used by Irenaeus is open to conjecture.

On the whole, it would seem that Gnostic behavior tended towards the ascetic. This said, the heresiological accusation of duplicity in such practises should not be taken at face value; nor should similar accusations of amoral libertinism. The Nag Hammadi library itself is full of passages which appear to encourage abstinence over indulgence. Fundamentally, however, gnostic movements appear to take the 'ancient schema of the two ways, which leaves the decision to do what is right to human endeavour and promises a reward for those who make the effort, and punishment for those who are negligent' (Kurt Rudolph, ''Gnosis:The Nature and History of Gnosticism'', 262).

==Major Gnostic movements and their texts==
As noted [[# History|above]], schools of Gnosticism can be defined according to one classification system as being a member of two broad categories. These are the 'Eastern'/'Persian' school, and a 'Syrian-Egyptic' school. The former possesses more demonstrably dualist tendencies, reflecting a strong influence from the beliefs of the Persian [[Zoroastrians]]. Among the Syrian-Egyptian schools and the movements they spawned are a typically more Monist view. Notable exceptions include relatively modern movements which seem to include elements of both categories, namely: the Cathars, Bogomils, and Carpocratians which are included in their own section.

===Persian Gnosticism===
The Persian Schools are representative of what is believed to be among the oldest of the Gnostic thought forms. These movements are considered by most to be religions in their own right, and are not emanations from [[Christianity]] or [[Judaism]].

* ''[[Mandaeanism]]'' is still practised in small numbers, in parts of southern [[Iraq]] and the Iranian province of [[Khuzestan]]. The name of the group derives from the term: Mandā d-Heyyi which roughly means "Knowledge of Life." Although the exact chronological origins of this movement are not known, John the Baptist eventually would come to be a key figure in the religion. As part of the core of their beliefs is an emphasis placed on baptism. As with Manichaeism, despite certain ties with Christianity, Mandaeans do not believe in Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed. Their beliefs and practices likewise have little overlap with the religions that manifested from those religious figures and the two should not be confused. Significant amounts of original Mandaean Scripture survive in the modern era. The primary source text is known as the [[Ginza Rba|Genzā Rabbā]] and has portions identified by some scholars as being copied as early as the 2nd century CE. There is also the [[Qolusta|Qolastā]], or Canonical Book of Prayer and The Book of John the Baptist (sidra ḏ-iahia).

* ''[[Manichaeism]]'' which represented an entire independent religious heritage, but is now mostly extinct was founded by the Prophet Mani (210-276 CE). Although most of the literature/scripture of the Manichaeins was believed lost, the discovery of an original series of documents have helped to shed new light on the subject. Now housed in [[Cologne]] [[Germany]], the [[Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis]] contains mainly biographical information on the prophet and details on his claims and teachings. Despite connections with [[Jesus Christ]], it is not believed that the Manichaeins in any way practiced a religion with identifiable overlap with any of the various Christian sects.

===Syrian-Egyptian Gnosticism===
The Syrian-Egyptian school derives much of its outlook from [[platonism|Platonist]] influences. Typically, it depicts creation in a series of emanations from a primal monadic source, finally resulting in the creation of the material universe. As a result, there is a tendency in these schools to view evil in terms of matter which is markedly inferior to goodness, evil as lacking spiritual insight and goodness, rather than to emphasize portrayals of evil as an equal force. These schools of gnosticism may be said to use the terms 'evil' and 'good' as being ''relative'' descriptive terms, as they refer to the relative plight of human existence caught between such realities and confused in its orientation, with 'evil' indicating the extremes of distance from the principle and source of goodness, without necessarily emphasizing an ''inherent'' negativity. As can be seen below, many of these movements included source material related to Christianity, with some identifying themselves as specifically Christian (albeit quite different from the so-called [[Orthodox]] or [[Roman Catholic]] forms).

====Syrian-Egyptic scripture====
Most of the literature from this category is known/confirmed to us in the modern age through the Library discovered at [[Nag Hammadi]].
* '''Sethian''' works are named after the third son of Adam and Eve, believed to be a possessor and disseminator of gnosis. These typically include:
** ''The [[Apocryphon of John]]''
** ''The [[Apocalypse of Adam]]''
** ''[[The Reality of the Rulers]], Also known as The hypostasis of the Archons''
** ''[[The Thunder Perfect Mind|The Thunder-Perfect Mind]]''
** ''[[Trimorphic Protennoia|The Three-fold First Thought]]'' ''(Trimorphic Protennoia)''
** ''The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit'' (also known as the ''[[Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians|(Coptic) Gospel of the Egyptians]]'')
** ''[[Zostrianos]]''
** ''[[Allogenes]]''
** ''The [[Three Steles of Seth]]''

* '''Thomasine''' works are so-named after the School of St. [[Thomas the Apostle]]. See [[Thomasine Church (Gnostic)]]. The texts commonly attributed to this school are:
** ''[[The Hymn of the Pearl]]'', or, the ''[[Hymn of the Pearl|Hymn of Jude Thomas the Apostle in the Country of Indians]]''
** ''The [[Gospel of Thomas]]''
** ''[[Book of Thomas the Contender|The Book of Thomas: The Contender Writing to the Perfect]]''

* '''Valentinian''' works are named in reference to the Bishop and teacher [[Valentinius]], also spelled Valentinus. [[Circa|ca.]] [[153]] AD/CE, Valentinius developed a complex Cosmology outside of the Sethian tradition. At one point he was close to being appointed the [[Bishop of Rome]] of what is now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Works attributed to his school are listed below, and fragmentary pieces directly linked to him are noted with an asterisk:
** ''The Divine Word Present in the Infant'' (Fragment A) *
** ''On the Three Natures'' (Fragment B) *
** ''Adam's Faculty of Speech'' (Fragment C) *
** ''To Agathopous: Jesus' Digestive System'' (Fragment D) *
** ''Annihilation of the Realm of Death'' (Fragment F) *
** ''On Friends: The Source of Common Wisdom'' (Fragment G) *
** ''Epistle on Attachments'' (Fragment H) *
** ''Summer Harvest''*
** ''[[Gospel of Truth|The Gospel of Truth]]''*
** ''Ptolemy's Version of the Gnostic Myth''
** ''[[The Prayer of the Apostle Paul]]''
** ''Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora''
** ''Treatise on Resurrection'' (''Epistle to Rheginus'')
** ''[[Gospel of Philip]]''

* '''Basilidian''' works are named for the founder of their school, [[Basilides]] ([[132]]–? CE/AD). These works are mainly known to us through the criticisms of one of his opponents, [[Irenaeus]] in his work ''[[Adversus Haereses]]''. The other pieces are known through the work of [[Clement of Alexandria]]:
** The Octet of Subsistent Entities (Fragment A)
** The Uniqueness of the World (Fragment B)
** Election Naturally Entails Faith and Virtue (Fragment C)
** The State of Virtue (Fragment D)
** The Elect Transcend the World (Fragment E)
** Reincarnation (Fragment F)
** Human Suffering and the Goodness of Providence (Fragment G)
** Forgivable Sins (Fragment H)

* The [[Gospel of Judas]] is the most recently discovered Gnostic text. [[National Geographic]] has published an English translation of it, bringing it into mainstream awareness. It portrays [[Judas Iscariot]] as the most enlightened disciple, who acted at Jesus' request when he handed Jesus over to the authorities. Its reference to [[Barbelo]] and inclusion of material similar to the Apocryphon of John and other such texts, connects the text to Barbeloite and/or Sethian Gnosticism.

===Later Gnosticism and Gnostic-influenced groups===
* '''Other schools and related movements'''; these are presented in chronological order:[[Image:Simple crossed circle.svg|right|frame|The [[Sun cross|circular, harmonic cross]] was an [[emblem]] used most notably by the [[Cathars]], a [[medieval]] group that related to Gnosticism]]
** ''[[Simon Magus]]'' and ''[[Marcion of Sinope]]'' both had Gnostic tendencies, but such familiar ideas that they presented were as-yet unformed; they might thus be described as pseudo- or proto-Gnostics. Both developed a sizeable following. Simon Magus' pupil ''Menander of Antioch'' could potentially be included within this grouping. Marcion is popularly labelled a gnostic, however most scholars do not consider him a gnostic at all, for example, the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] article on [http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MAL_MAR/MARCION.html Marcion] clearly states: "In Marcion's own view, therefore, the founding of his church — to which he was first driven by opposition — amounts to a reformation of [[Christendom]] through a return to the gospel of Christ and to Paul; nothing was to be accepted beyond that. This of itself shows that it is a mistake to reckon Marcion among the Gnostics. A [[dualist]] he certainly was, but he was not a Gnostic."
** ''[[Cerinthus]]'' (''c'' 100), the founder of a heretical school with gnostic elements. Like a Gnostic, Cerinthus depicted Christ as a heavenly spirit separate from the man Jesus, and he cited the demiurge as creating the material world. Unlike the Gnostics, Cerinthus taught Christians to observe the Jewish law; his demiurge was holy, not lowly; and he taught the Second Coming. His gnosis was a secret teaching attributed to an apostle. Some scholars believe that the First Epistle of John was written as a response to Cerinthus. <ref name = "gonzález">González, Justo L.(1970). ''A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I''. Abingdon. pp. 132-3</ref>
** The ''[[Ophites]]'', so-named because they worshipped the serpent of [[Genesis]] as the bestower of knowledge.
** The ''[[Cainites]]'', as the term implies, worshipped [[Cain]], as well as [[Esau]], [[Korah]], and the [[Sodom]]ites. There is little evidence concerning the nature of this group; however, it is surmisable that they believed that indulgence in sin was the key to salvation because since the body is evil, one must defile it through immoral activity (see [[libertinism]]).
** The ''[[Carpocrates|Carpocratians]]''
** The ''[[Borborites]]''
** The ''[[Bogomils]]''
** The ''[[Paulicianism|Paulicans]]''
** The ''[[Cathar]]s'' (''Cathari'', ''Albigenses'' or ''Albigensians'') are typically seen as being imitative of Gnosticism; whether or not the Cathari possessed direct historical influence from ancient Gnosticism is disputed. Though the basic conceptions of Gnostic cosmology are to be found in Cathar beliefs (most distinctly in their notion of a lesser, [[Satan]]ic, creator god), they did not apparently place any special relevance upon knowledge (''gnosis'') as an effective salvific force. For the relationship between these medieval heresies and earlier Gnostic forms, see [[# The development of the Persian school|historical discussion above]].
** The Kabbalists who originated in Provence which was at that time the center of the Cathars as well, also took many core Gnostic ideas and reinterpreted earlier Jewish sources according to this new foreign influence. See Gershom Scholem's ''Origins of the Kabbalah'' for further discussion on this topic.

==Important terms and concepts==
{{main|List of gnostic terms}}

===Aeons===
{{main|Aeon}}
In many Gnostic systems, the various [[emanationism|emanations]] of the [[God]], who is also known by such names as [[the One]], the [[Monad (Gnosticism)|Monad]], Aion teleos (The Perfect Aeon), [[Bythos]] (Depth or profundity, Greek Βυθος), Proarkhe (Before the Beginning, Greek προαρχη), E Arkhe (The Beginning, Greek ἡ ἀρχή), are called ''aeons''. This first being is also an æon and has an inner being within itself, known as Ennoia (Thought), Charis (Grace), or Sige (Greek Σιγη, Silence). The split perfect being conceives the second aeon, Caen (Power), within itself. Along with the male Caen comes the female æon Akhana (Truth, Love).

The aeons often came in male/female pairs called ''syzygies'', and were numerous (20-30). Two of the most commonly listed æons were [[Jesus]] and [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]]. The aeons constitute the ''[[pleroma]]'', the "region of light". The lowest regions of the pleroma are closest to the darkness; that is, the physical world.

When an æon named ''Sophia'' emanated without her partner aeon, the result was the ''[[Demiurge]]'', or half-creator (Occasionally referred to as ''Ialdaboth'' in Gnostic texts), a creature that should never have come into existence. This creature does not belong to the pleroma, and the One emanates two savior æons, ''[[Christ]]'' and ''the [[Holy Spirit]]'' to save man from the Demiurge. Christ then took the form of the man, ''Jesus'', in order to be able to teach man how to achieve [[gnosis]]; that is, return to the pleroma.

These systems, however, are only a sample of the various interpretations that exist. The roles of familiar beings such as Jesus, Christ, Sophia, and the Demiurge usually share the same general themes between systems but may have somewhat different functions or identities ascribed to them.

===Archon===
{{main|Archon}}
In late antiquity some variants of Gnosticism used the term ''Archon'' to refer to several servants of the ''[[Demiurge]]'', the "[[creator god]]" that stood between spiritual humanity and a transcendent God that could only be reached through gnosis. In this context they may be seen as having the roles of the angels and demons of the [[Old Testament]].

The [[Orphism (religion)|Orphics]] accepted the existence of seven archons: [[Demiurge|Iadabaoth]] or Ialdabaoth (who created the six others), [[Iao]], [[Sabaoth]], Adonaios, Elaios, Astaphanos and Horaios ([[Origen]], [[Contra Celsum]], VI.31). Ialdabaoth had a head of a lion, just like [[Mithraic]] Kronos ([[Chronos]]) and [[Historical Vedic religion|Vedic]] [[Narasimha]], a form of [[Vishnu]].{{Verify source|date=June 2007}}

===Abraxas/Abrasax===
{{main|Abraxas}}
[[Image:Abraxas, Nordisk familjebok.png|thumb|right|150px|Engraving from an Abraxas stone.]]
The Egyptian Gnostic [[Basilideans]] referred to a figure called ''Abraxas'' who was at the head of 365 spiritual beings ([[Irenaeus]], ''[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Adversus Haereses]]'', I.24); it is unclear what to make of Irenaeus' use of the term 'Archon', which may simply mean 'ruler' in this context. The role and function of Abraxas for Basilideans is not clear.

The word [[Abraxas]] was engraved on certain [[ancient history|antique]] stones, called on that account Abraxas stones, which may have been used as [[amulets]] or charms by Gnostic sects. In popular culture, Abraxas is sometimes considered the name of a [[god (male deity)|god]] who incorporated both [[Good]] and [[Evil]] (God and [[Demiurge]]) in one entity, and therefore representing the [[monotheistic God]], singular, but (unlike, for example, the Christian God) not [[eutheism|omni-benevolent]] (See Hesse's Demian, and Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead). Opinions abound on Abraxas, who in recent centuries has been claimed to be both an [[Egypt]]ian god and a [[demon]], sometimes even being associated with the dual nature of [[Satan]]/[[Lucifer]]. The word [[abracadabra]] may be related to Abraxas.

The above information relates to interpretations of ancient amulets and to reports of Christian heresy hunters which are not always clear.

Actual ancient Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi Library, such as the [[Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians]], refer to Abrasax as an Aeon dwelling with Sophia and other Aeons of the Spiritual Fullness in the light of the luminary Eleleth. In several texts, the luminary Eleleth is the last of the luminaries (Spiritual Lights) that come forward, and it is the Aeon Sophia, associated with Eleleth, who encounters darkness and becomes involved in the chain of events that leads to the Demiurge and Archon's rule of this world, and the salvage effort that ensues. As such, the role of Aeons of Eleleth, including Abrasax, Sophia, and others, pertains to this outer border of the Divine Fullness that encounters the ignorance of the world of Lack and interacts to rectify the error of ignorance in the world of materiality.

Words like or similar to Abraxas or Abrasax also appear in the [[Greek Magical Papyri]]. There are similarities and differences between such figures in reports about Basiledes' teaching, in the larger magical traditions of the Graeco-Roman world, in the classic ancient Gnostic texts such as the Gospel of the Egyptians, and in later magical and esoteric writings.

The Swiss Psychologist [[Carl Jung]] wrote a short Gnostic treatise in 1916 called The Seven Sermons to the Dead, which called Abraxas a God higher than the Christian God and Devil, that combines all opposites into one Being.

===Demiurge===
{{main|Demiurge}}
[[Image:Lion-faced deity.jpg|thumb|right|150px|A lion-faced deity found on a Gnostic gem in [[Bernard de Montfaucon]]'s ''L'antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures'' may be a depiction of the Demiurge.]]
The term ''Demiurge'' refers to an entity (usually seen as evil) responsible for the creation of the [[physical universe]] and the physical aspect of [[Human nature|humanity]].

The term occurs in a number of other religious and philosophical systems, most notably [[Platonism]]. While always suggestive of a [[creator god]], the moral judgements regarding the demiurge vary wildly, from a benign [[grand architect]] to an evil subvertor of God's will.

Like [[Plato]], Gnosticism presents a distinction between the highest, unknowable "alien God" and the demiurgic "creator" of the material. However, in contrast to Plato, several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme God: his act of creation either in unconscious imitation of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed, or else formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine ''in'' materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to the [[problem of evil]]. In the [[Apocryphon of John]] (several versions of which are found in the [[Nag Hammadi library]]), the Demiurge has the name "[[Yaltabaoth]]", and proclaims himself as God:

:''"Now the [[archon]] who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is [[Saklas]], and the third is [[Samael]]. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come."''

[[Gnostic]] myth recounts that [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]] (Greek, literally meaning "wisdom"), the Demiurge's mother and a partial aspect of the divine [[Pleroma]] or "Fullness", desired to create something apart from the divine totality, and without the receipt of divine assent. In this abortive act of separate creation, she gave birth to the monstrous Demiurge and, being ashamed of her deed, she wrapped him in a cloud and created a throne for him within it. The Demiurge, isolated, did not behold his mother, nor anyone else, and thus concluded that only he himself existed, being ignorant of the superior levels of reality that were his birth-place.

The Gnostic myths describing these events are full of intricate nuances portraying the declination of aspects of the divine into human form; this process occurs through the agency of the Demiurge who, having stolen a portion of power from his mother, sets about a work of creation in unconscious imitation of the superior Pleromatic realm. Thus Sophia's power becomes enclosed within the material forms of humanity, themselves entrapped within the material universe: the goal of Gnostic movements was typically the awakening of this spark, which permitted a return by the subject to the superior, non-material realities which were its primal source. (See [[Sethian|Sethian Gnosticism]].)

"Samael" may equate to the [[Judaism|Judaic]] [[Death (personification)# Death .28angels.29 in religion|Angel of Death]], and corresponds to the Christian [[demon]] of [[Samael|that name]], as well as [[Satan]]. Literally, it can mean "Blind God" or "God of the Blind" in [[Aramaic]] ([[Syriac]] ''sæmʕa-ʔel''). Another alternative title for Yaldabaoth, "Saklas", is Aramaic for "fool" (Syriac ''sækla'' "the foolish one").

Some Gnostic philosophers identify the Demiurge with [[Yahweh]], the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]], in opposition and contrast to the God of the [[New Testament]]. Still others equated the being with [[Satan]]. [[Catharism]] apparently inherited their idea of Satan as the creator of the evil world directly or indirectly from Gnosticism.

===Gnosis===
{{main|Gnosis}}
The word 'Gnosticism' is a modern construction, though based on an antiquated linguistic expression: it comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] word meaning 'knowledge', ''gnosis'' (γνῶσις). However, ''gnosis'' itself refers to a very specialised form of knowledge, deriving both from the exact meaning of the original Greek term and its usage in [[Plato]]nist [[philosophy]].

Unlike modern [[English language|English]], ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being [[propositional knowledge]], indicative of knowledge acquired ''indirectly'' through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know ''of'' George Bush" or "I know Berlin ''is in'' Germany"), and [[empirical]] knowledge acquired by ''direct participation'' or ''acquaintance'' (such as "I know George Bush personally" or "I know Berlin, having visited").

''Gnosis'' (γνῶσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'Gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on [[knowledge]] in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to [[Mysticism|mystical]] or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine. Indeed, in most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of [[salvation]] is this 'knowledge of' ('acquaintance with') the divine. This is commonly identified with a process of inward 'knowing' or self-exploration, comparable to that encouraged by [[Plotinus]] (''[[Circa|ca]].'' [[205]]–[[270]] AD). However, as may be seen, the term 'gnostic' also had precedent usage in several ancient [[philosophy|philosophical]] traditions, which must also be weighed in considering the very subtle implications of its appellation to a set of ancient religious groups.

===Monad (apophatic theology)===
{{main|Monad (Gnosticism)}}
In many [[Gnostic]] systems (and heresiologies), [[God]] is known as the ''Monad'', [[the One]], [[The Absolute]], ''Aion teleos'' (The Perfect [[Æon]]), ''Bythos'' (Depth or Profundity, Βυθος), ''Proarkhe'' (Before the Beginning, προαρχη), and ''E Arkhe'' (The Beginning, η αρχη). God is the high source of the [[pleroma]], the region of light. The various emanations of God are called [[æon]]s.

Within certain variations of Gnosticism, especially those inspired by [[Monoimus]], the ''Monad'' was the highest [[God]] which created lesser [[deity|gods]], or elements (similar to æons).

According to [[Hippolytus (writer)|Hippolytus]], this view was inspired by the [[Pythagoreans]], who called the first thing that came into existence the ''Monad'', which begat the [[dyad]], which begat the [[number]]s, which begat the [[Point (geometry)|point]], begetting [[line]]s, etc. This was also clarified in the writings of [[Plato]], [[Aristotle]] and [[Plotinus]]. This teaching being largely [[Pythagoreanism|Neopythagorean]] via [[Numenius of Apamea|Numenius]] as well.

This Monad is the [[supernatural|spiritual]] source of everything which [[emanationism|emanates]] the [[pleroma]], and could be contrasted to the dark [[Demiurge]] (Yaldabaoth) that controls [[matter]].

The [[Sethian]] cosmogony as most famously contained in the Apocryphon ('Secret book') of John describes an unknown [[God]], very similar to the [[orthodoxy|orthodox]] apophatic theology, although very different from the orthodox credal teachings that there is one such god who is identified also as creator of heaven and earth. In describing the nature of a creator god associated with Biblical texts, orthodox theologians often attempt to define God through a series of explicit positive statements, themselves universal but in the divine taken to their superlative degrees: he is [[omniscient]], [[omnipotent]] and truly [[benevolent]]. The Sethian conception of the most hidden transcendent God is, by contrast, defined through [[negative theology]]: he is immovable, invisible, intangible, ineffable; commonly, 'he' is seen as being [[hermaphroditic]], a potent symbol for being, as it were, 'all-containing'. In the Apocryphon of John, this god is good in that it bestows goodness. After the apophatic statements, the process of the Divine in action are used to describe the effect of such a god.

An apophatic approach to discussing the Divine is found throughout gnosticism, Vendantic hinduism, and Platonic and Aristotelian theology as well. It is also found in some Judaic sources.

===Pleroma===
{{main|Pleroma}}
''Pleroma'' (Greek πληρωμα) generally refers to the totality of God's powers. The term means ''fullness'', and is used in Christian theological contexts: both in Gnosticism generally, and in [[Colossians]] 2.9.

Gnosticism holds that the world is controlled by evil [[archon]]s, one of whom is the demiurge, the deity of the [[Old Testament]] who holds the human spirit captive.

The heavenly pleroma is the center of divine life, a region of light "above" (the term is not to be understood spatially) our world, occupied by spiritual beings such as [[aeon]]s (eternal beings) and sometimes [[archon]]s. [[Jesus]] is interpreted as an intermediary aeon who was sent from the pleroma, with whose aid humanity can recover the lost knowledge of the divine origins of humanity. The term is thus a central element of Gnostic [[cosmology]].

Pleroma is also used in the general Greek language and is used by the Greek Orthodox church in this general form since the word appears under the book of Colossians. Proponents of the view that [[Gnosticism and the New Testament|Paul was actually a gnostic]], such as [[Elaine Pagels]] of [[Princeton University]], view the reference in Colossians as something that was to be interpreted in the gnostic sense.

===Sophia===
{{main|Sophia (Gnosticism)}}
In Gnostic tradition, the term ''Sophia'' (Σoφíα, [[Greek language|Greek]] for "wisdom") refers to the final and lowest emanation of God.

In most if not all versions of the gnostic myth, Sophia births the [[demiurge]], who in turn brings about the creation of materiality. The positive or negative depiction of materiality thus resides a great deal on mythic depictions of Sophia's actions. She is occasionally referred to by the [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] equivalent of ''Achamoth'' (this is a feature of [[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]]'s version of the [[Valentinius|Valentinian]] gnostic myth). Jewish Gnosticism with a focus on Sophia was active by 90 <ref> [http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/jew_gnostic.htm Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity]</ref>

Almost all gnostic systems of the [[Gnosticism#Major gnostic schools and their texts|Syrian]] or [[Gnosticism# Major gnostic schools and their texts|Egyptian]] type taught that the universe began with an original, unknowable [[God]], referred to as the Parent or [[Bythos]], as the [[Monad (Gnosticism)|Monad]] by [[Monoimus]], or the first [[Aeon]] by still other traditions. From this initial unitary beginning, the One spontaneously [[emanationism|emanated]] further [[Aeon]]s, pairs of progressively 'lesser' beings in sequence. The lowest of these pairs were Sophia and [[Christ]]. The Aeons together made up the Pleroma, or fullness, of God, and thus should not be seen as distinct from the divine, but symbolic abstractions of the divine nature.

==History==
{{main|History of Gnosticism}}

===The development of the Syrian-Egyptian school===
[[Bentley Layton]] has sketched out a relationship between the various gnostic movements in his introduction to ''The Gnostic Scriptures'' (SCM Press, London, [[1987]]). In this model, 'Classical Gnosticism' and 'The School of Thomas' antedated and influenced the development of [[Valentinus]], who was to found his own school of Gnosticism in both [[Alexandria]] and [[Rome]], whom Layton called 'the great [Gnostic] reformer' and 'the focal point' of Gnostic development. While in Alexandria, where he was born, Valentinus probably would have had contact with the Gnostic teacher [[Basilides]], and may have been influenced by him.

[[Valentinianism]] flourished throughout the early centuries of the common era: while Valentinus himself lived from ''[[Circa|ca]]''. [[100]]–[[180]] AD/CE, a list of sectarians or heretics, composed in [[388]] AD/CE, against whom Emperor Constantine intended legislation includes Valentinus (and, presumably, his inheritors). The school is also known to have been extremely popular: several varieties of their central myth are known, and we know of 'reports from outsiders from which the intellectual liveliness of the group is evident' (Markschies, ''Gnosis: An Introduction'', 94). It is known that Valentinus' students, in further evidence of their intellectual activity, elaborated upon the teachings and materials they received from him (though the exact extent of their changes remains unknown), for example, in the version of the Valentinian myth brought to us through [[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]].

Valentinianism might be described as the most elaborate and philosophically 'dense' form of the Syrian-Egyptian schools of Gnosticism, though it should be acknowledged that this in no way debarred other schools from attracting followers: Basilides' own school was popular also, and survived in [[Egypt]] until the 4th century.

Simone Petrement, in ''A Separate God'', in arguing for a Christian origin of Gnosticism, places Valentinus after Basilides, but before the Sethians. It is her assertion that Valentinus represented a moderation of the anti-Judaism of the earlier Hellenized teachers; the demiurge, widely regarded to be a mythological depiction of the Old Testament God of the Hebrews, is depicted as more ignorant than evil. (See below.)

[[Image:Manicheans.jpg|thumb|250px|Manichean priests writing at their desks, with panel inscription in [[Sogdian language|Sogdian]]. Manuscript from Khocho, [[Tarim Basin]].]]

===The development of the Persian school===
An alternate heritage is offered by Kurt Rudolph in his book ''Gnosis: The Nature & Structure of Gnosticism'' (Koehler and Amelang, [[Leipzig]], [[1977]]), to explain the lineage of Persian Gnostic schools. The decline of [[Manicheism]] that occurred in Persia in the 5th century AD/CE was too late to prevent the spread of the movement into the east and the west. In the west, the teachings of the school moved into [[Syria]], [[Arabia|Northern Arabia]], [[Egypt]] and [[Africa|North Africa]] (where [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] was a member of school from [[373]]-[[382]]); from Syria it progressed still farther, into [[Palestine]], [[Asia Minor]] and [[Armenia]]. There is evidence for Manicheans in Rome and [[Dalmatia]] in the 4th century, and also in [[Gaul]] and [[Spain]]. The influence of Manicheanism was attacked by imperial elects and polemical writings, but the religion remained prevalent until the 6th century, and still exerted influence in the emergence of the [[Paulicians]], [[Bogomil]]s and [[Cathars|Cathari]] in the Middle Ages, until it was ultimately stamped out as a heresy by the Catholic Church.

In the east, Rudolph relates, Manicheanism was able to bloom, given that the religious monopoly position previously held by Christianity and [[Zoroastrianism]] had been broken by nascent [[Islam]]. In the early years of the Arab conquest, Manicheanism again found followers in Persia (mostly amongst educated circles), but flourished most in [[Central Asia]], to which it had spread through Iran. Here, in [[762]], Manicheanism became the state religion of the [[Uyghur Empire]].

===Buddhism and Gnosticism===
Early [[3rd century]]–[[4th century]] [[Christian]] writers such as [[Hippolytus (writer)|Hippolytus]] and [[Epiphanius of Salamis|Epiphanius]] write about a [[Scythianus]], who visited India around [[50|50 CE]] from where he brought "the doctrine of the Two Principles". According to [[Cyril of Jerusalem]], Scythianus' pupil [[Terebinthus]] presented himself as a "Buddha" ("He called himself Buddas" {{Fact|date=June 2007}}). Terebinthus went to [[Palestine]] and [[Judea|Judaea]] ("becoming known and condemned"), and ultimately settled in [[Babylon]], where he transmitted his teachings to [[Mani (prophet)|Mani]], thereby creating the foundation of [[Manichaeism]]:

{{quote|"But Terebinthus, his disciple in this wicked error, inherited his money and books and heresy, and came to Palestine, and becoming known and condemned in Judæa he resolved to pass into Persia: but lest he should be recognised there also by his name he changed it and called himself Buddas."|[[Cyril of Jerusalem]], [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310106.htm "Catechetical lecture 6"]}}

In the 3rd century, the Syrian writer and Christian [[Gnosticism|Gnostic]] theologian [[Bar Daisan]] described his exchanges with the religious missions of holy men from India (Greek: Σαρμαναίοι, Sramanas), passing through [[Syria]] on their way to [[Elagabalus]] or another [[Severan dynasty]] [[Roman Emperor]]. His accounts were quoted by [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] (De abstin., iv, 17 {{Fact|date=June 2007}}) and [[Stobaeus]] (Eccles., iii, 56, 141).

Finally, from the 3rd century to the [[12th century]], some Gnostic religions such as Manichaeism, which combined Christian, Hebrew and Buddhist influences ([[Mani (prophet)|Mani]], the founder of the religion, resided for some time in [[Kushan]] lands), spread throughout the [[Old World]], to [[Gaul]] and [[Great Britain]] in the West, and to [[China]] in the East. Some leading Christian theologians such as [[Augustine of Hippo]] were Manichaeans before converting to orthodox Christianity.

Such exchanges, many more of which may have gone unrecorded, suggest that Buddhism may have had some influence on early [[Christianity]]: "Scholars have often considered the possibility that Buddhism influenced the early development of Christianity. They have drawn attention to many parallels concerning the births, lives, doctrines, and deaths of the Buddha and Jesus" (Bentley, "Old World Encounters").

===Influence in East Asia===
Early missionaries, including [[Manicheans]], [[Zoroastrians]], and [[Nestorians]], traveled and proselytized along the [[Silk Road]] east to [[Chang'an]], the [[Tang Dynasty]] capital of China. The first introduction of Christianity, under the Chinese name ''Jĭngjiào'' (景教, literally "bright/luminous religion"), was from [[Nestorianism in China|Nestorianism]] or the [[Assyrian Church of the East]]. In 635, when Nestorian missionaries arrived in Chang'an, the Emperor assigned his famous Prime Minister Fang Xuanling (房玄齡) to hold a grand welcome ceremony. Chinese Nestorianism was popular in the late 8th century, but never became a widely-practice mainstream religion in China. In 845, [[Emperor Wuzong of Tang]] ordered the Great Persecution of Buddhism, which affected other foreign religions, weakened Nestorianism and practically destroyed Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism in China.

Chinese Nestorianism revived during the 13th-14th century [[Yuan Dynasty]], but was replaced by [[Roman Catholicism]] in 16th-17th centuries. Rudolph reported that despite the suppression, Manichean traditions are reputed to have survived until the 17th century (based on the reports of [[Portugal|Portuguese]] sailors).

=='Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category==
In [[1966]] in [[Messina]], [[Italy]], a conference was held concerning systems of ''gnosis''. Among its several aims were the need to establish a program to translate the recently-acquired Nag Hammadi library (see [[# Translation|above]]) and the need to arrive at an agreement concerning an accurate definition of 'Gnosticism'. This was in answer to the tendency, prevalent since the eighteenth century, to use the term 'gnostic' less as its origins implied, but rather as an interpretive category for ''contemporary'' philosophical and religious movements. For example, in [[1835]], [[New Testament]] scholar [[Ferdinand Christian Baur]] constructed a developmental model of Gnosticism that culminates in the religious philosophy of [[Hegel]]; one might compare [[literary critic]] [[Harold Bloom]]'s recent attempts to identify Gnostic elements in contemporary [[United States|American]] religion, or [[Eric Voegelin]]'s analysis of [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] impulses through the interpretive lens of Gnosticism.

The 'cautious proposal' reached by the conference concerning Gnosticism is described by Markschies:

{{Quotation|In the concluding document of Messina the proposal was 'by the simultaneous application of historical and typological methods' to designate 'a particular group of systems of the second century after Christ' as 'gnosticism', and to use 'gnosis' to define a conception of knowledge transcending the times which was described as 'knowledge of divine mysteries for an élite'.|Markschies|Gnosis: An Introduction, p. 13}}

In essence, it had been decided that 'Gnosticism' would become a historically-specific term, restricted to mean the Gnostic movements prevalent in the 3rd century, while 'gnosis' would be an universal term, denoting a system of knowledge retained 'for a privileged élite.' However, this effort towards providing clarity in fact created more conceptual confusion, as the historical term 'Gnosticism' was an entirely modern construction, while the new universal term 'gnosis' ''was'' a historical term: 'something was being called "gnosticism" that the ancient theologians had called "gnosis" ... [A] concept of gnosis had been created by Messina that was almost unusable in a historical sense' (Markschies, ''Gnosis: An Introduction'', 14-15). In antiquity, all agreed that knowledge was centrally important to life, but few were agreed as to what exactly ''constituted'' knowledge; the unitary conception that the Messina proposal presupposed did not exist.

These flaws have meant that the problems concerning an exact definition of Gnosticism persist. It remains current convention to use 'Gnosticism' in a historical sense, and 'gnosis' universally. Leaving aside the issues with the latter noted above, the usage of 'Gnosticism' to designate a category of religions in the 3rd century has recently been questioned as well. Of note is the work of [[Michael Allen Williams]] in ''Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for the Dismantling of a Dubious Category'', in which the author examines the terms by which gnosticism as a category is defined, and then closely compares these suppositions with the contents of actual Gnostic texts (the newly-recovered Nag Hammadi library was of central importance to his thesis).

Williams argues that the conceptual foundations on which the category of Gnosticism rests are the remains of the agenda of the heresiologists. Too much emphasis has been laid on perceptions of dualism, body-and-matter hatred, and anticosmism, without these suppositions being properly ''tested''. In essence, the interpretive definition of Gnosticism that was created by the antagonistic efforts of the heresiologists has been taken up by modern scholarship and reflected in a ''categorical'' definition, even though the means now exist to verify its accuracy. Attempting to do so, Williams contests, reveals the dubious nature of categorical 'Gnosticism', and he concludes that the term needs replacing in order to more accurately reflect those movements it comprises. Williams' observations have provoked debate; however, to date his suggested replacement term 'the Biblical demiurgical tradition' has not become widely used.

==Gnosticism in modern times==
{{main|Gnosticism in modern times}}

A number of 19th century thinkers such as [[William Blake]], [[Schopenhauer]],<ref>[[Schopenhauer]], ''[[The World as Will and Representation]]'', Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII </ref> [[Albert Pike]], [[Helena Petrovna Blavatsky|Madame Blavatsky]], studied Gnostic thought extensively and were influenced by it, and even figures like [[Herman Melville]] and [[W. B. Yeats]] were more tangentially influenced.<ref name="smith">Smith, Richard. "The Modern Relevance of Gnosticism" in The Nag Hammadi Library, 1990 ISBN 0-06-066935-7</ref> [[Jules Doinel]] "re-established" a Gnostic church in France in 1890 which altered its form as it passed through various direct successors (Fabre des Essarts as ''Tau Synésius'' and Joanny Bricaud as ''Tau Jean II'' most notably), and which, although small, is still active today (cf. [http://www.plerome.org l'Eglise du Plérôme]).

Early 20th century thinkers who heavily studied and were influenced by Gnosticism include [[Carl Jung]] (who supported Gnosticism), [[Eric Voegelin]] (who opposed it), and [[Aleister Crowley]], with figures such as [[Hermann Hesse]] being more moderatedly influenced. [[Rene Guenon]] founded the gnostic review, Le Gnose in 1909 (before moving to a more [[Traditionalist School|"Perennialist"]] position). Several of the [[Thelema|Thelemite]] organizations tracing themselves to Crowley's thought, think of themselves as Gnostic organizations today, such as [[Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica]] and [[Ordo Templi Orientis]].

The discovery and translation of the [[Nag Hammadi library]] after 1945 had a huge impact on Gnosticism since World War II. Thinkers who were heavily influenced by Gnosticism in this period include [[Hans Jonas]], [[Phillip K. Dick]] and [[Harold Bloom]], with [[Albert Camus]] and [[Allen Ginsberg]] being more moderately influenced.<Ref name="smith" /> A number of ecclesiastical bodies which think of themselves as Gnostic have been set up or re-founded since World War II as well, including the [[Society of Novus Spiritus]], [[Ecclesia Gnostica]], the [[Thomasine Church]], the [[Apostolic Johannite Church]], the [[Alexandrian Gnostic Church]], the ''North American College of Gnostic Bishops'', and the World Gnostic Movement of [[Samael Aun Weor]]. [[Celia Green]] has written on Gnostic Christianity in relation to her own philosophy<ref name = "Green">Green, Celia (1981,2006). ''Advice to Clever Children''. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Ch.s XXXV-XXXVII</ref>
.

==See also==
{{multicol}}
* [[Antinomianism]]
* [[Anthroposophy]]
* [[Apocrypha]]
* [[Black Iron Prison]]
* [[Christian anarchism]]
* [[Christian theosophy]]
* [[Christian mysticism]]
* [[Esotericism]]
{{multicol-break}}
* [[First Council of Nicaea]]
* [[Gospel]]
* [[Gnosiology]]
* [[Hermeticism]]
* [[Occultism]]
* [[Ontology]]
* [[Sufism]]
* [[Theodicy]]
{{multicol-end}}

==Footnotes==
{{reflist|2}}
<references/>

==References==
===Books===
====Primary sources====
* {{cite book | authorlink = Bentley Layton | last = Layton | first = Bentley | title = The Gnostic Scriptures | publisher = SCM Press | year = 1987 | id = ISBN 0-334-02022-0 | pages = 526 pages }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = James M. Robinson | last = Robinson | first = James | title = The Nag Hammadi Library in English | publisher = | year = 1978 | id = ISBN 0-06-066934-9 | pages = 549 pages }}
* {{cite book | author = [[Plotinus]] | other = translated by A.H. Armstrong | title = The [[Enneads]] | publisher = [[Harvard University|Harvard University Press]] | year = 1989 | id = }} (in 7 volumes), vol. 1: ISBN 0-674-99484-1
* The Gnostic Bible, Ed. Willis Barstone

====Secondary sources====
* {{cite book | last = Aland | first = Barbara | title = [[Festschrift]] für Hans Jonas | publisher = Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | year = 1978 | id = ISBN 3-525-58111-4 }}
* {{cite book | last= Anderson | first = Robert A. | title = Church of God? or the Temples of Satan - A Reference Book of Spiritual Understanding & Gnosis | publisher = TGS Publishers | year = 2006 | id = ISBN 0-9786249-6-3 }}
* {{cite book | last= Burstein | first = Dan | title = Secrets of Mary Magdalene | publisher = CDS Books | year = 2006 | id = ISBN 1-59315-205-1 }}
* {{cite book | last = Freke | first = Timothy | coauthors = Gandy, Peter | title = The Hermetica: The Lost Wisdom of the Pharaohs | publisher = Tarcher | year = 1999 | id = ISBN 0-87477-950-2 }}
* {{cite book | last = Freke | first = Timothy | coauthors = Gandy, Peter | title = Jesus and the Lost Goddess : The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians | publisher = Three Rivers Press | year = 2002 | id = ISBN 0-00-710071-X }}
* {{cite book | last = Green | first = Henry | title = Economic and Social Origins of Gnosticism | publisher = Scholars P.,U.S. | year = 1985 | id = ISBN 0-89130-843-1 }}
* {{cite book | last = Haardt | first = Robert | title = Die Gnosis: Wesen und Zeugnisse | publisher = Otto-Müller-Verlag, Salzburg | year = 1967 | id = | pages = 352 pages }}, translated as {{cite book | last = Haardt | first = Robert | title = Gnosis: Character and Testimony | publisher = Brill, Leiden | year = 1971 | id = }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Stephan A. Hoeller | last = Hoeller | first = Stephan A. | title = Gnosticism - New Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing | publisher = | year = 2002 | id = ISBN 0-8356-0816-6 | pages = 257 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Jones | first = Peter | title = The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back: An Old Heresy for the New Age | publisher = Presbyterian & Reformed | year = 1992 | id = ISBN 0-87552-285-8 | pages = 112 pages }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Hans Jonas | last = Jonas | first = Hans | title = Gnosis und spätantiker Geist vol. 2:1-2, Von der Mythologie zur mystischen Philosophie | publisher = | year = | id = ISBN 3-525-53841-3 }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Charles William King | last = King | first = Charles William | title = The Gnostics and Their Remains | year = 1887 | url = http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/gar/ }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Karen Leigh King| last = King | first = Karen L. | title = What is Gnosticism? | publisher = Harvard University Press | year = 2003 | id = ISBN 0-674-01071-X | pages = 343 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Klimkeit | first = Hans-Joachim | title = Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Texts from Central Asia | publisher = Harper, San Francisco | year = 1993 | id = ISBN 0-06-064586-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = Layton | first = Bentley | editor = edited by L. Michael White, O. Larry Yarbrough | chapter = Prolegomena to the study of ancient gnosticism | title = The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks | publisher = Fortress Press, Minneapolis | year = 1995 | id = ISBN 0-8006-2585-4 }}
* {{cite book | author = Layton, Bentley (ed.) | title = The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Sethian Gnosticism | publisher = E.J. Brill | year = 1981 }}
* {{cite book | last = Longfellow | first = Ki | title = The Secret Magdalene | publisher = | year = 2005 | id = ISBN 0-9759255-3-9 | pages = 458 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Markschies | first = Christoph | other = trans. John Bowden | title = Gnosis: An Introduction | publisher = T & T Clark | year = 2000 | id = ISBN 0-567-08945-2 | pages = 145 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Mins | first = Denis | title = Irenaeus | publisher = Geoffrey Chapman | year = 1994 | id = }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Elaine Pagels | last = Pagels | first = Elaine | title = The Gnostic Gospels | publisher = | year = 1979 | id = ISBN 0-679-72453-2 | pages = 182 pages }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Elaine Pagels | last = Pagels | first = Elaine | title = The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis | publisher = | year = 1989 | id = ISBN 1-55540-334-4 | pages = 128 pages }}
* Petrement, Simone (1990), ''A Separate God: The Origins and Teachings of Gnosticsim'', Harper and Row ISBN 0-06-066421-5
* {{cite book | last = Puma | first = Jeremy | title = Running Towards the Bomb: Gnosticism and the End of Civilisation | publisher = Geosynchronous Lamps | year = 2005 | id = ISBN 1-4116-4523-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = Rudolph | first = Kurt | title = Gnosis: The Nature & Structure of Gnosticism | publisher = Harper & Row | year = 1987 | id = ISBN 0-06-067018-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = [[Benjamin Walker|Walker]] | first = [[Benjamin Walker|Benjamin]] | title = Gnosticism: Its History and Influence | publisher = Harper Collins | year = 1990 | id = ISBN 1-85274-057-4 }}
* {{cite book | last = Wapnick | first = Kenneth | title = Love Does Not Condemn: The World, the Flesh, and the Devil According to Platonism, Christianity, Gnosticism, and A Course in Miracles | publisher = Foundation for A Course in Miracles | year = 1989 | id = ISBN 0-933291-07-8 | pages = 614 pages}}
* Wilberg, Peter (2003) ''From New Age to New Gnosis'' - ''On'' ''the Contemporary Significance of a New Gnostic Spirituality'', ISBN 1-904519-07-5
* {{cite book | last = Williams | first = Michael | title = Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category | publisher = Princeton University Press | year = 1996 | id = ISBN 0-691-01127-3 }}

===Audio lectures===
* [http://www.bcrecordings.net/store/ BC Recordings] - Offers an extensive collection of downloadable MP3 lecture by Stephan A. Hoeller on Gnosticism.
* [http://www.futurehi.net/media.html Future Hi] - Provides MP3s of a multi-part lecture by [[Huston Smith]]
* [http://thegodabovegod.com/]- Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis: A weekly program on The Gnostics, Gnosticism & Gnosis.

===Videos===
* ''The Naked Truth: Exposing the Deceptions About the Origins of Modern Religions'' (1995).

==External links==


===Ancient Gnosticism===
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm Religious Tolerance] - A survey of Gnosticism
* [http://sacredwisdom.net Sacred Wisdom] - Gnosticism and Christian Esotericism
* [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html Early Christian Writings] - primary texts
* [http://www.gnosis.org/library.html The Gnostic Society Library]
* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/gnostic.htm Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Gnosticism]
* [http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/intro.htm Introduction to Gnosticism]
* [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=280&letter=G&search=gnosticism Jewish Encyclopedia: Gnosticism]
* [http://www.theandros.com/pregnostic.html Proto-Gnostic elements in the Gospel according to John]
* [http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/index.html Gnostic version of the Bible and more on Gnostics]
* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Gnosticism]

===Modern Gnosticism===
* [http://www.alexandriangnostic.org/ The Alexandrian Gnostic Church]
* [http://www.americangnosticAssociation.org/ American Gnostic Association]
* [http://www.johannite.org/ Apostolic Johannite Church]
* [http://www.gnosis.org/eghome.htm Ecclesia Gnostica (Gnosis Archive)]

{{belief systems}}

[[Category:Gnosticism|*]]
[[Category:Ancient Roman Christianity]]
[[Category:New Testament Apocrypha]]

{{Link FA|eo}}
[[af:Gnostisisme]]
[[ar:غنوصية]]
[[be-x-old:Гнастыцызм]]
[[bg:Гностицизъм]]
[[cs:Gnosticismus]]
[[da:Gnosticisme]]
[[de:Gnostizismus]]
[[et:Gnostitsism]]
[[el:Γνωστικισμός]]
[[es:Gnosticismo]]
[[eo:Gnostikismo]]
[[fr:Gnosticisme]]
[[ilo:Gnosticismo]]
[[ia:Gnosticismo]]
[[it:Gnosticismo]]
[[he:גנוסיס]]
[[nl:Gnosticisme]]
[[ja:グノーシス主義]]
[[no:Gnostisisme]]
[[pl:Gnostycyzm]]
[[pt:Gnosticismo]]
[[ro:Gnosticism]]
[[ru:Гностицизм]]
[[sq:Gnosticizmi]]
[[sk:Gnosticizmus]]
[[sl:Gnosticizem]]
[[sr:Гностицизам]]
[[fi:Gnostilaisuus]]
[[sv:Gnosticism]]
[[zh:諾斯底主義]]

Gnosticism

2007-10-20T00:45:39Z

Harpakhrad11: /* See also */

{{expert-subject|Religion}}
{{POV}}
{{Refimprove|date=October 2007}}
'''Gnosticism''' (from [[Greek (language)|Greek]] ''gnōsis'', [[knowledge]]) refers to a diverse, [[syncretistic]] [[religious movement]] consisting of various [[belief systems]] generally united in the teaching that humans are divine [[soul]]s trapped in a [[material world]] created by an imperfect spirit, the [[demiurge]], who is frequently identified with the [[Abrahamic]] [[God]]. The demiurge may be depicted as an embodiment of evil, or in other instances as merely imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy permits. This demiurge exists alongside another remote and unknowable [[supreme being]] that embodies good. In order to free oneself from the inferior material world, one needs [[gnosis]], or [[esoteric]] spiritual knowledge available only to a learned elite. [[Jesus of Nazareth]] is identified by some (though not all) Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the Earth.

Gnosticism was popular in the [[Mediterranean]] and [[middle east]]ern regions in the first centuries [[Common Era|CE]], but it was suppressed<ref>[[Bart D. Ehrman]], Lost Christianities. (Oxford University press, 2003) P.188-202</ref> as a [[dualistic]] [[heresy]] in areas controlled by the [[Roman Empire]] when [[Christianity]] became its official religion in the fourth century. Conversion to [[Islam]] greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the [[middle ages]], though a few isolated communities continue to exist to the present. Gnostic ideas became influential in the philosophies of various [[esoteric]] [[mystical]] movements of the late [[19th century|19th]] and [[20th century|20th centuries]] in [[Europe]] and [[North America]], including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier gnostic groups.

{{Gnosticism}}

==Nature and structure of Gnosticism==
===A typological model: the main features of gnosticism===
Difficulties have arisen in offering a definitive, categorical definition of Gnosticism (see [[# 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category|below]]), and various strategies have been applied in overcoming the problem, with varying degrees of success. It is therefore appropriate to discuss a typological model of those ancient philosophical movements typically called Gnostic; the model offered is adapted from Christoph Markschies's version, as described in 'Gnosis: An Introduction'.

Gnostic systems are typically marked by:

# The notion of a remote, supreme [[monad (Gnosticism)|monadic]] divinity - this figure is known under a variety of names, including '[[Pleroma]]' and '[[Bythos]]' (Greek 'deep');
# The introduction by emanation of further divine beings, which are nevertheless identifiable as aspects of the God from which they proceeded; the progressive emanations are often conceived metaphorically as a gradual and progressive distancing from the ultimate source, which brings about an instability in the fabric of the divine nature;
# The subsequent identification of [[the Fall of Man]] as an occurrence with its ultimate foundations within ''divinity itself'', rather than as occurring either entirely or indeed partially through human agency; this stage in the divine emanation is usually enacted through the recurrent Gnostic figure of [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]] (Greek 'Wisdom'), whose presence in a wide variety of [[Gnostic texts]] is indicative of her central importance;
# The introduction of a distinct creator god, who is named as in the [[Platonist]] tradition ''demiurgos''. Evidence exists that the conception of the [[demiurge]] has derivation from figures in Plato's ''[[Timaeus]]'' and ''[[The Republic (Plato)|Republic]]''. In the former, the demiurge is the benevolent creator of the universe from pre-existent matter, to whose limitations he is enthralled in creating the cosmos; in the latter, the description of the leontomorphic 'desire' in [[Socrates]]' model of the [[Psyche (psychology)|psyche]] bears a strong resemblance to descriptions of the demiurge as being in the shape of the lion. Elsewhere this figure is called '[[Demiurge|Ialdabaoth]]', 'Samael' ([[Aramaic]] ''sæmʕa-ʔel'', 'blind god') or 'Saklas' ([[Syriac]] ''sækla'', 'the foolish one'), who is sometimes ignorant of the superior God, and sometimes opposed to it; thus in the latter case he is correspondingly malevolent. The demiurge typically creates a group of coactors named '[[Archons]]', who preside over the material realm and, in some cases, present obstacles to the soul seeking ascent from it;
# The estimation of the world, owing to the above, as flawed or a production of 'error' but nevertheless as good as its constituent material might allow. This world is typically an inferior [[simulacrum]] of a higher-level reality or consciousness. The inferiority may be compared to the technical inferiority of a [[painting]], [[sculpture]], or other [[handicraft]] to the thing(s) those crafts are supposed to be a [[Mimesis|representation]] of. In certain other cases it is also perceived as evil and constrictive, a deliberate prison for its inhabitants;
# The explanation of this state through the use of a complex mythological-cosmological drama in which a divine element 'falls' into the material realm and lodges itself within certain human beings; from here, it may be returned to the divine realm through a process of awakening (leading towards salvation). The salvation of the individual thus mirrors a concurrent restoration of the divine nature; a central Gnostic innovation was to elevate individual redemption to the level of a cosmically significant event;
# Knowledge of a specific kind as a central factor in this process of restoration, achieved through the mediation of a redeemer figure ([[Christ]], or, in other cases, [[Seth]] or [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]]).

The model limits itself to describing characteristics of the [[# Major gnostic schools and their texts|Syrian-Egyptian]] school of Gnosticism. This is for the reason that the greatest expressions of the [[# Major gnostic schools and their texts|Persian gnostic school]] - [[Manicheanism]] and [[Mandaeanism]] - are typically conceived of as religious traditions in their own right; indeed, the typical usage of 'Gnosticism' is to refer to the Syrian-Egyptian schools alone, while 'Manichean' describes the movements of the Persia school.

The relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity during the early first and the whole of the second century is vital in helping us to further understand the main doctrines of Gnosticism, due in part to the fact that much of what we know today about gnosticism has only been preseved in the teachings of early church fathers. The age of the Gnostics was highly diverse religiously, and due to there being no fixed church authority, syncretism with pre-existing belief systems as well as new religions was often embraced. Above all, the central idea of Gnosticism (a knowledge superior to and independent of faith) made it welcome to many who were half-converted from paganism to Christianity. According to gnostics, faith was for the multitude, knowledge for the few.

Irenaeus declares (Adversus Haereses, II, 27, 1. PG, VI, 802) it subjected everything to the caprice of the individual, and made any fixed rule of faith impossible. It destroyed, as Clement puts it (Stromata., II, 3, pp. 443-4) the efficacy of Baptism (that is, it set at naught faith, the gift conferred in that sacrament). The Gnostics professed to impart a knowledge "greater and deeper" (Iren. I, 31, 2) than the ordinary doctrine of Christians. This knowledge, to those who were capable of it, was the means of redemption; indeed, in most of the Gnostics systems it was the one and sufficient passport to perfect bliss. But it kept the resemblance of Christianity for in nearly all the Gnostic systems Christ occupied a central place. Without its Christian element, it could not have entered into such close conflict with the Church; without its mythological garb, it would have missed its popularity.

The conception of Gnosticism here has in recent times come to be challenged(see [[# 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category|below]]). Despite this, the understanding presented above remains the most common and is useful in aiding meaningful discussion of the phenomena that compose Gnosticism.

===Dualism and monism===
Typically, Gnostic systems are loosely described as being 'dualistic' in nature, meaning that they had the view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities. Within this definition, they run the gamut from the 'extreme' or 'radical dualist' systems of Manicheanism to the 'weak' or 'mitigated dualism' of classic gnostic movements; Valentinian developments arguably approach a form of [[monism]], expressed in terms previously used in a dualistic manner.

* '''Radical Dualism''' - or absolute Dualism which posits two co-equal divine forces. Manichaeism conceives of two previously coexistent realms of light and darkness which become embroiled in conflict, owing to the chaotic actions of the latter. Subsequently, certain elements of the light became entrapped within darkness; the purpose of material creation is to enact the slow process of extraction of these individual elements, at the end of which the kingdom of light will prevail over darkness. Manicheanism likely inherits this dualistic mythology from [[Zoroastrianism]], in which the eternal spirit [[Ahura Mazda]] is opposed by his antithesis, [[Angra Mainyu]]; the two are engaged in a cosmic struggle, the conclusion of which will likewise see Ahura Mazda triumphant. The Mandaean creation myth witnesses the progressive emanations of Supreme Being of Light, with each emanation bringing about a progressive corruption resulting in the eventual emergence of Ptahil, the god of darkness who had a hand in creating and henceforward rules the material realm. Additionally, general Gnostic thought (specifically to be found in Iranian sects; for instance, see '[[The Hymn of the Pearl]]') commonly included the belief that the material world corresponds to some sort of malevolent intoxication brought about by the powers of darkness to keep elements of the light trapped inside it, or literally to keep them 'in the dark', or ignorant; in a state of drunken distraction.
* '''Mitigated Dualism''' - where one of the two principles is in some way inferior to the other. Such classical Gnostic movements as the Sethians conceived of the material world as being created by a lesser divinity than the true God that was the object of their devotion. The spiritual world is conceived of as being radically different from the material world, co-extensive with the true God, and the true home of certain enlightened members of humanity; thus, these systems were expressive of a feeling of acute alienation within the world, and their resultant aim was to allow the soul to escape the constraints presented by the physical realm.
* '''Qualified Monism''' - where it is arguable whether or not the second entity is divine or semi-divine. Elements of Valentinian versions of Gnostic myth suggest to some that its understanding of the universe may have been monistic rather than a dualistic one: 'Valentinian gnosticism [...] differs essentially from dualism' ([[Elaine Pagels]], ''The Gnostic Gospel'', [[1978]]); 'a standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally monistic' (William Schoedel, 'Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth' in ''The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.1: The School of Valentinus'', edited by Bentley Layton, E.J.Brill, Leiden, [[1980]]). In these myths, the malevolence of the demiurge is mitigated; his creation of a flawed materiality is not due to any moral failing on his part, but due to his honest ignorance of the superior spiritual world above him. As such, Valentinians already have more cause to treat physical reality with less contempt than might a Sethian Gnostic. Perhaps for this reason Valentinus appears to conceive of materiality, rather than as being a separate substance from the divine, as attributable to an ''error of perception''. Thus it follows that the Valentinian conception of the universe may be of a fundamentally monistic nature, in which all things are aspects of the divine; our ordinary view which is limited to the material realm is owing to our errors of perception, which become symbolized mythopoetically as the demiurge's act of creation.

===Moral and ritual practice===
The question of Gnostic morality can only be resolved by reading the claims of their contemporaries. Numerous Christian writers accused some Gnostic teachers of claiming to eschew the physical realm, while simultaneously freely indulging their physical appetites. We can only rely upon contemporary written claims and accounts, but this writer will attempt to grapple with some evidence to show that there is reason to question the accuracy of these claims.

Evidence in the source texts indicates Gnostic moral behaviour as being generally [[asceticism|ascetic]] in basis, expressed most fluently in their sexual and dietary practice. Many monks would deprive themselves of food, water, or necessary needs for living. This presented a problem for the heresiologists writing on gnostic movements: this mode of behavior was one which they themselves favoured and supported, so the Church Fathers, it seemed, would be required perforce to offer support to the practices of their theological opponents. In order to avoid this, a common heresiological approach was to avoid the issue completely by resorting to slanderous (and, in some cases, excessive) allegations of [[libertinism]], or to explain Gnostic asceticism as being based on incorrect interpretations of scripture, or simply duplicitous in nature. [[Epiphanius of Salamis|Epiphanius]] provides an example when he writes of the 'Archontics' 'Some of them ruin their bodies by dissipation, but others feign ostensible fasts and deceive simple people while they pride themselves with a sort of [[abstinence]], under the disguise of monks' (''[[Panarion]]'', 40.1.4).

In other areas of morality, Gnostics were less rigorously ascetic, and took a more moderate approach to correct behaviour. Ptolemy's ''Epistle to Flora'' lays out a project of general asceticism in which the basis of action is the moral inclination of the individual:

{{Quotation|External physical fasting is observed even among our followers, for it can be of some benefit to the soul if it is engaged on with reason (''[[logos]]''), whenever it is done neither by way of limiting others, nor out of habit, nor because of the day, as if it had been specially appointed for that purpose.|[[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]]|Letter to Flora}}

This extract marks a definite shift away from the position of orthodoxy, that the correct behaviour for Christians is best administered and prescribed by the central authority of the church, as transmitted through the apostles. Instead, the internalised inclination of the individual assumes paramount importance; there is the recognition that ritualistic behaviour, though well-intentioned, possesses no significance or effectiveness unless its external prescription is matched by a personal, internal motivation.

Charges of Gnostic libertinism find their source in the works of [[Irenaeus]]. According to this writer, [[Simon Magus]] (whom he has identified as the prototypical source of Gnosticism) founded the school of moral freedom ('[[amorality|amoralism]]'). Irenaeus reports that Simon's argument, that those who put their trust in him and his consort Helen, need trouble themselves no further with the biblical prophets or their moral exhortations and are free 'to do what they wish', as men are saved by his (Simon's) grace, and not by their 'righteous works' (adapted from ''[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Adversus Haereses]]'', I.23.3).

Simon is not known for any libertinistic practice, save for his curious attachment to Helen, typically reputed to be a prostitute. There is, however, clear evidence in the [[Testimony of Truth]] that followers of Simon did, in fact, get married and beget children, so a general tendency to asceticism can likewise be ruled out.

Irenaeus reports of the Valentinians, whom he characterizes as eventual inheritors of Simon, that they are lax in their dietary habits (eating food that has been 'offered to idols'), sexually promiscuous ('immoderately given over to the desires of the flesh') and guilty of taking wives under the pretence of living with them as adopted 'sisters'. In the latter case, Michael Allen Williams has argued plausibly that Irenaeus was here broadly correct in the behaviour described, but not in his apprehension of its causes. Williams argues that members of a cult might live together as 'brother' and 'sister': intimate, yet not sexually active. Over time, however, the self-denial required of such an endeavour becomes harder and harder to maintain, leading to the state of affairs Irenaeus criticizes.

Irenaeus also makes reference to the Valentinian practise of the Bridal Chamber, a ritualistic [[sacrament]] in which sexual union is seen as analogous to the activities of the paired [[syzygy|syzygies]] that constitute the Valentinian [[Pleroma]]. Though it is known that Valentinus had a more relaxed approach to sexuality than much of the orthodox church (he allowed women to hold positions of ordination in his community), it is not known whether the Bridal Chamber was a ritual involving actual intercourse, or whether human sexuality is here simply being used in a metaphorical sense.

Of the [[Carpocratians]] Irenaeus makes much the same report: they 'are so abandoned in their recklessness that they claim to have in their power and be able to practise anything whatsoever that is ungodly (irreligious) and impious ... they say that conduct is only good or evil in the eyes of man' (''Adversus Haereses'', I.25.4). Once again a differentiation might be detected between a man's actions and the grace he has received through his adherence to a system of ''gnosis''; whether this is due to a common sharing of such an attitude amongst Gnostic circles, or whether this is simply a blanket-charge used by Irenaeus is open to conjecture.

On the whole, it would seem that Gnostic behavior tended towards the ascetic. This said, the heresiological accusation of duplicity in such practises should not be taken at face value; nor should similar accusations of amoral libertinism. The Nag Hammadi library itself is full of passages which appear to encourage abstinence over indulgence. Fundamentally, however, gnostic movements appear to take the 'ancient schema of the two ways, which leaves the decision to do what is right to human endeavour and promises a reward for those who make the effort, and punishment for those who are negligent' (Kurt Rudolph, ''Gnosis:The Nature and History of Gnosticism'', 262).

==Major Gnostic movements and their texts==
As noted [[# History|above]], schools of Gnosticism can be defined according to one classification system as being a member of two broad categories. These are the 'Eastern'/'Persian' school, and a 'Syrian-Egyptic' school. The former possesses more demonstrably dualist tendencies, reflecting a strong influence from the beliefs of the Persian [[Zoroastrians]]. Among the Syrian-Egyptian schools and the movements they spawned are a typically more Monist view. Notable exceptions include relatively modern movements which seem to include elements of both categories, namely: the Cathars, Bogomils, and Carpocratians which are included in their own section.

===Persian Gnosticism===
The Persian Schools are representative of what is believed to be among the oldest of the Gnostic thought forms. These movements are considered by most to be religions in their own right, and are not emanations from [[Christianity]] or [[Judaism]].

* ''[[Mandaeanism]]'' is still practised in small numbers, in parts of southern [[Iraq]] and the Iranian province of [[Khuzestan]]. The name of the group derives from the term: Mandā d-Heyyi which roughly means "Knowledge of Life." Although the exact chronological origins of this movement are not known, John the Baptist eventually would come to be a key figure in the religion. As part of the core of their beliefs is an emphasis placed on baptism. As with Manichaeism, despite certain ties with Christianity, Mandaeans do not believe in Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed. Their beliefs and practices likewise have little overlap with the religions that manifested from those religious figures and the two should not be confused. Significant amounts of original Mandaean Scripture survive in the modern era. The primary source text is known as the [[Ginza Rba|Genzā Rabbā]] and has portions identified by some scholars as being copied as early as the 2nd century CE. There is also the [[Qolusta|Qolastā]], or Canonical Book of Prayer and The Book of John the Baptist (sidra ḏ-iahia).

* ''[[Manichaeism]]'' which represented an entire independent religious heritage, but is now mostly extinct was founded by the Prophet Mani (210-276 CE). Although most of the literature/scripture of the Manichaeins was believed lost, the discovery of an original series of documents have helped to shed new light on the subject. Now housed in [[Cologne]] [[Germany]], the [[Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis]] contains mainly biographical information on the prophet and details on his claims and teachings. Despite connections with [[Jesus Christ]], it is not believed that the Manichaeins in any way practiced a religion with identifiable overlap with any of the various Christian sects.

===Syrian-Egyptian Gnosticism===
The Syrian-Egyptian school derives much of its outlook from [[platonism|Platonist]] influences. Typically, it depicts creation in a series of emanations from a primal monadic source, finally resulting in the creation of the material universe. As a result, there is a tendency in these schools to view evil in terms of matter which is markedly inferior to goodness, evil as lacking spiritual insight and goodness, rather than to emphasize portrayals of evil as an equal force. These schools of gnosticism may be said to use the terms 'evil' and 'good' as being ''relative'' descriptive terms, as they refer to the relative plight of human existence caught between such realities and confused in its orientation, with 'evil' indicating the extremes of distance from the principle and source of goodness, without necessarily emphasizing an ''inherent'' negativity. As can be seen below, many of these movements included source material related to Christianity, with some identifying themselves as specifically Christian (albeit quite different from the so-called [[Orthodox]] or [[Roman Catholic]] forms).

====Syrian-Egyptic scripture====
Most of the literature from this category is known/confirmed to us in the modern age through the Library discovered at [[Nag Hammadi]].
* '''Sethian''' works are named after the third son of Adam and Eve, believed to be a possessor and disseminator of gnosis. These typically include:
** ''The [[Apocryphon of John]]''
** ''The [[Apocalypse of Adam]]''
** ''[[The Reality of the Rulers]], Also known as The hypostasis of the Archons''
** ''[[The Thunder Perfect Mind|The Thunder-Perfect Mind]]''
** ''[[Trimorphic Protennoia|The Three-fold First Thought]]'' ''(Trimorphic Protennoia)''
** ''The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit'' (also known as the ''[[Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians|(Coptic) Gospel of the Egyptians]]'')
** ''[[Zostrianos]]''
** ''[[Allogenes]]''
** ''The [[Three Steles of Seth]]''

* '''Thomasine''' works are so-named after the School of St. [[Thomas the Apostle]]. See [[Thomasine Church (Gnostic)]]. The texts commonly attributed to this school are:
** ''[[The Hymn of the Pearl]]'', or, the ''[[Hymn of the Pearl|Hymn of Jude Thomas the Apostle in the Country of Indians]]''
** ''The [[Gospel of Thomas]]''
** ''[[Book of Thomas the Contender|The Book of Thomas: The Contender Writing to the Perfect]]''

* '''Valentinian''' works are named in reference to the Bishop and teacher [[Valentinius]], also spelled Valentinus. [[Circa|ca.]] [[153]] AD/CE, Valentinius developed a complex Cosmology outside of the Sethian tradition. At one point he was close to being appointed the [[Bishop of Rome]] of what is now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Works attributed to his school are listed below, and fragmentary pieces directly linked to him are noted with an asterisk:
** ''The Divine Word Present in the Infant'' (Fragment A) *
** ''On the Three Natures'' (Fragment B) *
** ''Adam's Faculty of Speech'' (Fragment C) *
** ''To Agathopous: Jesus' Digestive System'' (Fragment D) *
** ''Annihilation of the Realm of Death'' (Fragment F) *
** ''On Friends: The Source of Common Wisdom'' (Fragment G) *
** ''Epistle on Attachments'' (Fragment H) *
** ''Summer Harvest''*
** ''[[Gospel of Truth|The Gospel of Truth]]''*
** ''Ptolemy's Version of the Gnostic Myth''
** ''[[The Prayer of the Apostle Paul]]''
** ''Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora''
** ''Treatise on Resurrection'' (''Epistle to Rheginus'')
** ''[[Gospel of Philip]]''

* '''Basilidian''' works are named for the founder of their school, [[Basilides]] ([[132]]–? CE/AD). These works are mainly known to us through the criticisms of one of his opponents, [[Irenaeus]] in his work ''[[Adversus Haereses]]''. The other pieces are known through the work of [[Clement of Alexandria]]:
** The Octet of Subsistent Entities (Fragment A)
** The Uniqueness of the World (Fragment B)
** Election Naturally Entails Faith and Virtue (Fragment C)
** The State of Virtue (Fragment D)
** The Elect Transcend the World (Fragment E)
** Reincarnation (Fragment F)
** Human Suffering and the Goodness of Providence (Fragment G)
** Forgivable Sins (Fragment H)

* The [[Gospel of Judas]] is the most recently discovered Gnostic text. [[National Geographic]] has published an English translation of it, bringing it into mainstream awareness. It portrays [[Judas Iscariot]] as the most enlightened disciple, who acted at Jesus' request when he handed Jesus over to the authorities. Its reference to [[Barbelo]] and inclusion of material similar to the Apocryphon of John and other such texts, connects the text to Barbeloite and/or Sethian Gnosticism.

===Later Gnosticism and Gnostic-influenced groups===
* '''Other schools and related movements'''; these are presented in chronological order:[[Image:Simple crossed circle.svg|right|frame|The [[Sun cross|circular, harmonic cross]] was an [[emblem]] used most notably by the [[Cathars]], a [[medieval]] group that related to Gnosticism]]
** ''[[Simon Magus]]'' and ''[[Marcion of Sinope]]'' both had Gnostic tendencies, but such familiar ideas that they presented were as-yet unformed; they might thus be described as pseudo- or proto-Gnostics. Both developed a sizeable following. Simon Magus' pupil ''Menander of Antioch'' could potentially be included within this grouping. Marcion is popularly labelled a gnostic, however most scholars do not consider him a gnostic at all, for example, the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] article on [http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MAL_MAR/MARCION.html Marcion] clearly states: "In Marcion's own view, therefore, the founding of his church — to which he was first driven by opposition — amounts to a reformation of [[Christendom]] through a return to the gospel of Christ and to Paul; nothing was to be accepted beyond that. This of itself shows that it is a mistake to reckon Marcion among the Gnostics. A [[dualist]] he certainly was, but he was not a Gnostic."
** ''[[Cerinthus]]'' (''c'' 100), the founder of a heretical school with gnostic elements. Like a Gnostic, Cerinthus depicted Christ as a heavenly spirit separate from the man Jesus, and he cited the demiurge as creating the material world. Unlike the Gnostics, Cerinthus taught Christians to observe the Jewish law; his demiurge was holy, not lowly; and he taught the Second Coming. His gnosis was a secret teaching attributed to an apostle. Some scholars believe that the First Epistle of John was written as a response to Cerinthus. <ref name = "gonzález">González, Justo L.(1970). ''A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I''. Abingdon. pp. 132-3</ref>
** The ''[[Ophites]]'', so-named because they worshipped the serpent of [[Genesis]] as the bestower of knowledge.
** The ''[[Cainites]]'', as the term implies, worshipped [[Cain]], as well as [[Esau]], [[Korah]], and the [[Sodom]]ites. There is little evidence concerning the nature of this group; however, it is surmisable that they believed that indulgence in sin was the key to salvation because since the body is evil, one must defile it through immoral activity (see [[libertinism]]).
** The ''[[Carpocrates|Carpocratians]]''
** The ''[[Borborites]]''
** The ''[[Bogomils]]''
** The ''[[Paulicianism|Paulicans]]''
** The ''[[Cathar]]s'' (''Cathari'', ''Albigenses'' or ''Albigensians'') are typically seen as being imitative of Gnosticism; whether or not the Cathari possessed direct historical influence from ancient Gnosticism is disputed. Though the basic conceptions of Gnostic cosmology are to be found in Cathar beliefs (most distinctly in their notion of a lesser, [[Satan]]ic, creator god), they did not apparently place any special relevance upon knowledge (''gnosis'') as an effective salvific force. For the relationship between these medieval heresies and earlier Gnostic forms, see [[# The development of the Persian school|historical discussion above]].
** The Kabbalists who originated in Provence which was at that time the center of the Cathars as well, also took many core Gnostic ideas and reinterpreted earlier Jewish sources according to this new foreign influence. See Gershom Scholem's ''Origins of the Kabbalah'' for further discussion on this topic.

==Important terms and concepts==
{{main|List of gnostic terms}}

===Aeons===
{{main|Aeon}}
In many Gnostic systems, the various [[emanationism|emanations]] of the [[God]], who is also known by such names as [[the One]], the [[Monad (Gnosticism)|Monad]], Aion teleos (The Perfect Aeon), [[Bythos]] (Depth or profundity, Greek Βυθος), Proarkhe (Before the Beginning, Greek προαρχη), E Arkhe (The Beginning, Greek ἡ ἀρχή), are called ''aeons''. This first being is also an æon and has an inner being within itself, known as Ennoia (Thought), Charis (Grace), or Sige (Greek Σιγη, Silence). The split perfect being conceives the second aeon, Caen (Power), within itself. Along with the male Caen comes the female æon Akhana (Truth, Love).

The aeons often came in male/female pairs called ''syzygies'', and were numerous (20-30). Two of the most commonly listed æons were [[Jesus]] and [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]]. The aeons constitute the ''[[pleroma]]'', the "region of light". The lowest regions of the pleroma are closest to the darkness; that is, the physical world.

When an æon named ''Sophia'' emanated without her partner aeon, the result was the ''[[Demiurge]]'', or half-creator (Occasionally referred to as ''Ialdaboth'' in Gnostic texts), a creature that should never have come into existence. This creature does not belong to the pleroma, and the One emanates two savior æons, ''[[Christ]]'' and ''the [[Holy Spirit]]'' to save man from the Demiurge. Christ then took the form of the man, ''Jesus'', in order to be able to teach man how to achieve [[gnosis]]; that is, return to the pleroma.

These systems, however, are only a sample of the various interpretations that exist. The roles of familiar beings such as Jesus, Christ, Sophia, and the Demiurge usually share the same general themes between systems but may have somewhat different functions or identities ascribed to them.

===Archon===
{{main|Archon}}
In late antiquity some variants of Gnosticism used the term ''Archon'' to refer to several servants of the ''[[Demiurge]]'', the "[[creator god]]" that stood between spiritual humanity and a transcendent God that could only be reached through gnosis. In this context they may be seen as having the roles of the angels and demons of the [[Old Testament]].

The [[Orphism (religion)|Orphics]] accepted the existence of seven archons: [[Demiurge|Iadabaoth]] or Ialdabaoth (who created the six others), [[Iao]], [[Sabaoth]], Adonaios, Elaios, Astaphanos and Horaios ([[Origen]], [[Contra Celsum]], VI.31). Ialdabaoth had a head of a lion, just like [[Mithraic]] Kronos ([[Chronos]]) and [[Historical Vedic religion|Vedic]] [[Narasimha]], a form of [[Vishnu]].{{Verify source|date=June 2007}}

===Abraxas/Abrasax===
{{main|Abraxas}}
[[Image:Abraxas, Nordisk familjebok.png|thumb|right|150px|Engraving from an Abraxas stone.]]
The Egyptian Gnostic [[Basilideans]] referred to a figure called ''Abraxas'' who was at the head of 365 spiritual beings ([[Irenaeus]], ''[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Adversus Haereses]]'', I.24); it is unclear what to make of Irenaeus' use of the term 'Archon', which may simply mean 'ruler' in this context. The role and function of Abraxas for Basilideans is not clear.

The word [[Abraxas]] was engraved on certain [[ancient history|antique]] stones, called on that account Abraxas stones, which may have been used as [[amulets]] or charms by Gnostic sects. In popular culture, Abraxas is sometimes considered the name of a [[god (male deity)|god]] who incorporated both [[Good]] and [[Evil]] (God and [[Demiurge]]) in one entity, and therefore representing the [[monotheistic God]], singular, but (unlike, for example, the Christian God) not [[eutheism|omni-benevolent]] (See Hesse's Demian, and Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead). Opinions abound on Abraxas, who in recent centuries has been claimed to be both an [[Egypt]]ian god and a [[demon]], sometimes even being associated with the dual nature of [[Satan]]/[[Lucifer]]. The word [[abracadabra]] may be related to Abraxas.

The above information relates to interpretations of ancient amulets and to reports of Christian heresy hunters which are not always clear.

Actual ancient Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi Library, such as the [[Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians]], refer to Abrasax as an Aeon dwelling with Sophia and other Aeons of the Spiritual Fullness in the light of the luminary Eleleth. In several texts, the luminary Eleleth is the last of the luminaries (Spiritual Lights) that come forward, and it is the Aeon Sophia, associated with Eleleth, who encounters darkness and becomes involved in the chain of events that leads to the Demiurge and Archon's rule of this world, and the salvage effort that ensues. As such, the role of Aeons of Eleleth, including Abrasax, Sophia, and others, pertains to this outer border of the Divine Fullness that encounters the ignorance of the world of Lack and interacts to rectify the error of ignorance in the world of materiality.

Words like or similar to Abraxas or Abrasax also appear in the [[Greek Magical Papyri]]. There are similarities and differences between such figures in reports about Basiledes' teaching, in the larger magical traditions of the Graeco-Roman world, in the classic ancient Gnostic texts such as the Gospel of the Egyptians, and in later magical and esoteric writings.

The Swiss Psychologist [[Carl Jung]] wrote a short Gnostic treatise in 1916 called The Seven Sermons to the Dead, which called Abraxas a God higher than the Christian God and Devil, that combines all opposites into one Being.

===Demiurge===
{{main|Demiurge}}
[[Image:Lion-faced deity.jpg|thumb|right|150px|A lion-faced deity found on a Gnostic gem in [[Bernard de Montfaucon]]'s ''L'antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures'' may be a depiction of the Demiurge.]]
The term ''Demiurge'' refers to an entity (usually seen as evil) responsible for the creation of the [[physical universe]] and the physical aspect of [[Human nature|humanity]].

The term occurs in a number of other religious and philosophical systems, most notably [[Platonism]]. While always suggestive of a [[creator god]], the moral judgements regarding the demiurge vary wildly, from a benign [[grand architect]] to an evil subvertor of God's will.

Like [[Plato]], Gnosticism presents a distinction between the highest, unknowable "alien God" and the demiurgic "creator" of the material. However, in contrast to Plato, several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme God: his act of creation either in unconscious imitation of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed, or else formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine ''in'' materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to the [[problem of evil]]. In the [[Apocryphon of John]] (several versions of which are found in the [[Nag Hammadi library]]), the Demiurge has the name "[[Yaltabaoth]]", and proclaims himself as God:

:''"Now the [[archon]] who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is [[Saklas]], and the third is [[Samael]]. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come."''

[[Gnostic]] myth recounts that [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]] (Greek, literally meaning "wisdom"), the Demiurge's mother and a partial aspect of the divine [[Pleroma]] or "Fullness", desired to create something apart from the divine totality, and without the receipt of divine assent. In this abortive act of separate creation, she gave birth to the monstrous Demiurge and, being ashamed of her deed, she wrapped him in a cloud and created a throne for him within it. The Demiurge, isolated, did not behold his mother, nor anyone else, and thus concluded that only he himself existed, being ignorant of the superior levels of reality that were his birth-place.

The Gnostic myths describing these events are full of intricate nuances portraying the declination of aspects of the divine into human form; this process occurs through the agency of the Demiurge who, having stolen a portion of power from his mother, sets about a work of creation in unconscious imitation of the superior Pleromatic realm. Thus Sophia's power becomes enclosed within the material forms of humanity, themselves entrapped within the material universe: the goal of Gnostic movements was typically the awakening of this spark, which permitted a return by the subject to the superior, non-material realities which were its primal source. (See [[Sethian|Sethian Gnosticism]].)

"Samael" may equate to the [[Judaism|Judaic]] [[Death (personification)# Death .28angels.29 in religion|Angel of Death]], and corresponds to the Christian [[demon]] of [[Samael|that name]], as well as [[Satan]]. Literally, it can mean "Blind God" or "God of the Blind" in [[Aramaic]] ([[Syriac]] ''sæmʕa-ʔel''). Another alternative title for Yaldabaoth, "Saklas", is Aramaic for "fool" (Syriac ''sækla'' "the foolish one").

Some Gnostic philosophers identify the Demiurge with [[Yahweh]], the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]], in opposition and contrast to the God of the [[New Testament]]. Still others equated the being with [[Satan]]. [[Catharism]] apparently inherited their idea of Satan as the creator of the evil world directly or indirectly from Gnosticism.

===Gnosis===
{{main|Gnosis}}
The word 'Gnosticism' is a modern construction, though based on an antiquated linguistic expression: it comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] word meaning 'knowledge', ''gnosis'' (γνῶσις). However, ''gnosis'' itself refers to a very specialised form of knowledge, deriving both from the exact meaning of the original Greek term and its usage in [[Plato]]nist [[philosophy]].

Unlike modern [[English language|English]], ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being [[propositional knowledge]], indicative of knowledge acquired ''indirectly'' through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know ''of'' George Bush" or "I know Berlin ''is in'' Germany"), and [[empirical]] knowledge acquired by ''direct participation'' or ''acquaintance'' (such as "I know George Bush personally" or "I know Berlin, having visited").

''Gnosis'' (γνῶσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'Gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on [[knowledge]] in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to [[Mysticism|mystical]] or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine. Indeed, in most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of [[salvation]] is this 'knowledge of' ('acquaintance with') the divine. This is commonly identified with a process of inward 'knowing' or self-exploration, comparable to that encouraged by [[Plotinus]] (''[[Circa|ca]].'' [[205]]–[[270]] AD). However, as may be seen, the term 'gnostic' also had precedent usage in several ancient [[philosophy|philosophical]] traditions, which must also be weighed in considering the very subtle implications of its appellation to a set of ancient religious groups.

===Monad (apophatic theology)===
{{main|Monad (Gnosticism)}}
In many [[Gnostic]] systems (and heresiologies), [[God]] is known as the ''Monad'', [[the One]], [[The Absolute]], ''Aion teleos'' (The Perfect [[Æon]]), ''Bythos'' (Depth or Profundity, Βυθος), ''Proarkhe'' (Before the Beginning, προαρχη), and ''E Arkhe'' (The Beginning, η αρχη). God is the high source of the [[pleroma]], the region of light. The various emanations of God are called [[æon]]s.

Within certain variations of Gnosticism, especially those inspired by [[Monoimus]], the ''Monad'' was the highest [[God]] which created lesser [[deity|gods]], or elements (similar to æons).

According to [[Hippolytus (writer)|Hippolytus]], this view was inspired by the [[Pythagoreans]], who called the first thing that came into existence the ''Monad'', which begat the [[dyad]], which begat the [[number]]s, which begat the [[Point (geometry)|point]], begetting [[line]]s, etc. This was also clarified in the writings of [[Plato]], [[Aristotle]] and [[Plotinus]]. This teaching being largely [[Pythagoreanism|Neopythagorean]] via [[Numenius of Apamea|Numenius]] as well.

This Monad is the [[supernatural|spiritual]] source of everything which [[emanationism|emanates]] the [[pleroma]], and could be contrasted to the dark [[Demiurge]] (Yaldabaoth) that controls [[matter]].

The [[Sethian]] cosmogony as most famously contained in the Apocryphon ('Secret book') of John describes an unknown [[God]], very similar to the [[orthodoxy|orthodox]] apophatic theology, although very different from the orthodox credal teachings that there is one such god who is identified also as creator of heaven and earth. In describing the nature of a creator god associated with Biblical texts, orthodox theologians often attempt to define God through a series of explicit positive statements, themselves universal but in the divine taken to their superlative degrees: he is [[omniscient]], [[omnipotent]] and truly [[benevolent]]. The Sethian conception of the most hidden transcendent God is, by contrast, defined through [[negative theology]]: he is immovable, invisible, intangible, ineffable; commonly, 'he' is seen as being [[hermaphroditic]], a potent symbol for being, as it were, 'all-containing'. In the Apocryphon of John, this god is good in that it bestows goodness. After the apophatic statements, the process of the Divine in action are used to describe the effect of such a god.

An apophatic approach to discussing the Divine is found throughout gnosticism, Vendantic hinduism, and Platonic and Aristotelian theology as well. It is also found in some Judaic sources.

===Pleroma===
{{main|Pleroma}}
''Pleroma'' (Greek πληρωμα) generally refers to the totality of God's powers. The term means ''fullness'', and is used in Christian theological contexts: both in Gnosticism generally, and in [[Colossians]] 2.9.

Gnosticism holds that the world is controlled by evil [[archon]]s, one of whom is the demiurge, the deity of the [[Old Testament]] who holds the human spirit captive.

The heavenly pleroma is the center of divine life, a region of light "above" (the term is not to be understood spatially) our world, occupied by spiritual beings such as [[aeon]]s (eternal beings) and sometimes [[archon]]s. [[Jesus]] is interpreted as an intermediary aeon who was sent from the pleroma, with whose aid humanity can recover the lost knowledge of the divine origins of humanity. The term is thus a central element of Gnostic [[cosmology]].

Pleroma is also used in the general Greek language and is used by the Greek Orthodox church in this general form since the word appears under the book of Colossians. Proponents of the view that [[Gnosticism and the New Testament|Paul was actually a gnostic]], such as [[Elaine Pagels]] of [[Princeton University]], view the reference in Colossians as something that was to be interpreted in the gnostic sense.

===Sophia===
{{main|Sophia (Gnosticism)}}
In Gnostic tradition, the term ''Sophia'' (Σoφíα, [[Greek language|Greek]] for "wisdom") refers to the final and lowest emanation of God.

In most if not all versions of the gnostic myth, Sophia births the [[demiurge]], who in turn brings about the creation of materiality. The positive or negative depiction of materiality thus resides a great deal on mythic depictions of Sophia's actions. She is occasionally referred to by the [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] equivalent of ''Achamoth'' (this is a feature of [[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]]'s version of the [[Valentinius|Valentinian]] gnostic myth). Jewish Gnosticism with a focus on Sophia was active by 90 <ref> [http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/jew_gnostic.htm Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity]</ref>

Almost all gnostic systems of the [[Gnosticism#Major gnostic schools and their texts|Syrian]] or [[Gnosticism# Major gnostic schools and their texts|Egyptian]] type taught that the universe began with an original, unknowable [[God]], referred to as the Parent or [[Bythos]], as the [[Monad (Gnosticism)|Monad]] by [[Monoimus]], or the first [[Aeon]] by still other traditions. From this initial unitary beginning, the One spontaneously [[emanationism|emanated]] further [[Aeon]]s, pairs of progressively 'lesser' beings in sequence. The lowest of these pairs were Sophia and [[Christ]]. The Aeons together made up the Pleroma, or fullness, of God, and thus should not be seen as distinct from the divine, but symbolic abstractions of the divine nature.

==History==
{{main|History of Gnosticism}}

===The development of the Syrian-Egyptian school===
[[Bentley Layton]] has sketched out a relationship between the various gnostic movements in his introduction to ''The Gnostic Scriptures'' (SCM Press, London, [[1987]]). In this model, 'Classical Gnosticism' and 'The School of Thomas' antedated and influenced the development of [[Valentinus]], who was to found his own school of Gnosticism in both [[Alexandria]] and [[Rome]], whom Layton called 'the great [Gnostic] reformer' and 'the focal point' of Gnostic development. While in Alexandria, where he was born, Valentinus probably would have had contact with the Gnostic teacher [[Basilides]], and may have been influenced by him.

[[Valentinianism]] flourished throughout the early centuries of the common era: while Valentinus himself lived from ''[[Circa|ca]]''. [[100]]–[[180]] AD/CE, a list of sectarians or heretics, composed in [[388]] AD/CE, against whom Emperor Constantine intended legislation includes Valentinus (and, presumably, his inheritors). The school is also known to have been extremely popular: several varieties of their central myth are known, and we know of 'reports from outsiders from which the intellectual liveliness of the group is evident' (Markschies, ''Gnosis: An Introduction'', 94). It is known that Valentinus' students, in further evidence of their intellectual activity, elaborated upon the teachings and materials they received from him (though the exact extent of their changes remains unknown), for example, in the version of the Valentinian myth brought to us through [[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]].

Valentinianism might be described as the most elaborate and philosophically 'dense' form of the Syrian-Egyptian schools of Gnosticism, though it should be acknowledged that this in no way debarred other schools from attracting followers: Basilides' own school was popular also, and survived in [[Egypt]] until the 4th century.

Simone Petrement, in ''A Separate God'', in arguing for a Christian origin of Gnosticism, places Valentinus after Basilides, but before the Sethians. It is her assertion that Valentinus represented a moderation of the anti-Judaism of the earlier Hellenized teachers; the demiurge, widely regarded to be a mythological depiction of the Old Testament God of the Hebrews, is depicted as more ignorant than evil. (See below.)

[[Image:Manicheans.jpg|thumb|250px|Manichean priests writing at their desks, with panel inscription in [[Sogdian language|Sogdian]]. Manuscript from Khocho, [[Tarim Basin]].]]

===The development of the Persian school===
An alternate heritage is offered by Kurt Rudolph in his book ''Gnosis: The Nature & Structure of Gnosticism'' (Koehler and Amelang, [[Leipzig]], [[1977]]), to explain the lineage of Persian Gnostic schools. The decline of [[Manicheism]] that occurred in Persia in the 5th century AD/CE was too late to prevent the spread of the movement into the east and the west. In the west, the teachings of the school moved into [[Syria]], [[Arabia|Northern Arabia]], [[Egypt]] and [[Africa|North Africa]] (where [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] was a member of school from [[373]]-[[382]]); from Syria it progressed still farther, into [[Palestine]], [[Asia Minor]] and [[Armenia]]. There is evidence for Manicheans in Rome and [[Dalmatia]] in the 4th century, and also in [[Gaul]] and [[Spain]]. The influence of Manicheanism was attacked by imperial elects and polemical writings, but the religion remained prevalent until the 6th century, and still exerted influence in the emergence of the [[Paulicians]], [[Bogomil]]s and [[Cathars|Cathari]] in the Middle Ages, until it was ultimately stamped out as a heresy by the Catholic Church.

In the east, Rudolph relates, Manicheanism was able to bloom, given that the religious monopoly position previously held by Christianity and [[Zoroastrianism]] had been broken by nascent [[Islam]]. In the early years of the Arab conquest, Manicheanism again found followers in Persia (mostly amongst educated circles), but flourished most in [[Central Asia]], to which it had spread through Iran. Here, in [[762]], Manicheanism became the state religion of the [[Uyghur Empire]].

===Buddhism and Gnosticism===
Early [[3rd century]]–[[4th century]] [[Christian]] writers such as [[Hippolytus (writer)|Hippolytus]] and [[Epiphanius of Salamis|Epiphanius]] write about a [[Scythianus]], who visited India around [[50|50 CE]] from where he brought "the doctrine of the Two Principles". According to [[Cyril of Jerusalem]], Scythianus' pupil [[Terebinthus]] presented himself as a "Buddha" ("He called himself Buddas" {{Fact|date=June 2007}}). Terebinthus went to [[Palestine]] and [[Judea|Judaea]] ("becoming known and condemned"), and ultimately settled in [[Babylon]], where he transmitted his teachings to [[Mani (prophet)|Mani]], thereby creating the foundation of [[Manichaeism]]:

{{quote|"But Terebinthus, his disciple in this wicked error, inherited his money and books and heresy, and came to Palestine, and becoming known and condemned in Judæa he resolved to pass into Persia: but lest he should be recognised there also by his name he changed it and called himself Buddas."|[[Cyril of Jerusalem]], [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310106.htm "Catechetical lecture 6"]}}

In the 3rd century, the Syrian writer and Christian [[Gnosticism|Gnostic]] theologian [[Bar Daisan]] described his exchanges with the religious missions of holy men from India (Greek: Σαρμαναίοι, Sramanas), passing through [[Syria]] on their way to [[Elagabalus]] or another [[Severan dynasty]] [[Roman Emperor]]. His accounts were quoted by [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] (De abstin., iv, 17 {{Fact|date=June 2007}}) and [[Stobaeus]] (Eccles., iii, 56, 141).

Finally, from the 3rd century to the [[12th century]], some Gnostic religions such as Manichaeism, which combined Christian, Hebrew and Buddhist influences ([[Mani (prophet)|Mani]], the founder of the religion, resided for some time in [[Kushan]] lands), spread throughout the [[Old World]], to [[Gaul]] and [[Great Britain]] in the West, and to [[China]] in the East. Some leading Christian theologians such as [[Augustine of Hippo]] were Manichaeans before converting to orthodox Christianity.

Such exchanges, many more of which may have gone unrecorded, suggest that Buddhism may have had some influence on early [[Christianity]]: "Scholars have often considered the possibility that Buddhism influenced the early development of Christianity. They have drawn attention to many parallels concerning the births, lives, doctrines, and deaths of the Buddha and Jesus" (Bentley, "Old World Encounters").

===Influence in East Asia===
Early missionaries, including [[Manicheans]], [[Zoroastrians]], and [[Nestorians]], traveled and proselytized along the [[Silk Road]] east to [[Chang'an]], the [[Tang Dynasty]] capital of China. The first introduction of Christianity, under the Chinese name ''Jĭngjiào'' (景教, literally "bright/luminous religion"), was from [[Nestorianism in China|Nestorianism]] or the [[Assyrian Church of the East]]. In 635, when Nestorian missionaries arrived in Chang'an, the Emperor assigned his famous Prime Minister Fang Xuanling (房玄齡) to hold a grand welcome ceremony. Chinese Nestorianism was popular in the late 8th century, but never became a widely-practice mainstream religion in China. In 845, [[Emperor Wuzong of Tang]] ordered the Great Persecution of Buddhism, which affected other foreign religions, weakened Nestorianism and practically destroyed Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism in China.

Chinese Nestorianism revived during the 13th-14th century [[Yuan Dynasty]], but was replaced by [[Roman Catholicism]] in 16th-17th centuries. Rudolph reported that despite the suppression, Manichean traditions are reputed to have survived until the 17th century (based on the reports of [[Portugal|Portuguese]] sailors).

=='Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category==
In [[1966]] in [[Messina]], [[Italy]], a conference was held concerning systems of ''gnosis''. Among its several aims were the need to establish a program to translate the recently-acquired Nag Hammadi library (see [[# Translation|above]]) and the need to arrive at an agreement concerning an accurate definition of 'Gnosticism'. This was in answer to the tendency, prevalent since the eighteenth century, to use the term 'gnostic' less as its origins implied, but rather as an interpretive category for ''contemporary'' philosophical and religious movements. For example, in [[1835]], [[New Testament]] scholar [[Ferdinand Christian Baur]] constructed a developmental model of Gnosticism that culminates in the religious philosophy of [[Hegel]]; one might compare [[literary critic]] [[Harold Bloom]]'s recent attempts to identify Gnostic elements in contemporary [[United States|American]] religion, or [[Eric Voegelin]]'s analysis of [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] impulses through the interpretive lens of Gnosticism.

The 'cautious proposal' reached by the conference concerning Gnosticism is described by Markschies:

{{Quotation|In the concluding document of Messina the proposal was 'by the simultaneous application of historical and typological methods' to designate 'a particular group of systems of the second century after Christ' as 'gnosticism', and to use 'gnosis' to define a conception of knowledge transcending the times which was described as 'knowledge of divine mysteries for an élite'.|Markschies|Gnosis: An Introduction, p. 13}}

In essence, it had been decided that 'Gnosticism' would become a historically-specific term, restricted to mean the Gnostic movements prevalent in the 3rd century, while 'gnosis' would be an universal term, denoting a system of knowledge retained 'for a privileged élite.' However, this effort towards providing clarity in fact created more conceptual confusion, as the historical term 'Gnosticism' was an entirely modern construction, while the new universal term 'gnosis' ''was'' a historical term: 'something was being called "gnosticism" that the ancient theologians had called "gnosis" ... [A] concept of gnosis had been created by Messina that was almost unusable in a historical sense' (Markschies, ''Gnosis: An Introduction'', 14-15). In antiquity, all agreed that knowledge was centrally important to life, but few were agreed as to what exactly ''constituted'' knowledge; the unitary conception that the Messina proposal presupposed did not exist.

These flaws have meant that the problems concerning an exact definition of Gnosticism persist. It remains current convention to use 'Gnosticism' in a historical sense, and 'gnosis' universally. Leaving aside the issues with the latter noted above, the usage of 'Gnosticism' to designate a category of religions in the 3rd century has recently been questioned as well. Of note is the work of [[Michael Allen Williams]] in ''Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for the Dismantling of a Dubious Category'', in which the author examines the terms by which gnosticism as a category is defined, and then closely compares these suppositions with the contents of actual Gnostic texts (the newly-recovered Nag Hammadi library was of central importance to his thesis).

Williams argues that the conceptual foundations on which the category of Gnosticism rests are the remains of the agenda of the heresiologists. Too much emphasis has been laid on perceptions of dualism, body-and-matter hatred, and anticosmism, without these suppositions being properly ''tested''. In essence, the interpretive definition of Gnosticism that was created by the antagonistic efforts of the heresiologists has been taken up by modern scholarship and reflected in a ''categorical'' definition, even though the means now exist to verify its accuracy. Attempting to do so, Williams contests, reveals the dubious nature of categorical 'Gnosticism', and he concludes that the term needs replacing in order to more accurately reflect those movements it comprises. Williams' observations have provoked debate; however, to date his suggested replacement term 'the Biblical demiurgical tradition' has not become widely used.

==Gnosticism in modern times==
{{main|Gnosticism in modern times}}

A number of 19th century thinkers such as [[William Blake]], [[Schopenhauer]],<ref>[[Schopenhauer]], ''[[The World as Will and Representation]]'', Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII </ref> [[Albert Pike]], [[Helena Petrovna Blavatsky|Madame Blavatsky]], studied Gnostic thought extensively and were influenced by it, and even figures like [[Herman Melville]] and [[W. B. Yeats]] were more tangentially influenced.<ref name="smith">Smith, Richard. "The Modern Relevance of Gnosticism" in The Nag Hammadi Library, 1990 ISBN 0-06-066935-7</ref> [[Jules Doinel]] "re-established" a Gnostic church in France in 1890 which altered its form as it passed through various direct successors (Fabre des Essarts as ''Tau Synésius'' and Joanny Bricaud as ''Tau Jean II'' most notably), and which, although small, is still active today (cf. [http://www.plerome.org l'Eglise du Plérôme]).

Early 20th century thinkers who heavily studied and were influenced by Gnosticism include [[Carl Jung]] (who supported Gnosticism), [[Eric Voegelin]] (who opposed it), and [[Aleister Crowley]], with figures such as [[Hermann Hesse]] being more moderatedly influenced. [[Rene Guenon]] founded the gnostic review, Le Gnose in 1909 (before moving to a more [[Traditionalist School|"Perennialist"]] position). Several of the [[Thelema|Thelemite]] organizations tracing themselves to Crowley's thought, think of themselves as Gnostic organizations today, such as [[Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica]] and [[Ordo Templi Orientis]].

The discovery and translation of the [[Nag Hammadi library]] after 1945 had a huge impact on Gnosticism since World War II. Thinkers who were heavily influenced by Gnosticism in this period include [[Hans Jonas]], [[Phillip K. Dick]] and [[Harold Bloom]], with [[Albert Camus]] and [[Allen Ginsberg]] being more moderately influenced.<Ref name="smith" /> A number of ecclesiastical bodies which think of themselves as Gnostic have been set up or re-founded since World War II as well, including the [[Society of Novus Spiritus]], [[Ecclesia Gnostica]], the [[Thomasine Church]], the [[Apostolic Johannite Church]], the [[Alexandrian Gnostic Church]], the ''North American College of Gnostic Bishops'', and the World Gnostic Movement of [[Samael Aun Weor]]. [[Celia Green]] has written on Gnostic Christianity in relation to her own philosophy<ref name = "Green">Green, Celia (1981,2006). ''Advice to Clever Children''. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Ch.s XXXV-XXXVII</ref>
.

==See also==
{{multicol}}
* [[Antinomianism]]
* [[Anthroposophy]]
* [[Apocrypha]]
* [[Black Iron Prison]]
* [[Christian anarchism]]
* [[Christian theosophy]]
* [[Christian mysticism]]
* [[Occultism]]
{{multicol-break}}
* [[First Council of Nicaea]]
* [[Gospel]]
* [[Gnosiology]]
* [[Hermeticism]]
* [[Ontology]]
* [[Sufism]]
* [[Theodicy]]
* [[Esotericism]]
{{multicol-end}}

==Footnotes==
{{reflist|2}}
<references/>

==References==
===Books===
====Primary sources====
* {{cite book | authorlink = Bentley Layton | last = Layton | first = Bentley | title = The Gnostic Scriptures | publisher = SCM Press | year = 1987 | id = ISBN 0-334-02022-0 | pages = 526 pages }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = James M. Robinson | last = Robinson | first = James | title = The Nag Hammadi Library in English | publisher = | year = 1978 | id = ISBN 0-06-066934-9 | pages = 549 pages }}
* {{cite book | author = [[Plotinus]] | other = translated by A.H. Armstrong | title = The [[Enneads]] | publisher = [[Harvard University|Harvard University Press]] | year = 1989 | id = }} (in 7 volumes), vol. 1: ISBN 0-674-99484-1
* The Gnostic Bible, Ed. Willis Barstone

====Secondary sources====
* {{cite book | last = Aland | first = Barbara | title = [[Festschrift]] für Hans Jonas | publisher = Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | year = 1978 | id = ISBN 3-525-58111-4 }}
* {{cite book | last= Anderson | first = Robert A. | title = Church of God? or the Temples of Satan - A Reference Book of Spiritual Understanding & Gnosis | publisher = TGS Publishers | year = 2006 | id = ISBN 0-9786249-6-3 }}
* {{cite book | last= Burstein | first = Dan | title = Secrets of Mary Magdalene | publisher = CDS Books | year = 2006 | id = ISBN 1-59315-205-1 }}
* {{cite book | last = Freke | first = Timothy | coauthors = Gandy, Peter | title = The Hermetica: The Lost Wisdom of the Pharaohs | publisher = Tarcher | year = 1999 | id = ISBN 0-87477-950-2 }}
* {{cite book | last = Freke | first = Timothy | coauthors = Gandy, Peter | title = Jesus and the Lost Goddess : The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians | publisher = Three Rivers Press | year = 2002 | id = ISBN 0-00-710071-X }}
* {{cite book | last = Green | first = Henry | title = Economic and Social Origins of Gnosticism | publisher = Scholars P.,U.S. | year = 1985 | id = ISBN 0-89130-843-1 }}
* {{cite book | last = Haardt | first = Robert | title = Die Gnosis: Wesen und Zeugnisse | publisher = Otto-Müller-Verlag, Salzburg | year = 1967 | id = | pages = 352 pages }}, translated as {{cite book | last = Haardt | first = Robert | title = Gnosis: Character and Testimony | publisher = Brill, Leiden | year = 1971 | id = }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Stephan A. Hoeller | last = Hoeller | first = Stephan A. | title = Gnosticism - New Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing | publisher = | year = 2002 | id = ISBN 0-8356-0816-6 | pages = 257 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Jones | first = Peter | title = The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back: An Old Heresy for the New Age | publisher = Presbyterian & Reformed | year = 1992 | id = ISBN 0-87552-285-8 | pages = 112 pages }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Hans Jonas | last = Jonas | first = Hans | title = Gnosis und spätantiker Geist vol. 2:1-2, Von der Mythologie zur mystischen Philosophie | publisher = | year = | id = ISBN 3-525-53841-3 }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Charles William King | last = King | first = Charles William | title = The Gnostics and Their Remains | year = 1887 | url = http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/gar/ }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Karen Leigh King| last = King | first = Karen L. | title = What is Gnosticism? | publisher = Harvard University Press | year = 2003 | id = ISBN 0-674-01071-X | pages = 343 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Klimkeit | first = Hans-Joachim | title = Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Texts from Central Asia | publisher = Harper, San Francisco | year = 1993 | id = ISBN 0-06-064586-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = Layton | first = Bentley | editor = edited by L. Michael White, O. Larry Yarbrough | chapter = Prolegomena to the study of ancient gnosticism | title = The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks | publisher = Fortress Press, Minneapolis | year = 1995 | id = ISBN 0-8006-2585-4 }}
* {{cite book | author = Layton, Bentley (ed.) | title = The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Sethian Gnosticism | publisher = E.J. Brill | year = 1981 }}
* {{cite book | last = Longfellow | first = Ki | title = The Secret Magdalene | publisher = | year = 2005 | id = ISBN 0-9759255-3-9 | pages = 458 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Markschies | first = Christoph | other = trans. John Bowden | title = Gnosis: An Introduction | publisher = T & T Clark | year = 2000 | id = ISBN 0-567-08945-2 | pages = 145 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Mins | first = Denis | title = Irenaeus | publisher = Geoffrey Chapman | year = 1994 | id = }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Elaine Pagels | last = Pagels | first = Elaine | title = The Gnostic Gospels | publisher = | year = 1979 | id = ISBN 0-679-72453-2 | pages = 182 pages }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Elaine Pagels | last = Pagels | first = Elaine | title = The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis | publisher = | year = 1989 | id = ISBN 1-55540-334-4 | pages = 128 pages }}
* Petrement, Simone (1990), ''A Separate God: The Origins and Teachings of Gnosticsim'', Harper and Row ISBN 0-06-066421-5
* {{cite book | last = Puma | first = Jeremy | title = Running Towards the Bomb: Gnosticism and the End of Civilisation | publisher = Geosynchronous Lamps | year = 2005 | id = ISBN 1-4116-4523-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = Rudolph | first = Kurt | title = Gnosis: The Nature & Structure of Gnosticism | publisher = Harper & Row | year = 1987 | id = ISBN 0-06-067018-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = [[Benjamin Walker|Walker]] | first = [[Benjamin Walker|Benjamin]] | title = Gnosticism: Its History and Influence | publisher = Harper Collins | year = 1990 | id = ISBN 1-85274-057-4 }}
* {{cite book | last = Wapnick | first = Kenneth | title = Love Does Not Condemn: The World, the Flesh, and the Devil According to Platonism, Christianity, Gnosticism, and A Course in Miracles | publisher = Foundation for A Course in Miracles | year = 1989 | id = ISBN 0-933291-07-8 | pages = 614 pages}}
* Wilberg, Peter (2003) ''From New Age to New Gnosis'' - ''On'' ''the Contemporary Significance of a New Gnostic Spirituality'', ISBN 1-904519-07-5
* {{cite book | last = Williams | first = Michael | title = Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category | publisher = Princeton University Press | year = 1996 | id = ISBN 0-691-01127-3 }}

===Audio lectures===
* [http://www.bcrecordings.net/store/ BC Recordings] - Offers an extensive collection of downloadable MP3 lecture by Stephan A. Hoeller on Gnosticism.
* [http://www.futurehi.net/media.html Future Hi] - Provides MP3s of a multi-part lecture by [[Huston Smith]]
* [http://thegodabovegod.com/]- Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis: A weekly program on The Gnostics, Gnosticism & Gnosis.

===Videos===
* ''The Naked Truth: Exposing the Deceptions About the Origins of Modern Religions'' (1995).

==External links==


===Ancient Gnosticism===
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm Religious Tolerance] - A survey of Gnosticism
* [http://sacredwisdom.net Sacred Wisdom] - Gnosticism and Christian Esotericism
* [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html Early Christian Writings] - primary texts
* [http://www.gnosis.org/library.html The Gnostic Society Library]
* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/gnostic.htm Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Gnosticism]
* [http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/intro.htm Introduction to Gnosticism]
* [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=280&letter=G&search=gnosticism Jewish Encyclopedia: Gnosticism]
* [http://www.theandros.com/pregnostic.html Proto-Gnostic elements in the Gospel according to John]
* [http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/index.html Gnostic version of the Bible and more on Gnostics]
* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Gnosticism]

===Modern Gnosticism===
* [http://www.alexandriangnostic.org/ The Alexandrian Gnostic Church]
* [http://www.americangnosticAssociation.org/ American Gnostic Association]
* [http://www.johannite.org/ Apostolic Johannite Church]
* [http://www.gnosis.org/eghome.htm Ecclesia Gnostica (Gnosis Archive)]

{{belief systems}}

[[Category:Gnosticism|*]]
[[Category:Ancient Roman Christianity]]
[[Category:New Testament Apocrypha]]

{{Link FA|eo}}
[[af:Gnostisisme]]
[[ar:غنوصية]]
[[be-x-old:Гнастыцызм]]
[[bg:Гностицизъм]]
[[cs:Gnosticismus]]
[[da:Gnosticisme]]
[[de:Gnostizismus]]
[[et:Gnostitsism]]
[[el:Γνωστικισμός]]
[[es:Gnosticismo]]
[[eo:Gnostikismo]]
[[fr:Gnosticisme]]
[[ilo:Gnosticismo]]
[[ia:Gnosticismo]]
[[it:Gnosticismo]]
[[he:גנוסיס]]
[[nl:Gnosticisme]]
[[ja:グノーシス主義]]
[[no:Gnostisisme]]
[[pl:Gnostycyzm]]
[[pt:Gnosticismo]]
[[ro:Gnosticism]]
[[ru:Гностицизм]]
[[sq:Gnosticizmi]]
[[sk:Gnosticizmus]]
[[sl:Gnosticizem]]
[[sr:Гностицизам]]
[[fi:Gnostilaisuus]]
[[sv:Gnosticism]]
[[zh:諾斯底主義]]

Gnosticism

2007-10-20T00:45:23Z

Harpakhrad11: /* See also */

{{expert-subject|Religion}}
{{POV}}
{{Refimprove|date=October 2007}}
'''Gnosticism''' (from [[Greek (language)|Greek]] ''gnōsis'', [[knowledge]]) refers to a diverse, [[syncretistic]] [[religious movement]] consisting of various [[belief systems]] generally united in the teaching that humans are divine [[soul]]s trapped in a [[material world]] created by an imperfect spirit, the [[demiurge]], who is frequently identified with the [[Abrahamic]] [[God]]. The demiurge may be depicted as an embodiment of evil, or in other instances as merely imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy permits. This demiurge exists alongside another remote and unknowable [[supreme being]] that embodies good. In order to free oneself from the inferior material world, one needs [[gnosis]], or [[esoteric]] spiritual knowledge available only to a learned elite. [[Jesus of Nazareth]] is identified by some (though not all) Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the Earth.

Gnosticism was popular in the [[Mediterranean]] and [[middle east]]ern regions in the first centuries [[Common Era|CE]], but it was suppressed<ref>[[Bart D. Ehrman]], Lost Christianities. (Oxford University press, 2003) P.188-202</ref> as a [[dualistic]] [[heresy]] in areas controlled by the [[Roman Empire]] when [[Christianity]] became its official religion in the fourth century. Conversion to [[Islam]] greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the [[middle ages]], though a few isolated communities continue to exist to the present. Gnostic ideas became influential in the philosophies of various [[esoteric]] [[mystical]] movements of the late [[19th century|19th]] and [[20th century|20th centuries]] in [[Europe]] and [[North America]], including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier gnostic groups.

{{Gnosticism}}

==Nature and structure of Gnosticism==
===A typological model: the main features of gnosticism===
Difficulties have arisen in offering a definitive, categorical definition of Gnosticism (see [[# 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category|below]]), and various strategies have been applied in overcoming the problem, with varying degrees of success. It is therefore appropriate to discuss a typological model of those ancient philosophical movements typically called Gnostic; the model offered is adapted from Christoph Markschies's version, as described in 'Gnosis: An Introduction'.

Gnostic systems are typically marked by:

# The notion of a remote, supreme [[monad (Gnosticism)|monadic]] divinity - this figure is known under a variety of names, including '[[Pleroma]]' and '[[Bythos]]' (Greek 'deep');
# The introduction by emanation of further divine beings, which are nevertheless identifiable as aspects of the God from which they proceeded; the progressive emanations are often conceived metaphorically as a gradual and progressive distancing from the ultimate source, which brings about an instability in the fabric of the divine nature;
# The subsequent identification of [[the Fall of Man]] as an occurrence with its ultimate foundations within ''divinity itself'', rather than as occurring either entirely or indeed partially through human agency; this stage in the divine emanation is usually enacted through the recurrent Gnostic figure of [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]] (Greek 'Wisdom'), whose presence in a wide variety of [[Gnostic texts]] is indicative of her central importance;
# The introduction of a distinct creator god, who is named as in the [[Platonist]] tradition ''demiurgos''. Evidence exists that the conception of the [[demiurge]] has derivation from figures in Plato's ''[[Timaeus]]'' and ''[[The Republic (Plato)|Republic]]''. In the former, the demiurge is the benevolent creator of the universe from pre-existent matter, to whose limitations he is enthralled in creating the cosmos; in the latter, the description of the leontomorphic 'desire' in [[Socrates]]' model of the [[Psyche (psychology)|psyche]] bears a strong resemblance to descriptions of the demiurge as being in the shape of the lion. Elsewhere this figure is called '[[Demiurge|Ialdabaoth]]', 'Samael' ([[Aramaic]] ''sæmʕa-ʔel'', 'blind god') or 'Saklas' ([[Syriac]] ''sækla'', 'the foolish one'), who is sometimes ignorant of the superior God, and sometimes opposed to it; thus in the latter case he is correspondingly malevolent. The demiurge typically creates a group of coactors named '[[Archons]]', who preside over the material realm and, in some cases, present obstacles to the soul seeking ascent from it;
# The estimation of the world, owing to the above, as flawed or a production of 'error' but nevertheless as good as its constituent material might allow. This world is typically an inferior [[simulacrum]] of a higher-level reality or consciousness. The inferiority may be compared to the technical inferiority of a [[painting]], [[sculpture]], or other [[handicraft]] to the thing(s) those crafts are supposed to be a [[Mimesis|representation]] of. In certain other cases it is also perceived as evil and constrictive, a deliberate prison for its inhabitants;
# The explanation of this state through the use of a complex mythological-cosmological drama in which a divine element 'falls' into the material realm and lodges itself within certain human beings; from here, it may be returned to the divine realm through a process of awakening (leading towards salvation). The salvation of the individual thus mirrors a concurrent restoration of the divine nature; a central Gnostic innovation was to elevate individual redemption to the level of a cosmically significant event;
# Knowledge of a specific kind as a central factor in this process of restoration, achieved through the mediation of a redeemer figure ([[Christ]], or, in other cases, [[Seth]] or [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]]).

The model limits itself to describing characteristics of the [[# Major gnostic schools and their texts|Syrian-Egyptian]] school of Gnosticism. This is for the reason that the greatest expressions of the [[# Major gnostic schools and their texts|Persian gnostic school]] - [[Manicheanism]] and [[Mandaeanism]] - are typically conceived of as religious traditions in their own right; indeed, the typical usage of 'Gnosticism' is to refer to the Syrian-Egyptian schools alone, while 'Manichean' describes the movements of the Persia school.

The relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity during the early first and the whole of the second century is vital in helping us to further understand the main doctrines of Gnosticism, due in part to the fact that much of what we know today about gnosticism has only been preseved in the teachings of early church fathers. The age of the Gnostics was highly diverse religiously, and due to there being no fixed church authority, syncretism with pre-existing belief systems as well as new religions was often embraced. Above all, the central idea of Gnosticism (a knowledge superior to and independent of faith) made it welcome to many who were half-converted from paganism to Christianity. According to gnostics, faith was for the multitude, knowledge for the few.

Irenaeus declares (Adversus Haereses, II, 27, 1. PG, VI, 802) it subjected everything to the caprice of the individual, and made any fixed rule of faith impossible. It destroyed, as Clement puts it (Stromata., II, 3, pp. 443-4) the efficacy of Baptism (that is, it set at naught faith, the gift conferred in that sacrament). The Gnostics professed to impart a knowledge "greater and deeper" (Iren. I, 31, 2) than the ordinary doctrine of Christians. This knowledge, to those who were capable of it, was the means of redemption; indeed, in most of the Gnostics systems it was the one and sufficient passport to perfect bliss. But it kept the resemblance of Christianity for in nearly all the Gnostic systems Christ occupied a central place. Without its Christian element, it could not have entered into such close conflict with the Church; without its mythological garb, it would have missed its popularity.

The conception of Gnosticism here has in recent times come to be challenged(see [[# 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category|below]]). Despite this, the understanding presented above remains the most common and is useful in aiding meaningful discussion of the phenomena that compose Gnosticism.

===Dualism and monism===
Typically, Gnostic systems are loosely described as being 'dualistic' in nature, meaning that they had the view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities. Within this definition, they run the gamut from the 'extreme' or 'radical dualist' systems of Manicheanism to the 'weak' or 'mitigated dualism' of classic gnostic movements; Valentinian developments arguably approach a form of [[monism]], expressed in terms previously used in a dualistic manner.

* '''Radical Dualism''' - or absolute Dualism which posits two co-equal divine forces. Manichaeism conceives of two previously coexistent realms of light and darkness which become embroiled in conflict, owing to the chaotic actions of the latter. Subsequently, certain elements of the light became entrapped within darkness; the purpose of material creation is to enact the slow process of extraction of these individual elements, at the end of which the kingdom of light will prevail over darkness. Manicheanism likely inherits this dualistic mythology from [[Zoroastrianism]], in which the eternal spirit [[Ahura Mazda]] is opposed by his antithesis, [[Angra Mainyu]]; the two are engaged in a cosmic struggle, the conclusion of which will likewise see Ahura Mazda triumphant. The Mandaean creation myth witnesses the progressive emanations of Supreme Being of Light, with each emanation bringing about a progressive corruption resulting in the eventual emergence of Ptahil, the god of darkness who had a hand in creating and henceforward rules the material realm. Additionally, general Gnostic thought (specifically to be found in Iranian sects; for instance, see '[[The Hymn of the Pearl]]') commonly included the belief that the material world corresponds to some sort of malevolent intoxication brought about by the powers of darkness to keep elements of the light trapped inside it, or literally to keep them 'in the dark', or ignorant; in a state of drunken distraction.
* '''Mitigated Dualism''' - where one of the two principles is in some way inferior to the other. Such classical Gnostic movements as the Sethians conceived of the material world as being created by a lesser divinity than the true God that was the object of their devotion. The spiritual world is conceived of as being radically different from the material world, co-extensive with the true God, and the true home of certain enlightened members of humanity; thus, these systems were expressive of a feeling of acute alienation within the world, and their resultant aim was to allow the soul to escape the constraints presented by the physical realm.
* '''Qualified Monism''' - where it is arguable whether or not the second entity is divine or semi-divine. Elements of Valentinian versions of Gnostic myth suggest to some that its understanding of the universe may have been monistic rather than a dualistic one: 'Valentinian gnosticism [...] differs essentially from dualism' ([[Elaine Pagels]], ''The Gnostic Gospel'', [[1978]]); 'a standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally monistic' (William Schoedel, 'Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth' in ''The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.1: The School of Valentinus'', edited by Bentley Layton, E.J.Brill, Leiden, [[1980]]). In these myths, the malevolence of the demiurge is mitigated; his creation of a flawed materiality is not due to any moral failing on his part, but due to his honest ignorance of the superior spiritual world above him. As such, Valentinians already have more cause to treat physical reality with less contempt than might a Sethian Gnostic. Perhaps for this reason Valentinus appears to conceive of materiality, rather than as being a separate substance from the divine, as attributable to an ''error of perception''. Thus it follows that the Valentinian conception of the universe may be of a fundamentally monistic nature, in which all things are aspects of the divine; our ordinary view which is limited to the material realm is owing to our errors of perception, which become symbolized mythopoetically as the demiurge's act of creation.

===Moral and ritual practice===
The question of Gnostic morality can only be resolved by reading the claims of their contemporaries. Numerous Christian writers accused some Gnostic teachers of claiming to eschew the physical realm, while simultaneously freely indulging their physical appetites. We can only rely upon contemporary written claims and accounts, but this writer will attempt to grapple with some evidence to show that there is reason to question the accuracy of these claims.

Evidence in the source texts indicates Gnostic moral behaviour as being generally [[asceticism|ascetic]] in basis, expressed most fluently in their sexual and dietary practice. Many monks would deprive themselves of food, water, or necessary needs for living. This presented a problem for the heresiologists writing on gnostic movements: this mode of behavior was one which they themselves favoured and supported, so the Church Fathers, it seemed, would be required perforce to offer support to the practices of their theological opponents. In order to avoid this, a common heresiological approach was to avoid the issue completely by resorting to slanderous (and, in some cases, excessive) allegations of [[libertinism]], or to explain Gnostic asceticism as being based on incorrect interpretations of scripture, or simply duplicitous in nature. [[Epiphanius of Salamis|Epiphanius]] provides an example when he writes of the 'Archontics' 'Some of them ruin their bodies by dissipation, but others feign ostensible fasts and deceive simple people while they pride themselves with a sort of [[abstinence]], under the disguise of monks' (''[[Panarion]]'', 40.1.4).

In other areas of morality, Gnostics were less rigorously ascetic, and took a more moderate approach to correct behaviour. Ptolemy's ''Epistle to Flora'' lays out a project of general asceticism in which the basis of action is the moral inclination of the individual:

{{Quotation|External physical fasting is observed even among our followers, for it can be of some benefit to the soul if it is engaged on with reason (''[[logos]]''), whenever it is done neither by way of limiting others, nor out of habit, nor because of the day, as if it had been specially appointed for that purpose.|[[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]]|Letter to Flora}}

This extract marks a definite shift away from the position of orthodoxy, that the correct behaviour for Christians is best administered and prescribed by the central authority of the church, as transmitted through the apostles. Instead, the internalised inclination of the individual assumes paramount importance; there is the recognition that ritualistic behaviour, though well-intentioned, possesses no significance or effectiveness unless its external prescription is matched by a personal, internal motivation.

Charges of Gnostic libertinism find their source in the works of [[Irenaeus]]. According to this writer, [[Simon Magus]] (whom he has identified as the prototypical source of Gnosticism) founded the school of moral freedom ('[[amorality|amoralism]]'). Irenaeus reports that Simon's argument, that those who put their trust in him and his consort Helen, need trouble themselves no further with the biblical prophets or their moral exhortations and are free 'to do what they wish', as men are saved by his (Simon's) grace, and not by their 'righteous works' (adapted from ''[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Adversus Haereses]]'', I.23.3).

Simon is not known for any libertinistic practice, save for his curious attachment to Helen, typically reputed to be a prostitute. There is, however, clear evidence in the [[Testimony of Truth]] that followers of Simon did, in fact, get married and beget children, so a general tendency to asceticism can likewise be ruled out.

Irenaeus reports of the Valentinians, whom he characterizes as eventual inheritors of Simon, that they are lax in their dietary habits (eating food that has been 'offered to idols'), sexually promiscuous ('immoderately given over to the desires of the flesh') and guilty of taking wives under the pretence of living with them as adopted 'sisters'. In the latter case, Michael Allen Williams has argued plausibly that Irenaeus was here broadly correct in the behaviour described, but not in his apprehension of its causes. Williams argues that members of a cult might live together as 'brother' and 'sister': intimate, yet not sexually active. Over time, however, the self-denial required of such an endeavour becomes harder and harder to maintain, leading to the state of affairs Irenaeus criticizes.

Irenaeus also makes reference to the Valentinian practise of the Bridal Chamber, a ritualistic [[sacrament]] in which sexual union is seen as analogous to the activities of the paired [[syzygy|syzygies]] that constitute the Valentinian [[Pleroma]]. Though it is known that Valentinus had a more relaxed approach to sexuality than much of the orthodox church (he allowed women to hold positions of ordination in his community), it is not known whether the Bridal Chamber was a ritual involving actual intercourse, or whether human sexuality is here simply being used in a metaphorical sense.

Of the [[Carpocratians]] Irenaeus makes much the same report: they 'are so abandoned in their recklessness that they claim to have in their power and be able to practise anything whatsoever that is ungodly (irreligious) and impious ... they say that conduct is only good or evil in the eyes of man' (''Adversus Haereses'', I.25.4). Once again a differentiation might be detected between a man's actions and the grace he has received through his adherence to a system of ''gnosis''; whether this is due to a common sharing of such an attitude amongst Gnostic circles, or whether this is simply a blanket-charge used by Irenaeus is open to conjecture.

On the whole, it would seem that Gnostic behavior tended towards the ascetic. This said, the heresiological accusation of duplicity in such practises should not be taken at face value; nor should similar accusations of amoral libertinism. The Nag Hammadi library itself is full of passages which appear to encourage abstinence over indulgence. Fundamentally, however, gnostic movements appear to take the 'ancient schema of the two ways, which leaves the decision to do what is right to human endeavour and promises a reward for those who make the effort, and punishment for those who are negligent' (Kurt Rudolph, ''Gnosis:The Nature and History of Gnosticism'', 262).

==Major Gnostic movements and their texts==
As noted [[# History|above]], schools of Gnosticism can be defined according to one classification system as being a member of two broad categories. These are the 'Eastern'/'Persian' school, and a 'Syrian-Egyptic' school. The former possesses more demonstrably dualist tendencies, reflecting a strong influence from the beliefs of the Persian [[Zoroastrians]]. Among the Syrian-Egyptian schools and the movements they spawned are a typically more Monist view. Notable exceptions include relatively modern movements which seem to include elements of both categories, namely: the Cathars, Bogomils, and Carpocratians which are included in their own section.

===Persian Gnosticism===
The Persian Schools are representative of what is believed to be among the oldest of the Gnostic thought forms. These movements are considered by most to be religions in their own right, and are not emanations from [[Christianity]] or [[Judaism]].

* ''[[Mandaeanism]]'' is still practised in small numbers, in parts of southern [[Iraq]] and the Iranian province of [[Khuzestan]]. The name of the group derives from the term: Mandā d-Heyyi which roughly means "Knowledge of Life." Although the exact chronological origins of this movement are not known, John the Baptist eventually would come to be a key figure in the religion. As part of the core of their beliefs is an emphasis placed on baptism. As with Manichaeism, despite certain ties with Christianity, Mandaeans do not believe in Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed. Their beliefs and practices likewise have little overlap with the religions that manifested from those religious figures and the two should not be confused. Significant amounts of original Mandaean Scripture survive in the modern era. The primary source text is known as the [[Ginza Rba|Genzā Rabbā]] and has portions identified by some scholars as being copied as early as the 2nd century CE. There is also the [[Qolusta|Qolastā]], or Canonical Book of Prayer and The Book of John the Baptist (sidra ḏ-iahia).

* ''[[Manichaeism]]'' which represented an entire independent religious heritage, but is now mostly extinct was founded by the Prophet Mani (210-276 CE). Although most of the literature/scripture of the Manichaeins was believed lost, the discovery of an original series of documents have helped to shed new light on the subject. Now housed in [[Cologne]] [[Germany]], the [[Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis]] contains mainly biographical information on the prophet and details on his claims and teachings. Despite connections with [[Jesus Christ]], it is not believed that the Manichaeins in any way practiced a religion with identifiable overlap with any of the various Christian sects.

===Syrian-Egyptian Gnosticism===
The Syrian-Egyptian school derives much of its outlook from [[platonism|Platonist]] influences. Typically, it depicts creation in a series of emanations from a primal monadic source, finally resulting in the creation of the material universe. As a result, there is a tendency in these schools to view evil in terms of matter which is markedly inferior to goodness, evil as lacking spiritual insight and goodness, rather than to emphasize portrayals of evil as an equal force. These schools of gnosticism may be said to use the terms 'evil' and 'good' as being ''relative'' descriptive terms, as they refer to the relative plight of human existence caught between such realities and confused in its orientation, with 'evil' indicating the extremes of distance from the principle and source of goodness, without necessarily emphasizing an ''inherent'' negativity. As can be seen below, many of these movements included source material related to Christianity, with some identifying themselves as specifically Christian (albeit quite different from the so-called [[Orthodox]] or [[Roman Catholic]] forms).

====Syrian-Egyptic scripture====
Most of the literature from this category is known/confirmed to us in the modern age through the Library discovered at [[Nag Hammadi]].
* '''Sethian''' works are named after the third son of Adam and Eve, believed to be a possessor and disseminator of gnosis. These typically include:
** ''The [[Apocryphon of John]]''
** ''The [[Apocalypse of Adam]]''
** ''[[The Reality of the Rulers]], Also known as The hypostasis of the Archons''
** ''[[The Thunder Perfect Mind|The Thunder-Perfect Mind]]''
** ''[[Trimorphic Protennoia|The Three-fold First Thought]]'' ''(Trimorphic Protennoia)''
** ''The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit'' (also known as the ''[[Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians|(Coptic) Gospel of the Egyptians]]'')
** ''[[Zostrianos]]''
** ''[[Allogenes]]''
** ''The [[Three Steles of Seth]]''

* '''Thomasine''' works are so-named after the School of St. [[Thomas the Apostle]]. See [[Thomasine Church (Gnostic)]]. The texts commonly attributed to this school are:
** ''[[The Hymn of the Pearl]]'', or, the ''[[Hymn of the Pearl|Hymn of Jude Thomas the Apostle in the Country of Indians]]''
** ''The [[Gospel of Thomas]]''
** ''[[Book of Thomas the Contender|The Book of Thomas: The Contender Writing to the Perfect]]''

* '''Valentinian''' works are named in reference to the Bishop and teacher [[Valentinius]], also spelled Valentinus. [[Circa|ca.]] [[153]] AD/CE, Valentinius developed a complex Cosmology outside of the Sethian tradition. At one point he was close to being appointed the [[Bishop of Rome]] of what is now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Works attributed to his school are listed below, and fragmentary pieces directly linked to him are noted with an asterisk:
** ''The Divine Word Present in the Infant'' (Fragment A) *
** ''On the Three Natures'' (Fragment B) *
** ''Adam's Faculty of Speech'' (Fragment C) *
** ''To Agathopous: Jesus' Digestive System'' (Fragment D) *
** ''Annihilation of the Realm of Death'' (Fragment F) *
** ''On Friends: The Source of Common Wisdom'' (Fragment G) *
** ''Epistle on Attachments'' (Fragment H) *
** ''Summer Harvest''*
** ''[[Gospel of Truth|The Gospel of Truth]]''*
** ''Ptolemy's Version of the Gnostic Myth''
** ''[[The Prayer of the Apostle Paul]]''
** ''Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora''
** ''Treatise on Resurrection'' (''Epistle to Rheginus'')
** ''[[Gospel of Philip]]''

* '''Basilidian''' works are named for the founder of their school, [[Basilides]] ([[132]]–? CE/AD). These works are mainly known to us through the criticisms of one of his opponents, [[Irenaeus]] in his work ''[[Adversus Haereses]]''. The other pieces are known through the work of [[Clement of Alexandria]]:
** The Octet of Subsistent Entities (Fragment A)
** The Uniqueness of the World (Fragment B)
** Election Naturally Entails Faith and Virtue (Fragment C)
** The State of Virtue (Fragment D)
** The Elect Transcend the World (Fragment E)
** Reincarnation (Fragment F)
** Human Suffering and the Goodness of Providence (Fragment G)
** Forgivable Sins (Fragment H)

* The [[Gospel of Judas]] is the most recently discovered Gnostic text. [[National Geographic]] has published an English translation of it, bringing it into mainstream awareness. It portrays [[Judas Iscariot]] as the most enlightened disciple, who acted at Jesus' request when he handed Jesus over to the authorities. Its reference to [[Barbelo]] and inclusion of material similar to the Apocryphon of John and other such texts, connects the text to Barbeloite and/or Sethian Gnosticism.

===Later Gnosticism and Gnostic-influenced groups===
* '''Other schools and related movements'''; these are presented in chronological order:[[Image:Simple crossed circle.svg|right|frame|The [[Sun cross|circular, harmonic cross]] was an [[emblem]] used most notably by the [[Cathars]], a [[medieval]] group that related to Gnosticism]]
** ''[[Simon Magus]]'' and ''[[Marcion of Sinope]]'' both had Gnostic tendencies, but such familiar ideas that they presented were as-yet unformed; they might thus be described as pseudo- or proto-Gnostics. Both developed a sizeable following. Simon Magus' pupil ''Menander of Antioch'' could potentially be included within this grouping. Marcion is popularly labelled a gnostic, however most scholars do not consider him a gnostic at all, for example, the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] article on [http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MAL_MAR/MARCION.html Marcion] clearly states: "In Marcion's own view, therefore, the founding of his church — to which he was first driven by opposition — amounts to a reformation of [[Christendom]] through a return to the gospel of Christ and to Paul; nothing was to be accepted beyond that. This of itself shows that it is a mistake to reckon Marcion among the Gnostics. A [[dualist]] he certainly was, but he was not a Gnostic."
** ''[[Cerinthus]]'' (''c'' 100), the founder of a heretical school with gnostic elements. Like a Gnostic, Cerinthus depicted Christ as a heavenly spirit separate from the man Jesus, and he cited the demiurge as creating the material world. Unlike the Gnostics, Cerinthus taught Christians to observe the Jewish law; his demiurge was holy, not lowly; and he taught the Second Coming. His gnosis was a secret teaching attributed to an apostle. Some scholars believe that the First Epistle of John was written as a response to Cerinthus. <ref name = "gonzález">González, Justo L.(1970). ''A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I''. Abingdon. pp. 132-3</ref>
** The ''[[Ophites]]'', so-named because they worshipped the serpent of [[Genesis]] as the bestower of knowledge.
** The ''[[Cainites]]'', as the term implies, worshipped [[Cain]], as well as [[Esau]], [[Korah]], and the [[Sodom]]ites. There is little evidence concerning the nature of this group; however, it is surmisable that they believed that indulgence in sin was the key to salvation because since the body is evil, one must defile it through immoral activity (see [[libertinism]]).
** The ''[[Carpocrates|Carpocratians]]''
** The ''[[Borborites]]''
** The ''[[Bogomils]]''
** The ''[[Paulicianism|Paulicans]]''
** The ''[[Cathar]]s'' (''Cathari'', ''Albigenses'' or ''Albigensians'') are typically seen as being imitative of Gnosticism; whether or not the Cathari possessed direct historical influence from ancient Gnosticism is disputed. Though the basic conceptions of Gnostic cosmology are to be found in Cathar beliefs (most distinctly in their notion of a lesser, [[Satan]]ic, creator god), they did not apparently place any special relevance upon knowledge (''gnosis'') as an effective salvific force. For the relationship between these medieval heresies and earlier Gnostic forms, see [[# The development of the Persian school|historical discussion above]].
** The Kabbalists who originated in Provence which was at that time the center of the Cathars as well, also took many core Gnostic ideas and reinterpreted earlier Jewish sources according to this new foreign influence. See Gershom Scholem's ''Origins of the Kabbalah'' for further discussion on this topic.

==Important terms and concepts==
{{main|List of gnostic terms}}

===Aeons===
{{main|Aeon}}
In many Gnostic systems, the various [[emanationism|emanations]] of the [[God]], who is also known by such names as [[the One]], the [[Monad (Gnosticism)|Monad]], Aion teleos (The Perfect Aeon), [[Bythos]] (Depth or profundity, Greek Βυθος), Proarkhe (Before the Beginning, Greek προαρχη), E Arkhe (The Beginning, Greek ἡ ἀρχή), are called ''aeons''. This first being is also an æon and has an inner being within itself, known as Ennoia (Thought), Charis (Grace), or Sige (Greek Σιγη, Silence). The split perfect being conceives the second aeon, Caen (Power), within itself. Along with the male Caen comes the female æon Akhana (Truth, Love).

The aeons often came in male/female pairs called ''syzygies'', and were numerous (20-30). Two of the most commonly listed æons were [[Jesus]] and [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]]. The aeons constitute the ''[[pleroma]]'', the "region of light". The lowest regions of the pleroma are closest to the darkness; that is, the physical world.

When an æon named ''Sophia'' emanated without her partner aeon, the result was the ''[[Demiurge]]'', or half-creator (Occasionally referred to as ''Ialdaboth'' in Gnostic texts), a creature that should never have come into existence. This creature does not belong to the pleroma, and the One emanates two savior æons, ''[[Christ]]'' and ''the [[Holy Spirit]]'' to save man from the Demiurge. Christ then took the form of the man, ''Jesus'', in order to be able to teach man how to achieve [[gnosis]]; that is, return to the pleroma.

These systems, however, are only a sample of the various interpretations that exist. The roles of familiar beings such as Jesus, Christ, Sophia, and the Demiurge usually share the same general themes between systems but may have somewhat different functions or identities ascribed to them.

===Archon===
{{main|Archon}}
In late antiquity some variants of Gnosticism used the term ''Archon'' to refer to several servants of the ''[[Demiurge]]'', the "[[creator god]]" that stood between spiritual humanity and a transcendent God that could only be reached through gnosis. In this context they may be seen as having the roles of the angels and demons of the [[Old Testament]].

The [[Orphism (religion)|Orphics]] accepted the existence of seven archons: [[Demiurge|Iadabaoth]] or Ialdabaoth (who created the six others), [[Iao]], [[Sabaoth]], Adonaios, Elaios, Astaphanos and Horaios ([[Origen]], [[Contra Celsum]], VI.31). Ialdabaoth had a head of a lion, just like [[Mithraic]] Kronos ([[Chronos]]) and [[Historical Vedic religion|Vedic]] [[Narasimha]], a form of [[Vishnu]].{{Verify source|date=June 2007}}

===Abraxas/Abrasax===
{{main|Abraxas}}
[[Image:Abraxas, Nordisk familjebok.png|thumb|right|150px|Engraving from an Abraxas stone.]]
The Egyptian Gnostic [[Basilideans]] referred to a figure called ''Abraxas'' who was at the head of 365 spiritual beings ([[Irenaeus]], ''[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Adversus Haereses]]'', I.24); it is unclear what to make of Irenaeus' use of the term 'Archon', which may simply mean 'ruler' in this context. The role and function of Abraxas for Basilideans is not clear.

The word [[Abraxas]] was engraved on certain [[ancient history|antique]] stones, called on that account Abraxas stones, which may have been used as [[amulets]] or charms by Gnostic sects. In popular culture, Abraxas is sometimes considered the name of a [[god (male deity)|god]] who incorporated both [[Good]] and [[Evil]] (God and [[Demiurge]]) in one entity, and therefore representing the [[monotheistic God]], singular, but (unlike, for example, the Christian God) not [[eutheism|omni-benevolent]] (See Hesse's Demian, and Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead). Opinions abound on Abraxas, who in recent centuries has been claimed to be both an [[Egypt]]ian god and a [[demon]], sometimes even being associated with the dual nature of [[Satan]]/[[Lucifer]]. The word [[abracadabra]] may be related to Abraxas.

The above information relates to interpretations of ancient amulets and to reports of Christian heresy hunters which are not always clear.

Actual ancient Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi Library, such as the [[Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians]], refer to Abrasax as an Aeon dwelling with Sophia and other Aeons of the Spiritual Fullness in the light of the luminary Eleleth. In several texts, the luminary Eleleth is the last of the luminaries (Spiritual Lights) that come forward, and it is the Aeon Sophia, associated with Eleleth, who encounters darkness and becomes involved in the chain of events that leads to the Demiurge and Archon's rule of this world, and the salvage effort that ensues. As such, the role of Aeons of Eleleth, including Abrasax, Sophia, and others, pertains to this outer border of the Divine Fullness that encounters the ignorance of the world of Lack and interacts to rectify the error of ignorance in the world of materiality.

Words like or similar to Abraxas or Abrasax also appear in the [[Greek Magical Papyri]]. There are similarities and differences between such figures in reports about Basiledes' teaching, in the larger magical traditions of the Graeco-Roman world, in the classic ancient Gnostic texts such as the Gospel of the Egyptians, and in later magical and esoteric writings.

The Swiss Psychologist [[Carl Jung]] wrote a short Gnostic treatise in 1916 called The Seven Sermons to the Dead, which called Abraxas a God higher than the Christian God and Devil, that combines all opposites into one Being.

===Demiurge===
{{main|Demiurge}}
[[Image:Lion-faced deity.jpg|thumb|right|150px|A lion-faced deity found on a Gnostic gem in [[Bernard de Montfaucon]]'s ''L'antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures'' may be a depiction of the Demiurge.]]
The term ''Demiurge'' refers to an entity (usually seen as evil) responsible for the creation of the [[physical universe]] and the physical aspect of [[Human nature|humanity]].

The term occurs in a number of other religious and philosophical systems, most notably [[Platonism]]. While always suggestive of a [[creator god]], the moral judgements regarding the demiurge vary wildly, from a benign [[grand architect]] to an evil subvertor of God's will.

Like [[Plato]], Gnosticism presents a distinction between the highest, unknowable "alien God" and the demiurgic "creator" of the material. However, in contrast to Plato, several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme God: his act of creation either in unconscious imitation of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed, or else formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine ''in'' materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to the [[problem of evil]]. In the [[Apocryphon of John]] (several versions of which are found in the [[Nag Hammadi library]]), the Demiurge has the name "[[Yaltabaoth]]", and proclaims himself as God:

:''"Now the [[archon]] who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is [[Saklas]], and the third is [[Samael]]. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come."''

[[Gnostic]] myth recounts that [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]] (Greek, literally meaning "wisdom"), the Demiurge's mother and a partial aspect of the divine [[Pleroma]] or "Fullness", desired to create something apart from the divine totality, and without the receipt of divine assent. In this abortive act of separate creation, she gave birth to the monstrous Demiurge and, being ashamed of her deed, she wrapped him in a cloud and created a throne for him within it. The Demiurge, isolated, did not behold his mother, nor anyone else, and thus concluded that only he himself existed, being ignorant of the superior levels of reality that were his birth-place.

The Gnostic myths describing these events are full of intricate nuances portraying the declination of aspects of the divine into human form; this process occurs through the agency of the Demiurge who, having stolen a portion of power from his mother, sets about a work of creation in unconscious imitation of the superior Pleromatic realm. Thus Sophia's power becomes enclosed within the material forms of humanity, themselves entrapped within the material universe: the goal of Gnostic movements was typically the awakening of this spark, which permitted a return by the subject to the superior, non-material realities which were its primal source. (See [[Sethian|Sethian Gnosticism]].)

"Samael" may equate to the [[Judaism|Judaic]] [[Death (personification)# Death .28angels.29 in religion|Angel of Death]], and corresponds to the Christian [[demon]] of [[Samael|that name]], as well as [[Satan]]. Literally, it can mean "Blind God" or "God of the Blind" in [[Aramaic]] ([[Syriac]] ''sæmʕa-ʔel''). Another alternative title for Yaldabaoth, "Saklas", is Aramaic for "fool" (Syriac ''sækla'' "the foolish one").

Some Gnostic philosophers identify the Demiurge with [[Yahweh]], the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]], in opposition and contrast to the God of the [[New Testament]]. Still others equated the being with [[Satan]]. [[Catharism]] apparently inherited their idea of Satan as the creator of the evil world directly or indirectly from Gnosticism.

===Gnosis===
{{main|Gnosis}}
The word 'Gnosticism' is a modern construction, though based on an antiquated linguistic expression: it comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] word meaning 'knowledge', ''gnosis'' (γνῶσις). However, ''gnosis'' itself refers to a very specialised form of knowledge, deriving both from the exact meaning of the original Greek term and its usage in [[Plato]]nist [[philosophy]].

Unlike modern [[English language|English]], ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being [[propositional knowledge]], indicative of knowledge acquired ''indirectly'' through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know ''of'' George Bush" or "I know Berlin ''is in'' Germany"), and [[empirical]] knowledge acquired by ''direct participation'' or ''acquaintance'' (such as "I know George Bush personally" or "I know Berlin, having visited").

''Gnosis'' (γνῶσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'Gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on [[knowledge]] in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to [[Mysticism|mystical]] or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine. Indeed, in most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of [[salvation]] is this 'knowledge of' ('acquaintance with') the divine. This is commonly identified with a process of inward 'knowing' or self-exploration, comparable to that encouraged by [[Plotinus]] (''[[Circa|ca]].'' [[205]]–[[270]] AD). However, as may be seen, the term 'gnostic' also had precedent usage in several ancient [[philosophy|philosophical]] traditions, which must also be weighed in considering the very subtle implications of its appellation to a set of ancient religious groups.

===Monad (apophatic theology)===
{{main|Monad (Gnosticism)}}
In many [[Gnostic]] systems (and heresiologies), [[God]] is known as the ''Monad'', [[the One]], [[The Absolute]], ''Aion teleos'' (The Perfect [[Æon]]), ''Bythos'' (Depth or Profundity, Βυθος), ''Proarkhe'' (Before the Beginning, προαρχη), and ''E Arkhe'' (The Beginning, η αρχη). God is the high source of the [[pleroma]], the region of light. The various emanations of God are called [[æon]]s.

Within certain variations of Gnosticism, especially those inspired by [[Monoimus]], the ''Monad'' was the highest [[God]] which created lesser [[deity|gods]], or elements (similar to æons).

According to [[Hippolytus (writer)|Hippolytus]], this view was inspired by the [[Pythagoreans]], who called the first thing that came into existence the ''Monad'', which begat the [[dyad]], which begat the [[number]]s, which begat the [[Point (geometry)|point]], begetting [[line]]s, etc. This was also clarified in the writings of [[Plato]], [[Aristotle]] and [[Plotinus]]. This teaching being largely [[Pythagoreanism|Neopythagorean]] via [[Numenius of Apamea|Numenius]] as well.

This Monad is the [[supernatural|spiritual]] source of everything which [[emanationism|emanates]] the [[pleroma]], and could be contrasted to the dark [[Demiurge]] (Yaldabaoth) that controls [[matter]].

The [[Sethian]] cosmogony as most famously contained in the Apocryphon ('Secret book') of John describes an unknown [[God]], very similar to the [[orthodoxy|orthodox]] apophatic theology, although very different from the orthodox credal teachings that there is one such god who is identified also as creator of heaven and earth. In describing the nature of a creator god associated with Biblical texts, orthodox theologians often attempt to define God through a series of explicit positive statements, themselves universal but in the divine taken to their superlative degrees: he is [[omniscient]], [[omnipotent]] and truly [[benevolent]]. The Sethian conception of the most hidden transcendent God is, by contrast, defined through [[negative theology]]: he is immovable, invisible, intangible, ineffable; commonly, 'he' is seen as being [[hermaphroditic]], a potent symbol for being, as it were, 'all-containing'. In the Apocryphon of John, this god is good in that it bestows goodness. After the apophatic statements, the process of the Divine in action are used to describe the effect of such a god.

An apophatic approach to discussing the Divine is found throughout gnosticism, Vendantic hinduism, and Platonic and Aristotelian theology as well. It is also found in some Judaic sources.

===Pleroma===
{{main|Pleroma}}
''Pleroma'' (Greek πληρωμα) generally refers to the totality of God's powers. The term means ''fullness'', and is used in Christian theological contexts: both in Gnosticism generally, and in [[Colossians]] 2.9.

Gnosticism holds that the world is controlled by evil [[archon]]s, one of whom is the demiurge, the deity of the [[Old Testament]] who holds the human spirit captive.

The heavenly pleroma is the center of divine life, a region of light "above" (the term is not to be understood spatially) our world, occupied by spiritual beings such as [[aeon]]s (eternal beings) and sometimes [[archon]]s. [[Jesus]] is interpreted as an intermediary aeon who was sent from the pleroma, with whose aid humanity can recover the lost knowledge of the divine origins of humanity. The term is thus a central element of Gnostic [[cosmology]].

Pleroma is also used in the general Greek language and is used by the Greek Orthodox church in this general form since the word appears under the book of Colossians. Proponents of the view that [[Gnosticism and the New Testament|Paul was actually a gnostic]], such as [[Elaine Pagels]] of [[Princeton University]], view the reference in Colossians as something that was to be interpreted in the gnostic sense.

===Sophia===
{{main|Sophia (Gnosticism)}}
In Gnostic tradition, the term ''Sophia'' (Σoφíα, [[Greek language|Greek]] for "wisdom") refers to the final and lowest emanation of God.

In most if not all versions of the gnostic myth, Sophia births the [[demiurge]], who in turn brings about the creation of materiality. The positive or negative depiction of materiality thus resides a great deal on mythic depictions of Sophia's actions. She is occasionally referred to by the [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] equivalent of ''Achamoth'' (this is a feature of [[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]]'s version of the [[Valentinius|Valentinian]] gnostic myth). Jewish Gnosticism with a focus on Sophia was active by 90 <ref> [http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/jew_gnostic.htm Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity]</ref>

Almost all gnostic systems of the [[Gnosticism#Major gnostic schools and their texts|Syrian]] or [[Gnosticism# Major gnostic schools and their texts|Egyptian]] type taught that the universe began with an original, unknowable [[God]], referred to as the Parent or [[Bythos]], as the [[Monad (Gnosticism)|Monad]] by [[Monoimus]], or the first [[Aeon]] by still other traditions. From this initial unitary beginning, the One spontaneously [[emanationism|emanated]] further [[Aeon]]s, pairs of progressively 'lesser' beings in sequence. The lowest of these pairs were Sophia and [[Christ]]. The Aeons together made up the Pleroma, or fullness, of God, and thus should not be seen as distinct from the divine, but symbolic abstractions of the divine nature.

==History==
{{main|History of Gnosticism}}

===The development of the Syrian-Egyptian school===
[[Bentley Layton]] has sketched out a relationship between the various gnostic movements in his introduction to ''The Gnostic Scriptures'' (SCM Press, London, [[1987]]). In this model, 'Classical Gnosticism' and 'The School of Thomas' antedated and influenced the development of [[Valentinus]], who was to found his own school of Gnosticism in both [[Alexandria]] and [[Rome]], whom Layton called 'the great [Gnostic] reformer' and 'the focal point' of Gnostic development. While in Alexandria, where he was born, Valentinus probably would have had contact with the Gnostic teacher [[Basilides]], and may have been influenced by him.

[[Valentinianism]] flourished throughout the early centuries of the common era: while Valentinus himself lived from ''[[Circa|ca]]''. [[100]]–[[180]] AD/CE, a list of sectarians or heretics, composed in [[388]] AD/CE, against whom Emperor Constantine intended legislation includes Valentinus (and, presumably, his inheritors). The school is also known to have been extremely popular: several varieties of their central myth are known, and we know of 'reports from outsiders from which the intellectual liveliness of the group is evident' (Markschies, ''Gnosis: An Introduction'', 94). It is known that Valentinus' students, in further evidence of their intellectual activity, elaborated upon the teachings and materials they received from him (though the exact extent of their changes remains unknown), for example, in the version of the Valentinian myth brought to us through [[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]].

Valentinianism might be described as the most elaborate and philosophically 'dense' form of the Syrian-Egyptian schools of Gnosticism, though it should be acknowledged that this in no way debarred other schools from attracting followers: Basilides' own school was popular also, and survived in [[Egypt]] until the 4th century.

Simone Petrement, in ''A Separate God'', in arguing for a Christian origin of Gnosticism, places Valentinus after Basilides, but before the Sethians. It is her assertion that Valentinus represented a moderation of the anti-Judaism of the earlier Hellenized teachers; the demiurge, widely regarded to be a mythological depiction of the Old Testament God of the Hebrews, is depicted as more ignorant than evil. (See below.)

[[Image:Manicheans.jpg|thumb|250px|Manichean priests writing at their desks, with panel inscription in [[Sogdian language|Sogdian]]. Manuscript from Khocho, [[Tarim Basin]].]]

===The development of the Persian school===
An alternate heritage is offered by Kurt Rudolph in his book ''Gnosis: The Nature & Structure of Gnosticism'' (Koehler and Amelang, [[Leipzig]], [[1977]]), to explain the lineage of Persian Gnostic schools. The decline of [[Manicheism]] that occurred in Persia in the 5th century AD/CE was too late to prevent the spread of the movement into the east and the west. In the west, the teachings of the school moved into [[Syria]], [[Arabia|Northern Arabia]], [[Egypt]] and [[Africa|North Africa]] (where [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] was a member of school from [[373]]-[[382]]); from Syria it progressed still farther, into [[Palestine]], [[Asia Minor]] and [[Armenia]]. There is evidence for Manicheans in Rome and [[Dalmatia]] in the 4th century, and also in [[Gaul]] and [[Spain]]. The influence of Manicheanism was attacked by imperial elects and polemical writings, but the religion remained prevalent until the 6th century, and still exerted influence in the emergence of the [[Paulicians]], [[Bogomil]]s and [[Cathars|Cathari]] in the Middle Ages, until it was ultimately stamped out as a heresy by the Catholic Church.

In the east, Rudolph relates, Manicheanism was able to bloom, given that the religious monopoly position previously held by Christianity and [[Zoroastrianism]] had been broken by nascent [[Islam]]. In the early years of the Arab conquest, Manicheanism again found followers in Persia (mostly amongst educated circles), but flourished most in [[Central Asia]], to which it had spread through Iran. Here, in [[762]], Manicheanism became the state religion of the [[Uyghur Empire]].

===Buddhism and Gnosticism===
Early [[3rd century]]–[[4th century]] [[Christian]] writers such as [[Hippolytus (writer)|Hippolytus]] and [[Epiphanius of Salamis|Epiphanius]] write about a [[Scythianus]], who visited India around [[50|50 CE]] from where he brought "the doctrine of the Two Principles". According to [[Cyril of Jerusalem]], Scythianus' pupil [[Terebinthus]] presented himself as a "Buddha" ("He called himself Buddas" {{Fact|date=June 2007}}). Terebinthus went to [[Palestine]] and [[Judea|Judaea]] ("becoming known and condemned"), and ultimately settled in [[Babylon]], where he transmitted his teachings to [[Mani (prophet)|Mani]], thereby creating the foundation of [[Manichaeism]]:

{{quote|"But Terebinthus, his disciple in this wicked error, inherited his money and books and heresy, and came to Palestine, and becoming known and condemned in Judæa he resolved to pass into Persia: but lest he should be recognised there also by his name he changed it and called himself Buddas."|[[Cyril of Jerusalem]], [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310106.htm "Catechetical lecture 6"]}}

In the 3rd century, the Syrian writer and Christian [[Gnosticism|Gnostic]] theologian [[Bar Daisan]] described his exchanges with the religious missions of holy men from India (Greek: Σαρμαναίοι, Sramanas), passing through [[Syria]] on their way to [[Elagabalus]] or another [[Severan dynasty]] [[Roman Emperor]]. His accounts were quoted by [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] (De abstin., iv, 17 {{Fact|date=June 2007}}) and [[Stobaeus]] (Eccles., iii, 56, 141).

Finally, from the 3rd century to the [[12th century]], some Gnostic religions such as Manichaeism, which combined Christian, Hebrew and Buddhist influences ([[Mani (prophet)|Mani]], the founder of the religion, resided for some time in [[Kushan]] lands), spread throughout the [[Old World]], to [[Gaul]] and [[Great Britain]] in the West, and to [[China]] in the East. Some leading Christian theologians such as [[Augustine of Hippo]] were Manichaeans before converting to orthodox Christianity.

Such exchanges, many more of which may have gone unrecorded, suggest that Buddhism may have had some influence on early [[Christianity]]: "Scholars have often considered the possibility that Buddhism influenced the early development of Christianity. They have drawn attention to many parallels concerning the births, lives, doctrines, and deaths of the Buddha and Jesus" (Bentley, "Old World Encounters").

===Influence in East Asia===
Early missionaries, including [[Manicheans]], [[Zoroastrians]], and [[Nestorians]], traveled and proselytized along the [[Silk Road]] east to [[Chang'an]], the [[Tang Dynasty]] capital of China. The first introduction of Christianity, under the Chinese name ''Jĭngjiào'' (景教, literally "bright/luminous religion"), was from [[Nestorianism in China|Nestorianism]] or the [[Assyrian Church of the East]]. In 635, when Nestorian missionaries arrived in Chang'an, the Emperor assigned his famous Prime Minister Fang Xuanling (房玄齡) to hold a grand welcome ceremony. Chinese Nestorianism was popular in the late 8th century, but never became a widely-practice mainstream religion in China. In 845, [[Emperor Wuzong of Tang]] ordered the Great Persecution of Buddhism, which affected other foreign religions, weakened Nestorianism and practically destroyed Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism in China.

Chinese Nestorianism revived during the 13th-14th century [[Yuan Dynasty]], but was replaced by [[Roman Catholicism]] in 16th-17th centuries. Rudolph reported that despite the suppression, Manichean traditions are reputed to have survived until the 17th century (based on the reports of [[Portugal|Portuguese]] sailors).

=='Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category==
In [[1966]] in [[Messina]], [[Italy]], a conference was held concerning systems of ''gnosis''. Among its several aims were the need to establish a program to translate the recently-acquired Nag Hammadi library (see [[# Translation|above]]) and the need to arrive at an agreement concerning an accurate definition of 'Gnosticism'. This was in answer to the tendency, prevalent since the eighteenth century, to use the term 'gnostic' less as its origins implied, but rather as an interpretive category for ''contemporary'' philosophical and religious movements. For example, in [[1835]], [[New Testament]] scholar [[Ferdinand Christian Baur]] constructed a developmental model of Gnosticism that culminates in the religious philosophy of [[Hegel]]; one might compare [[literary critic]] [[Harold Bloom]]'s recent attempts to identify Gnostic elements in contemporary [[United States|American]] religion, or [[Eric Voegelin]]'s analysis of [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] impulses through the interpretive lens of Gnosticism.

The 'cautious proposal' reached by the conference concerning Gnosticism is described by Markschies:

{{Quotation|In the concluding document of Messina the proposal was 'by the simultaneous application of historical and typological methods' to designate 'a particular group of systems of the second century after Christ' as 'gnosticism', and to use 'gnosis' to define a conception of knowledge transcending the times which was described as 'knowledge of divine mysteries for an élite'.|Markschies|Gnosis: An Introduction, p. 13}}

In essence, it had been decided that 'Gnosticism' would become a historically-specific term, restricted to mean the Gnostic movements prevalent in the 3rd century, while 'gnosis' would be an universal term, denoting a system of knowledge retained 'for a privileged élite.' However, this effort towards providing clarity in fact created more conceptual confusion, as the historical term 'Gnosticism' was an entirely modern construction, while the new universal term 'gnosis' ''was'' a historical term: 'something was being called "gnosticism" that the ancient theologians had called "gnosis" ... [A] concept of gnosis had been created by Messina that was almost unusable in a historical sense' (Markschies, ''Gnosis: An Introduction'', 14-15). In antiquity, all agreed that knowledge was centrally important to life, but few were agreed as to what exactly ''constituted'' knowledge; the unitary conception that the Messina proposal presupposed did not exist.

These flaws have meant that the problems concerning an exact definition of Gnosticism persist. It remains current convention to use 'Gnosticism' in a historical sense, and 'gnosis' universally. Leaving aside the issues with the latter noted above, the usage of 'Gnosticism' to designate a category of religions in the 3rd century has recently been questioned as well. Of note is the work of [[Michael Allen Williams]] in ''Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for the Dismantling of a Dubious Category'', in which the author examines the terms by which gnosticism as a category is defined, and then closely compares these suppositions with the contents of actual Gnostic texts (the newly-recovered Nag Hammadi library was of central importance to his thesis).

Williams argues that the conceptual foundations on which the category of Gnosticism rests are the remains of the agenda of the heresiologists. Too much emphasis has been laid on perceptions of dualism, body-and-matter hatred, and anticosmism, without these suppositions being properly ''tested''. In essence, the interpretive definition of Gnosticism that was created by the antagonistic efforts of the heresiologists has been taken up by modern scholarship and reflected in a ''categorical'' definition, even though the means now exist to verify its accuracy. Attempting to do so, Williams contests, reveals the dubious nature of categorical 'Gnosticism', and he concludes that the term needs replacing in order to more accurately reflect those movements it comprises. Williams' observations have provoked debate; however, to date his suggested replacement term 'the Biblical demiurgical tradition' has not become widely used.

==Gnosticism in modern times==
{{main|Gnosticism in modern times}}

A number of 19th century thinkers such as [[William Blake]], [[Schopenhauer]],<ref>[[Schopenhauer]], ''[[The World as Will and Representation]]'', Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII </ref> [[Albert Pike]], [[Helena Petrovna Blavatsky|Madame Blavatsky]], studied Gnostic thought extensively and were influenced by it, and even figures like [[Herman Melville]] and [[W. B. Yeats]] were more tangentially influenced.<ref name="smith">Smith, Richard. "The Modern Relevance of Gnosticism" in The Nag Hammadi Library, 1990 ISBN 0-06-066935-7</ref> [[Jules Doinel]] "re-established" a Gnostic church in France in 1890 which altered its form as it passed through various direct successors (Fabre des Essarts as ''Tau Synésius'' and Joanny Bricaud as ''Tau Jean II'' most notably), and which, although small, is still active today (cf. [http://www.plerome.org l'Eglise du Plérôme]).

Early 20th century thinkers who heavily studied and were influenced by Gnosticism include [[Carl Jung]] (who supported Gnosticism), [[Eric Voegelin]] (who opposed it), and [[Aleister Crowley]], with figures such as [[Hermann Hesse]] being more moderatedly influenced. [[Rene Guenon]] founded the gnostic review, Le Gnose in 1909 (before moving to a more [[Traditionalist School|"Perennialist"]] position). Several of the [[Thelema|Thelemite]] organizations tracing themselves to Crowley's thought, think of themselves as Gnostic organizations today, such as [[Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica]] and [[Ordo Templi Orientis]].

The discovery and translation of the [[Nag Hammadi library]] after 1945 had a huge impact on Gnosticism since World War II. Thinkers who were heavily influenced by Gnosticism in this period include [[Hans Jonas]], [[Phillip K. Dick]] and [[Harold Bloom]], with [[Albert Camus]] and [[Allen Ginsberg]] being more moderately influenced.<Ref name="smith" /> A number of ecclesiastical bodies which think of themselves as Gnostic have been set up or re-founded since World War II as well, including the [[Society of Novus Spiritus]], [[Ecclesia Gnostica]], the [[Thomasine Church]], the [[Apostolic Johannite Church]], the [[Alexandrian Gnostic Church]], the ''North American College of Gnostic Bishops'', and the World Gnostic Movement of [[Samael Aun Weor]]. [[Celia Green]] has written on Gnostic Christianity in relation to her own philosophy<ref name = "Green">Green, Celia (1981,2006). ''Advice to Clever Children''. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Ch.s XXXV-XXXVII</ref>
.

==See also==
{{multicol}}
* [[Antinomianism]]
* [[Anthroposophy]]
* [[Apocrypha]]
* [[Black Iron Prison]]
* [[Christian anarchism]]
* [[Christian theosophy]]
* [[Christian mysticism]]
* [[Occultism]]
{{multicol-break}}
* [[First Council of Nicaea]]
* [[Gospel]]
* [[Gnosiology]]
* [[Hermeticism]]
* [[Ontology]]
* [[Sufism]]
* [[Theodicy]]
* [[esotericism]]
{{multicol-end}}

==Footnotes==
{{reflist|2}}
<references/>

==References==
===Books===
====Primary sources====
* {{cite book | authorlink = Bentley Layton | last = Layton | first = Bentley | title = The Gnostic Scriptures | publisher = SCM Press | year = 1987 | id = ISBN 0-334-02022-0 | pages = 526 pages }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = James M. Robinson | last = Robinson | first = James | title = The Nag Hammadi Library in English | publisher = | year = 1978 | id = ISBN 0-06-066934-9 | pages = 549 pages }}
* {{cite book | author = [[Plotinus]] | other = translated by A.H. Armstrong | title = The [[Enneads]] | publisher = [[Harvard University|Harvard University Press]] | year = 1989 | id = }} (in 7 volumes), vol. 1: ISBN 0-674-99484-1
* The Gnostic Bible, Ed. Willis Barstone

====Secondary sources====
* {{cite book | last = Aland | first = Barbara | title = [[Festschrift]] für Hans Jonas | publisher = Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | year = 1978 | id = ISBN 3-525-58111-4 }}
* {{cite book | last= Anderson | first = Robert A. | title = Church of God? or the Temples of Satan - A Reference Book of Spiritual Understanding & Gnosis | publisher = TGS Publishers | year = 2006 | id = ISBN 0-9786249-6-3 }}
* {{cite book | last= Burstein | first = Dan | title = Secrets of Mary Magdalene | publisher = CDS Books | year = 2006 | id = ISBN 1-59315-205-1 }}
* {{cite book | last = Freke | first = Timothy | coauthors = Gandy, Peter | title = The Hermetica: The Lost Wisdom of the Pharaohs | publisher = Tarcher | year = 1999 | id = ISBN 0-87477-950-2 }}
* {{cite book | last = Freke | first = Timothy | coauthors = Gandy, Peter | title = Jesus and the Lost Goddess : The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians | publisher = Three Rivers Press | year = 2002 | id = ISBN 0-00-710071-X }}
* {{cite book | last = Green | first = Henry | title = Economic and Social Origins of Gnosticism | publisher = Scholars P.,U.S. | year = 1985 | id = ISBN 0-89130-843-1 }}
* {{cite book | last = Haardt | first = Robert | title = Die Gnosis: Wesen und Zeugnisse | publisher = Otto-Müller-Verlag, Salzburg | year = 1967 | id = | pages = 352 pages }}, translated as {{cite book | last = Haardt | first = Robert | title = Gnosis: Character and Testimony | publisher = Brill, Leiden | year = 1971 | id = }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Stephan A. Hoeller | last = Hoeller | first = Stephan A. | title = Gnosticism - New Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing | publisher = | year = 2002 | id = ISBN 0-8356-0816-6 | pages = 257 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Jones | first = Peter | title = The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back: An Old Heresy for the New Age | publisher = Presbyterian & Reformed | year = 1992 | id = ISBN 0-87552-285-8 | pages = 112 pages }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Hans Jonas | last = Jonas | first = Hans | title = Gnosis und spätantiker Geist vol. 2:1-2, Von der Mythologie zur mystischen Philosophie | publisher = | year = | id = ISBN 3-525-53841-3 }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Charles William King | last = King | first = Charles William | title = The Gnostics and Their Remains | year = 1887 | url = http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/gar/ }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Karen Leigh King| last = King | first = Karen L. | title = What is Gnosticism? | publisher = Harvard University Press | year = 2003 | id = ISBN 0-674-01071-X | pages = 343 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Klimkeit | first = Hans-Joachim | title = Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Texts from Central Asia | publisher = Harper, San Francisco | year = 1993 | id = ISBN 0-06-064586-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = Layton | first = Bentley | editor = edited by L. Michael White, O. Larry Yarbrough | chapter = Prolegomena to the study of ancient gnosticism | title = The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks | publisher = Fortress Press, Minneapolis | year = 1995 | id = ISBN 0-8006-2585-4 }}
* {{cite book | author = Layton, Bentley (ed.) | title = The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Sethian Gnosticism | publisher = E.J. Brill | year = 1981 }}
* {{cite book | last = Longfellow | first = Ki | title = The Secret Magdalene | publisher = | year = 2005 | id = ISBN 0-9759255-3-9 | pages = 458 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Markschies | first = Christoph | other = trans. John Bowden | title = Gnosis: An Introduction | publisher = T & T Clark | year = 2000 | id = ISBN 0-567-08945-2 | pages = 145 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Mins | first = Denis | title = Irenaeus | publisher = Geoffrey Chapman | year = 1994 | id = }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Elaine Pagels | last = Pagels | first = Elaine | title = The Gnostic Gospels | publisher = | year = 1979 | id = ISBN 0-679-72453-2 | pages = 182 pages }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Elaine Pagels | last = Pagels | first = Elaine | title = The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis | publisher = | year = 1989 | id = ISBN 1-55540-334-4 | pages = 128 pages }}
* Petrement, Simone (1990), ''A Separate God: The Origins and Teachings of Gnosticsim'', Harper and Row ISBN 0-06-066421-5
* {{cite book | last = Puma | first = Jeremy | title = Running Towards the Bomb: Gnosticism and the End of Civilisation | publisher = Geosynchronous Lamps | year = 2005 | id = ISBN 1-4116-4523-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = Rudolph | first = Kurt | title = Gnosis: The Nature & Structure of Gnosticism | publisher = Harper & Row | year = 1987 | id = ISBN 0-06-067018-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = [[Benjamin Walker|Walker]] | first = [[Benjamin Walker|Benjamin]] | title = Gnosticism: Its History and Influence | publisher = Harper Collins | year = 1990 | id = ISBN 1-85274-057-4 }}
* {{cite book | last = Wapnick | first = Kenneth | title = Love Does Not Condemn: The World, the Flesh, and the Devil According to Platonism, Christianity, Gnosticism, and A Course in Miracles | publisher = Foundation for A Course in Miracles | year = 1989 | id = ISBN 0-933291-07-8 | pages = 614 pages}}
* Wilberg, Peter (2003) ''From New Age to New Gnosis'' - ''On'' ''the Contemporary Significance of a New Gnostic Spirituality'', ISBN 1-904519-07-5
* {{cite book | last = Williams | first = Michael | title = Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category | publisher = Princeton University Press | year = 1996 | id = ISBN 0-691-01127-3 }}

===Audio lectures===
* [http://www.bcrecordings.net/store/ BC Recordings] - Offers an extensive collection of downloadable MP3 lecture by Stephan A. Hoeller on Gnosticism.
* [http://www.futurehi.net/media.html Future Hi] - Provides MP3s of a multi-part lecture by [[Huston Smith]]
* [http://thegodabovegod.com/]- Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis: A weekly program on The Gnostics, Gnosticism & Gnosis.

===Videos===
* ''The Naked Truth: Exposing the Deceptions About the Origins of Modern Religions'' (1995).

==External links==


===Ancient Gnosticism===
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm Religious Tolerance] - A survey of Gnosticism
* [http://sacredwisdom.net Sacred Wisdom] - Gnosticism and Christian Esotericism
* [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html Early Christian Writings] - primary texts
* [http://www.gnosis.org/library.html The Gnostic Society Library]
* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/gnostic.htm Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Gnosticism]
* [http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/intro.htm Introduction to Gnosticism]
* [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=280&letter=G&search=gnosticism Jewish Encyclopedia: Gnosticism]
* [http://www.theandros.com/pregnostic.html Proto-Gnostic elements in the Gospel according to John]
* [http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/index.html Gnostic version of the Bible and more on Gnostics]
* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Gnosticism]

===Modern Gnosticism===
* [http://www.alexandriangnostic.org/ The Alexandrian Gnostic Church]
* [http://www.americangnosticAssociation.org/ American Gnostic Association]
* [http://www.johannite.org/ Apostolic Johannite Church]
* [http://www.gnosis.org/eghome.htm Ecclesia Gnostica (Gnosis Archive)]

{{belief systems}}

[[Category:Gnosticism|*]]
[[Category:Ancient Roman Christianity]]
[[Category:New Testament Apocrypha]]

{{Link FA|eo}}
[[af:Gnostisisme]]
[[ar:غنوصية]]
[[be-x-old:Гнастыцызм]]
[[bg:Гностицизъм]]
[[cs:Gnosticismus]]
[[da:Gnosticisme]]
[[de:Gnostizismus]]
[[et:Gnostitsism]]
[[el:Γνωστικισμός]]
[[es:Gnosticismo]]
[[eo:Gnostikismo]]
[[fr:Gnosticisme]]
[[ilo:Gnosticismo]]
[[ia:Gnosticismo]]
[[it:Gnosticismo]]
[[he:גנוסיס]]
[[nl:Gnosticisme]]
[[ja:グノーシス主義]]
[[no:Gnostisisme]]
[[pl:Gnostycyzm]]
[[pt:Gnosticismo]]
[[ro:Gnosticism]]
[[ru:Гностицизм]]
[[sq:Gnosticizmi]]
[[sk:Gnosticizmus]]
[[sl:Gnosticizem]]
[[sr:Гностицизам]]
[[fi:Gnostilaisuus]]
[[sv:Gnosticism]]
[[zh:諾斯底主義]]

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

2007-10-17T02:09:28Z

Harpakhrad11:

{{Infobox_Philosopher |
region = Western Philosophy |
era = [[19th-century philosophy]] |
color = #B0C4DE |
image_name = Hegel_portrait_by_Schlesinger_1831.jpg |
image_caption = G.W.F. Hegel |
name = Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel |
birth = [[August 27]], [[1770]] ([[Stuttgart]], [[Germany]]) |
death = {{death date and age|1831|11|14|1770|08|27}} ([[Berlin]], [[Germany]]) |
school_tradition = [[German Idealism]]; Founder of [[Hegelianism]] |
main_interests = [[Logic]], [[Philosophy of history]], [[Aesthetics]], [[Religion]], [[Metaphysics]], [[Epistemology]], [[Political Science]], |
influences = [[Aristotle]], [[Heraclitus]], [[Anselm of Canterbury|Anselm]], [[René Descartes|Descartes]], [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe|Goethe]], [[Baruch Spinoza|Spinoza]], [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Rousseau]], [[Jakob Böhme|Böhme]], [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]], [[Johann Gottlieb Fichte|Fichte]], [[Friedrich Hölderlin|Hölderlin]], [[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling|Schelling]] |
influenced = [[Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach|Feuerbach]], [[Benedetto Croce|Croce]], [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Bruno Bauer|Bauer]], [[F. H. Bradley|Bradley]], [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], [[György Lukács|Lukács]], [[Martin Heidegger|Heidegger]], [[Jean-Paul Sartre|Sartre]], [[Karl Barth|Barth]], [[Hans Küng|Küng]], [[Jürgen Habermas|Habermas]], [[Hans-Georg Gadamer|Gadamer]], [[Jürgen Moltmann|Moltmann]], [[Søren Kierkegaard|Kierkegaard]], [[Giovanni Gentile|Gentile]], [[Max Stirner|Stirner]], [[Charles Taylor (philosopher)|Taylor]], [[Alexandre Koyré|Koyré]], [[Alexandre Kojève|Kojève]], [[Jacques Lacan|Lacan]], [[Gilles Deleuze|Deleuze]], [[Slavoj Žižek|Žižek]], [[Francis Fukuyama|Fukuyama]] |
notable_ideas = [[Absolute idealism]], [[Dialectic]], [[Sublation]]|
}}
'''Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel''' ({{IPA2|ˈgeɔʁk ˈvɪlhɛlm ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈheːgəl}}) ([[August 27]], [[1770]] – [[November 14]], [[1831]]) was a [[German people|German]] [[philosopher]] and, with [[Johann Gottlieb Fichte]] and [[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling]], one of the representatives of [[German idealism]].

Hegel influenced writers of widely varying positions, including both his admirers ([[Bruno Bauer|Bauer]], [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[F. H. Bradley|Bradley]], [[Jean-Paul Sartre|Sartre]], [[Hans Küng|Küng]]), and his detractors ([[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling|Schelling]], [[Søren Kierkegaard|Kierkegaard]], [[Arthur Schopenhauer|Schopenhauer]], [[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]], [[Martin Heidegger|Heidegger]]). Hegel discussed a relation between nature and freedom, [[immanence]] and [[Transcendence (philosophy)|transcendence]], and the unification of these dualities without eliminating either pole or reducing it to the other. His influential conceptions are of speculative logic or "dialectic," "absolute idealism," "Spirit," the "Master/Slave" dialectic, "ethical life," and the importance of history.

==Life==
===Early years: 1770-1801===
====Childhood in Stuttgart====
Hegel was born on [[August 27]], [[1770]] in [[Stuttgart]], in the Duchy of [[Württemberg]] in southwestern [[Germany]]. Christened Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, he was known as Wilhelm to his close family. His father, Georg Ludwig, was ''Rentkammersekretär'' (secretary to the revenue office) at the court of [[Karl Eugen, Duke of Württemberg]].<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', pp. 2-3; p. 745.</ref> Hegel's mother, Maria Magdalena Louisa (''née'' Fromm), was the daughter of a lawyer at the High Court of Justice at the Württemberg court. She died when Hegel was thirteen of a "bilious fever" (''Gallenfieber'') which Hegel and his father also caught but narrowly survived.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 3, incorrectly gives the date as September 20, 1781, and describes Hegel as aged eleven. Cf. the index to Pinkard's book and his "Chronology of Hegel's Life", which correctly give the date as 1783 (pp. 773, 745); see also German Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Studien_und_Interessen.</ref> Hegel had a sister, Christiane Luise (1773-1832), and a brother, Georg Ludwig (1776-1812), who was to perish as an officer in Napoleon's Russian campaign of 1812.<ref> Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 4.</ref>

At the age of three Hegel went to the "German School". When he entered the "Latin School" aged five, he already knew the first declension, having been taught it by his mother.

In 1784 Hegel entered Stuttgart's ''Gymnasium Illustre''. During his adolescence Hegel read voraciously, copying lengthy extracts in his diary. Authors he read include the poet [[Klopstock]] and writers associated with the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] such as [[Christian Garve]] and [[Gotthold Ephraim Lessing]]. Hegel's studies at the ''Gymnasium'' were concluded with his ''Abiturrede'' ("graduation speech") entitled "The abortive state of art and scholarship in Turkey."

====Student in Tübingen (1788-93)====
At the age of eighteen Hegel entered the [[Tübinger Stift]] (a Protestant seminary attached to the [[University of Tübingen]]), where two fellow students were to become vital to his development—his exact contemporary, the poet [[Friedrich Hölderlin]], and the younger brilliant philosopher-to-be [[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling]]. Sharing a dislike for what they regarded as the restrictive environment of the Seminary, the three became close friends and mutually influenced each other's ideas. They watched the unfolding of the [[French Revolution]] with shared enthusiasm. Schelling and Hölderlin immersed themselves in theoretical debates on Kantian philosophy, from which Hegel remained aloof. Hegel at this time envisaged his future as that of a ''Popularphilosoph'', i.e., a "man of letters" who serves to make the abstruse ideas of philosophers accessible to a wider public; his own felt need to engage critically with the central ideas of Kantianism did not come until 1800.

====House tutor in Berne (1793-96) and Frankfurt (1797-1801)====
Having received his theological certificate (''Konsistorialexamen'') from the Tübingen Seminary, Hegel became ''Hofmeister'' (house tutor) to an aristocratic family in [[Berne]] (1793-96). During this period he composed the text which has become known as the "Life of Jesus" and a book-length manuscript entitled "The Positivity of the Christian Religion". His relations with his employers having become strained, Hegel gladly accepted an offer mediated by Hölderlin to take up a similar position with a wine merchant's family in [[Frankfurt]], where he moved in 1797. Here Hölderlin exerted an important influence on Hegel's thought.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 80.</ref> In Frankfurt Hegel composed the essay "The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate" (not published during Hegel's lifetime).

===Jena, Bamberg and Nuremberg: 1801-1816===
====Early university career in Jena (1801-1807)====
In 1801 Hegel came to [[Jena]] with the encouragement of his old friend Schelling, who was Extraordinary Professor at the [[University of Jena|University]] there. Hegel secured a position at the University as a ''[[Privatdozent]]'' (unsalaried lecturer) after submitting a ''[[Habilitation]]sschrift'' (dissertation) on the orbits of the planets. Later in the year Hegel's first book, ''The Difference between Fichte's and Schelling's Systems of Philosophy'', appeared. He lectured on "Logic and Metaphysics" and, with Schelling, gave joint lectures on an "Introduction to the Idea and Limits of True Philosophy" and held a "Philosophical Disputorium". In 1802 Schelling and Hegel founded a journal, the ''Kritische Journal der Philosophie'' ("Critical Journal of Philosophy") to which they each contributed pieces until the collaboration was ended by Schelling's departure for [[Würzburg]] in 1803.

In 1805 the University promoted Hegel to the position of Extraordinary Professor (unsalaried), after Hegel wrote a letter to the poet and minister of culture [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]] protesting at the promotion of his philosophical adversary [[Jakob Friedrich Fries]] ahead of him.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 223.</ref> Hegel attempted to enlist the help of the poet and translator [[Johann Heinrich Voß]] to obtain a post at the newly renascent [[University of Heidelberg]], but failed; to his chagrin, Fries was later in the same year made Ordinary Professor (salaried) there.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', pp. 224-5.</ref>

His finances drying up quickly, Hegel was now under great pressure to deliver his book, the long-promised introduction to his System. Hegel was putting the finishing touches to this book, now called the ''Phenomenology of Spirit'', as Napoleon engaged Prussian troops on October 14, 1806, in the [[Battle of Jena]] on a plateau outside the city. On the day before the battle, Napoleon entered the city of Jena. Hegel recounted his impressions in a letter to his friend [[Friedrich Immanuel Niethammer]]:
{{Quotation|I saw the Emperor – this world-soul – riding out of the city on reconnaissance. It is indeed a wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrated here at a single point, astride a horse, reaches out over the world and masters it […] this extraordinary man, whom it is impossible not to admire.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 228.</ref>}}
Although Napoleon chose not to close down Jena as he had other universities, the city was devastated and students deserted the university in droves, making Hegel's financial prospects even worse. The following February Hegel's landlady Christiana Burkhardt (who had been abandoned by her husband) gave birth to their son Georg Ludwig Friedrich Fischer (1807-31).<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 192.</ref>

====Newspaper editor in Bamberg (1807-08) and headmaster in Nuremberg (1808-15)====
In March 1807 Hegel moved to [[Bamberg]], where Niethammer had declined and passed on to Hegel an offer to become editor of a newspaper, the ''Bamberger Zeitung''. Hegel, unable to find more suitable employment, reluctantly accepted. Ludwig Fischer and his mother (whom Hegel may have offered to marry following the death of her husband) stayed behind in Jena.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 238.</ref>

He was then, in November 1808, again through Niethammer, appointed headmaster of a ''Gymnasium'' in [[Nuremberg]], a post he held until 1816. Here Hegel adapted his recently published ''Phenomenology of Spirit'' for use in the classroom. Part of his remit being to teach a class called "Introduction to Knowledge of the Universal Coherence of the Sciences," Hegel developed the idea of an encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences, falling into three parts (logic, philosophy of nature, and philosophy of spirit).<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 337.</ref>

Hegel married Marie Helena Susanna von Tucher (1791-1855), the eldest daughter of a Senator, in 1811. This period saw the publication of his second major work, the ''Science of Logic'' (''Wissenschaft der Logik''; 3 vols., 1812, 1813, 1816), and the birth of his two legitimate sons, Karl Friedrich Wilhelm (1813-1901) and Immanuel Thomas Christian (1814-1891).

===Professor in Heidelberg and Berlin: 1816-1831===
====Heidelberg (1816-18)====
Having received offers of a post from the Universities of [[University of Erlangen|Erlangen]], [[University of Berlin|Berlin]], and [[University of Heidelberg|Heidelberg]], Hegel chose Heidelberg, where he moved in 1816. Soon after, in April 1817, his illegitimate son Ludwig Fischer (now ten years old) joined the Hegel household, having thus far spent his childhood in an orphanage.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', pp. 354-5.</ref> (Ludwig's mother had died in the meantime.)<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 356.</ref>

Hegel published ''The Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sentences in Outline'' (1817) as a summary of his philosophy for students attending his lectures at Heidelberg.

====Berlin (1818-31)====
[[Image:Friedrich Hegel mit Studenten Lithographie F Kugler.jpg|thumb|right|Hegel with students <br\>Lithograph by F. Kugler]]
In 1818 Hegel accepted the renewed offer of the chair of philosophy at the [[University of Berlin]], which had remained vacant since Fichte's death in 1814. Here he published his ''[[Elements of the Philosophy of Right]]'' (1821). Hegel's efforts were primarily directed at delivering his lectures; his lecture courses on aesthetics, the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of history, and the history of philosophy were published posthumously from lecture notes taken by his students. His fame spread and his lectures attracted students from all over Germany and beyond.

Hegel was appointed Rector of the University in 1830. He was deeply disturbed by the riots for reform in Berlin in that year. In 1831 [[Frederick William III of Prussia|Frederick William III]] decorated him for his service to the Prussian state. In August [[1831]] a [[cholera]] epidemic reached Berlin and Hegel left the city, taking up lodgings in [[Kreuzberg]]. Now in a weak state of health, Hegel went out little. As the new semester began in October, Hegel returned to Berlin, with the (mistaken) impression that the epidemic had largely subsided. On [[November 14]] Hegel was dead. The physicians pronounced the cause of death as cholera, but it is more likely he died from a gastrointestinal disease.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', pp. 658-9.</ref> In accordance with his wishes, Hegel was buried on [[November 16]] in the [[Dorotheenstädtischer Friedhof|Dorotheenstadt Cemetery]] next to Fichte and [[Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand Solger|Solger]].

Hegel's son Ludwig Fischer had died shortly before while serving with the Dutch army in [[Jakarta]]; the news of his death never reached his father.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 548.</ref> Early the following year Hegel's sister Christiane committed suicide by drowning. Hegel's sons Karl, who became a historian, and Immanuel, who followed a theological path, lived long lives during which they safeguarded their father's ''[[Nachlaß]]'' and produced editions of his works.

==Works==

Hegel published only four books during his life: the ''[[Phenomenology of Spirit]]'' (or ''Phenomenology of Mind''), his account of the evolution of consciousness from sense-perception to absolute knowledge, published in 1807; the ''[[Science of Logic]]'', the logical and [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] core of his philosophy, in three volumes, published in 1811, [[1812]], and 1816 (revised 1831); ''[[Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences]]'', a summary of his entire philosophical system, which was originally published in 1816 and revised in 1827 and 1830; and the ''[[Elements of the Philosophy of Right]]'', his political philosophy, published in 1822. In the latter, he criticized [[Karl Ludwig von Haller|von Haller]]'s reactionary work, which claimed that laws were not necessary. He also published some articles early in his career and during his Berlin period. A number of other works on the [[philosophy of history]], [[Philosophy of religion|religion]], [[aesthetics]], and the [[history of philosophy]] were compiled from the lecture notes of his students and published posthumously.

[[Image:Hegelgrave.jpg|thumb|left|Hegel's Grave in Berlin]]Hegel's works have a reputation for their difficulty and for the breadth of the topics they attempt to cover. Hegel introduced a system for understanding the [[history of philosophy]] and the world itself, often described as a ''progression in which each successive movement emerges as a solution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement''. For example, the [[French Revolution]] for Hegel constitutes the introduction of real [[Freedom (political)|individual political freedom]] into [[Europe|European societies]] for the first time in recorded history. But precisely because of its absolute novelty, it is also absolutely radical: on the one hand the upsurge of violence required to carry out the revolution cannot cease to be itself, while on the other, it has already consumed its opponent. The revolution therefore has nowhere to turn but onto its own result: the hard-won freedom is consumed by a brutal [[Reign of Terror]]. History, however, progresses by learning from its mistakes: only after and precisely because of this experience can one posit the existence of a [[constitution]]al [[state]] of free citizens, embodying both the benevolent organizing power of rational [[government]] and the revolutionary ideals of freedom and equality. Hegel's remarks on the French revolution led German poet [[Heinrich Heine]] to label him "The [[Orléanist|Orléans]] of German Philosophy".

Hegel's writing style is difficult to read; he is described by [[Bertrand Russell]] in the ''History of Western Philosophy'' as the single most difficult philosopher to understand. This is partly because Hegel tried to develop a new form of thinking and logic, which he called "[[speculative reason]]" and which includes the more famous concept of "[[dialectic]]," to try to overcome what he saw as the limitations of both common sense and of traditional philosophy at grasping philosophical problems and the relation between thought and reality.

==Teachings==
===The concept of freedom through Hegel's method===
Hegel's thinking can be understood as a constructive development within the broadly Platonic tradition that includes [[Aristotle]], [[Plotinus]], and [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]]. To this list one could add Proclus, Meister Eckhart, Leibniz, Bahlsen, Spinoza, Jakob Boehme, and [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Rousseau]]. What all these thinkers share, which distinguishes them from materialists like Epicurus, the [[Stoicism|Stoics]], and [[Thomas Hobbes]], and from empiricists like [[David Hume]], is that they regard freedom or self-determination both as real and as having important ontological implications, for soul or mind or divinity. This focus on freedom is what generates Plato's notion (in the [[Phaedo]], [[The Republic (Plato)|Republic]], and [[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]) of the "soul" as having a higher or fuller kind of reality than inanimate objects possess. While Aristotle criticizes Plato's "Forms," he preserves Plato's preoccupation with the ontological implications of self-determination, in his conceptions of ethical reasoning, the hierarchy of soul in nature, the order of the cosmos, and the prime mover. [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]], likewise, preserves this preoccupation of Plato's in his notions of moral and noumenal freedom, and God.

In his discussion of "Spirit" in his ''Encyclopedia'', Hegel praises Aristotle's ''[[On the Soul]]'' as "by far the most admirable, perhaps even the sole, work of philosophical value on this topic" (par. 378). And in his ''[[The Phenomenology of Spirit|Phenomenology of Spirit]]'' and his ''[[Science of Logic]]'', Hegel's concern with Kantian topics such as freedom and morality, and with their ontological implications, is pervasive. Rather than simply rejecting [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]]'s dualism of freedom versus nature, Hegel aims to subsume it within "true infinity," the "Concept" (or "Notion": ''Begriff''), "Spirit," and "ethical life" in such a way that the Kantian duality is rendered intelligible (as mentioned above), rather than remaining a brute "given."

The reason why this subsumption takes place in a ''series'' of concepts is that Hegel's method, in his ''Science of Logic'' and his ''Encyclopedia'', is to begin with ultra-basic concepts like Being and Nothing, and to develop these through a long sequence of elaborations, including those mentioned in the previous paragraph. So that a solution that's arrived at, in principle, in the account of "true infinity" in the ''Science of Logic'''s chapter on "Quality," is repeated in new guises at later stages, all the way to "Spirit" and "ethical life," in the third volume of the ''Encyclopedia''.

In this way, Hegel intends to defend the germ of truth in Kantian dualism against reductive or eliminative programs like those of materialism and empiricism (which one can see at work in many of Hegel's critics, including [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]], and Russell). Like Plato, with his dualism of soul versus bodily appetites, Kant wants to insist on the mind's ability to question its felt inclinations or appetites and to come up with a standard of "duty" (or, in Plato's case, "good") which goes beyond them. Hegel preserves this essential Platonic and Kantian concern in the form of infinity's going beyond the finite (a process that Hegel in fact relates to "freedom" and the "ought" <ref> See ''Science of Logic'', trans. Miller [Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities, 1989], pp. 133-136 and 138, top </ref>), the universal's going beyond the particular (in the Concept), and Spirit's going beyond Nature. And Hegel renders these dualities ''intelligible'' by (ultimately) his argument in the "Quality" chapter of the ''Science of Logic'' that the finite has to become infinite in order to achieve "reality." This is because, as Hegel suggests by his introduction of the concept of "reality" <ref> ''Science of Logic'', p. 111 </ref>, what determines itself rather than depending on its relations to other things for its essential character, is more fully "real" (following the Latin etymology of "real": more "thing-like") than what does not. Finite things don't determine themselves, because, as "finite" things, their essential character is determined by their boundaries, over against other finite things. So, in order to become "real," they must go beyond their finitude ("finitude ''is'' only as a transcending of itself" <ref> ''Science of Logic'', p. 145 </ref>).

The result of this argument is that finite and infinite—and, by extension, particular and universal, nature and freedom—don't face one another as two independent realities, but instead the latter (in each case) is the ''self-transcending'' of the former <ref> See ''Science of Logic'', p. 146, top </ref>. Thus rather than being merely "given," without explanation, the relationship between finite and infinite (and particular and universal, and nature and freedom) becomes intelligible. And a challenge is issued to reductive and eliminative programs like materialism and empiricism: What kind of "reality" do ''your'' fundamental entities or data possess?

===Evolution through contradictions and negations===
The obscure writings of [[Jakob Böhme]] had a strong effect on Hegel. Böhme had written that [[the Fall of Man]] was a necessary stage in the [[evolution]] of the [[universe]]. This evolution was, itself, the result of [[God]]'s desire for complete self-awareness. Hegel was fascinated by the works of [[Baruch Spinoza|Spinoza]], [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]], [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Rousseau]], and [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe|Goethe]], and by the [[French Revolution]]. Modern philosophy, culture, and society seemed to Hegel fraught with contradictions and tensions, such as those between the subject and object of [[knowledge]], mind and nature, [[Self (philosophy)|self]] and [[Other]], freedom and authority, knowledge and faith, the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] and [[Romanticism]]. Hegel's main philosophical project was to take these contradictions and tensions and interpret them as part of a comprehensive, evolving, rational unity that, in different contexts, he called "the absolute idea" or "absolute knowledge".

According to Hegel, the main characteristic of this unity was that it evolved through and manifested itself in [[contradiction]] and [[negation]]. Contradiction and negation have a dynamic quality that at every point in each domain of [[reality]]—[[consciousness]], [[history]], [[philosophy]], [[art]], [[nature]], [[society]]—leads to further development until a [[rationality|rational]] unity is reached that preserves the contradictions as phases and sub-parts by lifting them up ([[Aufhebung]]) to a higher unity. This whole is [[mind|mental]] because it is [[mind]] that can comprehend all of these phases and sub-parts as steps in its own process of comprehension. It is rational because the same, underlying, [[logic]]al, developmental order underlies every domain of reality and is ultimately the order of self-conscious rational thought, although only in the later stages of development does it come to full self-consciousness. The rational, self-conscious [[whole]] is not a thing or [[being]] that lies outside of other existing things or minds. Rather, it comes to completion only in the philosophical comprehension of individual existing human minds who, through their own understanding, bring this developmental process to an understanding of itself.

(Note: “Mind” and “Spirit” are the common English translations of Hegel’s use of the German “[[Geist]]”. Some Hegelian scholars have argued that either of these terms overly “psychologize” Hegel,{{Fact|date=February 2007}} implying a kind of disembodied, solipsistic consciousness like "ghost" or "soul,". Geist combines the meaning of spirit, as in god, ghost or mind, with an intentional force. {{Fact|date=February 2007}})

Central to Hegel's [[conception]] of [[knowledge]] and mind (and therefore also of reality) was the notion of [[Identity (philosophy)|identity]] in [[difference]], that is that mind [[externalization|externalizes]] itself in various forms and [[object (philosophy)|object]]s that stand outside of it or opposed to it, and that, through recognizing itself in them, is "with itself" in these external manifestations, so that they are at one and the same time mind and other-than-mind. This notion of identity in difference, which is intimately bound up with his conception of contradiction and negativity, is a principal feature differentiating Hegel's thought from that of other philosophers.

===Civil society===
{{main|Civil society}}
Hegel made the distinction between civil society and state in his ''[[Elements of the Philosophy of Right]]'' <ref> [http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/preface.htm Etext of Philosophy of Right Hegel, 1827 (translated by Dyde, 1897)] </ref>. In this work, civil society (Hegel used the term "buergerliche Gesellschaft" though it is now referred to as ''Zivilgesellschaft'' in [[German language|German]] to emphasize a more inclusive community) was a stage on the [[dialectical|dialectical relationship]] between Hegel's perceived opposites, the macro-community of the [[state]] and the micro-community of the [[family]] <ref> Pelczynski, A.Z.; 1984; 'The Significane of Hegel's speration of the state and civil society' pp1-13 in Pelczynski, A.Z. (ed.); 1984; ''The State and Civil Society''; Cambridge University Press </ref>. Broadly speaking, the term was split, like Hegel's followers, to the [[political left]] and [[political right|right]]. On the left, it became the foundation for [[Karl Marx]]'s [[bourgeoise|bourgeois society]] <ref> ''[[ibid]]'' </ref>; to the right it became a description for all non-state aspects of society, expanding out of the [[economic]] rigidity of [[Marxism]] into [[culture]], [[society]] and [[politics]] <ref> ''ibid'' </ref>

===Influence===
There are views of Hegel's thought as a representation of the summit of early 19th century Germany's movement of philosophical [[idealism]]. It would come to have a profound impact on many future philosophical schools, including schools that opposed Hegel's specific dialectical idealism, such as [[Existentialism]], the [[historical materialism]] of [[Karl Marx]], [[historicism]], and [[British idealism|British Idealism]].

Hegel's influence was immense both within philosophy and in the other sciences. Throughout the 19th century many chairs of philosophy around Europe were held by Hegelians, although [[Kierkegaard]], [[Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach|Feuerbach]], [[Marx]], and [[Engels]] were all opposed to the most central themes of Hegel's philosophy. After less than a generation, Hegel's philosophy was suppressed and even banned by the [[Prussia]]n [[right-wing]], and was firmly rejected by the [[left-wing]] in multiple official writings.

After the period of [[Bruno Bauer]], Hegel's influence did not make itself felt again until the philosophy of [[British idealism|British Idealism]] and the 20th century Hegelian [[Neo-Marxism]] that began with [[Georg Lukács]]. The more recent movement of [[communitarianism]] has a strong Hegelian influence, although a Hegel specialist would argue that that influence is not strong enough, since communitarianism tends toward [[relativism]], which Hegel's philosophy does not.

==Hegel's legacy (interpretation)==
===Reading Hegel===
Some of Hegel's writing was intended for those with advanced knowledge of philosophy, although his "Encyclopedia" was intended as a [[textbook]] in a [[university]] [[course (education)|course]]. Nevertheless, like many philosophers, Hegel assumed that his readers would be well-versed in [[Western philosophy]], up to and including [[Descartes]], [[Spinoza]], [[Hume]], [[Kant]], [[Fichte]], and [[Schelling]]. For those wishing to read his work without this background, introductions to Hegel and commentaries about Hegel may suffice. However, even this is hotly debated since the reader must choose from multiple interpretations of Hegel's writings from incompatible schools of philosophy. Presumably, reading Hegel directly would be the best method of understanding him, but this task has historically proved to be beyond the average reader of philosophy. This difficulty may be the most urgent problem with respect to the legacy of Hegel.

One especially difficult aspect of Hegel's work is his innovation in logic. In response to Immanuel Kant's challenge to the limits of [[Critique of Pure Reason|Pure Reason]], Hegel developed a radically new form of logic, which he called ''speculation'', and which is today popularly called [[dialectic]]s. The difficulty in reading Hegel was perceived in Hegel's own day, and persists into the 21st century. To understand Hegel fully requires paying attention to his critique of standard logic, such as the [[law of contradiction]] and the [[law of the excluded middle]], and, whether one accepts or rejects it, at least taking it seriously. Many philosophers who came after Hegel and were influenced by him, whether adopting or rejecting his ideas, did so without fully absorbing his new speculative or dialectical logic.

===Left and Right Hegelianism===
Another confusing aspect about the interpretation of Hegel's work is the fact that past historians have spoken of Hegel's influence as represented by two opposing camps. The [[Right Hegelians]], the allegedly direct disciples of Hegel at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität (now known as the [[Humboldt University of Berlin|Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin]]), advocated a Protestant orthodoxy and the political conservatism of the post-[[Napoleon I of France|Napoleon]] Restoration period. The [[Young Hegelians|Left Hegelians]], also known as the Young Hegelians, interpreted Hegel in a revolutionary sense, leading to an advocation of [[atheism]] in religion and [[liberal democracy]] in politics.

In more recent studies, however, this old paradigm has been questioned. For one thing, no Hegelians of the period ever referred to themselves as Right Hegelians. That was a term of insult that [[David Strauss]] (a self-styled Left Hegelian) hurled at [[Bruno Bauer]] (who has most often been classified by historians as a Left Hegelian, but who rejected both titles for himself). For another thing, no so-called "Left Hegelian" described himself as a follower of Hegel. This includes [[Moses Hess]] as well as [[Karl Marx]]. Several "Left Hegelians" openly repudiated or insulted the legacy of Hegel's philosophy. The critiques of Hegel offered from the "Left Hegelians" radically diverted Hegel's thinking into new directions—and form a disproportionately large part of the literature on and about Hegel.

Perhaps the main reason that so much writing about Hegel emerges from the so-called Left-Hegelians is that the Left-Hegelians spawned [[Marxism]], which inspired a global movement lasting more than 150 years, encompassing the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution and even more national-liberation movements of the 20th century. Yet that isn't, to be precise, any direct result of Hegel's philosophy.

20th century interpretations of Hegel were mostly shaped by one-sided schools of thought: [[British idealism|British Idealism]], [[logical positivism]], [[Marxism]], [[Fascism]] and [[postmodernism]]. With reference to Fascism, Italy's [[Giovanni Gentile]] "…holds the honor of having been the most rigorous neo–Hegelian in the entire history of Western philosophy and the dishonor of having been the official philosopher of Fascism in Italy."<ref>[[Benedetto Croce]], ''Guide to Aesthetics'', Translated by Patrick Romanell, "Translator's Introduction," The Library of Liberal Arts, The Bobbs–Merrill Co., Inc., 1965</ref> However, since the fall of the [[USSR]], a new wave of Hegel scholarship arose in the West, without the preconceptions of the prior schools of thought.

[[Walter Jaeschke]] and [[Otto Pöggeler]] in Germany, as well as [[Peter Hodgson]] and [[Howard Kainz]] in America, are notable for their many contributions to post-USSR thinking about Hegel as published by the Hegel Society of America. Perhaps the most challenging publication from that source has been the new English edition of Hegel's ''Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (1818-1831)'' which has challenged most 20th century views about Hegel.

===Triads===
In previous modern accounts of Hegelianism (to undergraduate classes, for example), Hegel's dialectic was most often characterized as a three-step process of "[[Thesis, antithesis, synthesis]]", namely, that a "thesis" (e.g. the French Revolution) would cause the creation of its "antithesis" (e.g. the Reign of Terror that followed), and would eventually result in a "synthesis" (e.g. the Constitutional state of free citizens). However, Hegel used this classification only once, and he attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant. The terminology was largely developed earlier by [[Johann Fichte]] the neo-Kantian. It was spread by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus in a popular account of Hegelian philosophy, and since then the misfit terms have stuck.

Believing that the traditional description of Hegel's philosophy in terms of thesis-antithesis-synthesis was mistaken, a few scholars, like [[Raya Dunayevskaya]] have attempted to discard the triadic approach altogether. According to their argument, although Hegel refers to ''"the two elemental considerations: first, the idea of freedom as the absolute and final aim; secondly, the means for realising it, i.e. the subjective side of knowledge and will, with its life, movement, and activity"'' (thesis and antithesis) he doesn't use "synthesis" but instead speaks of the ''"Whole"'': ''"We then recognised the State as the moral Whole and the Reality of Freedom, and consequently as the objective unity of these two elements."'' Furthermore, in Hegel's language, the "dialectical" aspect or "moment" of thought and reality, by which things or thoughts turn into their opposites or have their inner contradictions brought to the surface, what he called [[Sublation|"aufhebung"]], is only preliminary to the "speculative" (and not "synthesizing") aspect or "moment", which grasps the unity of these opposites or contradiction. Thus for Hegel, reason is ultimately "speculative", not "dialectical".

To the contrary, scholars like [[Howard Kainz]] explain that Hegel's philosophy contains thousands of triads. However, instead of "thesis-antithesis-synthesis," Hegel used different terms to speak about triads, for example, "immediate-mediate-concrete," as well as, "abstract-negative-concrete." Hegel's works speak of synthetic logic. Nevertheless, it is widely admitted today that the old-fashioned description of Hegel's philosophy in terms of "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" was always inaccurate. At the same time, however, those same terms survive in scholarly works, such is the persistence of this misnomer.

==Advocates==
In the latter half of the 20th century, Hegel's philosophy underwent a major renaissance. This was due to: (a) the rediscovery and reevaluation of Hegel as a possible philosophical progenitor of Marxism by philosophically oriented Marxists; (b) a resurgence of the historical perspective that Hegel brought to everything; and (c) an increasing recognition of the importance of his [[dialectical method]].

The book that did the most to reintroduce Hegel into the Marxist canon was perhaps [[Georg Lukács]]' ''History and Class Consciousness''. This sparked a renewed interest in Hegel reflected in the work of [[Herbert Marcuse]], [[Theodor W. Adorno]], [[Ernst Bloch]], [[Raya Dunayevskaya]], [[Alexandre Kojève]] and [[Gotthard Günther]] among others. The Hegel renaissance also highlighted the significance of Hegel's early works, i.e. those published prior to the ''[[Phenomenology of Spirit]]''. The direct and indirect influence of Kojève's lectures and writings (on the Phenomenology of Spirit, in particular) mean that it is not possible to understand most French philosophers from [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] to [[Jacques Derrida]] without understanding Hegel.

Beginning in the 1960s, Anglo-American Hegel scholarship has attempted to challenge the traditional interpretation of Hegel as offering a metaphysical system: this has also been the approach of Z.A.Pelczynski and [[Shlomo Avineri]]. This view, sometimes referred to as the 'non-metaphysical option', has had a decided influence on many major English language studies of Hegel in the past 40 years.

U.S. [[neorightist]] [[political science|political theorist]] [[Francis Fukuyama]]'s controversial book ''[[The End of History and the Last Man]]'' was heavily influenced by Alexandre Kojève. Among modern scientists, the physicist [[David Bohm]], the mathematician [[William Lawvere]], the logician [[Kurt Gödel]] and the biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] have been interested in Hegel's philosophical work.{{Fact|date=June 2007}}

A late 20th century literature in Western Theology that is friendly to Hegel includes such writers as Dale M. Schlitt (1984), Theodore Geraets (1985), Philip M. Merklinger (1991), Stephen Rocker (1995) and Cyril O'Regan (1995). The contemporary theologian [[Hans Küng]] has also advanced contemporary scholarship in Hegel studies.

Recently, two prominent American philosophers, [[John McDowell]] and [[Robert Brandom]] (sometimes, half-seriously, referred to as the [[University of Pittsburgh|Pittsburgh]] Hegelians), have produced philosophical works exhibiting a marked Hegelian influence.

Beginning in the 1990s, after the fall of the [[USSR]], a fresh reading of Hegel took place in the West. For these scholars, fairly well represented by the Hegel Society of America and in cooperation with German scholars such as Otto Pöggeler and Walter Jaeschke, Hegel's works should be read without preconceptions. Marx plays a minor role in these new readings, and some contemporary scholars have suggested that Marx's interpretation of Hegel is irrelevant to a proper reading of Hegel. Some American philosophers associated with this movement include Clark Butler, Vince Hathaway, Daniel Shannon, David Duquette, David MacGregor, Edward Beach, John Burbidge, [[Lawrence Stepelevich]], Rudolph Siebert, Theodore Geraets and William Desmond.

Since 1990, new aspects of Hegel's philosophy have been published that were not typically seen in the West. One example is the idea that the essence of Hegel's philosophy is the idea of [[Freedom (philosophy)|freedom]]. With the idea of ''freedom'', Hegel attempts to explain [[History of the world|world history]], [[fine art]], [[political science]], the free thinking that is [[science]], the attainment of [[spirituality]], and the resolution to problems of metaphysics.

==Detractors==

Hegel used his system of dialectics to explain the whole of the history of [[philosophy]], [[science]], [[art]], [[politics]] and [[religion]], but he has had many critics over the centuries.

Perhaps the most famous critics were the Left-Hegelians, including [[Ludwig Feuerbach]], [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] and their followers in the 19th century.

[[Arthur Schopenhauer]] despised Hegel on account of the latter's alleged [[historicism]], among other reasons.

Actually, Hegel had the most well-attended classes of any philosopher of his time. The belief that Hegel once said, "Only one man understands me, and even he does not" (Strathern, 1997), is incorrect, since it was actually stated by [[Fichte]] about [[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling]] when Hegel persuaded Schelling to abandon his teacher [[Fichte]].

[[Søren Kierkegaard]], one of Hegel's earliest critics, criticized Hegel's "absolute knowledge" unity, not only because it was arrogant for a mere human to claim such a unity, but also because such a system negates the importance of the individual in favour of the whole unity. In ''[[Concluding Unscientific Postscript]]'', one of Kierkegaard's main attacks of Hegel, Johannes Climacus, Kierkegaard's pseudonymous author, writes: ''"So-called systems have often been characterized and challenged in the assertion that they abrogate the distinction between good and evil, and destroy freedom. Perhaps one would express oneself quite as definitely, if one said that every such system fantastically dissipates the concept existence. ... Being an individual man is a thing that has been abolished, and every speculative philosopher confuses himself with humanity at large; whereby he becomes something infinitely great, and at the same time nothing at all."''

Some 20th century critics suggested that Hegel glosses over the realities of history in order to fit it into his dialectical mold. [[Erich Heller]] opines in his ''The Disinherited Mind'' (1952) that Hegel was proved wrong — by the poets who succeeded him, not by the unfolding reality. Some newer philosophers who prefer to follow the tradition of [[analytic philosophy|British Philosophy]] have made similar statements. In Britain, Hegel exercised an influence on the philosophical school called "[[British idealism|British Idealism]]," which included [[Francis Herbert Bradley]] and [[Bernard Bosanquet (philosopher)|Bernard Bosanquet]], in England, and [[Josiah Royce]] at Harvard. [[Analytic philosophy]], which dominated philosophy departments in the United States and the United Kingdom, was virtually founded when [[G. E. Moore]] and [[Bertrand Russell]] rejected British Idealism and their colleagues' admiration for Hegel. Hegel remained largely out of fashion in these departments for much of the twentieth century.

Perhaps the harshest criticism has come from the famous psychologist, [[Carl G. Jung]], who seemed to charge Hegel with mental illness when he wrote:
{{Quotation|A philosophy like Hegel's is a self-revelation of the psychic background and, philosophically, a presumption. Psychologically it amounts to an invasion by the Unconscious. The peculiar, high-flown language Hegel uses bears out this view -- it is reminiscent of the megalomaniac language of schizophrenics, who use terrific, spellbinding words to reduce the transcendent to subjective form, to give banalities the charm of novelty, or pass off commonplaces as searching wisdom. So bombastic a terminology is a symptom of weakness, ineptitude, and lack of substance." |Carl G. Jung|On the Nature of the Psyche'', 1928}}

===Obscurantism===

A well known charge of [[Obscurantism|obscurantist]] "[[pseudo-philosophy]]" against Hegel was made by [[Arthur Schopenhauer]], who wrote that Hegel's philosophy is:

{{Quotation| . . . a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage... |Arthur Schopenhauer|On the Basis of Morality}}

{{Quotation| The height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had been only previously known in madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most barefaced, general mystification that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous to posterity, as a monument to German stupidity. |Arthur Schopenhauer|}}

Moreover, modern [[Analytic philosophy|analytic]] and [[Logical positivism|positivistic]] philosophers have considered Hegel a principal target because of what they consider the [[obscurantism]] of his philosophy.

Hegel was aware of his 'obscurantism' and saw it as part of philosophical thinking that grasps the limitations of everyday thought and concepts and tries to go beyond them. Hegel wrote in his essay "Who Thinks Abstractly?" that it is not the philosopher who thinks abstractly but the person on the street, who uses concepts as fixed, unchangeable [[given]]s, without any context. It is the philosopher who thinks concretely, because they go beyond the limits of everyday [[concept]]s to understand their broader context. This can make philosophical thought and language seem mysterious or obscure to the person on the street.

===The Absolute===
[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]] criticized Hegel's claims about the [[Absolute]].{{Quotation| Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth. … Thus it is, today, after Kant, an audacious ignorance if here and there, especially among badly informed theologians who like to play philosopher, the task of philosophy is represented as being quite certainly "comprehending the Absolute with the consciousness," somewhat completely in the form "the Absolute is already present, how could it be sought somewhere else?" as Hegel has expressed it.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]], ''[[Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks]]'', § 11.}}

===Totalitarianism===
[[Santayana]] interpreted Hegel as defending whoever held power, as though dominance equated with goodness.
{{Quotation|The worship of power is an old religion, and Hegel, to go no farther back, is full of it; but like traditional religion his system qualified its veneration for success by attributing success, in the future at least, to what could really inspire veneration; and such a master in equivocation could have no difficulty in convincing himself that the good must conquer in the end if whatever conquers in the end is the good.|[[George Santayana]], ''Winds of Doctrine'', I}}

[[Karl Popper]], a critic of Hegel in ''[[The Open Society and Its Enemies]]'', suggests that Hegel's system forms a thinly veiled justification for the rule of [[Frederick William III of Prussia|Frederick William III]], and that Hegel's idea of the ultimate goal of history is to reach a state approximating that of 1830s [[Prussia]]. Popper argued that Hegel's philosophy eventually inspired both [[Marxism]] and [[fascism]].<ref>This view of Hegel as an apologist of state power and precursor of 20th century [[totalitarianism]] was criticized by [[Herbert Marcuse]] in his ''Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory'', on the grounds that Hegel was not an apologist for any state or form of authority simply because it existed: for Hegel the state must always be rational. Other scholars, e.g. [[Walter Kaufmann (philosopher)|Walter Kaufmann]] and [[Shlomo Avineri]], have also criticized Popper's theories about Hegel[http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kaufmann.htm]. An analysis against Popper's arguments can also be found in Joachim Ritter's influential work, ''Hegel and the French Revolution''.</ref>

{{Quotation|Indeed, Hegel points out that all personal relations can thus be reduced to the fundamental relation of master and slave, of domination and submission. Each must strive to assert and prove himself, and he who has not the nature, the courage, and the general capacity for preserving his independence, must be reduced to servitude. This charming theory of personal relations has, of course, its counterpart in Hegel's theory of international relations. Nations must assert themselves on the Stage of History; it is their duty to attempt the domination of the World. |Karl Popper, ''The Open Society and Its Enemies''}}

Following Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard, Popper also accused Hegel of having a vacuous philosophy, labelling it "bombastic and mystifying cant".

==Notes==
<references/>

==See also==
* [[Thesis, antithesis, synthesis]]
* [[Political consciousness]]
* [[The Secret of Hegel]]

==Works==
====Published during Hegel's lifetime====
*''Differenz des Fichteschen und Schellingschen Systems der Philosophie'', 1801 ''The Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's Systems of Philosophy'', tr. H. S. Harris and Walter Cerf, 1977
*''[[Phenomenology of Spirit|Phänomenologie des Geistes]]'', 1807 ''Phenomenology of Mind'', tr. J. B. Baillie, 1910; 2nd ed. 1931 ''Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit'', tr. A. V. Miller, 1977
*''[[Science of Logic|Wissenschaft der Logik]]'', 1812, 1813, 1816 ''Science of Logic'', tr. W. H. Johnston and L. G. Struthers, 2 vols., 1929; tr. A. V. Miller, 1969
*''[[Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences|Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften]]'', 1817; 2nd ed. 1827; 3rd ed. 1830 (''Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences'') (Pt. I:) ''The Logic of Hegel'', tr. [[William Wallace (Scottish philosopher)|William Wallace]], 1874, 2nd ed. 1892; tr. T. F. Geraets, W. A. Suchting and H. S. Harris, 1991 (Pt. II:) ''Hegel's Philosophy of Nature'', tr. A. V. Miller, 1970 (Pt. III:) ''Hegel's Philosophy of Mind'', tr. William Wallace, 1894; rev. by A. V. Miller, 1971
*''[[Elements of the Philosophy of Right|Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts]]'', 1821 ''Elements of the Philosophy of Right'', tr. T. M. Knox, 1942; tr. H. B. Bisnet, ed. Allen W. Wood, 1991

====Published posthumously====
*''[[Lectures on Aesthetics]]''
*''[[Lectures on the Philosophy of History]]'' (also translated as ''Lectures on the Philosophy of World History'') 1837
*''[[Lectures on Philosophy of Religion]]''
*''Lectures on the History of Philosophy''

==Secondary literature==
===General introductions===
*[[Raymond Plant|Plant, Raymond]], 1983. ''Hegel: An Introduction.'' Oxford: Blackwell
*[[Peter Singer|Singer, Peter]], 2001. ''Hegel: A Very Short Introduction''. Oxford University Press (previously issued in the OUP ''Past Masters'' series, 1983)
*[[Frederick C. Beiser|Beiser, Frederick C.]], 2005. ''Hegel''. Routledge
*[[John Niemeyer Findlay|Findlay, J. N.]], 1958. ''Hegel: A Re-examination''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-519879-4
*[[Walter Kaufmann (philosopher)|Kaufmann, Walter]], 1965. ''Hegel: A Reinterpretation''. New York: Doubleday (reissued Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1978)
*[[James Hutchison Stirling|Stirling, James Hutchison]], ''[[The Secret of Hegel]]'': Being the Hegelian System in Origin Principle, Form and Matter
*[[Charles Taylor (philosopher)|Taylor, Charles]], 1975. ''Hegel''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-29199-2. A comprehensive exposition of Hegel's thought and its impact on the central intellectual and spiritual issues of his and our time.
*Kainz, Howard P., 1996. ''G. W. F. Hegel''. Ohio University Press. ISBN 0-8214-1231-0.

===Essays===
*[[Frederick C. Beiser|Beiser, Frederick C.]] (ed.), 1993. ''The Cambridge Companion to Hegel''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-38711-6. A collection of articles covering the range of Hegel's thought.
*[[Theodor W. Adorno|Adorno, Theodor W.]], 1994. ''Hegel: Three Studies''. MIT Press. Translated by Shierry M. Nicholsen, with an introduction by Nicholsen and Jeremy J. Shapiro, ISBN 0-262-51080-4. Essays on Hegel's concept of spirit/mind, Hegel's concept of experience, and why Hegel is difficult to read.

===Biography===
*Althaus, Horst, 1992. ''Hegel und die heroischen Jahre der Philosophie''. Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag. Eng. tr. Michael Tarsh as ''Hegel: An Intellectual Biography'', Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000
*Pinkard, Terry P., 2000. ''Hegel: A Biography''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-49679-9. By a leading American Hegel scholar; aims to debunk popular misconceptions about Hegel's thought.
*[[Karl Rosenkranz|Rosenkranz, Karl]], 1844. ''Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegels Leben''. Still an important source for Hegel's life.
*Hondt, Jacques d', 1998. ''Hegel: Biographie''. Calmann-Lévy

===Historical===
*[[Tom Rockmore|Rockmore, Tom]], 1993. ''Before and After Hegel: A Historical Introduction to Hegel's Thought''. Indianapolis: Hackett. ISBN 0-87220-648-3.

===Hegel's development===
*[[Georg Lukács|Lukács, Georg]], 1948. ''Der junge Hegel''. Zurich and Vienna (2nd ed. Berlin, 1954). Eng. tr. Rodney Livingstone as ''The Young Hegel'', London: Merlin Press, 1975. ISBN 0-262-12070-4
*Harris, H. S., 1972. ''Hegel's Development: Towards the Sunlight 1770-1801''. Oxford: Clarendon Press
*Harris, H. S., 1983. ''Hegel's Development: Night Thoughts (Jena 1801-1806)''. Oxford: Clarendon Press
*[[Wilhelm Dilthey|Dilthey, Wilhelm]], 1906. ''Die Jugendgeschichte Hegels'' (repr. in ''Gesammelte Schriften'', 1959, vol. IV)
*[[Theodor Haering|Haering, Theodor L.]], 1929, 1938. ''Hegel: sein Wollen und sein Werk'', 2 vols. Leipzig (repr. Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1963)

===Recent English-language literature===
*[[Michael Inwood|Inwood, Michael]], 1983. ''Hegel''. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (''Arguments of the Philosophers'')
*Rockmore, Tom, 1986. ''Hegel's Circular Epistemology''. Indiana University Press
*Pinkard, Terry P., 1988. ''Hegel's Dialectic: The Explanation of Possibility''. Temple University Press
*Westphal, Kenneth, 1989. ''Hegel's Epistemological Realism''. Kluwer Academic Publishers
*Forster, Michael N., 1989. ''Hegel and Skepticism''. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-38707-4
*[[Robert B. Pippin|Pippin, Robert B.]], 1989. ''Hegel's Idealism: the Satisfactions of Self-Consciousness''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-37923-7. Advocates a stronger continuity between Hegel and Kant.

===Phenomenology of Spirit===
''(See also the article ''[[The Phenomenology of Spirit]]''.)''
*Stern, Robert, 2002. ''Hegel and the Phenomenology of Spirit''. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-21788-1. An introduction for students.
*[[Jean Hyppolite|Hyppolite, Jean]], 1946. ''Genèse et structure de la Phénoménologie de l'esprit''. Paris: Aubier. Eng. tr. Samuel Cherniak and John Heckman as ''Genesis and Structure of Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit"'', Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1979. ISBN 0-8101-0594-2. A classic commentary.
*[[Alexandre Kojève|Kojève, Alexandre]], 1947. ''Introduction à la lecture de Hegel''. Paris: Gallimard. Eng. tr. James H. Nichols, Jr., as ''Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit'', Basic Books, 1969. ISBN 0-8014-9203-3 Influential European reading of Hegel.
*[[Robert C. Solomon|Solomon, Robert C.]], 1983. ''In the Spirit of Hegel''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
*[[Harris, H. S.]], 1995. ''Hegel: Phenomenology and System''. Indianapolis: Hackett. A distillation of the author's monumental two-volume commentary ''Hegel's Ladder''.
*Westphal, Kenneth R., 2003. ''Hegel's Epistemology: A Philosophical Introduction to the'' Phenomenology of Spirit. Indianapolis: Hackett. ISBN 0-87220-645-9
*Russon, John, 2004. ''Reading Hegel's Phenomenology''. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-21692-3.
*Bristow, William, 2007. ''Hegel and the Transformation of Philosophical Critique''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199290644

===Logic===
''(See also the article ''[[Science of Logic]]''.)''
*[[Justus Hartnack|Hartnack, Justus]], 1998. ''An Introduction to Hegel's Logic''. Indianapolis: Hackett. ISBN 0-87220-424-3
*Wallace, Robert M., 2005. ''Hegel's Philosophy of Reality, Freedom, and God''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-84484-3. Through a detailed analysis of Hegel's ''Science of Logic'', Wallace shows how Hegel contributes to the broadly Platonic tradition of philosophy that includes Aristotle, Plotinus, and Kant. In the course of doing this, Wallace defends Hegel against major critiques, including the one presented by Charles Taylor in his ''Hegel''.

===Politics===
*[[Shlomo Aveneri|Avineri, Shlomo]], 1974. ''Hegel's Theory of the Modern State''. Cambridge University Press. Best introduction to Hegel's political philosophy.
*Ritter, Joachim, 1984. ''Hegel and the French Revolution''. MIT Press.
*[[Herbert Marcuse|Marcuse, Herbert]], 1941. ''Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory''. An introduction to the philosophy of Hegel, devoted to debunking the conception that Hegel's work included ''in nuce'' the [[Fascist]] [[totalitarianism]] of [[Nazism|National Socialism]]; the negation of philosophy through [[historical materialism]].
*[[Gillian Rose|Rose, Gillian]], 1981. ''Hegel Contra Sociology''. Athlone Press. ISBN 0-485-12036-4.

===Religion===
*Desmond, William, 2003. ''Hegel's God: A Counterfeit Double?''. Ashgate. ISBN 0-7546-0565-5
*O'Regan, Cyril, 1994. ''The Heterodox Hegel''. State University of New York Press, Albany. ISBN 0-7914-2006-X. The most authoritative work to date on Hegel's philosophy of religion.
*Dickey, Laurence, 1987. ''Hegel: Religion, Economics, and the Politics of Spirit, 1770–1807''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-33035-1. A fascinating account of how "Hegel became Hegel", using the guiding hypothesis that Hegel "was basically a theologian manqué".

===Hegel's reputation===
*Popper, Karl. ''The Open Society and Its Enemies'', vol. 2: ''Hegel and Marx''. An influential attack on Hegel.
*Stewart, Jon, ed., 1996. ''The Hegel Myths and Legends''. Northwestern University Press.

==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
{{Commons|Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel}}
{{wikisource author}}
* [http://wiki.hegel.net The new HegelWiki]
* [http://hegel.net/en/hegelbio.htm A superior biography of Hegel with graphics]
* [http://hegel.net Hegel.net] - resources available under the GNU FDL
* [http://wiki.hegel.net/index.php/Hegel Hegel.net] - wiki article on Hegel
* [http://www.aliciafarinati.com.ar Alicia Farinati - Hegelian Works] Several articles on Hegel. Available in English, Spanish and French
* [http://hegel.net/en/links.htm Commented link list]
* [http://hegel.net/en/ml.htm Hegel mailing lists in the internet]
* [http://hegel-system.de/en/ Explanation of Hegel], mostly in German
* [http://www.kat.gr/kat/history/Mod/Th/Hegelianism.htm Discussion of the Hegelian tradition, including the Left and Right schism]
* [http://www.hegel.org/ The Hegel Society of America]
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/ Hegel in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
* http://www.gwfhegel.org/
* [http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/hegel.html Hegel page in 'The History Guide']
* [http://millinerd.com/2006/05/is-hegel-christian.html Is Hegel a Christian?]
* [http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/index Rethinking the Place of Philosophy with Hegel - Call for Papers for Cosmos and History]

===Hegel texts online===
* {{gutenberg author| id=Georg+Wilhelm+Friedrich+Hegel | name=Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel}}
* [http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hegel%20-%20Philosophy%20of%20History.htm Philosophy of History Introduction]
* [http://libcom.org/library/philosophy-right-hegel Hegel's The Philosophy of Right]
* [http://libcom.org/library/philosophy-history-hegel Hegel's The Philosophy of History]
* [http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/index.htm Hegel by HyperText], reference archive on [[Marxists.org]]

{{Philosophy navigation}}



{{Persondata
|NAME=Hegel, Georg
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES=Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
|SHORT DESCRIPTION=German philosopher
|DATE OF BIRTH={{birth date|1770|8|27|mf=y}}
|PLACE OF BIRTH=[[Stuttgart]], [[Germany]]
|DATE OF DEATH={{death date|1831|11|14|mf=y}}
|PLACE OF DEATH=[[Berlin]], [[Germany]]
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich}}
[[Category:Georg Hegel| ]]
[[Category:19th century philosophers]]
[[Category:Continental philosophers]]
[[Category:German philosophers]]
[[Category:German-language philosophers]]
[[Category:Idealists]]
[[Category:Philosophers of law]]
[[Category:Logicians]]
[[Category:Moral philosophers]]
[[Category:Metaphysicians]]
[[Category:Political philosophers]]
[[Category:Political theorists]]
[[Category:Romanticism]]
[[Category:Social philosophers]]
[[Category:Theories of history]]
[[Category:Western mystics]]
[[Category:German Lutherans]]
[[Category:Humboldt University of Berlin faculty]]
[[Category:People from Stuttgart]]
[[Category:Deaths from cholera]]
[[Category:1770 births]]
[[Category:1831 deaths]]

[[ar:جيورج فيلهلم فريدريش هيجل]]
[[bn:গেয়র্গ ভিলহেল্ম হেগল]]
[[be-x-old:Георг Гегель]]
[[bs:George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[bg:Георг Хегел]]
[[ca:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[cs:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[da:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[de:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[et:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[el:Γκέοργκ Βίλχελμ Φρήντριχ Χέγκελ]]
[[es:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[eo:Hegelo]]
[[eu:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[fa:هگل]]
[[fr:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[gl:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[ko:게오르크 빌헬름 프리드리히 헤겔]]
[[hi:जार्ज विल्हेम फ्रेडरिच हेगेल]]
[[hr:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[io:Friedrich Hegel]]
[[id:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[is:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[it:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[he:גיאורג וילהלם פרידריך הגל]]
[[ka:გეორგ ვილჰელმ ფრიდრიხ ჰეგელი]]
[[ku:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[la:Georgius Wilhelmus Fridericus Hegel]]
[[lt:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[hu:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[mk:Георг Вилхелм Фридрих Хегел]]
[[nl:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[ja:ゲオルク・ヴィルヘルム・フリードリヒ・ヘーゲル]]
[[no:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[pms:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[pl:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[pt:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[ro:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[ru:Гегель, Георг Вильгельм Фридрих]]
[[simple:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[sk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[sr:Георг Вилхелм Фридрих Хегел]]
[[fi:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[sv:Friedrich Hegel]]
[[tpi:Hegel]]
[[tr:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[uk:Геґель Ґеорґ Вільгельм Фрідріх]]
[[zh:黑格尔]]

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

2007-10-17T02:07:28Z

Harpakhrad11:

{{Infobox_Philosopher |
region = Western Philosophy |
era = [[19th-century philosophy]] |
color = #B0C4DE |
image_name = Hegel_portrait_by_Schlesinger_1831.jpg |
image_caption = G.W.F. Hegel |
name = Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel |
birth = [[August 27]], [[1770]] ([[Stuttgart]], [[Germany]]) |
death = {{death date and age|1831|11|14|1770|08|27}} ([[Berlin]], [[Germany]]) |
school_tradition = [[German Idealism]]; Founder of [[Hegelianism]] |
main_interests = [[Logic]], [[Philosophy of history]], [[Aesthetics]], [[Religion]], [[Metaphysics]], [[Epistemology]], [[Political Science]], |
influences = [[Aristotle]], [[Heraclitus]], [[Anselm of Canterbury|Anselm]], [[René Descartes|Descartes]], [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe|Goethe]], [[Baruch Spinoza|Spinoza]], [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Rousseau]], [[Jakob Böhme|Böhme]], [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]], [[Johann Gottlieb Fichte|Fichte]], [[Friedrich Hölderlin|Hölderlin]], [[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling|Schelling]] |
influenced = [[Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach|Feuerbach]], [[Benedetto Croce|Croce]], [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Bruno Bauer|Bauer]], [[F. H. Bradley|Bradley]], [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], [[György Lukács|Lukács]], [[Martin Heidegger|Heidegger]], [[Jean-Paul Sartre|Sartre]], [[Karl Barth|Barth]], [[Hans Küng|Küng]], [[Jürgen Habermas|Habermas]], [[Hans-Georg Gadamer|Gadamer]], [[Jürgen Moltmann|Moltmann]], [[Søren Kierkegaard|Kierkegaard]], [[Giovanni Gentile|Gentile]], [[Max Stirner|Stirner]], [[Charles Taylor (philosopher)|Charles Taylor]], [[Alexandre Koyré]], [[Alexandre Kojève|Kojève]], [[Jacques Lacan|Lacan]], [[Gilles Deleuze|Deleuze]], [[Slavoj Žižek|Žižek]], [[Francis Fukuyama|Fukuyama]] |
notable_ideas = [[Absolute idealism]], [[Dialectic]], [[Sublation]]|
}}
'''Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel''' ({{IPA2|ˈgeɔʁk ˈvɪlhɛlm ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈheːgəl}}) ([[August 27]], [[1770]] – [[November 14]], [[1831]]) was a [[German people|German]] [[philosopher]] and, with [[Johann Gottlieb Fichte]] and [[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling]], one of the representatives of [[German idealism]].

Hegel influenced writers of widely varying positions, including both his admirers ([[Bruno Bauer|Bauer]], [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[F. H. Bradley|Bradley]], [[Jean-Paul Sartre|Sartre]], [[Hans Küng|Küng]]), and his detractors ([[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling|Schelling]], [[Søren Kierkegaard|Kierkegaard]], [[Arthur Schopenhauer|Schopenhauer]], [[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]], [[Martin Heidegger|Heidegger]]). Hegel discussed a relation between nature and freedom, [[immanence]] and [[Transcendence (philosophy)|transcendence]], and the unification of these dualities without eliminating either pole or reducing it to the other. His influential conceptions are of speculative logic or "dialectic," "absolute idealism," "Spirit," the "Master/Slave" dialectic, "ethical life," and the importance of history.

==Life==
===Early years: 1770-1801===
====Childhood in Stuttgart====
Hegel was born on [[August 27]], [[1770]] in [[Stuttgart]], in the Duchy of [[Württemberg]] in southwestern [[Germany]]. Christened Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, he was known as Wilhelm to his close family. His father, Georg Ludwig, was ''Rentkammersekretär'' (secretary to the revenue office) at the court of [[Karl Eugen, Duke of Württemberg]].<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', pp. 2-3; p. 745.</ref> Hegel's mother, Maria Magdalena Louisa (''née'' Fromm), was the daughter of a lawyer at the High Court of Justice at the Württemberg court. She died when Hegel was thirteen of a "bilious fever" (''Gallenfieber'') which Hegel and his father also caught but narrowly survived.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 3, incorrectly gives the date as September 20, 1781, and describes Hegel as aged eleven. Cf. the index to Pinkard's book and his "Chronology of Hegel's Life", which correctly give the date as 1783 (pp. 773, 745); see also German Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Studien_und_Interessen.</ref> Hegel had a sister, Christiane Luise (1773-1832), and a brother, Georg Ludwig (1776-1812), who was to perish as an officer in Napoleon's Russian campaign of 1812.<ref> Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 4.</ref>

At the age of three Hegel went to the "German School". When he entered the "Latin School" aged five, he already knew the first declension, having been taught it by his mother.

In 1784 Hegel entered Stuttgart's ''Gymnasium Illustre''. During his adolescence Hegel read voraciously, copying lengthy extracts in his diary. Authors he read include the poet [[Klopstock]] and writers associated with the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] such as [[Christian Garve]] and [[Gotthold Ephraim Lessing]]. Hegel's studies at the ''Gymnasium'' were concluded with his ''Abiturrede'' ("graduation speech") entitled "The abortive state of art and scholarship in Turkey."

====Student in Tübingen (1788-93)====
At the age of eighteen Hegel entered the [[Tübinger Stift]] (a Protestant seminary attached to the [[University of Tübingen]]), where two fellow students were to become vital to his development—his exact contemporary, the poet [[Friedrich Hölderlin]], and the younger brilliant philosopher-to-be [[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling]]. Sharing a dislike for what they regarded as the restrictive environment of the Seminary, the three became close friends and mutually influenced each other's ideas. They watched the unfolding of the [[French Revolution]] with shared enthusiasm. Schelling and Hölderlin immersed themselves in theoretical debates on Kantian philosophy, from which Hegel remained aloof. Hegel at this time envisaged his future as that of a ''Popularphilosoph'', i.e., a "man of letters" who serves to make the abstruse ideas of philosophers accessible to a wider public; his own felt need to engage critically with the central ideas of Kantianism did not come until 1800.

====House tutor in Berne (1793-96) and Frankfurt (1797-1801)====
Having received his theological certificate (''Konsistorialexamen'') from the Tübingen Seminary, Hegel became ''Hofmeister'' (house tutor) to an aristocratic family in [[Berne]] (1793-96). During this period he composed the text which has become known as the "Life of Jesus" and a book-length manuscript entitled "The Positivity of the Christian Religion". His relations with his employers having become strained, Hegel gladly accepted an offer mediated by Hölderlin to take up a similar position with a wine merchant's family in [[Frankfurt]], where he moved in 1797. Here Hölderlin exerted an important influence on Hegel's thought.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 80.</ref> In Frankfurt Hegel composed the essay "The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate" (not published during Hegel's lifetime).

===Jena, Bamberg and Nuremberg: 1801-1816===
====Early university career in Jena (1801-1807)====
In 1801 Hegel came to [[Jena]] with the encouragement of his old friend Schelling, who was Extraordinary Professor at the [[University of Jena|University]] there. Hegel secured a position at the University as a ''[[Privatdozent]]'' (unsalaried lecturer) after submitting a ''[[Habilitation]]sschrift'' (dissertation) on the orbits of the planets. Later in the year Hegel's first book, ''The Difference between Fichte's and Schelling's Systems of Philosophy'', appeared. He lectured on "Logic and Metaphysics" and, with Schelling, gave joint lectures on an "Introduction to the Idea and Limits of True Philosophy" and held a "Philosophical Disputorium". In 1802 Schelling and Hegel founded a journal, the ''Kritische Journal der Philosophie'' ("Critical Journal of Philosophy") to which they each contributed pieces until the collaboration was ended by Schelling's departure for [[Würzburg]] in 1803.

In 1805 the University promoted Hegel to the position of Extraordinary Professor (unsalaried), after Hegel wrote a letter to the poet and minister of culture [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]] protesting at the promotion of his philosophical adversary [[Jakob Friedrich Fries]] ahead of him.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 223.</ref> Hegel attempted to enlist the help of the poet and translator [[Johann Heinrich Voß]] to obtain a post at the newly renascent [[University of Heidelberg]], but failed; to his chagrin, Fries was later in the same year made Ordinary Professor (salaried) there.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', pp. 224-5.</ref>

His finances drying up quickly, Hegel was now under great pressure to deliver his book, the long-promised introduction to his System. Hegel was putting the finishing touches to this book, now called the ''Phenomenology of Spirit'', as Napoleon engaged Prussian troops on October 14, 1806, in the [[Battle of Jena]] on a plateau outside the city. On the day before the battle, Napoleon entered the city of Jena. Hegel recounted his impressions in a letter to his friend [[Friedrich Immanuel Niethammer]]:
{{Quotation|I saw the Emperor – this world-soul – riding out of the city on reconnaissance. It is indeed a wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrated here at a single point, astride a horse, reaches out over the world and masters it […] this extraordinary man, whom it is impossible not to admire.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 228.</ref>}}
Although Napoleon chose not to close down Jena as he had other universities, the city was devastated and students deserted the university in droves, making Hegel's financial prospects even worse. The following February Hegel's landlady Christiana Burkhardt (who had been abandoned by her husband) gave birth to their son Georg Ludwig Friedrich Fischer (1807-31).<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 192.</ref>

====Newspaper editor in Bamberg (1807-08) and headmaster in Nuremberg (1808-15)====
In March 1807 Hegel moved to [[Bamberg]], where Niethammer had declined and passed on to Hegel an offer to become editor of a newspaper, the ''Bamberger Zeitung''. Hegel, unable to find more suitable employment, reluctantly accepted. Ludwig Fischer and his mother (whom Hegel may have offered to marry following the death of her husband) stayed behind in Jena.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 238.</ref>

He was then, in November 1808, again through Niethammer, appointed headmaster of a ''Gymnasium'' in [[Nuremberg]], a post he held until 1816. Here Hegel adapted his recently published ''Phenomenology of Spirit'' for use in the classroom. Part of his remit being to teach a class called "Introduction to Knowledge of the Universal Coherence of the Sciences," Hegel developed the idea of an encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences, falling into three parts (logic, philosophy of nature, and philosophy of spirit).<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 337.</ref>

Hegel married Marie Helena Susanna von Tucher (1791-1855), the eldest daughter of a Senator, in 1811. This period saw the publication of his second major work, the ''Science of Logic'' (''Wissenschaft der Logik''; 3 vols., 1812, 1813, 1816), and the birth of his two legitimate sons, Karl Friedrich Wilhelm (1813-1901) and Immanuel Thomas Christian (1814-1891).

===Professor in Heidelberg and Berlin: 1816-1831===
====Heidelberg (1816-18)====
Having received offers of a post from the Universities of [[University of Erlangen|Erlangen]], [[University of Berlin|Berlin]], and [[University of Heidelberg|Heidelberg]], Hegel chose Heidelberg, where he moved in 1816. Soon after, in April 1817, his illegitimate son Ludwig Fischer (now ten years old) joined the Hegel household, having thus far spent his childhood in an orphanage.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', pp. 354-5.</ref> (Ludwig's mother had died in the meantime.)<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 356.</ref>

Hegel published ''The Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sentences in Outline'' (1817) as a summary of his philosophy for students attending his lectures at Heidelberg.

====Berlin (1818-31)====
[[Image:Friedrich Hegel mit Studenten Lithographie F Kugler.jpg|thumb|right|Hegel with students <br\>Lithograph by F. Kugler]]
In 1818 Hegel accepted the renewed offer of the chair of philosophy at the [[University of Berlin]], which had remained vacant since Fichte's death in 1814. Here he published his ''[[Elements of the Philosophy of Right]]'' (1821). Hegel's efforts were primarily directed at delivering his lectures; his lecture courses on aesthetics, the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of history, and the history of philosophy were published posthumously from lecture notes taken by his students. His fame spread and his lectures attracted students from all over Germany and beyond.

Hegel was appointed Rector of the University in 1830. He was deeply disturbed by the riots for reform in Berlin in that year. In 1831 [[Frederick William III of Prussia|Frederick William III]] decorated him for his service to the Prussian state. In August [[1831]] a [[cholera]] epidemic reached Berlin and Hegel left the city, taking up lodgings in [[Kreuzberg]]. Now in a weak state of health, Hegel went out little. As the new semester began in October, Hegel returned to Berlin, with the (mistaken) impression that the epidemic had largely subsided. On [[November 14]] Hegel was dead. The physicians pronounced the cause of death as cholera, but it is more likely he died from a gastrointestinal disease.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', pp. 658-9.</ref> In accordance with his wishes, Hegel was buried on [[November 16]] in the [[Dorotheenstädtischer Friedhof|Dorotheenstadt Cemetery]] next to Fichte and [[Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand Solger|Solger]].

Hegel's son Ludwig Fischer had died shortly before while serving with the Dutch army in [[Jakarta]]; the news of his death never reached his father.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 548.</ref> Early the following year Hegel's sister Christiane committed suicide by drowning. Hegel's sons Karl, who became a historian, and Immanuel, who followed a theological path, lived long lives during which they safeguarded their father's ''[[Nachlaß]]'' and produced editions of his works.

==Works==

Hegel published only four books during his life: the ''[[Phenomenology of Spirit]]'' (or ''Phenomenology of Mind''), his account of the evolution of consciousness from sense-perception to absolute knowledge, published in 1807; the ''[[Science of Logic]]'', the logical and [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] core of his philosophy, in three volumes, published in 1811, [[1812]], and 1816 (revised 1831); ''[[Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences]]'', a summary of his entire philosophical system, which was originally published in 1816 and revised in 1827 and 1830; and the ''[[Elements of the Philosophy of Right]]'', his political philosophy, published in 1822. In the latter, he criticized [[Karl Ludwig von Haller|von Haller]]'s reactionary work, which claimed that laws were not necessary. He also published some articles early in his career and during his Berlin period. A number of other works on the [[philosophy of history]], [[Philosophy of religion|religion]], [[aesthetics]], and the [[history of philosophy]] were compiled from the lecture notes of his students and published posthumously.

[[Image:Hegelgrave.jpg|thumb|left|Hegel's Grave in Berlin]]Hegel's works have a reputation for their difficulty and for the breadth of the topics they attempt to cover. Hegel introduced a system for understanding the [[history of philosophy]] and the world itself, often described as a ''progression in which each successive movement emerges as a solution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement''. For example, the [[French Revolution]] for Hegel constitutes the introduction of real [[Freedom (political)|individual political freedom]] into [[Europe|European societies]] for the first time in recorded history. But precisely because of its absolute novelty, it is also absolutely radical: on the one hand the upsurge of violence required to carry out the revolution cannot cease to be itself, while on the other, it has already consumed its opponent. The revolution therefore has nowhere to turn but onto its own result: the hard-won freedom is consumed by a brutal [[Reign of Terror]]. History, however, progresses by learning from its mistakes: only after and precisely because of this experience can one posit the existence of a [[constitution]]al [[state]] of free citizens, embodying both the benevolent organizing power of rational [[government]] and the revolutionary ideals of freedom and equality. Hegel's remarks on the French revolution led German poet [[Heinrich Heine]] to label him "The [[Orléanist|Orléans]] of German Philosophy".

Hegel's writing style is difficult to read; he is described by [[Bertrand Russell]] in the ''History of Western Philosophy'' as the single most difficult philosopher to understand. This is partly because Hegel tried to develop a new form of thinking and logic, which he called "[[speculative reason]]" and which includes the more famous concept of "[[dialectic]]," to try to overcome what he saw as the limitations of both common sense and of traditional philosophy at grasping philosophical problems and the relation between thought and reality.

==Teachings==
===The concept of freedom through Hegel's method===
Hegel's thinking can be understood as a constructive development within the broadly Platonic tradition that includes [[Aristotle]], [[Plotinus]], and [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]]. To this list one could add Proclus, Meister Eckhart, Leibniz, Bahlsen, Spinoza, Jakob Boehme, and [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Rousseau]]. What all these thinkers share, which distinguishes them from materialists like Epicurus, the [[Stoicism|Stoics]], and [[Thomas Hobbes]], and from empiricists like [[David Hume]], is that they regard freedom or self-determination both as real and as having important ontological implications, for soul or mind or divinity. This focus on freedom is what generates Plato's notion (in the [[Phaedo]], [[The Republic (Plato)|Republic]], and [[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]) of the "soul" as having a higher or fuller kind of reality than inanimate objects possess. While Aristotle criticizes Plato's "Forms," he preserves Plato's preoccupation with the ontological implications of self-determination, in his conceptions of ethical reasoning, the hierarchy of soul in nature, the order of the cosmos, and the prime mover. [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]], likewise, preserves this preoccupation of Plato's in his notions of moral and noumenal freedom, and God.

In his discussion of "Spirit" in his ''Encyclopedia'', Hegel praises Aristotle's ''[[On the Soul]]'' as "by far the most admirable, perhaps even the sole, work of philosophical value on this topic" (par. 378). And in his ''[[The Phenomenology of Spirit|Phenomenology of Spirit]]'' and his ''[[Science of Logic]]'', Hegel's concern with Kantian topics such as freedom and morality, and with their ontological implications, is pervasive. Rather than simply rejecting [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]]'s dualism of freedom versus nature, Hegel aims to subsume it within "true infinity," the "Concept" (or "Notion": ''Begriff''), "Spirit," and "ethical life" in such a way that the Kantian duality is rendered intelligible (as mentioned above), rather than remaining a brute "given."

The reason why this subsumption takes place in a ''series'' of concepts is that Hegel's method, in his ''Science of Logic'' and his ''Encyclopedia'', is to begin with ultra-basic concepts like Being and Nothing, and to develop these through a long sequence of elaborations, including those mentioned in the previous paragraph. So that a solution that's arrived at, in principle, in the account of "true infinity" in the ''Science of Logic'''s chapter on "Quality," is repeated in new guises at later stages, all the way to "Spirit" and "ethical life," in the third volume of the ''Encyclopedia''.

In this way, Hegel intends to defend the germ of truth in Kantian dualism against reductive or eliminative programs like those of materialism and empiricism (which one can see at work in many of Hegel's critics, including [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]], and Russell). Like Plato, with his dualism of soul versus bodily appetites, Kant wants to insist on the mind's ability to question its felt inclinations or appetites and to come up with a standard of "duty" (or, in Plato's case, "good") which goes beyond them. Hegel preserves this essential Platonic and Kantian concern in the form of infinity's going beyond the finite (a process that Hegel in fact relates to "freedom" and the "ought" <ref> See ''Science of Logic'', trans. Miller [Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities, 1989], pp. 133-136 and 138, top </ref>), the universal's going beyond the particular (in the Concept), and Spirit's going beyond Nature. And Hegel renders these dualities ''intelligible'' by (ultimately) his argument in the "Quality" chapter of the ''Science of Logic'' that the finite has to become infinite in order to achieve "reality." This is because, as Hegel suggests by his introduction of the concept of "reality" <ref> ''Science of Logic'', p. 111 </ref>, what determines itself rather than depending on its relations to other things for its essential character, is more fully "real" (following the Latin etymology of "real": more "thing-like") than what does not. Finite things don't determine themselves, because, as "finite" things, their essential character is determined by their boundaries, over against other finite things. So, in order to become "real," they must go beyond their finitude ("finitude ''is'' only as a transcending of itself" <ref> ''Science of Logic'', p. 145 </ref>).

The result of this argument is that finite and infinite—and, by extension, particular and universal, nature and freedom—don't face one another as two independent realities, but instead the latter (in each case) is the ''self-transcending'' of the former <ref> See ''Science of Logic'', p. 146, top </ref>. Thus rather than being merely "given," without explanation, the relationship between finite and infinite (and particular and universal, and nature and freedom) becomes intelligible. And a challenge is issued to reductive and eliminative programs like materialism and empiricism: What kind of "reality" do ''your'' fundamental entities or data possess?

===Evolution through contradictions and negations===
The obscure writings of [[Jakob Böhme]] had a strong effect on Hegel. Böhme had written that [[the Fall of Man]] was a necessary stage in the [[evolution]] of the [[universe]]. This evolution was, itself, the result of [[God]]'s desire for complete self-awareness. Hegel was fascinated by the works of [[Baruch Spinoza|Spinoza]], [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]], [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Rousseau]], and [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe|Goethe]], and by the [[French Revolution]]. Modern philosophy, culture, and society seemed to Hegel fraught with contradictions and tensions, such as those between the subject and object of [[knowledge]], mind and nature, [[Self (philosophy)|self]] and [[Other]], freedom and authority, knowledge and faith, the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] and [[Romanticism]]. Hegel's main philosophical project was to take these contradictions and tensions and interpret them as part of a comprehensive, evolving, rational unity that, in different contexts, he called "the absolute idea" or "absolute knowledge".

According to Hegel, the main characteristic of this unity was that it evolved through and manifested itself in [[contradiction]] and [[negation]]. Contradiction and negation have a dynamic quality that at every point in each domain of [[reality]]—[[consciousness]], [[history]], [[philosophy]], [[art]], [[nature]], [[society]]—leads to further development until a [[rationality|rational]] unity is reached that preserves the contradictions as phases and sub-parts by lifting them up ([[Aufhebung]]) to a higher unity. This whole is [[mind|mental]] because it is [[mind]] that can comprehend all of these phases and sub-parts as steps in its own process of comprehension. It is rational because the same, underlying, [[logic]]al, developmental order underlies every domain of reality and is ultimately the order of self-conscious rational thought, although only in the later stages of development does it come to full self-consciousness. The rational, self-conscious [[whole]] is not a thing or [[being]] that lies outside of other existing things or minds. Rather, it comes to completion only in the philosophical comprehension of individual existing human minds who, through their own understanding, bring this developmental process to an understanding of itself.

(Note: “Mind” and “Spirit” are the common English translations of Hegel’s use of the German “[[Geist]]”. Some Hegelian scholars have argued that either of these terms overly “psychologize” Hegel,{{Fact|date=February 2007}} implying a kind of disembodied, solipsistic consciousness like "ghost" or "soul,". Geist combines the meaning of spirit, as in god, ghost or mind, with an intentional force. {{Fact|date=February 2007}})

Central to Hegel's [[conception]] of [[knowledge]] and mind (and therefore also of reality) was the notion of [[Identity (philosophy)|identity]] in [[difference]], that is that mind [[externalization|externalizes]] itself in various forms and [[object (philosophy)|object]]s that stand outside of it or opposed to it, and that, through recognizing itself in them, is "with itself" in these external manifestations, so that they are at one and the same time mind and other-than-mind. This notion of identity in difference, which is intimately bound up with his conception of contradiction and negativity, is a principal feature differentiating Hegel's thought from that of other philosophers.

===Civil society===
{{main|Civil society}}
Hegel made the distinction between civil society and state in his ''[[Elements of the Philosophy of Right]]'' <ref> [http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/preface.htm Etext of Philosophy of Right Hegel, 1827 (translated by Dyde, 1897)] </ref>. In this work, civil society (Hegel used the term "buergerliche Gesellschaft" though it is now referred to as ''Zivilgesellschaft'' in [[German language|German]] to emphasize a more inclusive community) was a stage on the [[dialectical|dialectical relationship]] between Hegel's perceived opposites, the macro-community of the [[state]] and the micro-community of the [[family]] <ref> Pelczynski, A.Z.; 1984; 'The Significane of Hegel's speration of the state and civil society' pp1-13 in Pelczynski, A.Z. (ed.); 1984; ''The State and Civil Society''; Cambridge University Press </ref>. Broadly speaking, the term was split, like Hegel's followers, to the [[political left]] and [[political right|right]]. On the left, it became the foundation for [[Karl Marx]]'s [[bourgeoise|bourgeois society]] <ref> ''[[ibid]]'' </ref>; to the right it became a description for all non-state aspects of society, expanding out of the [[economic]] rigidity of [[Marxism]] into [[culture]], [[society]] and [[politics]] <ref> ''ibid'' </ref>

===Influence===
There are views of Hegel's thought as a representation of the summit of early 19th century Germany's movement of philosophical [[idealism]]. It would come to have a profound impact on many future philosophical schools, including schools that opposed Hegel's specific dialectical idealism, such as [[Existentialism]], the [[historical materialism]] of [[Karl Marx]], [[historicism]], and [[British idealism|British Idealism]].

Hegel's influence was immense both within philosophy and in the other sciences. Throughout the 19th century many chairs of philosophy around Europe were held by Hegelians, although [[Kierkegaard]], [[Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach|Feuerbach]], [[Marx]], and [[Engels]] were all opposed to the most central themes of Hegel's philosophy. After less than a generation, Hegel's philosophy was suppressed and even banned by the [[Prussia]]n [[right-wing]], and was firmly rejected by the [[left-wing]] in multiple official writings.

After the period of [[Bruno Bauer]], Hegel's influence did not make itself felt again until the philosophy of [[British idealism|British Idealism]] and the 20th century Hegelian [[Neo-Marxism]] that began with [[Georg Lukács]]. The more recent movement of [[communitarianism]] has a strong Hegelian influence, although a Hegel specialist would argue that that influence is not strong enough, since communitarianism tends toward [[relativism]], which Hegel's philosophy does not.

==Hegel's legacy (interpretation)==
===Reading Hegel===
Some of Hegel's writing was intended for those with advanced knowledge of philosophy, although his "Encyclopedia" was intended as a [[textbook]] in a [[university]] [[course (education)|course]]. Nevertheless, like many philosophers, Hegel assumed that his readers would be well-versed in [[Western philosophy]], up to and including [[Descartes]], [[Spinoza]], [[Hume]], [[Kant]], [[Fichte]], and [[Schelling]]. For those wishing to read his work without this background, introductions to Hegel and commentaries about Hegel may suffice. However, even this is hotly debated since the reader must choose from multiple interpretations of Hegel's writings from incompatible schools of philosophy. Presumably, reading Hegel directly would be the best method of understanding him, but this task has historically proved to be beyond the average reader of philosophy. This difficulty may be the most urgent problem with respect to the legacy of Hegel.

One especially difficult aspect of Hegel's work is his innovation in logic. In response to Immanuel Kant's challenge to the limits of [[Critique of Pure Reason|Pure Reason]], Hegel developed a radically new form of logic, which he called ''speculation'', and which is today popularly called [[dialectic]]s. The difficulty in reading Hegel was perceived in Hegel's own day, and persists into the 21st century. To understand Hegel fully requires paying attention to his critique of standard logic, such as the [[law of contradiction]] and the [[law of the excluded middle]], and, whether one accepts or rejects it, at least taking it seriously. Many philosophers who came after Hegel and were influenced by him, whether adopting or rejecting his ideas, did so without fully absorbing his new speculative or dialectical logic.

===Left and Right Hegelianism===
Another confusing aspect about the interpretation of Hegel's work is the fact that past historians have spoken of Hegel's influence as represented by two opposing camps. The [[Right Hegelians]], the allegedly direct disciples of Hegel at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität (now known as the [[Humboldt University of Berlin|Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin]]), advocated a Protestant orthodoxy and the political conservatism of the post-[[Napoleon I of France|Napoleon]] Restoration period. The [[Young Hegelians|Left Hegelians]], also known as the Young Hegelians, interpreted Hegel in a revolutionary sense, leading to an advocation of [[atheism]] in religion and [[liberal democracy]] in politics.

In more recent studies, however, this old paradigm has been questioned. For one thing, no Hegelians of the period ever referred to themselves as Right Hegelians. That was a term of insult that [[David Strauss]] (a self-styled Left Hegelian) hurled at [[Bruno Bauer]] (who has most often been classified by historians as a Left Hegelian, but who rejected both titles for himself). For another thing, no so-called "Left Hegelian" described himself as a follower of Hegel. This includes [[Moses Hess]] as well as [[Karl Marx]]. Several "Left Hegelians" openly repudiated or insulted the legacy of Hegel's philosophy. The critiques of Hegel offered from the "Left Hegelians" radically diverted Hegel's thinking into new directions—and form a disproportionately large part of the literature on and about Hegel.

Perhaps the main reason that so much writing about Hegel emerges from the so-called Left-Hegelians is that the Left-Hegelians spawned [[Marxism]], which inspired a global movement lasting more than 150 years, encompassing the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution and even more national-liberation movements of the 20th century. Yet that isn't, to be precise, any direct result of Hegel's philosophy.

20th century interpretations of Hegel were mostly shaped by one-sided schools of thought: [[British idealism|British Idealism]], [[logical positivism]], [[Marxism]], [[Fascism]] and [[postmodernism]]. With reference to Fascism, Italy's [[Giovanni Gentile]] "…holds the honor of having been the most rigorous neo–Hegelian in the entire history of Western philosophy and the dishonor of having been the official philosopher of Fascism in Italy."<ref>[[Benedetto Croce]], ''Guide to Aesthetics'', Translated by Patrick Romanell, "Translator's Introduction," The Library of Liberal Arts, The Bobbs–Merrill Co., Inc., 1965</ref> However, since the fall of the [[USSR]], a new wave of Hegel scholarship arose in the West, without the preconceptions of the prior schools of thought.

[[Walter Jaeschke]] and [[Otto Pöggeler]] in Germany, as well as [[Peter Hodgson]] and [[Howard Kainz]] in America, are notable for their many contributions to post-USSR thinking about Hegel as published by the Hegel Society of America. Perhaps the most challenging publication from that source has been the new English edition of Hegel's ''Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (1818-1831)'' which has challenged most 20th century views about Hegel.

===Triads===
In previous modern accounts of Hegelianism (to undergraduate classes, for example), Hegel's dialectic was most often characterized as a three-step process of "[[Thesis, antithesis, synthesis]]", namely, that a "thesis" (e.g. the French Revolution) would cause the creation of its "antithesis" (e.g. the Reign of Terror that followed), and would eventually result in a "synthesis" (e.g. the Constitutional state of free citizens). However, Hegel used this classification only once, and he attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant. The terminology was largely developed earlier by [[Johann Fichte]] the neo-Kantian. It was spread by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus in a popular account of Hegelian philosophy, and since then the misfit terms have stuck.

Believing that the traditional description of Hegel's philosophy in terms of thesis-antithesis-synthesis was mistaken, a few scholars, like [[Raya Dunayevskaya]] have attempted to discard the triadic approach altogether. According to their argument, although Hegel refers to ''"the two elemental considerations: first, the idea of freedom as the absolute and final aim; secondly, the means for realising it, i.e. the subjective side of knowledge and will, with its life, movement, and activity"'' (thesis and antithesis) he doesn't use "synthesis" but instead speaks of the ''"Whole"'': ''"We then recognised the State as the moral Whole and the Reality of Freedom, and consequently as the objective unity of these two elements."'' Furthermore, in Hegel's language, the "dialectical" aspect or "moment" of thought and reality, by which things or thoughts turn into their opposites or have their inner contradictions brought to the surface, what he called [[Sublation|"aufhebung"]], is only preliminary to the "speculative" (and not "synthesizing") aspect or "moment", which grasps the unity of these opposites or contradiction. Thus for Hegel, reason is ultimately "speculative", not "dialectical".

To the contrary, scholars like [[Howard Kainz]] explain that Hegel's philosophy contains thousands of triads. However, instead of "thesis-antithesis-synthesis," Hegel used different terms to speak about triads, for example, "immediate-mediate-concrete," as well as, "abstract-negative-concrete." Hegel's works speak of synthetic logic. Nevertheless, it is widely admitted today that the old-fashioned description of Hegel's philosophy in terms of "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" was always inaccurate. At the same time, however, those same terms survive in scholarly works, such is the persistence of this misnomer.

==Advocates==
In the latter half of the 20th century, Hegel's philosophy underwent a major renaissance. This was due to: (a) the rediscovery and reevaluation of Hegel as a possible philosophical progenitor of Marxism by philosophically oriented Marxists; (b) a resurgence of the historical perspective that Hegel brought to everything; and (c) an increasing recognition of the importance of his [[dialectical method]].

The book that did the most to reintroduce Hegel into the Marxist canon was perhaps [[Georg Lukács]]' ''History and Class Consciousness''. This sparked a renewed interest in Hegel reflected in the work of [[Herbert Marcuse]], [[Theodor W. Adorno]], [[Ernst Bloch]], [[Raya Dunayevskaya]], [[Alexandre Kojève]] and [[Gotthard Günther]] among others. The Hegel renaissance also highlighted the significance of Hegel's early works, i.e. those published prior to the ''[[Phenomenology of Spirit]]''. The direct and indirect influence of Kojève's lectures and writings (on the Phenomenology of Spirit, in particular) mean that it is not possible to understand most French philosophers from [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] to [[Jacques Derrida]] without understanding Hegel.

Beginning in the 1960s, Anglo-American Hegel scholarship has attempted to challenge the traditional interpretation of Hegel as offering a metaphysical system: this has also been the approach of Z.A.Pelczynski and [[Shlomo Avineri]]. This view, sometimes referred to as the 'non-metaphysical option', has had a decided influence on many major English language studies of Hegel in the past 40 years.

U.S. [[neorightist]] [[political science|political theorist]] [[Francis Fukuyama]]'s controversial book ''[[The End of History and the Last Man]]'' was heavily influenced by Alexandre Kojève. Among modern scientists, the physicist [[David Bohm]], the mathematician [[William Lawvere]], the logician [[Kurt Gödel]] and the biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] have been interested in Hegel's philosophical work.{{Fact|date=June 2007}}

A late 20th century literature in Western Theology that is friendly to Hegel includes such writers as Dale M. Schlitt (1984), Theodore Geraets (1985), Philip M. Merklinger (1991), Stephen Rocker (1995) and Cyril O'Regan (1995). The contemporary theologian [[Hans Küng]] has also advanced contemporary scholarship in Hegel studies.

Recently, two prominent American philosophers, [[John McDowell]] and [[Robert Brandom]] (sometimes, half-seriously, referred to as the [[University of Pittsburgh|Pittsburgh]] Hegelians), have produced philosophical works exhibiting a marked Hegelian influence.

Beginning in the 1990s, after the fall of the [[USSR]], a fresh reading of Hegel took place in the West. For these scholars, fairly well represented by the Hegel Society of America and in cooperation with German scholars such as Otto Pöggeler and Walter Jaeschke, Hegel's works should be read without preconceptions. Marx plays a minor role in these new readings, and some contemporary scholars have suggested that Marx's interpretation of Hegel is irrelevant to a proper reading of Hegel. Some American philosophers associated with this movement include Clark Butler, Vince Hathaway, Daniel Shannon, David Duquette, David MacGregor, Edward Beach, John Burbidge, [[Lawrence Stepelevich]], Rudolph Siebert, Theodore Geraets and William Desmond.

Since 1990, new aspects of Hegel's philosophy have been published that were not typically seen in the West. One example is the idea that the essence of Hegel's philosophy is the idea of [[Freedom (philosophy)|freedom]]. With the idea of ''freedom'', Hegel attempts to explain [[History of the world|world history]], [[fine art]], [[political science]], the free thinking that is [[science]], the attainment of [[spirituality]], and the resolution to problems of metaphysics.

==Detractors==

Hegel used his system of dialectics to explain the whole of the history of [[philosophy]], [[science]], [[art]], [[politics]] and [[religion]], but he has had many critics over the centuries.

Perhaps the most famous critics were the Left-Hegelians, including [[Ludwig Feuerbach]], [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] and their followers in the 19th century.

[[Arthur Schopenhauer]] despised Hegel on account of the latter's alleged [[historicism]], among other reasons.

Actually, Hegel had the most well-attended classes of any philosopher of his time. The belief that Hegel once said, "Only one man understands me, and even he does not" (Strathern, 1997), is incorrect, since it was actually stated by [[Fichte]] about [[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling]] when Hegel persuaded Schelling to abandon his teacher [[Fichte]].

[[Søren Kierkegaard]], one of Hegel's earliest critics, criticized Hegel's "absolute knowledge" unity, not only because it was arrogant for a mere human to claim such a unity, but also because such a system negates the importance of the individual in favour of the whole unity. In ''[[Concluding Unscientific Postscript]]'', one of Kierkegaard's main attacks of Hegel, Johannes Climacus, Kierkegaard's pseudonymous author, writes: ''"So-called systems have often been characterized and challenged in the assertion that they abrogate the distinction between good and evil, and destroy freedom. Perhaps one would express oneself quite as definitely, if one said that every such system fantastically dissipates the concept existence. ... Being an individual man is a thing that has been abolished, and every speculative philosopher confuses himself with humanity at large; whereby he becomes something infinitely great, and at the same time nothing at all."''

Some 20th century critics suggested that Hegel glosses over the realities of history in order to fit it into his dialectical mold. [[Erich Heller]] opines in his ''The Disinherited Mind'' (1952) that Hegel was proved wrong — by the poets who succeeded him, not by the unfolding reality. Some newer philosophers who prefer to follow the tradition of [[analytic philosophy|British Philosophy]] have made similar statements. In Britain, Hegel exercised an influence on the philosophical school called "[[British idealism|British Idealism]]," which included [[Francis Herbert Bradley]] and [[Bernard Bosanquet (philosopher)|Bernard Bosanquet]], in England, and [[Josiah Royce]] at Harvard. [[Analytic philosophy]], which dominated philosophy departments in the United States and the United Kingdom, was virtually founded when [[G. E. Moore]] and [[Bertrand Russell]] rejected British Idealism and their colleagues' admiration for Hegel. Hegel remained largely out of fashion in these departments for much of the twentieth century.

Perhaps the harshest criticism has come from the famous psychologist, [[Carl G. Jung]], who seemed to charge Hegel with mental illness when he wrote:
{{Quotation|A philosophy like Hegel's is a self-revelation of the psychic background and, philosophically, a presumption. Psychologically it amounts to an invasion by the Unconscious. The peculiar, high-flown language Hegel uses bears out this view -- it is reminiscent of the megalomaniac language of schizophrenics, who use terrific, spellbinding words to reduce the transcendent to subjective form, to give banalities the charm of novelty, or pass off commonplaces as searching wisdom. So bombastic a terminology is a symptom of weakness, ineptitude, and lack of substance." |Carl G. Jung|On the Nature of the Psyche'', 1928}}

===Obscurantism===

A well known charge of [[Obscurantism|obscurantist]] "[[pseudo-philosophy]]" against Hegel was made by [[Arthur Schopenhauer]], who wrote that Hegel's philosophy is:

{{Quotation| . . . a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage... |Arthur Schopenhauer|On the Basis of Morality}}

{{Quotation| The height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had been only previously known in madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most barefaced, general mystification that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous to posterity, as a monument to German stupidity. |Arthur Schopenhauer|}}

Moreover, modern [[Analytic philosophy|analytic]] and [[Logical positivism|positivistic]] philosophers have considered Hegel a principal target because of what they consider the [[obscurantism]] of his philosophy.

Hegel was aware of his 'obscurantism' and saw it as part of philosophical thinking that grasps the limitations of everyday thought and concepts and tries to go beyond them. Hegel wrote in his essay "Who Thinks Abstractly?" that it is not the philosopher who thinks abstractly but the person on the street, who uses concepts as fixed, unchangeable [[given]]s, without any context. It is the philosopher who thinks concretely, because they go beyond the limits of everyday [[concept]]s to understand their broader context. This can make philosophical thought and language seem mysterious or obscure to the person on the street.

===The Absolute===
[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]] criticized Hegel's claims about the [[Absolute]].{{Quotation| Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth. … Thus it is, today, after Kant, an audacious ignorance if here and there, especially among badly informed theologians who like to play philosopher, the task of philosophy is represented as being quite certainly "comprehending the Absolute with the consciousness," somewhat completely in the form "the Absolute is already present, how could it be sought somewhere else?" as Hegel has expressed it.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]], ''[[Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks]]'', § 11.}}

===Totalitarianism===
[[Santayana]] interpreted Hegel as defending whoever held power, as though dominance equated with goodness.
{{Quotation|The worship of power is an old religion, and Hegel, to go no farther back, is full of it; but like traditional religion his system qualified its veneration for success by attributing success, in the future at least, to what could really inspire veneration; and such a master in equivocation could have no difficulty in convincing himself that the good must conquer in the end if whatever conquers in the end is the good.|[[George Santayana]], ''Winds of Doctrine'', I}}

[[Karl Popper]], a critic of Hegel in ''[[The Open Society and Its Enemies]]'', suggests that Hegel's system forms a thinly veiled justification for the rule of [[Frederick William III of Prussia|Frederick William III]], and that Hegel's idea of the ultimate goal of history is to reach a state approximating that of 1830s [[Prussia]]. Popper argued that Hegel's philosophy eventually inspired both [[Marxism]] and [[fascism]].<ref>This view of Hegel as an apologist of state power and precursor of 20th century [[totalitarianism]] was criticized by [[Herbert Marcuse]] in his ''Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory'', on the grounds that Hegel was not an apologist for any state or form of authority simply because it existed: for Hegel the state must always be rational. Other scholars, e.g. [[Walter Kaufmann (philosopher)|Walter Kaufmann]] and [[Shlomo Avineri]], have also criticized Popper's theories about Hegel[http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kaufmann.htm]. An analysis against Popper's arguments can also be found in Joachim Ritter's influential work, ''Hegel and the French Revolution''.</ref>

{{Quotation|Indeed, Hegel points out that all personal relations can thus be reduced to the fundamental relation of master and slave, of domination and submission. Each must strive to assert and prove himself, and he who has not the nature, the courage, and the general capacity for preserving his independence, must be reduced to servitude. This charming theory of personal relations has, of course, its counterpart in Hegel's theory of international relations. Nations must assert themselves on the Stage of History; it is their duty to attempt the domination of the World. |Karl Popper, ''The Open Society and Its Enemies''}}

Following Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard, Popper also accused Hegel of having a vacuous philosophy, labelling it "bombastic and mystifying cant".

==Notes==
<references/>

==See also==
* [[Thesis, antithesis, synthesis]]
* [[Political consciousness]]
* [[The Secret of Hegel]]

==Works==
====Published during Hegel's lifetime====
*''Differenz des Fichteschen und Schellingschen Systems der Philosophie'', 1801 ''The Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's Systems of Philosophy'', tr. H. S. Harris and Walter Cerf, 1977
*''[[Phenomenology of Spirit|Phänomenologie des Geistes]]'', 1807 ''Phenomenology of Mind'', tr. J. B. Baillie, 1910; 2nd ed. 1931 ''Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit'', tr. A. V. Miller, 1977
*''[[Science of Logic|Wissenschaft der Logik]]'', 1812, 1813, 1816 ''Science of Logic'', tr. W. H. Johnston and L. G. Struthers, 2 vols., 1929; tr. A. V. Miller, 1969
*''[[Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences|Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften]]'', 1817; 2nd ed. 1827; 3rd ed. 1830 (''Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences'') (Pt. I:) ''The Logic of Hegel'', tr. [[William Wallace (Scottish philosopher)|William Wallace]], 1874, 2nd ed. 1892; tr. T. F. Geraets, W. A. Suchting and H. S. Harris, 1991 (Pt. II:) ''Hegel's Philosophy of Nature'', tr. A. V. Miller, 1970 (Pt. III:) ''Hegel's Philosophy of Mind'', tr. William Wallace, 1894; rev. by A. V. Miller, 1971
*''[[Elements of the Philosophy of Right|Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts]]'', 1821 ''Elements of the Philosophy of Right'', tr. T. M. Knox, 1942; tr. H. B. Bisnet, ed. Allen W. Wood, 1991

====Published posthumously====
*''[[Lectures on Aesthetics]]''
*''[[Lectures on the Philosophy of History]]'' (also translated as ''Lectures on the Philosophy of World History'') 1837
*''[[Lectures on Philosophy of Religion]]''
*''Lectures on the History of Philosophy''

==Secondary literature==
===General introductions===
*[[Raymond Plant|Plant, Raymond]], 1983. ''Hegel: An Introduction.'' Oxford: Blackwell
*[[Peter Singer|Singer, Peter]], 2001. ''Hegel: A Very Short Introduction''. Oxford University Press (previously issued in the OUP ''Past Masters'' series, 1983)
*[[Frederick C. Beiser|Beiser, Frederick C.]], 2005. ''Hegel''. Routledge
*[[John Niemeyer Findlay|Findlay, J. N.]], 1958. ''Hegel: A Re-examination''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-519879-4
*[[Walter Kaufmann (philosopher)|Kaufmann, Walter]], 1965. ''Hegel: A Reinterpretation''. New York: Doubleday (reissued Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1978)
*[[James Hutchison Stirling|Stirling, James Hutchison]], ''[[The Secret of Hegel]]'': Being the Hegelian System in Origin Principle, Form and Matter
*[[Charles Taylor (philosopher)|Taylor, Charles]], 1975. ''Hegel''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-29199-2. A comprehensive exposition of Hegel's thought and its impact on the central intellectual and spiritual issues of his and our time.
*Kainz, Howard P., 1996. ''G. W. F. Hegel''. Ohio University Press. ISBN 0-8214-1231-0.

===Essays===
*[[Frederick C. Beiser|Beiser, Frederick C.]] (ed.), 1993. ''The Cambridge Companion to Hegel''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-38711-6. A collection of articles covering the range of Hegel's thought.
*[[Theodor W. Adorno|Adorno, Theodor W.]], 1994. ''Hegel: Three Studies''. MIT Press. Translated by Shierry M. Nicholsen, with an introduction by Nicholsen and Jeremy J. Shapiro, ISBN 0-262-51080-4. Essays on Hegel's concept of spirit/mind, Hegel's concept of experience, and why Hegel is difficult to read.

===Biography===
*Althaus, Horst, 1992. ''Hegel und die heroischen Jahre der Philosophie''. Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag. Eng. tr. Michael Tarsh as ''Hegel: An Intellectual Biography'', Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000
*Pinkard, Terry P., 2000. ''Hegel: A Biography''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-49679-9. By a leading American Hegel scholar; aims to debunk popular misconceptions about Hegel's thought.
*[[Karl Rosenkranz|Rosenkranz, Karl]], 1844. ''Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegels Leben''. Still an important source for Hegel's life.
*Hondt, Jacques d', 1998. ''Hegel: Biographie''. Calmann-Lévy

===Historical===
*[[Tom Rockmore|Rockmore, Tom]], 1993. ''Before and After Hegel: A Historical Introduction to Hegel's Thought''. Indianapolis: Hackett. ISBN 0-87220-648-3.

===Hegel's development===
*[[Georg Lukács|Lukács, Georg]], 1948. ''Der junge Hegel''. Zurich and Vienna (2nd ed. Berlin, 1954). Eng. tr. Rodney Livingstone as ''The Young Hegel'', London: Merlin Press, 1975. ISBN 0-262-12070-4
*Harris, H. S., 1972. ''Hegel's Development: Towards the Sunlight 1770-1801''. Oxford: Clarendon Press
*Harris, H. S., 1983. ''Hegel's Development: Night Thoughts (Jena 1801-1806)''. Oxford: Clarendon Press
*[[Wilhelm Dilthey|Dilthey, Wilhelm]], 1906. ''Die Jugendgeschichte Hegels'' (repr. in ''Gesammelte Schriften'', 1959, vol. IV)
*[[Theodor Haering|Haering, Theodor L.]], 1929, 1938. ''Hegel: sein Wollen und sein Werk'', 2 vols. Leipzig (repr. Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1963)

===Recent English-language literature===
*[[Michael Inwood|Inwood, Michael]], 1983. ''Hegel''. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (''Arguments of the Philosophers'')
*Rockmore, Tom, 1986. ''Hegel's Circular Epistemology''. Indiana University Press
*Pinkard, Terry P., 1988. ''Hegel's Dialectic: The Explanation of Possibility''. Temple University Press
*Westphal, Kenneth, 1989. ''Hegel's Epistemological Realism''. Kluwer Academic Publishers
*Forster, Michael N., 1989. ''Hegel and Skepticism''. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-38707-4
*[[Robert B. Pippin|Pippin, Robert B.]], 1989. ''Hegel's Idealism: the Satisfactions of Self-Consciousness''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-37923-7. Advocates a stronger continuity between Hegel and Kant.

===Phenomenology of Spirit===
''(See also the article ''[[The Phenomenology of Spirit]]''.)''
*Stern, Robert, 2002. ''Hegel and the Phenomenology of Spirit''. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-21788-1. An introduction for students.
*[[Jean Hyppolite|Hyppolite, Jean]], 1946. ''Genèse et structure de la Phénoménologie de l'esprit''. Paris: Aubier. Eng. tr. Samuel Cherniak and John Heckman as ''Genesis and Structure of Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit"'', Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1979. ISBN 0-8101-0594-2. A classic commentary.
*[[Alexandre Kojève|Kojève, Alexandre]], 1947. ''Introduction à la lecture de Hegel''. Paris: Gallimard. Eng. tr. James H. Nichols, Jr., as ''Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit'', Basic Books, 1969. ISBN 0-8014-9203-3 Influential European reading of Hegel.
*[[Robert C. Solomon|Solomon, Robert C.]], 1983. ''In the Spirit of Hegel''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
*[[Harris, H. S.]], 1995. ''Hegel: Phenomenology and System''. Indianapolis: Hackett. A distillation of the author's monumental two-volume commentary ''Hegel's Ladder''.
*Westphal, Kenneth R., 2003. ''Hegel's Epistemology: A Philosophical Introduction to the'' Phenomenology of Spirit. Indianapolis: Hackett. ISBN 0-87220-645-9
*Russon, John, 2004. ''Reading Hegel's Phenomenology''. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-21692-3.
*Bristow, William, 2007. ''Hegel and the Transformation of Philosophical Critique''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199290644

===Logic===
''(See also the article ''[[Science of Logic]]''.)''
*[[Justus Hartnack|Hartnack, Justus]], 1998. ''An Introduction to Hegel's Logic''. Indianapolis: Hackett. ISBN 0-87220-424-3
*Wallace, Robert M., 2005. ''Hegel's Philosophy of Reality, Freedom, and God''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-84484-3. Through a detailed analysis of Hegel's ''Science of Logic'', Wallace shows how Hegel contributes to the broadly Platonic tradition of philosophy that includes Aristotle, Plotinus, and Kant. In the course of doing this, Wallace defends Hegel against major critiques, including the one presented by Charles Taylor in his ''Hegel''.

===Politics===
*[[Shlomo Aveneri|Avineri, Shlomo]], 1974. ''Hegel's Theory of the Modern State''. Cambridge University Press. Best introduction to Hegel's political philosophy.
*Ritter, Joachim, 1984. ''Hegel and the French Revolution''. MIT Press.
*[[Herbert Marcuse|Marcuse, Herbert]], 1941. ''Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory''. An introduction to the philosophy of Hegel, devoted to debunking the conception that Hegel's work included ''in nuce'' the [[Fascist]] [[totalitarianism]] of [[Nazism|National Socialism]]; the negation of philosophy through [[historical materialism]].
*[[Gillian Rose|Rose, Gillian]], 1981. ''Hegel Contra Sociology''. Athlone Press. ISBN 0-485-12036-4.

===Religion===
*Desmond, William, 2003. ''Hegel's God: A Counterfeit Double?''. Ashgate. ISBN 0-7546-0565-5
*O'Regan, Cyril, 1994. ''The Heterodox Hegel''. State University of New York Press, Albany. ISBN 0-7914-2006-X. The most authoritative work to date on Hegel's philosophy of religion.
*Dickey, Laurence, 1987. ''Hegel: Religion, Economics, and the Politics of Spirit, 1770–1807''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-33035-1. A fascinating account of how "Hegel became Hegel", using the guiding hypothesis that Hegel "was basically a theologian manqué".

===Hegel's reputation===
*Popper, Karl. ''The Open Society and Its Enemies'', vol. 2: ''Hegel and Marx''. An influential attack on Hegel.
*Stewart, Jon, ed., 1996. ''The Hegel Myths and Legends''. Northwestern University Press.

==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
{{Commons|Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel}}
{{wikisource author}}
* [http://wiki.hegel.net The new HegelWiki]
* [http://hegel.net/en/hegelbio.htm A superior biography of Hegel with graphics]
* [http://hegel.net Hegel.net] - resources available under the GNU FDL
* [http://wiki.hegel.net/index.php/Hegel Hegel.net] - wiki article on Hegel
* [http://www.aliciafarinati.com.ar Alicia Farinati - Hegelian Works] Several articles on Hegel. Available in English, Spanish and French
* [http://hegel.net/en/links.htm Commented link list]
* [http://hegel.net/en/ml.htm Hegel mailing lists in the internet]
* [http://hegel-system.de/en/ Explanation of Hegel], mostly in German
* [http://www.kat.gr/kat/history/Mod/Th/Hegelianism.htm Discussion of the Hegelian tradition, including the Left and Right schism]
* [http://www.hegel.org/ The Hegel Society of America]
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/ Hegel in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
* http://www.gwfhegel.org/
* [http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/hegel.html Hegel page in 'The History Guide']
* [http://millinerd.com/2006/05/is-hegel-christian.html Is Hegel a Christian?]
* [http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/index Rethinking the Place of Philosophy with Hegel - Call for Papers for Cosmos and History]

===Hegel texts online===
* {{gutenberg author| id=Georg+Wilhelm+Friedrich+Hegel | name=Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel}}
* [http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hegel%20-%20Philosophy%20of%20History.htm Philosophy of History Introduction]
* [http://libcom.org/library/philosophy-right-hegel Hegel's The Philosophy of Right]
* [http://libcom.org/library/philosophy-history-hegel Hegel's The Philosophy of History]
* [http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/index.htm Hegel by HyperText], reference archive on [[Marxists.org]]

{{Philosophy navigation}}



{{Persondata
|NAME=Hegel, Georg
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES=Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
|SHORT DESCRIPTION=German philosopher
|DATE OF BIRTH={{birth date|1770|8|27|mf=y}}
|PLACE OF BIRTH=[[Stuttgart]], [[Germany]]
|DATE OF DEATH={{death date|1831|11|14|mf=y}}
|PLACE OF DEATH=[[Berlin]], [[Germany]]
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich}}
[[Category:Georg Hegel| ]]
[[Category:19th century philosophers]]
[[Category:Continental philosophers]]
[[Category:German philosophers]]
[[Category:German-language philosophers]]
[[Category:Idealists]]
[[Category:Philosophers of law]]
[[Category:Logicians]]
[[Category:Moral philosophers]]
[[Category:Metaphysicians]]
[[Category:Political philosophers]]
[[Category:Political theorists]]
[[Category:Romanticism]]
[[Category:Social philosophers]]
[[Category:Theories of history]]
[[Category:Western mystics]]
[[Category:German Lutherans]]
[[Category:Humboldt University of Berlin faculty]]
[[Category:People from Stuttgart]]
[[Category:Deaths from cholera]]
[[Category:1770 births]]
[[Category:1831 deaths]]

[[ar:جيورج فيلهلم فريدريش هيجل]]
[[bn:গেয়র্গ ভিলহেল্ম হেগল]]
[[be-x-old:Георг Гегель]]
[[bs:George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[bg:Георг Хегел]]
[[ca:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[cs:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[da:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[de:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[et:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[el:Γκέοργκ Βίλχελμ Φρήντριχ Χέγκελ]]
[[es:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[eo:Hegelo]]
[[eu:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[fa:هگل]]
[[fr:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[gl:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[ko:게오르크 빌헬름 프리드리히 헤겔]]
[[hi:जार्ज विल्हेम फ्रेडरिच हेगेल]]
[[hr:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[io:Friedrich Hegel]]
[[id:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[is:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[it:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[he:גיאורג וילהלם פרידריך הגל]]
[[ka:გეორგ ვილჰელმ ფრიდრიხ ჰეგელი]]
[[ku:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[la:Georgius Wilhelmus Fridericus Hegel]]
[[lt:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[hu:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[mk:Георг Вилхелм Фридрих Хегел]]
[[nl:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[ja:ゲオルク・ヴィルヘルム・フリードリヒ・ヘーゲル]]
[[no:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[pms:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[pl:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[pt:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[ro:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[ru:Гегель, Георг Вильгельм Фридрих]]
[[simple:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[sk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[sr:Георг Вилхелм Фридрих Хегел]]
[[fi:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[sv:Friedrich Hegel]]
[[tpi:Hegel]]
[[tr:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[uk:Геґель Ґеорґ Вільгельм Фрідріх]]
[[zh:黑格尔]]

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

2007-10-17T02:06:58Z

Harpakhrad11:

{{Infobox_Philosopher |
region = Western Philosophy |
era = [[19th-century philosophy]] |
color = #B0C4DE |
image_name = Hegel_portrait_by_Schlesinger_1831.jpg |
image_caption = G.W.F. Hegel |
name = Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel |
birth = [[August 27]], [[1770]] ([[Stuttgart]], [[Germany]]) |
death = {{death date and age|1831|11|14|1770|08|27}} ([[Berlin]], [[Germany]]) |
school_tradition = [[German Idealism]]; Founder of [[Hegelianism]] |
main_interests = [[Logic]], [[Philosophy of history]], [[Aesthetics]], [[Religion]], [[Metaphysics]], [[Epistemology]], [[Political Science]], |
influences = [[Aristotle]], [[Heraclitus]], [[Anselm of Canterbury|Anselm]], [[René Descartes|Descartes]], [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe|Goethe]], [[Baruch Spinoza|Spinoza]], [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Rousseau]], [[Jakob Böhme|Böhme]], [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]], [[Johann Gottlieb Fichte|Fichte]], [[Friedrich Hölderlin|Hölderlin]], [[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling|Schelling]] |
influenced = [[Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach|Feuerbach]], [[Benedetto Croce|Croce]], [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Bruno Bauer|Bauer]], [[F. H. Bradley|Bradley]], [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], [[György Lukács|Lukács]], [[Martin Heidegger|Heidegger]], [[Jean-Paul Sartre|Sartre]], [[Karl Barth|Barth]], [[Hans Küng|Küng]], [[Jürgen Habermas|Habermas]], [[Hans-Georg Gadamer|Gadamer]], [[Jürgen Moltmann|Moltmann]], [[Søren Kierkegaard|Kierkegaard]], [[Giovanni Gentile|Gentile]], [[Max Stirner|Stirner]] [[Charles Taylor (philosopher)|Charles Taylor]], [[Alexandre Koyré]], [[Alexandre Kojève|Kojève]], [[Jacques Lacan|Lacan]], [[Gilles Deleuze|Deleuze]], [[Slavoj Žižek|Žižek]], [[Francis Fukuyama|Fukuyama]] |
notable_ideas = [[Absolute idealism]], [[Dialectic]], [[Sublation]]|
}}
'''Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel''' ({{IPA2|ˈgeɔʁk ˈvɪlhɛlm ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈheːgəl}}) ([[August 27]], [[1770]] – [[November 14]], [[1831]]) was a [[German people|German]] [[philosopher]] and, with [[Johann Gottlieb Fichte]] and [[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling]], one of the representatives of [[German idealism]].

Hegel influenced writers of widely varying positions, including both his admirers ([[Bruno Bauer|Bauer]], [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[F. H. Bradley|Bradley]], [[Jean-Paul Sartre|Sartre]], [[Hans Küng|Küng]]), and his detractors ([[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling|Schelling]], [[Søren Kierkegaard|Kierkegaard]], [[Arthur Schopenhauer|Schopenhauer]], [[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]], [[Martin Heidegger|Heidegger]]). Hegel discussed a relation between nature and freedom, [[immanence]] and [[Transcendence (philosophy)|transcendence]], and the unification of these dualities without eliminating either pole or reducing it to the other. His influential conceptions are of speculative logic or "dialectic," "absolute idealism," "Spirit," the "Master/Slave" dialectic, "ethical life," and the importance of history.

==Life==
===Early years: 1770-1801===
====Childhood in Stuttgart====
Hegel was born on [[August 27]], [[1770]] in [[Stuttgart]], in the Duchy of [[Württemberg]] in southwestern [[Germany]]. Christened Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, he was known as Wilhelm to his close family. His father, Georg Ludwig, was ''Rentkammersekretär'' (secretary to the revenue office) at the court of [[Karl Eugen, Duke of Württemberg]].<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', pp. 2-3; p. 745.</ref> Hegel's mother, Maria Magdalena Louisa (''née'' Fromm), was the daughter of a lawyer at the High Court of Justice at the Württemberg court. She died when Hegel was thirteen of a "bilious fever" (''Gallenfieber'') which Hegel and his father also caught but narrowly survived.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 3, incorrectly gives the date as September 20, 1781, and describes Hegel as aged eleven. Cf. the index to Pinkard's book and his "Chronology of Hegel's Life", which correctly give the date as 1783 (pp. 773, 745); see also German Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Studien_und_Interessen.</ref> Hegel had a sister, Christiane Luise (1773-1832), and a brother, Georg Ludwig (1776-1812), who was to perish as an officer in Napoleon's Russian campaign of 1812.<ref> Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 4.</ref>

At the age of three Hegel went to the "German School". When he entered the "Latin School" aged five, he already knew the first declension, having been taught it by his mother.

In 1784 Hegel entered Stuttgart's ''Gymnasium Illustre''. During his adolescence Hegel read voraciously, copying lengthy extracts in his diary. Authors he read include the poet [[Klopstock]] and writers associated with the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] such as [[Christian Garve]] and [[Gotthold Ephraim Lessing]]. Hegel's studies at the ''Gymnasium'' were concluded with his ''Abiturrede'' ("graduation speech") entitled "The abortive state of art and scholarship in Turkey."

====Student in Tübingen (1788-93)====
At the age of eighteen Hegel entered the [[Tübinger Stift]] (a Protestant seminary attached to the [[University of Tübingen]]), where two fellow students were to become vital to his development—his exact contemporary, the poet [[Friedrich Hölderlin]], and the younger brilliant philosopher-to-be [[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling]]. Sharing a dislike for what they regarded as the restrictive environment of the Seminary, the three became close friends and mutually influenced each other's ideas. They watched the unfolding of the [[French Revolution]] with shared enthusiasm. Schelling and Hölderlin immersed themselves in theoretical debates on Kantian philosophy, from which Hegel remained aloof. Hegel at this time envisaged his future as that of a ''Popularphilosoph'', i.e., a "man of letters" who serves to make the abstruse ideas of philosophers accessible to a wider public; his own felt need to engage critically with the central ideas of Kantianism did not come until 1800.

====House tutor in Berne (1793-96) and Frankfurt (1797-1801)====
Having received his theological certificate (''Konsistorialexamen'') from the Tübingen Seminary, Hegel became ''Hofmeister'' (house tutor) to an aristocratic family in [[Berne]] (1793-96). During this period he composed the text which has become known as the "Life of Jesus" and a book-length manuscript entitled "The Positivity of the Christian Religion". His relations with his employers having become strained, Hegel gladly accepted an offer mediated by Hölderlin to take up a similar position with a wine merchant's family in [[Frankfurt]], where he moved in 1797. Here Hölderlin exerted an important influence on Hegel's thought.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 80.</ref> In Frankfurt Hegel composed the essay "The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate" (not published during Hegel's lifetime).

===Jena, Bamberg and Nuremberg: 1801-1816===
====Early university career in Jena (1801-1807)====
In 1801 Hegel came to [[Jena]] with the encouragement of his old friend Schelling, who was Extraordinary Professor at the [[University of Jena|University]] there. Hegel secured a position at the University as a ''[[Privatdozent]]'' (unsalaried lecturer) after submitting a ''[[Habilitation]]sschrift'' (dissertation) on the orbits of the planets. Later in the year Hegel's first book, ''The Difference between Fichte's and Schelling's Systems of Philosophy'', appeared. He lectured on "Logic and Metaphysics" and, with Schelling, gave joint lectures on an "Introduction to the Idea and Limits of True Philosophy" and held a "Philosophical Disputorium". In 1802 Schelling and Hegel founded a journal, the ''Kritische Journal der Philosophie'' ("Critical Journal of Philosophy") to which they each contributed pieces until the collaboration was ended by Schelling's departure for [[Würzburg]] in 1803.

In 1805 the University promoted Hegel to the position of Extraordinary Professor (unsalaried), after Hegel wrote a letter to the poet and minister of culture [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]] protesting at the promotion of his philosophical adversary [[Jakob Friedrich Fries]] ahead of him.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 223.</ref> Hegel attempted to enlist the help of the poet and translator [[Johann Heinrich Voß]] to obtain a post at the newly renascent [[University of Heidelberg]], but failed; to his chagrin, Fries was later in the same year made Ordinary Professor (salaried) there.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', pp. 224-5.</ref>

His finances drying up quickly, Hegel was now under great pressure to deliver his book, the long-promised introduction to his System. Hegel was putting the finishing touches to this book, now called the ''Phenomenology of Spirit'', as Napoleon engaged Prussian troops on October 14, 1806, in the [[Battle of Jena]] on a plateau outside the city. On the day before the battle, Napoleon entered the city of Jena. Hegel recounted his impressions in a letter to his friend [[Friedrich Immanuel Niethammer]]:
{{Quotation|I saw the Emperor – this world-soul – riding out of the city on reconnaissance. It is indeed a wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrated here at a single point, astride a horse, reaches out over the world and masters it […] this extraordinary man, whom it is impossible not to admire.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 228.</ref>}}
Although Napoleon chose not to close down Jena as he had other universities, the city was devastated and students deserted the university in droves, making Hegel's financial prospects even worse. The following February Hegel's landlady Christiana Burkhardt (who had been abandoned by her husband) gave birth to their son Georg Ludwig Friedrich Fischer (1807-31).<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 192.</ref>

====Newspaper editor in Bamberg (1807-08) and headmaster in Nuremberg (1808-15)====
In March 1807 Hegel moved to [[Bamberg]], where Niethammer had declined and passed on to Hegel an offer to become editor of a newspaper, the ''Bamberger Zeitung''. Hegel, unable to find more suitable employment, reluctantly accepted. Ludwig Fischer and his mother (whom Hegel may have offered to marry following the death of her husband) stayed behind in Jena.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 238.</ref>

He was then, in November 1808, again through Niethammer, appointed headmaster of a ''Gymnasium'' in [[Nuremberg]], a post he held until 1816. Here Hegel adapted his recently published ''Phenomenology of Spirit'' for use in the classroom. Part of his remit being to teach a class called "Introduction to Knowledge of the Universal Coherence of the Sciences," Hegel developed the idea of an encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences, falling into three parts (logic, philosophy of nature, and philosophy of spirit).<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 337.</ref>

Hegel married Marie Helena Susanna von Tucher (1791-1855), the eldest daughter of a Senator, in 1811. This period saw the publication of his second major work, the ''Science of Logic'' (''Wissenschaft der Logik''; 3 vols., 1812, 1813, 1816), and the birth of his two legitimate sons, Karl Friedrich Wilhelm (1813-1901) and Immanuel Thomas Christian (1814-1891).

===Professor in Heidelberg and Berlin: 1816-1831===
====Heidelberg (1816-18)====
Having received offers of a post from the Universities of [[University of Erlangen|Erlangen]], [[University of Berlin|Berlin]], and [[University of Heidelberg|Heidelberg]], Hegel chose Heidelberg, where he moved in 1816. Soon after, in April 1817, his illegitimate son Ludwig Fischer (now ten years old) joined the Hegel household, having thus far spent his childhood in an orphanage.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', pp. 354-5.</ref> (Ludwig's mother had died in the meantime.)<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 356.</ref>

Hegel published ''The Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sentences in Outline'' (1817) as a summary of his philosophy for students attending his lectures at Heidelberg.

====Berlin (1818-31)====
[[Image:Friedrich Hegel mit Studenten Lithographie F Kugler.jpg|thumb|right|Hegel with students <br\>Lithograph by F. Kugler]]
In 1818 Hegel accepted the renewed offer of the chair of philosophy at the [[University of Berlin]], which had remained vacant since Fichte's death in 1814. Here he published his ''[[Elements of the Philosophy of Right]]'' (1821). Hegel's efforts were primarily directed at delivering his lectures; his lecture courses on aesthetics, the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of history, and the history of philosophy were published posthumously from lecture notes taken by his students. His fame spread and his lectures attracted students from all over Germany and beyond.

Hegel was appointed Rector of the University in 1830. He was deeply disturbed by the riots for reform in Berlin in that year. In 1831 [[Frederick William III of Prussia|Frederick William III]] decorated him for his service to the Prussian state. In August [[1831]] a [[cholera]] epidemic reached Berlin and Hegel left the city, taking up lodgings in [[Kreuzberg]]. Now in a weak state of health, Hegel went out little. As the new semester began in October, Hegel returned to Berlin, with the (mistaken) impression that the epidemic had largely subsided. On [[November 14]] Hegel was dead. The physicians pronounced the cause of death as cholera, but it is more likely he died from a gastrointestinal disease.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', pp. 658-9.</ref> In accordance with his wishes, Hegel was buried on [[November 16]] in the [[Dorotheenstädtischer Friedhof|Dorotheenstadt Cemetery]] next to Fichte and [[Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand Solger|Solger]].

Hegel's son Ludwig Fischer had died shortly before while serving with the Dutch army in [[Jakarta]]; the news of his death never reached his father.<ref>Pinkard, ''Hegel: A Biography'', p. 548.</ref> Early the following year Hegel's sister Christiane committed suicide by drowning. Hegel's sons Karl, who became a historian, and Immanuel, who followed a theological path, lived long lives during which they safeguarded their father's ''[[Nachlaß]]'' and produced editions of his works.

==Works==

Hegel published only four books during his life: the ''[[Phenomenology of Spirit]]'' (or ''Phenomenology of Mind''), his account of the evolution of consciousness from sense-perception to absolute knowledge, published in 1807; the ''[[Science of Logic]]'', the logical and [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] core of his philosophy, in three volumes, published in 1811, [[1812]], and 1816 (revised 1831); ''[[Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences]]'', a summary of his entire philosophical system, which was originally published in 1816 and revised in 1827 and 1830; and the ''[[Elements of the Philosophy of Right]]'', his political philosophy, published in 1822. In the latter, he criticized [[Karl Ludwig von Haller|von Haller]]'s reactionary work, which claimed that laws were not necessary. He also published some articles early in his career and during his Berlin period. A number of other works on the [[philosophy of history]], [[Philosophy of religion|religion]], [[aesthetics]], and the [[history of philosophy]] were compiled from the lecture notes of his students and published posthumously.

[[Image:Hegelgrave.jpg|thumb|left|Hegel's Grave in Berlin]]Hegel's works have a reputation for their difficulty and for the breadth of the topics they attempt to cover. Hegel introduced a system for understanding the [[history of philosophy]] and the world itself, often described as a ''progression in which each successive movement emerges as a solution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement''. For example, the [[French Revolution]] for Hegel constitutes the introduction of real [[Freedom (political)|individual political freedom]] into [[Europe|European societies]] for the first time in recorded history. But precisely because of its absolute novelty, it is also absolutely radical: on the one hand the upsurge of violence required to carry out the revolution cannot cease to be itself, while on the other, it has already consumed its opponent. The revolution therefore has nowhere to turn but onto its own result: the hard-won freedom is consumed by a brutal [[Reign of Terror]]. History, however, progresses by learning from its mistakes: only after and precisely because of this experience can one posit the existence of a [[constitution]]al [[state]] of free citizens, embodying both the benevolent organizing power of rational [[government]] and the revolutionary ideals of freedom and equality. Hegel's remarks on the French revolution led German poet [[Heinrich Heine]] to label him "The [[Orléanist|Orléans]] of German Philosophy".

Hegel's writing style is difficult to read; he is described by [[Bertrand Russell]] in the ''History of Western Philosophy'' as the single most difficult philosopher to understand. This is partly because Hegel tried to develop a new form of thinking and logic, which he called "[[speculative reason]]" and which includes the more famous concept of "[[dialectic]]," to try to overcome what he saw as the limitations of both common sense and of traditional philosophy at grasping philosophical problems and the relation between thought and reality.

==Teachings==
===The concept of freedom through Hegel's method===
Hegel's thinking can be understood as a constructive development within the broadly Platonic tradition that includes [[Aristotle]], [[Plotinus]], and [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]]. To this list one could add Proclus, Meister Eckhart, Leibniz, Bahlsen, Spinoza, Jakob Boehme, and [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Rousseau]]. What all these thinkers share, which distinguishes them from materialists like Epicurus, the [[Stoicism|Stoics]], and [[Thomas Hobbes]], and from empiricists like [[David Hume]], is that they regard freedom or self-determination both as real and as having important ontological implications, for soul or mind or divinity. This focus on freedom is what generates Plato's notion (in the [[Phaedo]], [[The Republic (Plato)|Republic]], and [[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]) of the "soul" as having a higher or fuller kind of reality than inanimate objects possess. While Aristotle criticizes Plato's "Forms," he preserves Plato's preoccupation with the ontological implications of self-determination, in his conceptions of ethical reasoning, the hierarchy of soul in nature, the order of the cosmos, and the prime mover. [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]], likewise, preserves this preoccupation of Plato's in his notions of moral and noumenal freedom, and God.

In his discussion of "Spirit" in his ''Encyclopedia'', Hegel praises Aristotle's ''[[On the Soul]]'' as "by far the most admirable, perhaps even the sole, work of philosophical value on this topic" (par. 378). And in his ''[[The Phenomenology of Spirit|Phenomenology of Spirit]]'' and his ''[[Science of Logic]]'', Hegel's concern with Kantian topics such as freedom and morality, and with their ontological implications, is pervasive. Rather than simply rejecting [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]]'s dualism of freedom versus nature, Hegel aims to subsume it within "true infinity," the "Concept" (or "Notion": ''Begriff''), "Spirit," and "ethical life" in such a way that the Kantian duality is rendered intelligible (as mentioned above), rather than remaining a brute "given."

The reason why this subsumption takes place in a ''series'' of concepts is that Hegel's method, in his ''Science of Logic'' and his ''Encyclopedia'', is to begin with ultra-basic concepts like Being and Nothing, and to develop these through a long sequence of elaborations, including those mentioned in the previous paragraph. So that a solution that's arrived at, in principle, in the account of "true infinity" in the ''Science of Logic'''s chapter on "Quality," is repeated in new guises at later stages, all the way to "Spirit" and "ethical life," in the third volume of the ''Encyclopedia''.

In this way, Hegel intends to defend the germ of truth in Kantian dualism against reductive or eliminative programs like those of materialism and empiricism (which one can see at work in many of Hegel's critics, including [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]], and Russell). Like Plato, with his dualism of soul versus bodily appetites, Kant wants to insist on the mind's ability to question its felt inclinations or appetites and to come up with a standard of "duty" (or, in Plato's case, "good") which goes beyond them. Hegel preserves this essential Platonic and Kantian concern in the form of infinity's going beyond the finite (a process that Hegel in fact relates to "freedom" and the "ought" <ref> See ''Science of Logic'', trans. Miller [Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities, 1989], pp. 133-136 and 138, top </ref>), the universal's going beyond the particular (in the Concept), and Spirit's going beyond Nature. And Hegel renders these dualities ''intelligible'' by (ultimately) his argument in the "Quality" chapter of the ''Science of Logic'' that the finite has to become infinite in order to achieve "reality." This is because, as Hegel suggests by his introduction of the concept of "reality" <ref> ''Science of Logic'', p. 111 </ref>, what determines itself rather than depending on its relations to other things for its essential character, is more fully "real" (following the Latin etymology of "real": more "thing-like") than what does not. Finite things don't determine themselves, because, as "finite" things, their essential character is determined by their boundaries, over against other finite things. So, in order to become "real," they must go beyond their finitude ("finitude ''is'' only as a transcending of itself" <ref> ''Science of Logic'', p. 145 </ref>).

The result of this argument is that finite and infinite—and, by extension, particular and universal, nature and freedom—don't face one another as two independent realities, but instead the latter (in each case) is the ''self-transcending'' of the former <ref> See ''Science of Logic'', p. 146, top </ref>. Thus rather than being merely "given," without explanation, the relationship between finite and infinite (and particular and universal, and nature and freedom) becomes intelligible. And a challenge is issued to reductive and eliminative programs like materialism and empiricism: What kind of "reality" do ''your'' fundamental entities or data possess?

===Evolution through contradictions and negations===
The obscure writings of [[Jakob Böhme]] had a strong effect on Hegel. Böhme had written that [[the Fall of Man]] was a necessary stage in the [[evolution]] of the [[universe]]. This evolution was, itself, the result of [[God]]'s desire for complete self-awareness. Hegel was fascinated by the works of [[Baruch Spinoza|Spinoza]], [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]], [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Rousseau]], and [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe|Goethe]], and by the [[French Revolution]]. Modern philosophy, culture, and society seemed to Hegel fraught with contradictions and tensions, such as those between the subject and object of [[knowledge]], mind and nature, [[Self (philosophy)|self]] and [[Other]], freedom and authority, knowledge and faith, the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] and [[Romanticism]]. Hegel's main philosophical project was to take these contradictions and tensions and interpret them as part of a comprehensive, evolving, rational unity that, in different contexts, he called "the absolute idea" or "absolute knowledge".

According to Hegel, the main characteristic of this unity was that it evolved through and manifested itself in [[contradiction]] and [[negation]]. Contradiction and negation have a dynamic quality that at every point in each domain of [[reality]]—[[consciousness]], [[history]], [[philosophy]], [[art]], [[nature]], [[society]]—leads to further development until a [[rationality|rational]] unity is reached that preserves the contradictions as phases and sub-parts by lifting them up ([[Aufhebung]]) to a higher unity. This whole is [[mind|mental]] because it is [[mind]] that can comprehend all of these phases and sub-parts as steps in its own process of comprehension. It is rational because the same, underlying, [[logic]]al, developmental order underlies every domain of reality and is ultimately the order of self-conscious rational thought, although only in the later stages of development does it come to full self-consciousness. The rational, self-conscious [[whole]] is not a thing or [[being]] that lies outside of other existing things or minds. Rather, it comes to completion only in the philosophical comprehension of individual existing human minds who, through their own understanding, bring this developmental process to an understanding of itself.

(Note: “Mind” and “Spirit” are the common English translations of Hegel’s use of the German “[[Geist]]”. Some Hegelian scholars have argued that either of these terms overly “psychologize” Hegel,{{Fact|date=February 2007}} implying a kind of disembodied, solipsistic consciousness like "ghost" or "soul,". Geist combines the meaning of spirit, as in god, ghost or mind, with an intentional force. {{Fact|date=February 2007}})

Central to Hegel's [[conception]] of [[knowledge]] and mind (and therefore also of reality) was the notion of [[Identity (philosophy)|identity]] in [[difference]], that is that mind [[externalization|externalizes]] itself in various forms and [[object (philosophy)|object]]s that stand outside of it or opposed to it, and that, through recognizing itself in them, is "with itself" in these external manifestations, so that they are at one and the same time mind and other-than-mind. This notion of identity in difference, which is intimately bound up with his conception of contradiction and negativity, is a principal feature differentiating Hegel's thought from that of other philosophers.

===Civil society===
{{main|Civil society}}
Hegel made the distinction between civil society and state in his ''[[Elements of the Philosophy of Right]]'' <ref> [http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/preface.htm Etext of Philosophy of Right Hegel, 1827 (translated by Dyde, 1897)] </ref>. In this work, civil society (Hegel used the term "buergerliche Gesellschaft" though it is now referred to as ''Zivilgesellschaft'' in [[German language|German]] to emphasize a more inclusive community) was a stage on the [[dialectical|dialectical relationship]] between Hegel's perceived opposites, the macro-community of the [[state]] and the micro-community of the [[family]] <ref> Pelczynski, A.Z.; 1984; 'The Significane of Hegel's speration of the state and civil society' pp1-13 in Pelczynski, A.Z. (ed.); 1984; ''The State and Civil Society''; Cambridge University Press </ref>. Broadly speaking, the term was split, like Hegel's followers, to the [[political left]] and [[political right|right]]. On the left, it became the foundation for [[Karl Marx]]'s [[bourgeoise|bourgeois society]] <ref> ''[[ibid]]'' </ref>; to the right it became a description for all non-state aspects of society, expanding out of the [[economic]] rigidity of [[Marxism]] into [[culture]], [[society]] and [[politics]] <ref> ''ibid'' </ref>

===Influence===
There are views of Hegel's thought as a representation of the summit of early 19th century Germany's movement of philosophical [[idealism]]. It would come to have a profound impact on many future philosophical schools, including schools that opposed Hegel's specific dialectical idealism, such as [[Existentialism]], the [[historical materialism]] of [[Karl Marx]], [[historicism]], and [[British idealism|British Idealism]].

Hegel's influence was immense both within philosophy and in the other sciences. Throughout the 19th century many chairs of philosophy around Europe were held by Hegelians, although [[Kierkegaard]], [[Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach|Feuerbach]], [[Marx]], and [[Engels]] were all opposed to the most central themes of Hegel's philosophy. After less than a generation, Hegel's philosophy was suppressed and even banned by the [[Prussia]]n [[right-wing]], and was firmly rejected by the [[left-wing]] in multiple official writings.

After the period of [[Bruno Bauer]], Hegel's influence did not make itself felt again until the philosophy of [[British idealism|British Idealism]] and the 20th century Hegelian [[Neo-Marxism]] that began with [[Georg Lukács]]. The more recent movement of [[communitarianism]] has a strong Hegelian influence, although a Hegel specialist would argue that that influence is not strong enough, since communitarianism tends toward [[relativism]], which Hegel's philosophy does not.

==Hegel's legacy (interpretation)==
===Reading Hegel===
Some of Hegel's writing was intended for those with advanced knowledge of philosophy, although his "Encyclopedia" was intended as a [[textbook]] in a [[university]] [[course (education)|course]]. Nevertheless, like many philosophers, Hegel assumed that his readers would be well-versed in [[Western philosophy]], up to and including [[Descartes]], [[Spinoza]], [[Hume]], [[Kant]], [[Fichte]], and [[Schelling]]. For those wishing to read his work without this background, introductions to Hegel and commentaries about Hegel may suffice. However, even this is hotly debated since the reader must choose from multiple interpretations of Hegel's writings from incompatible schools of philosophy. Presumably, reading Hegel directly would be the best method of understanding him, but this task has historically proved to be beyond the average reader of philosophy. This difficulty may be the most urgent problem with respect to the legacy of Hegel.

One especially difficult aspect of Hegel's work is his innovation in logic. In response to Immanuel Kant's challenge to the limits of [[Critique of Pure Reason|Pure Reason]], Hegel developed a radically new form of logic, which he called ''speculation'', and which is today popularly called [[dialectic]]s. The difficulty in reading Hegel was perceived in Hegel's own day, and persists into the 21st century. To understand Hegel fully requires paying attention to his critique of standard logic, such as the [[law of contradiction]] and the [[law of the excluded middle]], and, whether one accepts or rejects it, at least taking it seriously. Many philosophers who came after Hegel and were influenced by him, whether adopting or rejecting his ideas, did so without fully absorbing his new speculative or dialectical logic.

===Left and Right Hegelianism===
Another confusing aspect about the interpretation of Hegel's work is the fact that past historians have spoken of Hegel's influence as represented by two opposing camps. The [[Right Hegelians]], the allegedly direct disciples of Hegel at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität (now known as the [[Humboldt University of Berlin|Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin]]), advocated a Protestant orthodoxy and the political conservatism of the post-[[Napoleon I of France|Napoleon]] Restoration period. The [[Young Hegelians|Left Hegelians]], also known as the Young Hegelians, interpreted Hegel in a revolutionary sense, leading to an advocation of [[atheism]] in religion and [[liberal democracy]] in politics.

In more recent studies, however, this old paradigm has been questioned. For one thing, no Hegelians of the period ever referred to themselves as Right Hegelians. That was a term of insult that [[David Strauss]] (a self-styled Left Hegelian) hurled at [[Bruno Bauer]] (who has most often been classified by historians as a Left Hegelian, but who rejected both titles for himself). For another thing, no so-called "Left Hegelian" described himself as a follower of Hegel. This includes [[Moses Hess]] as well as [[Karl Marx]]. Several "Left Hegelians" openly repudiated or insulted the legacy of Hegel's philosophy. The critiques of Hegel offered from the "Left Hegelians" radically diverted Hegel's thinking into new directions—and form a disproportionately large part of the literature on and about Hegel.

Perhaps the main reason that so much writing about Hegel emerges from the so-called Left-Hegelians is that the Left-Hegelians spawned [[Marxism]], which inspired a global movement lasting more than 150 years, encompassing the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution and even more national-liberation movements of the 20th century. Yet that isn't, to be precise, any direct result of Hegel's philosophy.

20th century interpretations of Hegel were mostly shaped by one-sided schools of thought: [[British idealism|British Idealism]], [[logical positivism]], [[Marxism]], [[Fascism]] and [[postmodernism]]. With reference to Fascism, Italy's [[Giovanni Gentile]] "…holds the honor of having been the most rigorous neo–Hegelian in the entire history of Western philosophy and the dishonor of having been the official philosopher of Fascism in Italy."<ref>[[Benedetto Croce]], ''Guide to Aesthetics'', Translated by Patrick Romanell, "Translator's Introduction," The Library of Liberal Arts, The Bobbs–Merrill Co., Inc., 1965</ref> However, since the fall of the [[USSR]], a new wave of Hegel scholarship arose in the West, without the preconceptions of the prior schools of thought.

[[Walter Jaeschke]] and [[Otto Pöggeler]] in Germany, as well as [[Peter Hodgson]] and [[Howard Kainz]] in America, are notable for their many contributions to post-USSR thinking about Hegel as published by the Hegel Society of America. Perhaps the most challenging publication from that source has been the new English edition of Hegel's ''Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (1818-1831)'' which has challenged most 20th century views about Hegel.

===Triads===
In previous modern accounts of Hegelianism (to undergraduate classes, for example), Hegel's dialectic was most often characterized as a three-step process of "[[Thesis, antithesis, synthesis]]", namely, that a "thesis" (e.g. the French Revolution) would cause the creation of its "antithesis" (e.g. the Reign of Terror that followed), and would eventually result in a "synthesis" (e.g. the Constitutional state of free citizens). However, Hegel used this classification only once, and he attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant. The terminology was largely developed earlier by [[Johann Fichte]] the neo-Kantian. It was spread by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus in a popular account of Hegelian philosophy, and since then the misfit terms have stuck.

Believing that the traditional description of Hegel's philosophy in terms of thesis-antithesis-synthesis was mistaken, a few scholars, like [[Raya Dunayevskaya]] have attempted to discard the triadic approach altogether. According to their argument, although Hegel refers to ''"the two elemental considerations: first, the idea of freedom as the absolute and final aim; secondly, the means for realising it, i.e. the subjective side of knowledge and will, with its life, movement, and activity"'' (thesis and antithesis) he doesn't use "synthesis" but instead speaks of the ''"Whole"'': ''"We then recognised the State as the moral Whole and the Reality of Freedom, and consequently as the objective unity of these two elements."'' Furthermore, in Hegel's language, the "dialectical" aspect or "moment" of thought and reality, by which things or thoughts turn into their opposites or have their inner contradictions brought to the surface, what he called [[Sublation|"aufhebung"]], is only preliminary to the "speculative" (and not "synthesizing") aspect or "moment", which grasps the unity of these opposites or contradiction. Thus for Hegel, reason is ultimately "speculative", not "dialectical".

To the contrary, scholars like [[Howard Kainz]] explain that Hegel's philosophy contains thousands of triads. However, instead of "thesis-antithesis-synthesis," Hegel used different terms to speak about triads, for example, "immediate-mediate-concrete," as well as, "abstract-negative-concrete." Hegel's works speak of synthetic logic. Nevertheless, it is widely admitted today that the old-fashioned description of Hegel's philosophy in terms of "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" was always inaccurate. At the same time, however, those same terms survive in scholarly works, such is the persistence of this misnomer.

==Advocates==
In the latter half of the 20th century, Hegel's philosophy underwent a major renaissance. This was due to: (a) the rediscovery and reevaluation of Hegel as a possible philosophical progenitor of Marxism by philosophically oriented Marxists; (b) a resurgence of the historical perspective that Hegel brought to everything; and (c) an increasing recognition of the importance of his [[dialectical method]].

The book that did the most to reintroduce Hegel into the Marxist canon was perhaps [[Georg Lukács]]' ''History and Class Consciousness''. This sparked a renewed interest in Hegel reflected in the work of [[Herbert Marcuse]], [[Theodor W. Adorno]], [[Ernst Bloch]], [[Raya Dunayevskaya]], [[Alexandre Kojève]] and [[Gotthard Günther]] among others. The Hegel renaissance also highlighted the significance of Hegel's early works, i.e. those published prior to the ''[[Phenomenology of Spirit]]''. The direct and indirect influence of Kojève's lectures and writings (on the Phenomenology of Spirit, in particular) mean that it is not possible to understand most French philosophers from [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] to [[Jacques Derrida]] without understanding Hegel.

Beginning in the 1960s, Anglo-American Hegel scholarship has attempted to challenge the traditional interpretation of Hegel as offering a metaphysical system: this has also been the approach of Z.A.Pelczynski and [[Shlomo Avineri]]. This view, sometimes referred to as the 'non-metaphysical option', has had a decided influence on many major English language studies of Hegel in the past 40 years.

U.S. [[neorightist]] [[political science|political theorist]] [[Francis Fukuyama]]'s controversial book ''[[The End of History and the Last Man]]'' was heavily influenced by Alexandre Kojève. Among modern scientists, the physicist [[David Bohm]], the mathematician [[William Lawvere]], the logician [[Kurt Gödel]] and the biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] have been interested in Hegel's philosophical work.{{Fact|date=June 2007}}

A late 20th century literature in Western Theology that is friendly to Hegel includes such writers as Dale M. Schlitt (1984), Theodore Geraets (1985), Philip M. Merklinger (1991), Stephen Rocker (1995) and Cyril O'Regan (1995). The contemporary theologian [[Hans Küng]] has also advanced contemporary scholarship in Hegel studies.

Recently, two prominent American philosophers, [[John McDowell]] and [[Robert Brandom]] (sometimes, half-seriously, referred to as the [[University of Pittsburgh|Pittsburgh]] Hegelians), have produced philosophical works exhibiting a marked Hegelian influence.

Beginning in the 1990s, after the fall of the [[USSR]], a fresh reading of Hegel took place in the West. For these scholars, fairly well represented by the Hegel Society of America and in cooperation with German scholars such as Otto Pöggeler and Walter Jaeschke, Hegel's works should be read without preconceptions. Marx plays a minor role in these new readings, and some contemporary scholars have suggested that Marx's interpretation of Hegel is irrelevant to a proper reading of Hegel. Some American philosophers associated with this movement include Clark Butler, Vince Hathaway, Daniel Shannon, David Duquette, David MacGregor, Edward Beach, John Burbidge, [[Lawrence Stepelevich]], Rudolph Siebert, Theodore Geraets and William Desmond.

Since 1990, new aspects of Hegel's philosophy have been published that were not typically seen in the West. One example is the idea that the essence of Hegel's philosophy is the idea of [[Freedom (philosophy)|freedom]]. With the idea of ''freedom'', Hegel attempts to explain [[History of the world|world history]], [[fine art]], [[political science]], the free thinking that is [[science]], the attainment of [[spirituality]], and the resolution to problems of metaphysics.

==Detractors==

Hegel used his system of dialectics to explain the whole of the history of [[philosophy]], [[science]], [[art]], [[politics]] and [[religion]], but he has had many critics over the centuries.

Perhaps the most famous critics were the Left-Hegelians, including [[Ludwig Feuerbach]], [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] and their followers in the 19th century.

[[Arthur Schopenhauer]] despised Hegel on account of the latter's alleged [[historicism]], among other reasons.

Actually, Hegel had the most well-attended classes of any philosopher of his time. The belief that Hegel once said, "Only one man understands me, and even he does not" (Strathern, 1997), is incorrect, since it was actually stated by [[Fichte]] about [[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling]] when Hegel persuaded Schelling to abandon his teacher [[Fichte]].

[[Søren Kierkegaard]], one of Hegel's earliest critics, criticized Hegel's "absolute knowledge" unity, not only because it was arrogant for a mere human to claim such a unity, but also because such a system negates the importance of the individual in favour of the whole unity. In ''[[Concluding Unscientific Postscript]]'', one of Kierkegaard's main attacks of Hegel, Johannes Climacus, Kierkegaard's pseudonymous author, writes: ''"So-called systems have often been characterized and challenged in the assertion that they abrogate the distinction between good and evil, and destroy freedom. Perhaps one would express oneself quite as definitely, if one said that every such system fantastically dissipates the concept existence. ... Being an individual man is a thing that has been abolished, and every speculative philosopher confuses himself with humanity at large; whereby he becomes something infinitely great, and at the same time nothing at all."''

Some 20th century critics suggested that Hegel glosses over the realities of history in order to fit it into his dialectical mold. [[Erich Heller]] opines in his ''The Disinherited Mind'' (1952) that Hegel was proved wrong — by the poets who succeeded him, not by the unfolding reality. Some newer philosophers who prefer to follow the tradition of [[analytic philosophy|British Philosophy]] have made similar statements. In Britain, Hegel exercised an influence on the philosophical school called "[[British idealism|British Idealism]]," which included [[Francis Herbert Bradley]] and [[Bernard Bosanquet (philosopher)|Bernard Bosanquet]], in England, and [[Josiah Royce]] at Harvard. [[Analytic philosophy]], which dominated philosophy departments in the United States and the United Kingdom, was virtually founded when [[G. E. Moore]] and [[Bertrand Russell]] rejected British Idealism and their colleagues' admiration for Hegel. Hegel remained largely out of fashion in these departments for much of the twentieth century.

Perhaps the harshest criticism has come from the famous psychologist, [[Carl G. Jung]], who seemed to charge Hegel with mental illness when he wrote:
{{Quotation|A philosophy like Hegel's is a self-revelation of the psychic background and, philosophically, a presumption. Psychologically it amounts to an invasion by the Unconscious. The peculiar, high-flown language Hegel uses bears out this view -- it is reminiscent of the megalomaniac language of schizophrenics, who use terrific, spellbinding words to reduce the transcendent to subjective form, to give banalities the charm of novelty, or pass off commonplaces as searching wisdom. So bombastic a terminology is a symptom of weakness, ineptitude, and lack of substance." |Carl G. Jung|On the Nature of the Psyche'', 1928}}

===Obscurantism===

A well known charge of [[Obscurantism|obscurantist]] "[[pseudo-philosophy]]" against Hegel was made by [[Arthur Schopenhauer]], who wrote that Hegel's philosophy is:

{{Quotation| . . . a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage... |Arthur Schopenhauer|On the Basis of Morality}}

{{Quotation| The height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had been only previously known in madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most barefaced, general mystification that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous to posterity, as a monument to German stupidity. |Arthur Schopenhauer|}}

Moreover, modern [[Analytic philosophy|analytic]] and [[Logical positivism|positivistic]] philosophers have considered Hegel a principal target because of what they consider the [[obscurantism]] of his philosophy.

Hegel was aware of his 'obscurantism' and saw it as part of philosophical thinking that grasps the limitations of everyday thought and concepts and tries to go beyond them. Hegel wrote in his essay "Who Thinks Abstractly?" that it is not the philosopher who thinks abstractly but the person on the street, who uses concepts as fixed, unchangeable [[given]]s, without any context. It is the philosopher who thinks concretely, because they go beyond the limits of everyday [[concept]]s to understand their broader context. This can make philosophical thought and language seem mysterious or obscure to the person on the street.

===The Absolute===
[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]] criticized Hegel's claims about the [[Absolute]].{{Quotation| Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth. … Thus it is, today, after Kant, an audacious ignorance if here and there, especially among badly informed theologians who like to play philosopher, the task of philosophy is represented as being quite certainly "comprehending the Absolute with the consciousness," somewhat completely in the form "the Absolute is already present, how could it be sought somewhere else?" as Hegel has expressed it.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]], ''[[Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks]]'', § 11.}}

===Totalitarianism===
[[Santayana]] interpreted Hegel as defending whoever held power, as though dominance equated with goodness.
{{Quotation|The worship of power is an old religion, and Hegel, to go no farther back, is full of it; but like traditional religion his system qualified its veneration for success by attributing success, in the future at least, to what could really inspire veneration; and such a master in equivocation could have no difficulty in convincing himself that the good must conquer in the end if whatever conquers in the end is the good.|[[George Santayana]], ''Winds of Doctrine'', I}}

[[Karl Popper]], a critic of Hegel in ''[[The Open Society and Its Enemies]]'', suggests that Hegel's system forms a thinly veiled justification for the rule of [[Frederick William III of Prussia|Frederick William III]], and that Hegel's idea of the ultimate goal of history is to reach a state approximating that of 1830s [[Prussia]]. Popper argued that Hegel's philosophy eventually inspired both [[Marxism]] and [[fascism]].<ref>This view of Hegel as an apologist of state power and precursor of 20th century [[totalitarianism]] was criticized by [[Herbert Marcuse]] in his ''Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory'', on the grounds that Hegel was not an apologist for any state or form of authority simply because it existed: for Hegel the state must always be rational. Other scholars, e.g. [[Walter Kaufmann (philosopher)|Walter Kaufmann]] and [[Shlomo Avineri]], have also criticized Popper's theories about Hegel[http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kaufmann.htm]. An analysis against Popper's arguments can also be found in Joachim Ritter's influential work, ''Hegel and the French Revolution''.</ref>

{{Quotation|Indeed, Hegel points out that all personal relations can thus be reduced to the fundamental relation of master and slave, of domination and submission. Each must strive to assert and prove himself, and he who has not the nature, the courage, and the general capacity for preserving his independence, must be reduced to servitude. This charming theory of personal relations has, of course, its counterpart in Hegel's theory of international relations. Nations must assert themselves on the Stage of History; it is their duty to attempt the domination of the World. |Karl Popper, ''The Open Society and Its Enemies''}}

Following Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard, Popper also accused Hegel of having a vacuous philosophy, labelling it "bombastic and mystifying cant".

==Notes==
<references/>

==See also==
* [[Thesis, antithesis, synthesis]]
* [[Political consciousness]]
* [[The Secret of Hegel]]

==Works==
====Published during Hegel's lifetime====
*''Differenz des Fichteschen und Schellingschen Systems der Philosophie'', 1801 ''The Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's Systems of Philosophy'', tr. H. S. Harris and Walter Cerf, 1977
*''[[Phenomenology of Spirit|Phänomenologie des Geistes]]'', 1807 ''Phenomenology of Mind'', tr. J. B. Baillie, 1910; 2nd ed. 1931 ''Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit'', tr. A. V. Miller, 1977
*''[[Science of Logic|Wissenschaft der Logik]]'', 1812, 1813, 1816 ''Science of Logic'', tr. W. H. Johnston and L. G. Struthers, 2 vols., 1929; tr. A. V. Miller, 1969
*''[[Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences|Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften]]'', 1817; 2nd ed. 1827; 3rd ed. 1830 (''Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences'') (Pt. I:) ''The Logic of Hegel'', tr. [[William Wallace (Scottish philosopher)|William Wallace]], 1874, 2nd ed. 1892; tr. T. F. Geraets, W. A. Suchting and H. S. Harris, 1991 (Pt. II:) ''Hegel's Philosophy of Nature'', tr. A. V. Miller, 1970 (Pt. III:) ''Hegel's Philosophy of Mind'', tr. William Wallace, 1894; rev. by A. V. Miller, 1971
*''[[Elements of the Philosophy of Right|Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts]]'', 1821 ''Elements of the Philosophy of Right'', tr. T. M. Knox, 1942; tr. H. B. Bisnet, ed. Allen W. Wood, 1991

====Published posthumously====
*''[[Lectures on Aesthetics]]''
*''[[Lectures on the Philosophy of History]]'' (also translated as ''Lectures on the Philosophy of World History'') 1837
*''[[Lectures on Philosophy of Religion]]''
*''Lectures on the History of Philosophy''

==Secondary literature==
===General introductions===
*[[Raymond Plant|Plant, Raymond]], 1983. ''Hegel: An Introduction.'' Oxford: Blackwell
*[[Peter Singer|Singer, Peter]], 2001. ''Hegel: A Very Short Introduction''. Oxford University Press (previously issued in the OUP ''Past Masters'' series, 1983)
*[[Frederick C. Beiser|Beiser, Frederick C.]], 2005. ''Hegel''. Routledge
*[[John Niemeyer Findlay|Findlay, J. N.]], 1958. ''Hegel: A Re-examination''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-519879-4
*[[Walter Kaufmann (philosopher)|Kaufmann, Walter]], 1965. ''Hegel: A Reinterpretation''. New York: Doubleday (reissued Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1978)
*[[James Hutchison Stirling|Stirling, James Hutchison]], ''[[The Secret of Hegel]]'': Being the Hegelian System in Origin Principle, Form and Matter
*[[Charles Taylor (philosopher)|Taylor, Charles]], 1975. ''Hegel''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-29199-2. A comprehensive exposition of Hegel's thought and its impact on the central intellectual and spiritual issues of his and our time.
*Kainz, Howard P., 1996. ''G. W. F. Hegel''. Ohio University Press. ISBN 0-8214-1231-0.

===Essays===
*[[Frederick C. Beiser|Beiser, Frederick C.]] (ed.), 1993. ''The Cambridge Companion to Hegel''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-38711-6. A collection of articles covering the range of Hegel's thought.
*[[Theodor W. Adorno|Adorno, Theodor W.]], 1994. ''Hegel: Three Studies''. MIT Press. Translated by Shierry M. Nicholsen, with an introduction by Nicholsen and Jeremy J. Shapiro, ISBN 0-262-51080-4. Essays on Hegel's concept of spirit/mind, Hegel's concept of experience, and why Hegel is difficult to read.

===Biography===
*Althaus, Horst, 1992. ''Hegel und die heroischen Jahre der Philosophie''. Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag. Eng. tr. Michael Tarsh as ''Hegel: An Intellectual Biography'', Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000
*Pinkard, Terry P., 2000. ''Hegel: A Biography''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-49679-9. By a leading American Hegel scholar; aims to debunk popular misconceptions about Hegel's thought.
*[[Karl Rosenkranz|Rosenkranz, Karl]], 1844. ''Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegels Leben''. Still an important source for Hegel's life.
*Hondt, Jacques d', 1998. ''Hegel: Biographie''. Calmann-Lévy

===Historical===
*[[Tom Rockmore|Rockmore, Tom]], 1993. ''Before and After Hegel: A Historical Introduction to Hegel's Thought''. Indianapolis: Hackett. ISBN 0-87220-648-3.

===Hegel's development===
*[[Georg Lukács|Lukács, Georg]], 1948. ''Der junge Hegel''. Zurich and Vienna (2nd ed. Berlin, 1954). Eng. tr. Rodney Livingstone as ''The Young Hegel'', London: Merlin Press, 1975. ISBN 0-262-12070-4
*Harris, H. S., 1972. ''Hegel's Development: Towards the Sunlight 1770-1801''. Oxford: Clarendon Press
*Harris, H. S., 1983. ''Hegel's Development: Night Thoughts (Jena 1801-1806)''. Oxford: Clarendon Press
*[[Wilhelm Dilthey|Dilthey, Wilhelm]], 1906. ''Die Jugendgeschichte Hegels'' (repr. in ''Gesammelte Schriften'', 1959, vol. IV)
*[[Theodor Haering|Haering, Theodor L.]], 1929, 1938. ''Hegel: sein Wollen und sein Werk'', 2 vols. Leipzig (repr. Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1963)

===Recent English-language literature===
*[[Michael Inwood|Inwood, Michael]], 1983. ''Hegel''. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (''Arguments of the Philosophers'')
*Rockmore, Tom, 1986. ''Hegel's Circular Epistemology''. Indiana University Press
*Pinkard, Terry P., 1988. ''Hegel's Dialectic: The Explanation of Possibility''. Temple University Press
*Westphal, Kenneth, 1989. ''Hegel's Epistemological Realism''. Kluwer Academic Publishers
*Forster, Michael N., 1989. ''Hegel and Skepticism''. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-38707-4
*[[Robert B. Pippin|Pippin, Robert B.]], 1989. ''Hegel's Idealism: the Satisfactions of Self-Consciousness''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-37923-7. Advocates a stronger continuity between Hegel and Kant.

===Phenomenology of Spirit===
''(See also the article ''[[The Phenomenology of Spirit]]''.)''
*Stern, Robert, 2002. ''Hegel and the Phenomenology of Spirit''. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-21788-1. An introduction for students.
*[[Jean Hyppolite|Hyppolite, Jean]], 1946. ''Genèse et structure de la Phénoménologie de l'esprit''. Paris: Aubier. Eng. tr. Samuel Cherniak and John Heckman as ''Genesis and Structure of Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit"'', Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1979. ISBN 0-8101-0594-2. A classic commentary.
*[[Alexandre Kojève|Kojève, Alexandre]], 1947. ''Introduction à la lecture de Hegel''. Paris: Gallimard. Eng. tr. James H. Nichols, Jr., as ''Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit'', Basic Books, 1969. ISBN 0-8014-9203-3 Influential European reading of Hegel.
*[[Robert C. Solomon|Solomon, Robert C.]], 1983. ''In the Spirit of Hegel''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
*[[Harris, H. S.]], 1995. ''Hegel: Phenomenology and System''. Indianapolis: Hackett. A distillation of the author's monumental two-volume commentary ''Hegel's Ladder''.
*Westphal, Kenneth R., 2003. ''Hegel's Epistemology: A Philosophical Introduction to the'' Phenomenology of Spirit. Indianapolis: Hackett. ISBN 0-87220-645-9
*Russon, John, 2004. ''Reading Hegel's Phenomenology''. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-21692-3.
*Bristow, William, 2007. ''Hegel and the Transformation of Philosophical Critique''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199290644

===Logic===
''(See also the article ''[[Science of Logic]]''.)''
*[[Justus Hartnack|Hartnack, Justus]], 1998. ''An Introduction to Hegel's Logic''. Indianapolis: Hackett. ISBN 0-87220-424-3
*Wallace, Robert M., 2005. ''Hegel's Philosophy of Reality, Freedom, and God''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-84484-3. Through a detailed analysis of Hegel's ''Science of Logic'', Wallace shows how Hegel contributes to the broadly Platonic tradition of philosophy that includes Aristotle, Plotinus, and Kant. In the course of doing this, Wallace defends Hegel against major critiques, including the one presented by Charles Taylor in his ''Hegel''.

===Politics===
*[[Shlomo Aveneri|Avineri, Shlomo]], 1974. ''Hegel's Theory of the Modern State''. Cambridge University Press. Best introduction to Hegel's political philosophy.
*Ritter, Joachim, 1984. ''Hegel and the French Revolution''. MIT Press.
*[[Herbert Marcuse|Marcuse, Herbert]], 1941. ''Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory''. An introduction to the philosophy of Hegel, devoted to debunking the conception that Hegel's work included ''in nuce'' the [[Fascist]] [[totalitarianism]] of [[Nazism|National Socialism]]; the negation of philosophy through [[historical materialism]].
*[[Gillian Rose|Rose, Gillian]], 1981. ''Hegel Contra Sociology''. Athlone Press. ISBN 0-485-12036-4.

===Religion===
*Desmond, William, 2003. ''Hegel's God: A Counterfeit Double?''. Ashgate. ISBN 0-7546-0565-5
*O'Regan, Cyril, 1994. ''The Heterodox Hegel''. State University of New York Press, Albany. ISBN 0-7914-2006-X. The most authoritative work to date on Hegel's philosophy of religion.
*Dickey, Laurence, 1987. ''Hegel: Religion, Economics, and the Politics of Spirit, 1770–1807''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-33035-1. A fascinating account of how "Hegel became Hegel", using the guiding hypothesis that Hegel "was basically a theologian manqué".

===Hegel's reputation===
*Popper, Karl. ''The Open Society and Its Enemies'', vol. 2: ''Hegel and Marx''. An influential attack on Hegel.
*Stewart, Jon, ed., 1996. ''The Hegel Myths and Legends''. Northwestern University Press.

==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
{{Commons|Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel}}
{{wikisource author}}
* [http://wiki.hegel.net The new HegelWiki]
* [http://hegel.net/en/hegelbio.htm A superior biography of Hegel with graphics]
* [http://hegel.net Hegel.net] - resources available under the GNU FDL
* [http://wiki.hegel.net/index.php/Hegel Hegel.net] - wiki article on Hegel
* [http://www.aliciafarinati.com.ar Alicia Farinati - Hegelian Works] Several articles on Hegel. Available in English, Spanish and French
* [http://hegel.net/en/links.htm Commented link list]
* [http://hegel.net/en/ml.htm Hegel mailing lists in the internet]
* [http://hegel-system.de/en/ Explanation of Hegel], mostly in German
* [http://www.kat.gr/kat/history/Mod/Th/Hegelianism.htm Discussion of the Hegelian tradition, including the Left and Right schism]
* [http://www.hegel.org/ The Hegel Society of America]
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/ Hegel in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
* http://www.gwfhegel.org/
* [http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/hegel.html Hegel page in 'The History Guide']
* [http://millinerd.com/2006/05/is-hegel-christian.html Is Hegel a Christian?]
* [http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/index Rethinking the Place of Philosophy with Hegel - Call for Papers for Cosmos and History]

===Hegel texts online===
* {{gutenberg author| id=Georg+Wilhelm+Friedrich+Hegel | name=Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel}}
* [http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hegel%20-%20Philosophy%20of%20History.htm Philosophy of History Introduction]
* [http://libcom.org/library/philosophy-right-hegel Hegel's The Philosophy of Right]
* [http://libcom.org/library/philosophy-history-hegel Hegel's The Philosophy of History]
* [http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/index.htm Hegel by HyperText], reference archive on [[Marxists.org]]

{{Philosophy navigation}}



{{Persondata
|NAME=Hegel, Georg
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES=Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
|SHORT DESCRIPTION=German philosopher
|DATE OF BIRTH={{birth date|1770|8|27|mf=y}}
|PLACE OF BIRTH=[[Stuttgart]], [[Germany]]
|DATE OF DEATH={{death date|1831|11|14|mf=y}}
|PLACE OF DEATH=[[Berlin]], [[Germany]]
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich}}
[[Category:Georg Hegel| ]]
[[Category:19th century philosophers]]
[[Category:Continental philosophers]]
[[Category:German philosophers]]
[[Category:German-language philosophers]]
[[Category:Idealists]]
[[Category:Philosophers of law]]
[[Category:Logicians]]
[[Category:Moral philosophers]]
[[Category:Metaphysicians]]
[[Category:Political philosophers]]
[[Category:Political theorists]]
[[Category:Romanticism]]
[[Category:Social philosophers]]
[[Category:Theories of history]]
[[Category:Western mystics]]
[[Category:German Lutherans]]
[[Category:Humboldt University of Berlin faculty]]
[[Category:People from Stuttgart]]
[[Category:Deaths from cholera]]
[[Category:1770 births]]
[[Category:1831 deaths]]

[[ar:جيورج فيلهلم فريدريش هيجل]]
[[bn:গেয়র্গ ভিলহেল্ম হেগল]]
[[be-x-old:Георг Гегель]]
[[bs:George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[bg:Георг Хегел]]
[[ca:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[cs:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[da:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[de:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[et:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[el:Γκέοργκ Βίλχελμ Φρήντριχ Χέγκελ]]
[[es:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[eo:Hegelo]]
[[eu:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[fa:هگل]]
[[fr:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[gl:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[ko:게오르크 빌헬름 프리드리히 헤겔]]
[[hi:जार्ज विल्हेम फ्रेडरिच हेगेल]]
[[hr:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[io:Friedrich Hegel]]
[[id:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[is:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[it:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[he:גיאורג וילהלם פרידריך הגל]]
[[ka:გეორგ ვილჰელმ ფრიდრიხ ჰეგელი]]
[[ku:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[la:Georgius Wilhelmus Fridericus Hegel]]
[[lt:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[hu:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[mk:Георг Вилхелм Фридрих Хегел]]
[[nl:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[ja:ゲオルク・ヴィルヘルム・フリードリヒ・ヘーゲル]]
[[no:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[pms:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[pl:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[pt:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[ro:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[ru:Гегель, Георг Вильгельм Фридрих]]
[[simple:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[sk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[sr:Георг Вилхелм Фридрих Хегел]]
[[fi:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[sv:Friedrich Hegel]]
[[tpi:Hegel]]
[[tr:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]
[[uk:Геґель Ґеорґ Вільгельм Фрідріх]]
[[zh:黑格尔]]

Max Stirner

2007-10-17T01:51:12Z

Harpakhrad11:

{{Infobox_Philosopher |


region = Western Philosophy |
era = [[19th-century philosophy]] |
color = #B0C4DE |


image_name = max stirner.jpg |
image_caption = Max Stirner, as portrayed by [[Friedrich Engels]] |


name = Johann Kaspar Schmidt |
birth = [[October 25]], [[1806]] ([[Bayreuth]], [[Bavaria]]) |
death = [[June 26]], [[1856]] ([[Berlin]], [[Prussia]]) |
school_tradition = Categorised historically as a [[Young Hegelian]]. Precursor to [[Existentialism]], [[individualist feminism]], [[Nihilism]], [[Post-Modernism]], [[Post-structuralism]]. |
main_interests = [[Ethics]], [[Politics]], [[Property]], [[Value theory]] |
influences = [[Hegel]],<ref>The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, volume 8, The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, New York 1967.</ref> [[Adam Smith]] |
influenced = [[Frank Brand]], [[Steven T. Byington]], [[Friedrich Engels]], [[Karl Marx]], [[Saul Newman]], [[Benjamin R. Tucker]], [[John Henry Mackay]] |
notable_ideas = [[Egoism]] |
}}

'''Johann Kaspar Schmidt''' ([[October 25]], [[1806]] – [[June 26]], [[1856]]), better known as '''Max Stirner''' (the ''[[nom de plume]]'' he adopted from a schoolyard nickname he had acquired as a child because of his high brow [[Stirn]]), was a German [[philosopher]], who ranks as one of the literary grandfathers of [[nihilism]], [[existentialism]], [[post-modernism]] and [[anarchism]], especially of [[individualist anarchism]].
Stirner's main work is ''[[The Ego and Its Own]]'', also known as ''The Ego and His Own'' (''Der Einzige und sein Eigentum'' in German, which translates literally as ''The Individual and his Property''). This work was first published in 1844 in [[Leipzig]], and has since appeared in numerous editions and translations.

==Biography==
[[Image:MaxStirner'sbirthplace.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Max Stirner's birthplace in Bayreuth]]
Stirner was born in [[Bayreuth]], [[Bavaria]], on [[October 25]], [[1806]]. What little is known of his life is mostly due to the [[Scotland|Scottish]] born [[Germany|German]] writer [[John Henry Mackay]], who wrote a biography of Stirner (''Max Stirner - sein Leben und sein Werk''), published in German in 1898. An English translation was published in 2005.

Stirner was an [[only child]] to Albert Christian Heinrich Schmidt (1769-1807), a [[flute]] maker, and Sophia Elenora Reinlein (1778-1839) a [[Lutheran]]. Just six months after he was born his father died of [[Tuberculosis]] on the 19th of April 1807 at the age of 37.<ref>[http://www.nonserviam.com/stirner/bio/sein_leben/ Max Stirner: His Work and Life] p.28</ref> In 1809 his mother remarried to Heinrich Ballerstedt a [[Pharmacist]] and settled in Kulm (now [[Chełmno]] in [[Poland]]).

When Stirner turned 20, he attended the [[University of Berlin]],<ref>[http://www.nonserviam.com/stirner/bio/sein_leben/ Max Stirner: His Work and Life] p.37</ref> where he studied [[Philology]], [[Philosophy]] and [[Theology]]. He attended the lectures of [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegel]], who was to become a source of inspiration for his thinking.<ref>The Encyclopedia of Philsosophy, volume 8, The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, New York 1967.</ref> (Hegel's influence on Stirner's thinking is debatable, and is discussed in more detail [[#Hegel's Influence|below]].)

While in Berlin in 1841, Stirner participated in discussions with a group of young philosophers called "The Free" ([[Die Freien]]), and whom historians have subsequently categorized as the so-called [[Young Hegelians]]. Some of the best known names in [[19th century]] [[literature]] and [[philosophy]] were members of this discussion group, including [[Bruno Bauer]], [[Karl Marx]], [[Frederick Engels|Friedrich Engels]], [[Ludwig Feuerbach]], and [[Arnold Ruge]]. For a lively account of [[Die Freien]] see "Red Room and White Beer" by Robert Hellman.

While some of the Young Hegelians were eager subscribers to Hegel's [[dialectical]] method, and attempted to apply dialectical approaches to Hegel's conclusions, the [[left wing]] members of the Young Hegelians broke with Hegel. Feuerbach and Bauer led this charge.

Frequently the debates would take place at Hippel's, a Weinstube ([[wine bar]]) in [[Friedrichstraße]], attended by, amongst others, the young Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, at that time still adherents of Feuerbach. Stirner met Engels many times and Engels even recalled that they were "great friends" (Duzbrüder).<ref>Lawrence L Stepelevich, The revival of Max Stirner</ref> but it is still unclear whether Marx and Stirner ever met. It does not appear that Stirner contributed much to the discussions but was a faithful member of the club and an attentive listener.<ref>Gide Charles & Rist, Charles. A History of Economic Doctrines from the Time of the Physiocrats to the Present Day. Harrap 1956, p. 612 "Max Stirner, who was one of the most faithful members and a most attentive listener, although it does not seem that he contributed much to the discussion..."</ref>
[[Image:Max Stirner - His Life and His Work.jpg|thumb|right|Cover of ''Max Stirner - His Life and Work'' (English translation) by [[John Henry Mackay]].]]
The only portrait we have of Stirner consists of a cartoon by Engels, drawn forty years later from memory on the request of Stirner's biographer [[John Henry Mackay]].

Stirner worked as a [[schoolteacher]] in a gymnasium for young girls owned by Madame Gropius<ref>The Encyclopedia of Philsosophy, volume 8, The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, New York 1967</ref> when he wrote his major work ''[[The Ego and Its Own]]'', which in part is a polemic against both Hegel and some Young Hegelians including Ludwig Feuerbach and Bruno Bauer, but also against [[communists]] such as [[Wilhelm Weitling]] and the [[anarchist]] [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]. He resigned from his teaching position in anticipation of the controversy arising from his major work's publication in October 1844.

Stirner married twice; his first wife was a household servant, with whom he fell in love at an early age. Soon after their marriage, she died due to complications with pregnancy in 1838. In 1843 he married [[Marie Dähnhardt]], an intellectual associated with [[Die Freien]]. They divorced in 1846. ''The Ego and Its Own'' was dedicated "to my sweetheart Marie Dähnhardt". Marie later converted to [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholicism]] and died in 1902 in [[London]].

One of the most curious events in those times was that Stirner planned and financed (with his second wife's inheritance) an attempt by some Young Hegelians to own and operate a milk-shop on co-operative principles. This enterprise failed partly because the German dairy farmers were suspicious of these well-dressed intellectuals. The milk shop was also so well decorated that most of the potential customers felt too poorly dressed to buy their milk there.

After ''The Ego and Its Own'', Stirner published German translations of [[Adam Smith]]'s ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'' and [[Jean-Baptiste Say]]'s ''Traite d'Economie Politique,'' to little financial gain. He also replied to his critics in a small work titled ''History of Reaction'' in 1852.

In 1856, Stirner died in Berlin from an infected insect bite. It is said that Bruno Bauer was the only Young Hegelian present at his funeral.

==Philosophy==
{{main|Philosophy of Max Stirner}}
{{seealso|Individualist_anarchism#Egoist_individualist_anarchism}}
[[Image:Stirner02.jpg||thumb|right|Caricature of Max Stirner taken from a sketch by Friedrich Engels (1820 - 1895) of the meetings of "Die Freien".]]
Stirner's claim that the state is an illegitimate institution has made him an influence upon the [[anarchist]] tradition; his thought is often seen as a form of [[individualist anarchism]]. Stirner however does not identify himself as an anarchist, and includes anarchists among the parties subject to his criticism.

Stirner mocks [[revolution]] in the traditional sense as tacitly statist. [[David Leopold]]'s conclusion (in his introduction to the [[Cambridge University Press]] edition) is that Stirner "...saw humankind as 'fretted in dark superstition' but denied that he sought their enlightenment and welfare" (Ibidem, p. xxxii).

As with the [[Classical Skeptics]] Stirner's method of self-liberation is opposed to faith or belief; life is free from "dogmatic presuppositions" (p. 135, 309) or any "fixed standpoint" (p. 295). It is not merely [[Christian]] [[dogma]] but also a variety of [[Europe]]an [[atheist]] [[ideologies]] that are condemned as crypto-[[Christian]] for putting ideas in an equivalent role.

What Stirner proposes is not that concepts should rule people, but that people should rule concepts. The denial of absolute truth is rooted in Stirner's the "nothingness" of the self. Stirner presents a detached life of non-dogmatic, open-minded engagement with the world "as it is" (unpolluted by "faith", [[Christian]] or [[Humanism|humanist]]), coupled with the awareness that there is no soul, no personal essence of any kind.

{{Quotation|Because I cannot grasp the moon, is it therefore sacred to me, an Astarte? If I could only grasp you, I surely would, and, if I could only find a means to get up to you, you shall not frighten me! You inapprehensible one, you shall remain inapprehensible to me only until I have acquired the might for apprehension and call you my ''own''; I do not give myself up before you, but only bide my time. Even if for the present I put up with my inability to touch you, I yet remember it against you.|Max Stirner|The Ego and Its Own}}

===Hegel's influence===
Scholars such as [[Karl Löwith]] and [[Lawrence Stepelevich]] have argued that Hegel was a major influence on ''[[The Ego and Its Own]]''{{Fact|date=February 2007}}. Stepelevich argues that while ''[[The Ego and its Own]]'' evidently has an "un-Hegelian structure and tone to the work as a whole", as well as being fundamentally hostile to Hegel's conclusions about the self and the world, this does not mean that Hegel had no effect on Stirner.

To go beyond and against Hegel in true dialectical fashion is in some way continuing Hegel's project, and Stepelevich argues that this effort of Stirner's is, in fact, a completion of Hegel's project{{Fact|date=February 2007}}. Stepelevich concludes his argument referring to [[Jean Hyppolite]], who in summing up the intention of Hegel's ''Phenomenology'', stated: "The history of the world is finished; all that is needed is for the specific individual to rediscover it in himself."

==Works==
===''The False Principle of our Education''===
In 1842 ''Das unwahre Prinzip unserer Erziehung'' (''The false Principle of our Education'') or ''Humanism and Realism'', was published in [[Rheinische Zeitung]], which was edited by [[Marx]] at the time.<ref>Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, The Macmillan company Press, New York, 1967</ref> Written as a reaction to Otto Friedrich Theodor Heinsius treatise on Humanism vs. Realism. Stirner explains that education in the classical humanists method or the practical education of the realists, still lacks true value. Education is part of the objective of becoming an individual and as an individual you should acquire education for the benefit it gives you in becoming an individual.

===''Art and Religion''===
''Art and Religion'' was also Published in [[Rheinische Zeitung]] in 1842 while Marx was editor. It addresses Bauer and his publication against Hegel called ''Hegel's doctrine of religion and art judged from the standpoint of faith''.

===''The Ego and Its Own''===
{{main|The Ego and Its Own}}
Stirner's main work is ''[[The Ego and Its Own]]'' (org. 'Der Einzige und sein Eigentum'), which appeared in [[Leipzig]] in 1844.In ''[[The Ego and Its Own]]'', Stirner launches a radical [[anti-authoritarian]] and [[individualist]] critique of contemporary [[Prussia]]n society, and modern western society as such. He offers an approach to human existence which depicts the self as a creative non-entity, beyond [[language]] and [[reality]].
The book proclaims that all [[religion]]s and [[ideology|ideologies]] rest on empty [[concept]]s. The same holds true for society's institutions, that claim authority over the individual, be it the [[state]], [[law|legislation]], the [[church]], or the systems of [[education]] such as [[Universities]].

Stirner's argument explores and extends the limits of [[Hegelian]] criticism, aiming his critique especially at those of his contemporaries, particularly Ludwig Feuerbach. And popular '[[ideology|ideologies]]', including [[nationalism]], [[statism]], [[liberalism]], [[socialism]], [[communism]] and [[humanism]].

{{Quotation|In the time of spirits thoughts grew till they overtopped my head, whose offspring they yet were; they hovered about me and convulsed me like fever-phantasies — an awful power. The thoughts had become corporeal on their own account, were ghosts, e. g. God, Emperor, Pope, Fatherland, etc. If I destroy their corporeity, then I take them back into mine, and say: "I alone am corporeal." And now I take the world as what it is to me, as mine, as my property; I refer all to myself.|'''Max Stirner'''|[[The Ego and Its Own]], p 15.}}

===''Stirner's Critics''===
''Recensenten Stirners'', published in September 1845 is an article which replys to critics of The Ego and its Own including Feuerbach.
===''History of Reaction''===
''Geschichte der Reaction'' (''History of Reaction'') was published in two volumes in 1851 by Allgemeine Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt and immediately banned in Austria.<ref>Max Stirner his life and his work, John Henry Mackay, 2005</ref> It was written in the context of the recent [[German revolution of 1848/49 (March Revolution)]] and is mainly a collection of the works of others selected and translated by Stirner. The introduction and some additional passages were Stirner's work. [[Edmund Burke]] and [[Auguste Comte]] are quoted to show two opposing views of Revolution.

==Criticism==
Stirner's work did not go unnoticed among his contemporaries. Stirner's attacks on ideology, in particular Feuerbach's humanism, forced Feuerbach into print. [[Moses Hess]] (at that time close to Marx) and Szeliga (pseudonym of [[Franz Zychlin von Zychlinski]], an adherent of Bruno Bauer) also replied to Stirner. Stirner answered the criticism in a German periodical, in the article ''Stirner's Critics'' (org. ''Recensenten Stirners'', September 1845), which clarifies several points of interest to readers of the book - especially in relation to Feuerbach.

While ''[[The German Ideology]]'' so assured ''[[The Ego and Its Own]]'' a place of curious interest among [[Marxist]] readers, Marx's ridicule of Stirner has played a significant role in the subsequent marginalization of Stirner's work, in popular and academic [[discourse]].

==Influence==
Stirner's philosophy has been almost completely ignored by professional philosophers. Characterized as disturbing and something that ought not even be mentioned in polite company, sometimes even considered a direct threat to civilization. It should be examined as briefly as possible and is then best forgotten. [[Edmund Husserl]] once warned a small audience about the "seducing power" of »Der Einzige« — but never mentioned it in his writing[http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/eninnuce.html]. As the renowned art critic [[Herbert Read]] observed, Stirner's book has remained 'stuck in the gizzard' of Western culture since it first appeared.

Many thinkers have read, and been affected by ''[[The Ego and Its Own]]'' in their youth including [[Rudolf Steiner]], [[Gustav Landauer]], [[Carl Schmitt]] and [[Jürgen Habermas]]. But few openly admit any influence on their own thinking. [[Ernst Jünger]]'s book ''[[Eumeswil]]'', had the character of the "[[Anarch]]", based on Stirner's "Einzige."

Several other [[author]]s, [[philosopher]]s and [[artist]]s have cited, quoted or otherwise referred to Max Stirner. They include [[Albert Camus]] in ''The Rebel'' (the section on Stirner is omitted from the majority of English editions including [[Penguin books|Penguin]]'s) , [[Benjamin Tucker]], [[Dora Marsden]], [[Georg Brandes]], [[Rudolf Steiner]], [[Robert Anton Wilson]], Italian individualist anarchist [[Frank Brand]], the notorious antiartist [[Marcel Duchamp]], several writers of the [[Situationist International]], and [[Max Ernst]], who titled a 1925 painting ''L'unique et sa propriété''. The Italian dictator [[Benito Mussolini]] read and was inspired by Stirner, and made several references to him in his newspaper articles, prior to rising to [[power (sociology)|power]].

Since its appearance in 1844, ''[[The Ego and Its Own]]'' has seen periodic revivals of popular, political and academic interest, based around widely divergent translations and interpretations — some psychological, others political in their emphasis. Today, many ideas associated with [[post-left anarchy]] criticism of ideology and uncompromising [[individualism]] - are clearly related to Stirner's. He has also been regarded as pioneering [[individualist feminism]], since his objection to any absolute concept also clearly counts [[gender role]]s as 'spooks'. His ideas were also adopted by [[post-anarchism]], with [[Saul Newman]] largely in agreement with many of Stirner's criticisms of classical anarchism, including his rejection of revolution and [[essentialism]].

===Marx and Engels===
[[Image:Skiz-hegel.png|300px|thumb|Right|Caricature by [[Friedrich Engels]] (1820 - 1895) of the meetings of ''"Die Freien"'']]
Engels commented on Stirner in poetry at the time of [[Die Freien]]:
{{Quotation|
Look at Stirner, look at him, the peaceful enemy of all constraint. 
For the moment, he is still drinking beer, 
Soon he will be drinking blood as though it were water. 
When others cry savagely "down with the kings" 
Stirner immediately supplements "down with the laws also." 
Stirner full of dignity proclaims; 
You bend your willpower and you dare to call yourselves free. 
You become accustomed to slavery 
Down with dogmatism, down with law."<ref>Henri Arvon, Aux sources de 1'existentialisme Max Stirner (Paris, 1954), p. 14</ref>}}He once even recalled at how they were "great friends (Duzbrüder)".<ref>Lawrence L Stepelevich, The revival of Max Stirner</ref> In November 1844, Engels wrote a letter to Marx. He reported first on a visit to Moses Hess in [[Cologne]], and then went on to note that during this visit Hess had given him a press copy of a new book by Max Stirner, ''Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum''.In his letter to Marx, Engels promised to send a copy of ''Der Einzige'' to him, for it certainly deserved their attention, as Stirner: "had obviously, among the 'Free Ones', the most talent, independence and diligence".<ref>Lawrence L Stepelevich, The revival of Max Stirner</ref> To begin with Engels was enthusiastic about the book, and expressed his opinions freely in letters to Marx:{{Quotation|But what is true in his principle, we, too, must accept. And what is true is that before we can be active in any cause we must make it our own, egoistic cause-and that in this sense, quite aside from any material expectations, we are communists in virtue of our egoism, that out of egoism we want to be human beings and not merely individuals."<ref>Zwischen 18 and 25, pp. 237-238. </ref>}}

Later, Marx wrote a major criticism of Stirner's Work, co-authored with Engels, the number of pages Marx and Engels devote to attacking Stirner in (the unexpurgated text of) ''[[The German Ideology]]'' exceeds the total of Stirner's written works. As [[Isaiah Berlin]] has described it, Stirner "is pursued through five hundred pages of heavy-handed mockery and insult".<ref>I. Berlin, Karl Marx (New York, 1963), 143.</ref> The book was written in 1845 - 1846, but not published until 1932. Marx's lengthy, ferocious polemic against Stirner has since been considered an important turning point in Marx's intellectual development from "[[idealism]]" to "[[materialism]]".

===Stirner and post-structuralism===
[[Saul Newman]] calls Stirner a proto-poststructuralist who on the one hand basically anticipated modern post-structuralists such as [[Foucault]], [[Lacan]], [[Deleuze]], and [[Derrida]], but on the other had already transcended them, thus providing what they were unable to: paving the ground for a "[[non-essentialism|Non-Essentialist]]" critique of present liberal capitalist society. However, Stirner might have disagreed with the poststructuralist idea that as a product of systems, the self is a determination of external factors. For Stirner, the self cannot be a mere product of systems. There remains, for Stirner, a place deep within the self which language cannot explain and that social systems cannot destroy.

===The Nietzsche Dispute===
It has been argued that [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] did read Stirner's book, yet even he did not mention Stirner anywhere in his work, his letters, or his papers [http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html]. As Nietzsche studied [[Friedrich Albert Lange]]'s history of [[Materialism]], where Stirner is mentioned in comparison to [[Schopenhauer]], it is likely that he was at least aware of Stirner. [[Franz Overbeck]] said that he went through the records of the university library of Nietzsche's favourite student Adolf Baumgarten and on the 14th of July 1874 he had borrowed Stirner's book,<ref>Safranski, Rudiger. Nietzsche: a Philosophical Biography Granta Books, New York (2002), p.126-7.</ref> "on Nietzsche's warmest recommendations". He also recalled that Nietzsche came to visit Overbeck and his wife in the winter of 1878/1879, and had spoken of two writers he had taken an interest in, Klinger and Stirner.<ref>Franz Overbeck's Memoirs on Nietzsche "Neue Rundschau", 17 (1906), vol.1.</ref> Nietzsche's thinking sometimes resembles Stirner's to such a degree that [[Eduard von Hartmann]] called him a plagiarist. This seems too simple an explanation of what Nietzsche might have done with Stirner's ideas, if he was aware of them. Stirner's book had been in oblivion for half a century, and only after Nietzsche became well-known in the 1890s did Stirner become more well-known, although only as an awkward predecessor of Nietzsche. The winning counterclaim was put forth when philosophical evaluations of Nietzsche's work showed that some of his ideas were unoriginal as they were of Stirner's work<ref>Stanford Department of Philosophy</ref>.

==Comments by contemporaries==
Twenty years after the appearance of Stirner's book, the author [[Friedrich Albert Lange]] wrote the following:{{Quotation|Stirner went so far in his notorious work, 'Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum' (1845), as to reject all moral ideas. Everything that in any way, whether it be external force, belief, or mere idea, places itself above the individual and his caprice, Stirner rejects as a hateful limitation of himself. What a pity that to this book — the extremest that we know anywhere — a second positive part was not added. It would have been easier than in the case of [[Schelling]]'s philosophy; for out of the unlimited [[Ego]] I can again beget every kind of [[Idealism]] as ''my'' [[will]] and ''my'' [[idea]]. Stirner lays so much stress upon the will, in fact, that it appears as the root force of human nature. It may remind us of [[Schopenhauer]].|''[[History of Materialism]]'', ii. 256}}

== Notes ==
<references/>

==References==
{{wikisource|The Ego and Its Own}}
{{wikiquote}}
{{commons}}
* Stirner, Max: ''Der Einzige und sein Eigentum'' (1845 [October 1844]). Stuttgart: Reclam-Verlag, 1972ff; engl. trans. ''[[The Ego and Its Own]]'' (1907), ed. [[David Leopold]], Cambridge/ New York: CUP 1995
* Stirner, Max: "Recensenten Stirners" (Sept. 1845). In: ''Parerga, Kritiken, Repliken'', Bernd A. Laska, ed., Nürnberg: LSR-Verlag, 1986; engl. trans. ''Stirner's Critics'' (abridged), see below

== External links ==
=== General ===
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/ Max Stirner in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy], an extensive introduction
* [http://www.nonserviam.com/stirner/ Svein Olav Nybergs website on Max Stirner], with extensive links to texts and references
* [http://www.projektmaxstirner.de/project.htm / Max Stirner Project / H. Ibrahim Türkdogan]
* [http://www.nonserviam.com/magazine/ Non Serviam], Internet periodical dedicated to Stirner's ideas

=== Relationship with other philosophers ===
* [http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/eninnuce.html Max Stirner, a durable dissident], 'How Marx and Nietzsche suppressed their colleague Max Stirner and why he has intellectually survived them'
* [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03d.htm#c.1.5 ''Stirner Delighted in His Construction''] — "loves miracles, but can only perform a logical miracle," by Karl Marx
* [http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html Nietzsche's initial crisis] due to an encounter with Stirner's "The Ego", by Bernd A. Laska (2002)
* [http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/maxundhegel.shtml Max Stirner As Hegelian], By Lawrence S. Stepelevich

=== Texts ===
* [http://www.lsr-projekt.de/msee.html The complete original text in German of ''Der Einzige und sein Eigentum'']
* [http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/teaho/theego0.html The complete English edition of "The Ego and his Own"], in the translation of Steven T. Byington.
* [http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/enrec.html Recensenten Stirners / Stirner's Critics] bilingual: full text in German / abridged text in English (trans. Frederick M. Gordon)



{{Persondata
|NAME=Max Stirner
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES=Johann Kaspar Schmidt
|SHORT DESCRIPTION=[[Philosopher]]
|DATE OF BIRTH=[[October 25]], [[1806]]
|PLACE OF BIRTH=[[Bayreuth]], [[Bavaria]]
|DATE OF DEATH=[[June 26]], [[1856]]
|PLACE OF DEATH=[[Berlin]], [[Prussia]]
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Stirner, Max}}
[[Category:1806 births]]
[[Category:1856 deaths]]
[[Category:19th century German philosophers]]
[[Category:Atheist philosophers]]
[[Category:Continental philosophers]]
[[Category:Egoists (individualist anarchists)]]
[[Category:German anarchists]]
[[Category:German atheists]]
[[Category:German-language philosophers]]
[[Category:German natives of West Prussia]]
[[Category:Hegelian philosophers]]
[[Category:Individualist anarchists]]

[[br:Max Stirner]]
[[bg:Макс Щирнер]]
[[ca:Max Stirner]]
[[cs:Max Stirner]]
[[da:Max Stirner]]
[[de:Max Stirner]]
[[es:Max Stirner]]
[[eo:Max Stirner]]
[[fr:Max Stirner]]
[[ko:요한 카스파르 슈미트]]
[[it:Max Stirner]]
[[he:מקס שטירנר]]
[[hu:Max Stirner]]
[[nl:Max Stirner]]
[[ja:マックス・シュティルナー]]
[[no:Max Stirner]]
[[pl:Max Stirner]]
[[pt:Max Stirner]]
[[ru:Макс Штирнер]]
[[sk:Max Stirner]]
[[sr:Јохан Каспар Шмит]]
[[sv:Max Stirner]]
[[tr:Max Stirner]]
[[uk:Штірнер Макс]]

Murray Rothbard

2007-10-17T01:49:05Z

Harpakhrad11:

{{Infobox_Philosopher |


region = Western Economists |
era = 20th-century Economists ([[Austrian School|Austrian Economics]]) |
color = #B0C4DE |


image_name = Murray_Rothbard.jpg |
image_caption = Rothbard circa 1955 |



name = Murray Newton Rothbard |
birth = [[March 2]], [[1926]] ([[Bronx]], [[New York]], [[USA]]) |
death = [[January 7]], [[1995]] ([[New York City]], [[New York]], [[USA]]) |
school_tradition = [[Austrian economics]] |
main_interests = [[Economics]], [[Political economy]], [[Anarchism]], [[Natural law]], [[Praxeology]], [[Numismatics]], [[Philosophy of law]], [[Ethics]], [[Economic history]]|
influences = [[Ludwig von Mises|Mises]], [[Carl Menger|Menger]], [[Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk|Böhm-Bawerk]], [[Gustave de Molinari|Molinari]], [[F.A. Hayek|Hayek]], [[Jean-Baptiste Say|Say]], [[Lysander Spooner|Spooner]], [[Benjamin Tucker|Tucker]], [[Frédéric Bastiat|Bastiat]], [[Herbert Spencer|Spencer]], [[Albert J. Nock|Nock]], [[Franz Oppenheimer|Oppenheimer]], [[John Locke|Locke]], [[Laozi]], [[H. L. Mencken|Mencken]], [[Edmund Burke|Burke]], [[Thomas Samuel Kuhn|Kuhn]] |
influenced = [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe|Hoppe]], [[David D. Friedman|Friedman]], [[Llewellyn H. Rockwell|Rockwell]], [[Samuel Edward Konkin III|Konkin]], [[Jan Narveson|Narveson]], [[Spencer Heath|Heath]], [[Gene Callahan|Callahan]], [[Ralph Raico|Raico]], [[Joseph Salerno|Salerno]], [[Joseph Sobran|Sobran]], [[Wendy McElroy|McElroy]], [[Jeffrey Tucker|Tucker]], [[Per Bylund|Bylund]], [[Roderick Long|Long]], [[Bryan Caplan|Caplan]], [[Robert P. Murphy|Murphy]], [[Carlo Lottieri|Lottieri]], [[Thomas Woods|Woods]], [[Stephan Kinsella|Kinsella]], [[Robert Nozick|Nozick]], [[Stefan Molyneux|Molyneux]], [[Mark Thornton|Thornton]], [[Scott Horton|Horton]], [[Jörg Guido Hülsmann|Hülsmann]], [[Justin Raimondo|Raimondo]], [[Thomas DiLorenzo|DiLorenzo]] |
notable_ideas = Founder of [[Anarcho-capitalism]], [[Rothbard's law]], largely influenced [[Agorism]] |
}}

'''Murray Newton Rothbard''' ([[March 2]], [[1926]] – [[January 7]], [[1995]]) was an influential [[United States|American]] [[economics|economist]], [[historian]] and [[natural law]] theorist belonging to the [[Austrian School|Austrian School of Economics]] who helped define modern [[libertarianism]].<ref>{{cite book | editor= [[David Miller (political theorist)|Miller, David]] | title = Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought | year = 1991 | publisher = [[Blackwell Publishing]] |id= ISBN 0-631-17944-5}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.zetetics.com/mac/rockwell/mcelroy000706.html| title = Murray N. Rothbard: Mr. Libertarian | author = [[Wendy McElroy]] | publisher = [[Lew Rockwell]]. July 6, 2000.}}</ref> Rothbard took the Austrian School's emphasis on [[spontaneous order]] and condemnation of [[central planning]] to an [[individualist anarchist]] conclusion,<ref>Noce, Jaime E. & Miskelly, Matthew (2002). Anarchism. Political Theories for Students (p. 7). The Gale Group, Inc.</ref> which he termed "[[anarcho-capitalism]]." He was son of David and Rae Rothbard. On [[January 16]] [[1953]], he was married to [[JoAnn Schumacher]] in [[New York City]].

== Life ==
Rothbard was born into a [[Jewish]] family in the Bronx. "I grew up in a Communist culture," he recalled. [Raimondo p 23] He attended [[Columbia University]], where he was awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics (1945), a Master of Arts degree (1946), and a Doctor of Philosophy degree in economics in 1956.

In the course of his life, Rothbard was associated with a number of political thinkers and movements. During the early 1950s, he studied under the Austrian economist [[Ludwig von Mises]], along with [[George Reisman]]. Then he began working for the [[William Volker Fund]]. During the late 1950s, Rothbard was an associate of [[Ayn Rand]] and [[Nathaniel Branden]], a relationship later lampooned in his unpublished play ''[[Mozart Was a Red]]''. In the late 1960s, Rothbard advocated an alliance with the [[New Left]] anti-war movement, on the grounds that the conservative movement had been completely subsumed by the statist establishment. However Rothbard later criticized the New Left for not truly being against the draft and supporting a "People's Republic" style draft. It was during this phase that he associated with [[Karl Hess]] and founded ''[[Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought]]'' with [[Leonard Liggio]] and George Resch, which existed from 1965 to 1968. From 1969 to 1984 he edited ''[[The Libertarian Forum]]'', also initially with Hess (although Hess' involvement ended in 1971). In 1977, he established the ''[[Journal of Libertarian Studies]]'', which he edited until his death in 1995.

During the 1970s and '80s, Rothbard was active in the [[United States Libertarian Party|Libertarian Party]]. He was frequently involved in the party's internal politics: from 1978 to 1983, he was associated with the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus (later reorganized as the [[Rothbard Caucus]]), allying himself with [[Justin Raimondo]], and [[Williamson Evers|Bill Evers]] and opposing the "low tax liberalism" espoused by 1980 presidential candidate [[Ed Clark]] and [[Cato Institute]] president [[Ed Crane|Edward H Crane III]]. He split with the Radical Caucus at the 1983 national convention, and aligned himself with what he called the "rightwing populist" wing of the party, notably [[Ron Paul]], who ran for President on the LP ticket 1988. In 1989, Rothbard left the Libertarian Party and began building bridges to the post-[[Cold War]] right. He was the founding president of the conservative-libertarian [[John Randolph Club]] and supported the presidential campaign of [[Pat Buchanan]] in 1992. However, prior to his death in [[Manhattan]] of a [[Myocardial infarction|heart attack]], Rothbard had become disillusioned with the Buchanan movement.

In addition to his work on economics and political theory, Rothbard also wrote on economic history. He is one of the few economic authors who have studied and presented the pre-[[Adam Smith|Smithian]] economic schools, such as the [[scholastics]] and the [[physiocrats]]. These are discussed in his unfinished, multi-volume work, ''[[An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought]]''.

Rothbard opposed what he considered the overspecialization of the academy and sought to fuse the disciplines of economics, history, ethics, and political science to create a "science of liberty," as reflected in his many books and articles. His approach was influenced by the arguments of Ludwig von Mises in such books as ''[[Human Action]]'' and ''[[Theory and History]]'' that the foundations of the social sciences are in a logic of human action that can be known prior to empirical investigation. Rothbard sought to use such insights to guide historical research, especially in his work on economic history, but also in his four-volume history of the [[American Revolution]], ''[[Conceived in Liberty]]''.

He was the academic vice president of the [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] and the [[Center for Libertarian Studies]] (which he founded in 1976), was a distinguished professor at the [[University of Nevada, Las Vegas]], and edited the ''[[Rothbard-Rockwell Report]]'' with [[Lew Rockwell]].

== The Austrian School ==
{{Libertarianism}}
{{main|Austrian School}}

The Austrian School of economics was founded with the publication of [[Carl Menger]]'s 1871 book ''[[Principles of Economics]]''. Members of this school approach economics as an ''a priori'' system like logic or mathematics, rather than as an empirical science like geology. It attempts to discover axioms of human action (called "[[praxeology]]" in the Austrian tradition) and make deductions therefrom. Some of these praxeological axioms are:

:*Humans act purposefully.
:*Humans prefer more of a good to less.
:*Humans prefer to receive a good sooner rather than later.
:*Each party to a trade benefits ''[[ex ante]]''.

Even in the early days, Austrian economics was used as a theoretical weapon against socialism and statist socialist policy. [[Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk]], a colleague of Menger, wrote one of the first critiques of socialism ever written in his treatise ''The Exploitation Theory of Socialism-Communism''. Later, [[Friedrich Hayek]] wrote ''[[The Road to Serfdom]]'', asserting that a [[command economy]] destroys the information function of prices, and that authority over the economy leads to [[totalitarianism]]. Another very influential Austrian economist was [[Ludwig von Mises]], author of the praxeological work ''[[Human Action]]''.

Murray Rothbard, a student of Mises, is the man who attempted to meld Austrian economics with classical liberalism and individualist anarchism, and is credited with coining the term "anarcho-capitalism". He was probably the first to use "libertarian" in its current (U.S.) pro-capitalist sense. He was a trained economist, but also knowledgeable in history and political philosophy. When young, he considered himself part of the [[Old Right]], an anti-statist and anti-[[interventionist]] branch of the [[Republican Party (United States)|U.S. Republican]] party. When interventionist [[cold warrior]]s of the ''[[National Review]]'', such as [[William Buckley]], gained influence in the Republican party in the 1950s, Rothbard quit that group and formed an alliance with [[left-wing]] [[antiwar]] groups. Later, Rothbard was an early supporter of the U.S. Libertarian Party, despite initially opposing it on grounds that it was premature. In the late 1950s, Rothbard was briefly involved with [[Ayn Rand]]'s [[Objectivist philosophy|Objectivism]], but later had a falling out. Rothbard's books, such as ''[[Man, Economy, and State]]'', ''[[Power and Market]]'', ''[[The Ethics of Liberty]]'', and ''[[For a New Liberty]]'', are considered by some to be classics of natural law libertarian thought.

Rothbard divides the various kinds of state intervention in three categories:
# ''autistic intervention'', which is interference with private non-exchange activities
# ''binary intervention'', which is forced exchange between individuals and the state
# ''triangular intervention'', which is state-mandated exchange between individuals.

According to [[Sanford Ikeda]], Rothbard's typology "eliminates the gaps and inconsistencies that appear in Mises's original formulation."<ref>Ikeda, Sanford. Dyamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Inteventionism. Routledge UK. 1997. p. 245</ref>

Rothbard argued that the entire Austrian economic theory is the working out of the logical implications of the fact that humans engage in purposeful action.<ref>Grimm, Curtis M.; Hunn, Lee; Smith, Ken G. Strategy as Action: Competitive Dynamics and Competitive Advantage. New York Oxford University Press (US). 2006. p. 43</ref>

== Anarcho-capitalism ==
{{Anarchism}}
{{main|Anarcho-capitalism}}

{{quotation|"Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." -Murray Rothbard|<ref>[http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard103.html ''Exclusive Interview With Murray Rothbard''] The New Banner: A Fortnightly Libertarian Journal ([[25 February]] [[1972]])</ref>}}

Rothbard was "a student and disciple of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, [who] combined the laissez-faire economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the nineteenth century such as [[Lysander Spooner]] and [[Benjamin Tucker]]."<ref>Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, 1987, ISBN 0-631-17944-5, p. 290</ref> Rothbard said:{{cquote|Lysander Spooner and Benjamin T. Tucker were unsurpassed as political philosophers and nothing is more needed today than a revival and development of the largely forgotten legacy they left to political philosophy...There is, in the body of thought known as '[[Austrian economics]]', a scientific explanation of the workings of the free market (and of the consequences of government intervention in that market) which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their political and social Weltanschauung.<ref name="Spooner-Tucker Doctrine">"The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View" [http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_2.pdf]</ref>}} Like the nineteenth century individualists, he believed that security should be provided by multiple competing businesses rather than by a tax-funded central agency.<ref> {{cite book |editor=William Outhwaite |title= The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought |edition=2nd |year= 2002 |publisher=[[Blackwell Publishing|Blackwell Publishers]] |location=Malden, MA |id= ISBN 0-631-22164-6}}</ref> However, he rejected their [[labor theory of value]] in favor of the modern neo-classical [[Marginalism|marginalist]] view. Thus, like most modern economists, he did not believe that prices in a free market would, or should be, proportional to labor (nor that "usury" or "exploitation" necessarily occurs where they are disproportionate). Instead, he believed that different prices of goods and services in a market, whether completely free or not, are ultimately the result of goods and services having different [[marginal utilities]] rather than the fact they contain differing amounts of labor - and that there is nothing unjust about this. Rothbard also disagreed with Tucker that interest would disappear with unregulated banking and money issuance. Rothbard believed that people in general do not wish to lend their money to others without compensation, so there is no reason why this would change where banking is unregulated. Nor, did he agree that unregulated banking would increase the supply of money because he believed the supply of money in a truly free market is self-regulating. And, he believed that it is good that it would not increase the supply or inflation would result.<ref>Rothbard, Murray. The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View [http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_2.pdf]</ref> Rothbard said he was "strongly tempted to call [himself] an “individualist anarchist," except he believed that "Spooner and Tucker have in a sense preempted that name for their doctrine and that from that doctrine I have certain differences." So, he chose to call his philosophy "anarcho-capitalism." However, today, the term "individualist anarchism" has in fact not been preempted by the nineteenth century individualists, because a wide range of scholars do say that anarcho-capitalism is a capitalist form of individualist anarchism.<ref> Such accounts specifying anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism include:
* Alan and Trombley, Stephen (Eds.) Bullock, ''The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought'', W. W. Norton & Company (1999), p. 30
* Outhwaite, William. ''The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought'', ''Anarchism'' entry, p. 21, 2002.
* Bottomore, Tom. '' Dictionary of Marxist Thought'', ''Anarchism'' entry, 1991.
* Barry, Norman. ''Modern Political Theory'', 2000, Palgrave, p. 70
* Adams, Ian. ''Political Ideology Today'', Manchester University Press (2002) ISBN 0-7190-6020-6, p. 135
* Grant, Moyra. ''Key Ideas in Politics'', Nelson Thomas 2003 ISBN 0-7487-7096-8, p. 91
* Heider, Ulrike. ''Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green'', City Lights, 1994. p. 3.
* [[Geoffrey Ostergaard]]. [http://www.ppu.org.uk/e_publications/dd-trad6.html ''Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought'']. Peace Pledge Union Publications
* [[Paul Avrich|Avrich, Paul]]. ''Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
* Sheehan, Sean. ''Anarchism'', Reaktion Books, 2004, p. 39
* Tormey, Simon. ''Anti-Capitalism'', One World, 2004. pp. 118-119
* Levy, Carl. [http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568770_2/Anarchism.html Anarchism], Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006 [4] MS Encarta (UK)
* Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, 1987, ISBN 0-631-17944-5, p. 11
* Gabardi, Wayne of University of California, Santa Barbara. Review of Anarchism by David Miller (London: J. J. Dent and Sons, 1984. pp 216). American Political Science Review Vol. 80. p. 300
* Review in Journal of Economic Literature (JEL 83-1167, p. 1620) of David Osterfeld's Freedom, Society, and the State, University Press of America, 1983
* Sturgis, Amy. Presidents from Hayes Through McKinley: Debating the Issues in Pro and Con Primay Documents. Westport, Conn Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003, p.2
* Love, Nancy Sue. Dogmas and Dreams: A Reader in Modern Political Ideologies Chatham House Studies in Political Thinking. Chatham, N.J. Chatham House, an imprint of Seven Bridges, 1998 p. 357
* [[Ralph Raico|Raico, Ralph]]. ''Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century'', Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004.
* Offer, John. ''Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments'', Routledge (UK) (2000), p. 243</ref> According to [[Mutualism (economic theory)|mutualist]], [[Kevin Carson]] who subscribes to the old theories, few individualist anarchists still agree with the labor theory of value of the nineteenth century individualists or their theories on money, and as a result, "most people who call themselves 'individualist anarchists' today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics."<ref name="carson"> Carson, Kevin. Mutualist Political Economy, [http://www.mutualist.org/id112.html Preface]</ref> For example, anarcho-capitalist [[Wendy McElroy]] refers to herself as a "Rothbardian and an individualist anarchist."<ref>McElroy, Wendy. ''The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens'' (2005)</ref>
[[Image:Rothbard-MES.jpg|frame|left|Cover of the [[2004]] edition of "Man, Economy, and State".]] Anarchists who are not [[individualist anarchists]] oppose the idea that private defense could be compatible with anarchism.{{Fact|date=March 2007}} It was in 1949 that Rothbard first concluded that the free market could provide all services, including police, courts, and defense services better than could the State. Prior to this it was advocated by nineteenth century individualist anarchists such as [[Benjamin Tucker]], whose writings were an influence on Rothard<ref>Tucker said, "[D]efense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices." Tucker, Benjamin. "Instead of a Book" (1893). Also, "Anarchism does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force. Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice. It does not signify the abolition of force-symbols but the application of force to real invaders." Tucker, Benjamin. Liberty October 19, 1891</ref> Prior to this it was advocated by [[Gustave de Molinari]] who Rothbard calls the first anarcho-capitalist. Rothbard described the moral basis for his anarcho-capitalist position in two of his books, ''[[For a New Liberty]]'', published in 1972, and ''[[The Ethics of Liberty]]'', published in 1982. He described how a stateless economy would function in his book ''[[Power and Market]].'' According to Rothbard, the difference between a state and voluntary defense is that a state taxes and it enforces a territorial monopoly, over property that it does not own (private property), on the use of defense and punitive force. Private defense relies on voluntary payments and it does not forcefully prevent other private defenders from competing for business. For example, if someone subscribed to a private police agency, and someone had broken into that person's home, then that individual could call the private police to come to the home and arrest the intruder and take him to a private jail and private court. A state claims a monopoly over such force on property that anarcho-capitalists do not believe that the state owns (e.g. the person's home); it does not permit this kind of competition, by definition.

In [[The Ethics of Liberty]], Rothbard asserted the right of 100 percent [[self-ownership]], as the only principle compatible with a moral code that applies to every person - a "universal ethic" - and that it is a natural law by being what is naturally best for man.<ref>Rothbard, Murray Newton. The Ethics of Liberty. NYU Press. 2003. pp. 45 - 45</ref> He believed that, as a result, individuals owned the fruits of their labor. Accordingly, each person had the right to exchange his property with others. He believed that if an individual mixes his labor with unowned land then he is the proper owner, and from that point on it is private property that may only exchange hands by trade or gift. He also argued that such land would tend not to remain unused unless it makes economic sense to not put it to use.<ref>Kyriazi, Harold. Reckoning With Rothbard (2004). American Journal of Economics and Sociology 63 (2), p. 451</ref> Rothbard defined the libertarian position through what is called the non-aggression principle, that "No person may aggress against anybody else." Rothbard attacked taxation as theft, because it was taking someone else's property without his consent. Further, conscription was slavery, and war was murder. Rothbard also opposed compulsory jury service and involuntary mental hospitalization.

It must be noted that there are other versions of anarcho-capitalism besides Rothard's version. For example [[David D. Friedman]]'s anarcho-capitalism advocates that law itself be bought and sold in the market, rather than just defense services. In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, there would first be the implementation of a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow."<ref>Rothbard, Murray. For A New Liberty. [http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp 12 The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts]</ref> This legal code would recognize [[sovereignty of the individual]] and the [[non-aggression principle|principle of non-aggression]].

===Tactics===
Rothbard criticized the "frenzied nihilism" of left-wing libertarians but also criticized right-wing libertarians who were content to rely only on education to bring down the state; he believed that libertarians should adopt any non-immoral tactic available to them in order bring about liberty.<ref>Lora, Ronald & Longton, Henry. 1999. The Conservative Press in Twentieth-Century America. Greenwood Press. p. 369</ref>

== Rothbard's law ==
Rothbard's law is a self-attributed [[adage]]. In essence, Rothbard suggested that an otherwise talented individual would specialize and focus in an area at which they were weaker — or simply flat out wrong. Or as he often put it: "everyone specializes in what he is worst at."
[[Image:Rothbard-EconThought.jpg|frame|right|Cover from the first volume of the [[2006]] [[Mises Institute]] edition of ''An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought'']]
In one example, he discusses his time spent with Ludwig von Mises,

:''In all the years I attended his seminar and was with him, he never talked about foreign policy. If he was an interventionist on foreign affairs, I never knew it. This is a violation of Rothbard's law, which is that people tend to specialize in what they are worst at. [[Henry George]], for example, is great on everything but land, so therefore he writes about land 90% of the time. [[Milton Friedman|Friedman]] is great except on money, so he concentrates on money. Mises, however, and [[Israel Kirzner|Kirzner]] too, always did what they were best at.''

Continuing on this point,
:''There was another group coming up in the sixties, students of [[Robert LeFevre]]'s [[Freedom School]] and later [[Rampart College]]. At one meeting, Friedman and [[Gordon Tullock|Tullock]] were brought in for a week, I had planned to have them lecture on occupational licensing and on ocean [[privatization]], respectively. Unfortunately, they spoke on these subjects for 30 minutes and then rode their hobby horses, monetary theory and [[public choice]], the rest of the time. I immediately clashed with [[Milton Friedman|Friedman]]. He had read my [[America's Great Depression]] and was furious that he was suddenly meeting all these Rothbardians. He didn't know such things existed.''

== Criticism of Keynes and Bentham ==
Rothbard was an ardent critic of the influential economist [[John Maynard Keynes]] and [[Keynesian]] economic thought. His essay ''Keynes, the Man''[http://www.mises.org/etexts/keynestheman.pdf], is a scathing attack upon Keynes' economic ideas and personage.

Rothbard, among others, was also severely critical of [[utilitarian]] [[philosopher]] [[Jeremy Bentham]] in his essay, ''Jeremy Bentham: The Utilitarian as Big Brother'' published in his work, ''Classical Economics''.

==Economists and the free market==
* Murray Rothbard devotes a chapter of ''[[Power and Market]]'' to the traditional role of the economist in public life. Rothbard notes that the functions of the economist on the free market differ strongly from those of the economist on the hampered market. "What can the economist do on the purely free market?" Rothbard asks. "He can explain the workings of the market economy (a vital task, especially since the untutored person tends to regard the market economy as sheer chaos), but he can do little else." [http://www.mises.org/story/2318] [http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap19.asp]

== Books ==
[[Image:Rothbard-agd.jpg|frame|right|Cover of the [[Mises Institute]]'s [[2000]] edition of ''America's Great Depression''.]]
* ''[[Man, Economy, and State]]'' ([http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp Full Text]; ISBN 0-945466-30-7) (1962)
* ''[[The Panic of 1819]]''. 1962, 2006 edition: ISBN 1-933550-08-2.
* ''[[America's Great Depression]]''. ISBN 0-945466-05-6. (1963, 1972, 1975, 1983, 2000)
* ''[[What Has Government Done to Our Money?]]'' ([http://www.mises.org/money.asp Full Text] / [http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=92 Audio Book]) ISBN 0-945466-44-7. (1963)
* ''Economic Depressions: Causes and Cures'' (1969)
* ''[[Power and Market]]''. ISBN 1-933550-05-8. (1970) (restored to ''Man, Economy, and State'' ISBN 0-945466-30-7, 2004)
* ''Education: Free and Compulsory''. ISBN 0-945466-22-6. (1972)
* ''Left and Right, Selected Essays 1954-65'' (1972)
* ''[[For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto]]'' ([http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp Full text] / [http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87 Audio book]) ISBN 0-945466-47-1. (1973, 1978)
* ''The Essential von Mises'' (1973)
* ''The Case for the 100 Percent Gold Dollar''. ISBN 0-945466-34-X. ([http://www.mises.org/story/1829 Full Text] / [http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=92 Audio Book]) (1974)
* ''[[Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays]]'' ISBN 0-945466-23-4. (1974)
* ''[[Conceived in Liberty]]'' (4 vol.) ISBN 0-945466-26-9. (1975-79)
* ''Individualism and the Philosophy of the Social Sciences''. ISBN 0-932790-03-8. (1979)
* ''[[The Ethics of Liberty]]'' ([http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp Full Text] / [http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=95 Audio Book]) ISBN 0-8147-7559-4. (1982)
* ''The Mystery of Banking''. ISBN 0-943940-04-4. (1983)
* ''Ludwig von Mises: Scholar, Creator, Hero''. {{OCLC|20856420}}. (1988)
* ''Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor''. [http://www.mises.org/fipandol.asp Full text] (included as Chapter 16 in ''Egalitarianism'' above) (1991)
* ''The Case Against the Fed''. ISBN 0-945466-17-X. (1994)
* ''[[An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought]]'' (2 vol.) ISBN 0-945466-48-X. (1995)
* ''Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy''. ([http://www.mises.org/rothbard/WSBanks.pdf Full Text]) with an introduction by [[Justin Raimondo]]. (1995)
* ''Making Economic Sense''. ISBN 0-945466-18-8. (1995, 2006)
* ''Logic of Action'' (2 vol.) ISBN 1-85898-015-1 and ISBN 1-85898-570-6. (1997)
* ''The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle and Other Essays''. ISBN 0-945466-21-8. (also by Mises, Hayek, & Haberler)
* ''Irrepressible Rothbard: The Rothbard-Rockwell Report Essays of Murray N. Rothbard''. ([http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Contents.html Full Text].) ISBN 1-883959-02-0. (2000)
* ''[[History of Money and Banking in the United States]]''. ISBN 0-945466-33-1. (2005)
* ''[[The Libertarian Forum|The Complete Libertarian Forum]]'' (2 vol.) ([http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/lf/lib-forum-contents.html Full Text]) ISBN 1-933550-02-3. (2006)
* ''Economic Controversies'' (to be published 2007)
* ''[[The Betrayal of the American Right]]'' ISBN 978-1-933550-13-8 (2007)
{{Rothbard books}}

== Notes ==
<references/>

== Further reading ==
* [[David Gordon|Gordon, David]]. ''The Essential Rothbard'' Ludwig von Mises Institute; 1st edition. February 26, 2007. ISBN 1933550104
* [[Justin Raimondo|Raimondo, Justin]]. ''An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard''. [[Prometheus Books]]. July 2000. ISBN 1-57392-809-7
* ''Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty'' [http://www.mises.org/story/910 Full text] by Murray Rothbard. Spring 1965. (Included as Chapter 2 in ''Egalitarianism'' above.)

== External links ==
{{wikiquote}}
* {{nndb name|id=313/000030223|name=Murray Rothbard}}
* "[http://www.mises.org/content/mnr.asp Murray N. Rothbard: A Legacy of Liberty]" by [[David Gordon]], also includes links to audio recordings of Rothbard and the complete text of several books.
* [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-lib.html Murray N. Rothbard Library and Resources]
* [http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=32 Murray N. Rothbard Media Achive at Mises.org]
* [http://www.blackcrayon.com/people/rothbard/ BlackCrayon.com: People: Murray Rothbard]
* [http://mises.org/content/mnrbib.asp Chronological Bibliography of Murray Rothbard]
* [http://www.mises.org/journals/libertarianforum.asp The Complete Archives] of [[The Libertarian Forum]], written about twice a month between 1969 and 1984.
* [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html ''Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult''] (pamphlet published by the Center for Libertarian Studies)
* [http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1981/1981_01-04.pdf "It Usually Ends With Ed Crane"] - Rothbard's story of what happened with Ed Crane, the CATO institute and the Libertarian party
* [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard103.html A 1972 ''New Banner'' interview with Murray Rothbard]
* [http://www.mises.org/journals/aen/aen11_2_1.asp A 1990 interview with Murray Rothbard]
* [http://www.mises.org/etexts/hhhonmnr.asp Why Hans-Hermann Hoppe considers Rothbard the key Austro-libertarian intellectual]
* Murray N. Rothbard, [http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/rothbard.pdf The Origins of the Federal Reserve], The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics vol. 2, no. 3 (Fall 1999): 3 – 51

{{Austrian economists}}
{{ History of economic thought}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rothbard, Murray}}
[[Category:1926 births]]
[[Category:1995 deaths]]
[[Category:American anarchists]]
[[Category:American anti-communists]]
[[Category:American economists]]
[[Category:American historians]]
[[Category:American libertarians]]
[[Category:American philosophers]]
[[Category:American political writers]]
[[Category:Anarcho-capitalists]]
[[Category:Austrian School economists]]
[[Category:Critics of Objectivism]]
[[Category:Historians of the United States]]
[[Category:Individualist anarchists]]
[[Category:Jewish anarchists]]
[[Category:Jewish American scientists]]
[[Category:Jewish American writers]]
[[Category:Libertarian theorists]]
[[Category:Paleolibertarians]]
[[Category:Political philosophers]]
[[Category:Columbia University alumni]]
[[Category:University of Nevada, Las Vegas faculty]]
[[Category:Libertarian economists]]

[[da:Murray Rothbard]]
[[de:Murray Rothbard]]
[[es:Murray Rothbard]]
[[eo:Murray Rothbard]]
[[fr:Murray Rothbard]]
[[it:Murray N. Rothbard]]
[[nl:Murray Rothbard]]
[[no:Murray Rothbard]]
[[pl:Murray Rothbard]]
[[pt:Murray Rothbard]]
[[ru:Ротбард, Мюррей]]
[[sk:Murray Rothbard]]
[[fi:Murray Rothbard]]
[[sv:Murray Rothbard]]
[[zh:穆瑞·羅斯巴德]]

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

2007-10-17T01:41:32Z

Harpakhrad11: Section Merge

{{Infobox_Philosopher |

region = Western Philosophy |
era = [[19th-century philosophy]] |
color = #B0C4DE |


image_name = Pierre_Joseph_Proudhon.jpg |
image_caption = Proudhon as painted by [[Gustave Courbet]] |


name = Pierre-Joseph Proudhon|
birth = [[January 15]], [[1809]] |
death = [[January 19]], [[1865]] |
school_tradition = [[Socialism]], [[Anarchism]], [[Mutualism (economic theory)|Mutualism]] |
main_interests = [[Egalitarianism]], [[property]], [[authority]]  |
influences =  |
influenced = [[Mikhail Bakunin|Bakunin]], [[Joseph Déjacque|Déjacque]], [[Édouard Depreux|Depreux]], [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Peter Kropotkin|Kropotkin]], [[Georges Sorel|Sorel]], [[Peter Kropotkin|Kropotkin]],
[[Benjamin Tucker|Tucker]], [[Leo Tolstoy|Tolstoy]], [[Robert Anton Wilson|Wilson]]  |
notable_ideas = [[Property is theft!|Property is theft]], Anarchy is order |
}}
{{Anarchism}}

'''Pierre-Joseph Proudhon''' (pronounced [ˈpruːd ɒn] in [[British English]], [pʁu dɔ̃] in [[French language|French]]) ([[January 15]], [[1809]] – [[January 19]], [[1865]]) was a [[French people|French]] [[Mutualism (economic theory)|mutualist]] political philosopher of the [[socialist]] tradition. He was the first individual to call himself an "[[anarchism|anarchist]]" and is considered among the first [[Anarchism|anarchist]] thinkers. He was a workingman, a printer, who taught himself to read Latin so as to print books in that language well. Proudhon is most famous for his assertion that "[[Property is theft!]]", in ''[[What is Property?|What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and Government]]'' (original title: ''Qu'est-ce que la propriété? Recherche sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement''), his first major work, published in 1840.

The publication of "''What is Property?''" attracted the attention of the French authorities, and also of [[Karl Marx]] who started up a correspondence with Proudhon. The two men influenced each other; they met in [[Paris]] when Marx was exiled there. Their friendship ended completely when Marx wrote a response to Proudhon's ''[[The System of Economic Contradictions, or The Philosophy of Poverty]]'' entitled ''[[The Poverty of Philosophy]]''. Their dispute was one of the origins to the split between the anarchists and the [[Marxists]] in the [[International Working Men's Association]]. Some historians such as [[Edmund Wilson]] have contended that Marx's attack on Proudhon arose from the latter's defense of Karl Grun, whom Marx bitterly disliked, but who had been preparing translations of Proudhon's work. There was also a disagreement between the followers of [[Mikhail Bakunin]] and Proudhon. Proudhon believed that collective ownership was undesirable (favoring individual worker ownership over collective union worker ownership) and that [[social revolution]] could be achieved in a peaceful manner.

In his book ''The Confessions of a Revolutionary'', Proudhon wrote among other things, the well known phrase, ''anarchy is order'' (which inspired the famous [[Anarchist symbolism#Circle-A|Circle-A]] anarchism symbol). He attempted to create a [[national bank]] that gave out interest-free loans, similar in some respects to [[credit union]]s.

==Biography==
===Early years===
[[Image:Proudhon-children.jpg|300px|left|thumb|Proudhon and his children, by [[Gustave Courbet]], 1865]]
Proudhon was born in [[Besançon]]; his father was a brewer's [[cooper (profession)|cooper]]. As a boy, he herded cows and followed other simple pursuits of a like nature. But he was not entirely self-educated; at sixteen Proudhon entered his town's college, though his family was so poor that he could not procure the necessary books. He had to borrow them from his fellow students in order to copy the lessons. At nineteen he became a working compositor; afterwards he rose to be a corrector for the press, [[proofreading]] [[ecclesiastical]] works, and thereby acquiring a very competent knowledge of theology. In this way also he came to learn Hebrew, and to compare it with [[Greek language|Greek]], [[Latin]] and [[French language|French]]; and it was the first proof of his intellectual audacity that on the strength of this he wrote an ''Essai de grammaire génerale''. As Proudhon knew nothing whatever of the true principles of [[philology]], his treatise was of no value. In [[1838]] he obtained the pension [[Suard]], a [[bursary]] of 1500 francs a year for three years, for the encouragement of young men of promise, which was in the gift of the [[Academy of Besançon]].

===Interest in politics===
In 1839 he wrote a treatise ''L'Utilité de la célébration du dimanche'', which contained the seeds of his revolutionary ideas. About this time he went to Paris, where he lived a poor, ascetic and studious life - making acquaintance, however, with the socialistic ideas which were then fomenting in the capital. In 1840 he published his first work ''Qu'est-ce que la propriété''. His famous answer to this question, ''La propriété, c'est le vol (property is theft)'', naturally did not please the academy of Besançon, and there was some talk of withdrawing his pension; but he held it for the regular period. For his third memoir on property, which took the shape of a letter to the [[Fourierist]], M. Considérant, he was tried at Besançon but was acquitted. In 1846 he published his greatest work, the ''Système des contradictions économiques ou Philosophie de la misère''. For some time Proudhon carried on a small printing establishment at Besançon, but without success; afterwards he became connected as a kind of manager with a commercial firm in Lyon. In 1847 he left this employment, and finally settled in Paris, where he was now becoming celebrated as a leader of innovation. In this year he also became a [[Freemason]]<ref>Henri du Bac. '' The Un-Marxian Socialist: A Study of Proudhon ''. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1848. p. 9.</ref>

===Proudhon and the 1848 Revolution===
Proudhon was surprised by the [[Revolutions of 1848 in France|1848 Revolution]]. He participated in the February uprising and the composition of what he termed "the first republican proclamation" of the new republic. But he had misgivings about the new provisional government, headed by [[Jacques-Charles Dupont de l'Eure|Dupont de l'Eure]] (1767-1855), who, since the [[French Revolution]] in 1789, had been a longstanding politician, although often in the opposition. Beside Dupont de l'Eure, the provisional government was dominated by [[liberalism|liberal]]s such as [[Alphonse de Lamartine|Lamartine]] (Foreign Affairs), [[Ledru-Rollin]] (Interior), [[Adolphe Crémieux|Crémieux]] (Justice), [[Auguste Burdeau|Burdeau]] (War), etc., because it was pursuing political reform at the expense of the socio-economic reform, which Proudhon considered basic. As during the 1830 [[July Revolution]], the Republican-Socialist Party had set up a counter-government in the [[Hôtel de Ville, Paris|Hotel de Ville]], including [[Louis Blanc]], [[Armand Marrast]], [[Ferdinand Flocon]], and the [[Albert L'Ouvrier|workman Albert]].

Proudhon published his own perspective for reform, ''Solution du problème social'' (''Solution of the Social Problem''), in which he laid out a program of mutual financial cooperation among workers. He believed this would transfer control of economic relations from capitalists and financiers to workers. The central part of his plan was the establishment of a bank to provide credit at a very low rate of interest and the issuing "exchange notes" that would circulate instead of money based on gold.

During the [[Second French Republic]] (1848-1852) Proudhon made his biggest impact on the public through his journalism. He was involved with four different newspapers: ''Le Représentant du Peuple'' (February 1848 - August 1848); ''Le Peuple'' (September 1848 - June 1849); ''La Voix du Peuple'' (September 1849 - May 1850); ''Le Peuple de 1850'' (June 1850 - October 1850). His polemical writing style, combined with his perception of himself as a political outsider, produced a cynical, combative journalism that appealed to many French workers, although it alienated others. He repeatedly criticised the policies of the government, and promoted reformation of credit and exchange. To this end, he attempted to establish a popular bank (Banque du peuple) early in 1849, but despite over 13,000 people signing up (mostly workers), receipts were limited falling short of 18,000FF and the whole enterprise was essentially stillborn.

Proudhon stood for the constituent assembly in April 1848, but failed to get elected, although his name appeared on the ballots in Paris, [[Lyon]], Besançon, and [[Lille]]. However he was later successful, in the complementary elections held on June 4, and served as a deputy during the debates over the [[National Workshops]], created by the February 25, 1848 decree passed by Republican Louis Blanc. The Workshops were to give work to the unemployed. Proudhon was never enthusiastic about such workshops, perceiving them to be essentially charitable institutions that did not resolve the problems of the economic system. Still, he was against their elimination unless an alternative could be found for the workers who relied on the workshops for subsistence.

He was shocked by the violence of the [[June Days Uprising]] in 1848, provoked by the closing of the National Workshops . Visiting the barricades personally he later reflected that his presence at the [[Bastille]] at this time was "one of the most honorable acts of my life." But in general during the tumultuous events of 1848, Proudhon opposed [[insurrection]] preaching peaceful conciliation, a stance that was in accord with his lifelong stance against violence. He disapproved of the revolts and demonstrations of February, May, and June, 1848, though sympathetic to the social and psychological injustices that the insurrectionaries had been forced to endure.

Proudhon died on January 19, 1865, and he is buried in Paris, at the cemetery of Montparnasse (2nd division, near the Lenoir alley, in the tomb of the Proudhon family).

==Political philosophy==
Proudhon is the first known theorist to refer to himself as an "anarchist." He defined anarchy as ''"the absence of a master, of a sovereign"'' in ''What is Property'' and urged a ''"Society without Authority"'' in ''The General idea of the Revolution''. He extended this analysis beyond just political institutions, arguing in ''What is Property?'' that ''"proprietor"'' was ''"synonymous"'' with ''"sovereign."'' For Proudhon:
{{cquote|"Capital"... in the political field is analogous to "government"... The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason.<ref>P.-J. Proudhon, ''Les confessions d'un révolutionnaire'', (Paris: Garnier, 1851), p. 271., quoted by Max Nettlau, ''A Short History of Anarchism'', pp. 43-44</ref>}}

One exception to this position was his sexism, causing [[Joseph Déjacque]] (as well as subsequent anarchists) to attack Proudhon's support for [[patriarchy]] as being inconsistent with his anarchist ideas.

In his earliest works, Proudhon analyzed the nature and problems of the capitalist economy. While deeply critical of capitalism, he also objected to those contemporary socialists who idolized association. In series of commentaries, from ''[[What is Property?]]'' (1840) through the posthumously-published ''Théorie de la propriété'' (''Theory of Property'', 1863-64), he declared in turn that "property is theft", "property is impossible", "property is despotism" and "property is freedom". When he said property is theft, he was referring to the landowner or capitalist who he believed ''stole'' the profits from laborers. For Proudhon, the capitalist's employee was "subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience."<ref>''[http://fair-use.org/p-j-proudhon/general-idea-of-the-revolution/organization-of-economic-forces#s3p5 General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century'' (1851), Sixth Study, § 3 ¶ 5].</ref>

In asserting that property is freedom, he was referring not only to the product of an individual's labor, but to the [[peasant]] or [[artisan]]'s home and tools of his trade and the income he received by selling his goods. For Proudhon, the only legitimate source of property is labor. What one produces is his property and anything beyond that is not. He advocated worker self-management and was against capitalist ownership of the means of production. He strenuously rejected the ownership of the products of labor by society, arguing in ''What is Property?'' that while ''"property in product [...] does not carry with it property in the means of production<ref>P.-J Proudhon, ''What Is Property?'' (Dover, 1970), p. 109.</ref> [...] The right to product is exclusive [...] the right to means is common"'' and applied this to the land (''"the land is [...] a common thing"''<ref>P.-J Proudhon, ''What Is Property?'' (Dover, 1970), p. 92.</ref>) and workplaces (''"all accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its exclusive proprietor"''<ref>P.-J Proudhon, ''What Is Property?'' (Dover, 1970), p. 120.</ref>). But he didn't approve of "society" owning means of production or land, but rather that the ''user'' own it (under supervision from society, with the ''"organising of regulating societies"'' in order to ''"regulate the market."'' [''Selected Writings'', p. 70]). Proudhon called himself a socialist, but he opposed state ownership of capital goods in favour of ownership by workers themselves in associations. This makes him one of the first theorists of [[libertarian socialism]]. Proudhon was one of the main influence for the theorization, at the end of the 19th century and in the 20th century, of [[workers' self-management]] (''autogestion'').

This use-ownership he called "possession," and this economic system [[Mutualism (economic theory)|mutualism]]. Proudhon had many arguments against entitlement to land and capital, including reasons based on morality, economics, politics, and individual liberty. One such argument was that it enabled profit, which in turn led to social instability and war by creating cycles of debt that eventually overcame the capacity of labor to pay them off. Another was that it produced "despotism" and turned workers into wage workers subject to the authority of a boss.

In ''What Is Property?'', Proudhon wrote:
<blockquote>
Property, acting by exclusion and encroachment, while population was increasing, has been the life-principle and definitive cause of all revolutions. Religious wars, and wars of conquest, when they have stopped short of the extermination of races, have been only accidental disturbances, soon repaired by the mathematical progression of the life of nations. The downfall and death of societies are due to the power of accumulation possessed by property.
</blockquote>

Towards the end of his life, he modified some of his earlier views. In ''"The Principle of Federation"'' (1863) he modified his earlier anti-state position, arguing for the ''"the balancing of authority by liberty"'' and put forward a decentralised ''"theory of federal government."'' He also defined anarchy differently as ''"the government of each by himself,"'' which meant ''"that political functions have been reduced to industrial functions, and that social order arises from nothing but transactions and exchanges."'' This work also saw him call his economic system an ''"agro-industrial federation,"'' arguing that it would provide ''"specific federal arrangements is to protect the citizens of the federated states from capitalist and financial feudalism, both within them and from the outside"'' and so stop the re-introduction of "wage labour." This was because "political right requires to be buttressed by economic right."

In the posthumously published ''Theory of Property'', he argued that "property is the only power that can act as a counterweight to the State." Hence, "Proudhon could retain the idea of property as theft, and at the same time offer a new definition of it as liberty. There is the constant possibility of abuse, exploitation, which spells theft. At the same time property is a spontaneous creation of society and a bullwark against the ever-encroaching power of the State."<ref>Copleston, Frederick. ''Social Philosophy in France'', A History of Philosophy, Volume IX, Image/Doubleday, 1994, p. 67</ref>

He continued to oppose both capitalist and state property. In ''Theory of Property'' he maintains: "Now in 1840, I categorically rejected the notion of property...for both the group and the individual," but then states his new theory of property: "property is the greatest revolutionary force which exists, with an unequaled capacity for setting itself against authority..." and the "principal function of private property within the political system will be to act as a counterweight to the power of the State, and by so doing to insure the liberty of the individual." However, he continued to oppose concentrations of wealth and property, arguing for small-scale property ownership associated with peasants and artisans. He still opposed private property in land: ''"What I cannot accept, regarding land, is that the work put in gives a right to ownership of what has been worked on."'' In addition, he still believed that that "property" should be more equally distributed and limited in size to that actually used by individuals, families and workers associations. (''Theory of Property'' in ''Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon'' p. 136, p. 129, p. 133, p. 135, p. 129) He supported the right of inheritance, and defended "as one of the foundations of the family and society." (Steward Edwards, Introduction to ''Selected Writings of P.J. Proudhon'') However, he refused to extend this beyond personal possessions arguing that ''"[u]nder the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour."'' (in Daniel Guerin (ed.), ''No Gods, No Masters'', vol. 1, p. 62).

As a consequence of his opposition to profit, wage labour, worker exploitation, ownership of land and capital, as well as to state property, Proudhon rejected both capitalism and communism. He adopted the term [[mutualism (economic theory)|mutualism]] for his brand of anarchism, which involved control of the means of production by the [[worker]]s. In his vision, self-employed artisans, [[peasants]], and cooperatives would trade their products on the market. For Proudhon, factories and other large workplaces would be run by 'labor associations' operating on directly democratic principles. The state would be abolished; instead, society would be organized by a federation of "free communes" (a [[Commune in France|commune]] is a local municipality in French). In 1863 Proudhon said: "All my economic ideas as developed over twenty-five years can be summed up in the words: agricultural-industrial federation. All my political ideas boil down to a similar formula: political federation or decentralization."

Proudhon opposed the charging of interest and rent, but did not seek to abolish them by law: "I protest that when I criticized... the complex of institutions of which property is the foundation stone, I never meant to... forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I believe that all these forms of human activity should remain free and optional for all." (''Solution of the Social Problem'', 1848-49) He considered that once workers had organised credit and labour and replaced property by possession, such claimed forms of exploitation would disappear along with the state.

Proudhon was a revolutionary, but his revolution did not mean violent upheaval or civil war, but rather the transformation of society. This transformation was essentially moral in nature and demanded the highest ethics from those who sought change. It was monetary reform, combined with organising a credit bank and workers associations, that Proudhon proposed to use as a lever to bring about the organization of society along new lines. He did not suggest how the monetary institutions would cope with the problem of inflation and with the need for the efficient allocation of scarce resources.

He made few public criticisms of Marx or [[Marxism]], because in his lifetime Marx was a relatively minor thinker; it was only after Proudhon's death that Marxism became a large movement. He did, however, criticize authoritarian socialists of his time period. This included the state socialist [[Louis Blanc]], of which Proudhon said, "Let me say to M. Blanc: you desire neither Catholicism nor monarchy nor nobility, but you must have a God, a religion, a dictatorship, a censorship, a hierarchy, distinctions, and ranks. For my part, I deny your God, your authority, your sovereignty, your judicial State, and all your representative mystifications." It was Proudhon's book ''What is Property?'' that convinced the young Karl Marx that [[private property]] should be abolished.

In one of his first works, ''The Holy Family'', Marx said, "Not only does Proudhon write in the interest of the [[proletarian]]s, he is himself a proletarian, an ouvrier. His work is a scientific manifesto of the French proletariat." Marx, however, disagreed with Proudhon's anarchism and later published vicious criticisms of Proudhon. Marx wrote ''The Poverty of Philosophy'' as a refutation of Proudhon's ''The Philosophy of Poverty''. In his socialism, Proudhon was followed by [[Mikhail Bakunin]]. After Bakunin's death, his libertarian socialism diverged into [[anarchist communism]] and [[collectivist anarchism]], with notable proponents such as [[Peter Kropotkin]] and Joseph Déjacque.

==Legacy ==
Although overshadowed in his time by [[Karl Marx]], who dismissed him as a [[bourgeois socialist]] for his pro-market views,<ref>Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, ''Manifesto of the Communist Party'', part 3, section 2.</ref> Proudhon had an immediate and lasting influence on the anarchist movement, and, more recently, in the aftermaths of [[May 1968]] and after the end of the [[Cold War]]. He was first used as a reference, surprisingly, in the ''[[Cercle Proudhon]]'', a right-wing association formed in 1911 by [[George Valois]] and [[Edouard Berth]]. Both had been brought together by the [[syndicalist]] [[Georges Sorel]]. But they would tend toward a synthesis of socialism and [[nationalism]], mixing Proudhon's mutualism with [[Charles Maurras]]' [[integralist nationalism]]. George Valois would found in 1925 the ''[[Faisceau]]'', the first fascist league which took its name from [[Benito Mussolini|Mussolini]]'s ''[[fasci]]''.

Historian of [[History of far-right movements in France|fascism, in particular of French fascists]], [[Zeev Sternhell]], has noted this use of Proudhon by the far-right. In ''The Birth Of Fascist Ideology'', he state that:
<blockquote>''"the [[Action Française]]...from its inception regarded the author of ''La philosophie de la misère'' as one of its masters. He was given a place of honour in the weekly section of the journal of the movement entitled, precisely, 'Our Masters.' Proudhon owed this place in L'Action française to what the Maurrassians saw as his antirepublicanism, his anti-Semitism, his loathing of [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Rousseau]], his disdain for the French Revolution, democracy, and parliamentarianism: and his championship of the nation, the family, tradition, and the monarchy."''</blockquote>

But Proudhon's legacy has not been limited to the instrumentalization of his thought by the [[revolutionary right]] (''la droite révolutionnaire''). He also influenced the [[non-conformists of the 1930s]] <ref> Jean-Louis Loubet del Bayle, [http://www.revuejibrile.com/JIBRILE/PDF/JEANLOUISLOUBETDELBAYLE.pdf A 2001 Interview] (p.3) in the ''Revue Jibrile'' {{fr icon}}</ref>, as well as classical anarchism. In the 1960s, he became the main influence of ''[[autogestion]]'' (workers' self-management) in France, inspiring the [[Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail|CFDT]] trade-union, created in 1964, and the [[Unified Socialist Party (France)|PSU]] (Unified Socialist Party), founded in 1960 and led until 1967 by [[Édouard Depreux]]. Autogestion in particular influenced the [[LIP (clockwork factory|LIP self-management experience]] in [[Besançon]].

Finally, Proudhon's thought has seen some revival since the end of the [[Cold War]] and the fall of the "[[real socialism]]" in the [[Eastern Bloc]]. It can be loosely related to modern attempts at [[direct democracy]]. The ''Groupe Proudhon'', related to the ''[[Fédération Anarchiste]]'' (Anarchist Federation), published a review from 1981 to 1983 (period which exactly corresponds with the [[French presidential election, 1981|1981 election]] of [[Socialist Party (France)|Socialist]] candidate [[François Mitterrand]] and the [[economic liberalism|economic liberal]] turn of 1983 taken by the Socialist government), and then again since 1994. It is staunchly [[anti-fascism|anti-fascist]], related to the [[SCALP]] sections (''Section Carrément Anti [[Jean-Marie Le Pen|Le Pen]]''). <ref> [http://lautodidacte.lautre.net/fedana/drapeau_noir.php3 Drapeau Noir] (Black Flag), review of the Groupe Proudhon {{fr icon}} </ref>.

== Criticisms and anti-semitism ==
Stewart Edwards, the editor of the Selected Writings Of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, remarks: "Proudhon's diaries (Garnets, ed. P. Haubtmann, Marcel Rivière, Paris 1960 to date) reveal that he had almost paranoid feelings of hatred against the Jews, common in Europe at the time. In 1847 he considered publishing...an article against the Jewish race, which he said he 'hated.' The proposed article would have 'Called for the expulsion of the Jews from France... The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated. H. Heine, A. Weil, and others are simply secret spies. Rothschild, Crémieux, Marx, Fould, evil choleric, envious, bitter men etc., etc., who hate us' (Garnets, vol. 2, p. 337: No VI, 178)".

[[J. Salwyn Schapiro]] wrote in 1945:<blockquote>Proudhon had the tendency, inevitable in the Anti-semite, to see in the Jews the prime source of the nation's misfortunes, and to associate them with persons and groups that he hated...Anti-semitism, always and everywhere, the acid test of racialism, with its division of mankind into creative and sterile races, led Proudhon to regard the Negro as the lowest in the racial hierarchy. During the [[American Civil War]] he favored the South, which, he insisted, was not entirely wrong in maintaining slavery. The Negroes, according to Proudhon, were an inferior race, an example of the existence of inequality among the races of mankind... His book ''La Guerre et la paix'', which appeared in 1861, was a hymn to war, intoned in a more passionate key than anything produced by the fascists of our time...Almost every page of ''La Guerre et la paix'' contains a glorification of war as an ideal and as an institution...His hysterical praise of war, like his ardent championship of the dictatorship of Louis Napoleon, like his unwavering support of the middle class, was an integral part of his social philosophy... In the powerful polemist of the mid-nineteenth century it is now possible to discern a harbinger of the great world evil of fascism. An irritating enigma to his own generation, his teachings misunderstood as anarchy by his disciples, Proudhon's place in intellectual history is destined to have a new and greater importance. It will come with the re-evaluation of the nineteenth century, as the prelude to the world revolution that is now called the second World War.<ref name="Schapiro">{{cite journal| author = [[J. Salwyn Schapiro|Schapiro, J. Salwyn]] | year = 1945 | title = Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Harbinger of Fascism | journal = [[American Historical Review]] | volume = 50 | issue = 4 | pages = 714-737}}</ref></blockquote>

According to the [[International Communist League]] (Fourth Internationalist) in a pamphlet Marxism versus Anarchism[http://www.icl-fi.org/otherlit/pamphlets/index.html], Proudhon was a male chauvinist, a supporter of slavery, against strike and trade unions and an anti-semite.

==Quotes==
Proudhon's essay on ''What Is Government?'' is quite well known:
<blockquote>
To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality. (P.-J. Proudhon, ''General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century'', translated by John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294.)
</blockquote>

Another famous quote was his "dialogue with a Philistine" in ''What is Property?'':
<blockquote>
"Why, how can you ask such a question? You are a republican." 
"A republican! Yes; but that word specifies nothing. Res publica; that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is interested in public affairs -- no matter under what form of government -- may call himself a republican. Even kings are republicans." 
"Well! You are a democrat?" 
"No." 
"What! "you would have a monarchy?" 
"No." 
" A Constitutionalist?" 
"God forbid." 
"Then you are an aristocrat?" 
"Not at all!" 
"You want a mixed form of government?" 
"Even less." 
"Then what are you?" 
"I am an anarchist." 
"Oh! I understand you; you speak [[satire|satirically]]. This is a hit at the government." 
"By no means. I have just given you my serious and well-considered profession of faith. Although a firm friend of order, I am (in the full force of the term) an anarchist. Listen to me."
</blockquote>

==Bibliography==

* ''Qu'est ce que la propriété?'' (''[[What is Property?]]'', 1840)
* ''Warning to Proprietors '' (1842)
* ''Système des contradictions économiques ou Philosophie de la misère'' (''The System of Economic Contradictions or the Philosophy of Misery'', 1846)
* ''Idée générale de la révolution au XIXe siècle'' ([http://fair-use.org/p-j-proudhon/general-idea-of-the-revolution ''General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century''], 1851)
* ''Le manuel du spéculateur à la bourse'' (''The Manual of the Stock Exchange Speculator'', 1853)
* ''De la justice dans la révolution et dans l'Eglise'' (''Of Justice in the Revolution and the Church'', 1858)
* ''La Guerre et la Paix'' (''War and Peace'', 1861)
* ''Du principe Fédératif'' (''Principle of Federation'', 1863)
* ''De la capacité politique des classes ouvrières'' (''Of the Political Capacity of the Working Class'', 1865)
* ''Théorie de la propriété'' (''Theory of Property'', 1866)
* ''Théorie du mouvement constitutionnel'' (''Theory of the Constitutionalist Movement'', 1870)
* ''Du principe de l'art'' (''The Principle of Art'', 1875)
* ''Correspondences'' (''Correspondences'', 1875)

==See also==
* [[Co-operative]]
* [[Federalism]]
* [[Individualist anarchism]]
* [[Property]]
* [[Self management]]
* [[Socialist economics]]

==Notes==

<div class="references-small">
<references/></div>

==Works online==
* at the [http://fair-use.org/ Fair Use Repository]:
** ''[http://fair-use.org/p-j-proudhon/general-idea-of-the-revolution/ General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century]'' (1851)
* at the [http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/ Mondo Politico on-line Library]:
** ''[http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/pjproudhon/whatisproperty/toc.htm What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government]''
* at the [http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/ Electronic Text Center at the University of Virginia Library]:
** ''[http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/ProProp.html What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government]''
** ''[http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/ProMise.html System of Economical Contradictions: or, the Philosophy of Misery]''
* {{gutenberg author| id=P.-J.+Proudhon | name=Pierre-Joseph Proudhon}}
** ''[http://gutenberg.net/etext/360 What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government]''
** ''[http://gutenberg.net/etext/444 System of Economical Contradictions: or, the Philosophy of Misery]''
* {{fr icon}} at the [http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/ bibliothèque numérique ''Les Classiques des sciences sociales''], [[Université du Québec à Chicoutimi]]
** [http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Proudhon/les_malthusiens/les_malthusiens.html ''Les Malthusiens''] (1848)
** from ''Textes choisis''
*** [http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Proudhon/PJ_proudhon_textes_choisis/1_proudhon_par_lui_meme/proudhon_par_lui_meme.html "Proudhon peint par lui-même"]
*** [http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Proudhon/PJ_proudhon_textes_choisis/2_science_economique/sc_economique.html "La science économique"]
*** [http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Proudhon/PJ_proudhon_textes_choisis/3_la_propriete/la_propriete.html "La propriété"]
*** [http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Proudhon/PJ_proudhon_textes_choisis/4_la_liberte/la_liberte.html "La liberté"]
*** [http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Proudhon/PJ_proudhon_textes_choisis/5_mutuellisme_federalisme/mutuellisme.html "Mutuellisme et fédéralisme"]
** from ''Justice et liberté''
*** [http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Proudhon/justice_et_liberte/pt_1_oppression/oppression.html "Les causes de l’oppression"]
*** [http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Proudhon/justice_et_liberte/pt_2_liberte/liberte.html "La liberté"]
*** [http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Proudhon/justice_et_liberte/pt_3_travail/travail.html "Le travail"]
*** [http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Proudhon/justice_et_liberte/pt_4_justice/justice.html "La justice"]
** [http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Proudhon/la_propriete/la_propriete.html ''Qu'est-ce que la propriété ? Ou recherches sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement''] (1840)
** [http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Proudhon/systeme_contr_eco/systeme_contr_eco.html ''Système des contradictions économiques ou Philosophie de la misère''] (1846)
** [http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Proudhon/theorie_de_la_propriete/theorie_de_la_propriete.html ''Théorie de la propriété''] (1862)

==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
{{commons|Pierre-Joseph Proudhon}}
* [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/proudhonbio.html Pierre-Joseph Proudhon] at the Anarchist Archives
** [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/grahamproudhon.html The General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution] by Robert Graham
* [http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/ProudhonPierre-Joseph.htm Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Page] at the Anarchist Encyclopedia (includes short timeline)
* [http://www.BlackCrayon.com/people/proudhon/ BlackCrayon.com: People: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]
* [http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:_H72tslV7hEJ:www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/libhe/libhe024.pdf Proudhon and Anarchism] by Larry Gambone
* [http://www.againstpolitics.com/market_anarchism/stirner_on_proudhon.html Stirner on Proudhon] Max Stirner criticizes Proudhon
* [http://www.ohiou.edu/~chastain/ip/proudhon.htm ''Proudhon'' by K. Steven Vincent]

{{ History of economic thought}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph}}
[[Category:Anarchists]]
[[Category:19th century philosophers]]
[[Category:Mutualists]]
[[Category:French philosophers]]
[[Category:French anarchists]]
[[Category:French political writers]]
[[Category:French socialists]]
[[Category:Materialists]]
[[Category:Syndicalists]]
[[Category:French people of the Revolutions of 1848]]
[[Category:People from Franche-Comté]]
[[Category:1809 births]]
[[Category:1865 deaths]]

[[br:Pierre Joseph Proudhon]]
[[ca:Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]
[[cs:Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]
[[de:Pierre Joseph Proudhon]]
[[es:Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]
[[eo:Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]
[[fa:پیر ژوزف پرودون]]
[[fr:Pierre Joseph Proudhon]]
[[gl:Pierre Joseph Proudhon]]
[[ko:피에르 조제프 프루동]]
[[io:Pierre Joseph Proudhon]]
[[id:Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]
[[it:Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]
[[he:פייר-ז'וזף פרודון]]
[[nl:Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]
[[ja:ピエール・ジョゼフ・プルードン]]
[[no:Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]
[[nn:Pierre Joseph Proudhon]]
[[pl:Pierre Joseph Proudhon]]
[[pt:Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]
[[ro:Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]
[[ru:Прудон, Пьер Жозеф]]
[[sk:Pierre Joseph Proudhon]]
[[sr:Пјер Жозеф Прудон]]
[[fi:Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]
[[sv:Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]
[[tr:Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]
[[uk:Прудон П'єр Жозеф]]
[[zh:皮埃爾-約瑟夫·普魯東]]

Talk:Free marketeer

2007-10-17T01:22:24Z

Harpakhrad11: /* Homophonic Similarity? */ new section

== References? ==

The claims of the "Philosophy" section are going to need some references.[[User:Harpakhrad11|Harpakhrad11]] 01:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

== Homophonic Similarity? ==

I don't really understand this criticism.[[User:Harpakhrad11|Harpakhrad11]] 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Free marketeer

2007-10-17T01:20:37Z

Harpakhrad11: References?

== References? ==

The claims of the "Philosophy" section are going to need some references.[[User:Harpakhrad11|Harpakhrad11]] 01:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarianism

2007-10-17T00:57:24Z

Harpakhrad11: /* See Also to long? */

{{GANominee|date=September 2007}}
{{ArticleHistory
|maindate=June 25, 2005
|action1=RBP
|action1date=19 January 2004
|action1link=Wikipedia:Refreshing_brilliant_prose_-_Others
|action1result=demoted
|action1oldid=2199996
|action2=PR
|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Libertarianism
|action2date=02:43, 20 Mar 2005
|action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=11307576
|action3=FAC
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Libertarianism/archive1
|action3date=15:44, 11 May 2005
|action3result=promoted
|action3oldid=13562942
|action4=FAR
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Libertarianism
|action4date=16 August 2005
|action4oldid= 21171729
|action4result=kept
|action5=FAR
|action5link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Libertarianism/archive1
|action5date=14:11, 15 January 2007
|action5result=removed
|action5oldid=100676048
|currentstatus=FFA
}}
{{controversial}}
{{V0.5|class=A|category=Socsci}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProjectPolitics|class=|importance=}}
{{WPCD}}

{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|[[Talk:Libertarianism/Archive|Archive 1]]
|[[Talk:Libertarianism/Archive2|Archive 2]]
|-
|[[Talk:Libertarianism/Archive3|Archive 3]]
|[[Talk:Libertarianism/Archive4|Archive 4]]
|-
|[[Talk:Libertarianism/Archive5|Archive 5]]
|[[Talk:Libertarianism/Archive6|Archive 6]]
|-
|[[Talk:Libertarianism/Archive7|Archive 7]]
|[[Talk:Libertarianism/Archive8|Archive 8]]
|-
|[[Talk:Libertarianism/Archive9|Archive 9]]
|-
|colspan="2"|
----
|-
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Talk:Libertarian]], discussion for a page which has been merged with this article.
----
|-
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Talk:Libertarianism/Alfrem]], discussion prior to the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alfrem#Alfrem_banned_from_Libertarianism|ArbCom decision]] banning [[User:Alfrem]] from this article.
----
|-
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Talk:Libertarianism/Page move]], a July 2005 vote on a proposal to make [[libertarianism]] a disambiguation page and move this to ''Libertarianism (capitalist)''.
|}

==Europe V US==

This may have been discussed before, but Libertarianism is simply not widely recognised as being the same thing as 'anarcho-capitalist' in Europe, it is generally regarded as being analogous to social anarchism, which it has been connected to since the late 19th century. In keeping with the general ethos of having a worldwide viewpoint, the article should really be re-named American libertarianism. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Saii|Saii]] ([[User talk:Saii|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Saii|contribs]]) 21:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 

== References ==
The references do not display properly. If someone with access could fix the mark ups the article would be much improved. We could remove the refimprove tag as well. There's plenty here. [[User:Dogewiki|Dogewiki]] 16:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

== Terrible Sentence ==

Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It is redundant to call it "a term that refers to a political philosophy that may or may not have the political philosophy of libertarianism".

This is a terribly worded sentence:
"They maintain that the initiation of force by any person or government, against another person or their property — with "force" meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone — who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle."

Agreed. The first sentence is also bad:"The term libertarianism usually refers to a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty and avoid harming others by abusing their liberty." The last clause should jsut be deleted. Harming others is not un-libertarian. [[User:Bsharvy|Bsharvy]]

It is poorly worded. However, harming others without just cause is un-libertarian. Beating up a random old lady is un-libertarian, but beating up a police officer who intends to throw you in jail for growing a plant is perfectly acceptable. This distinction needs to be made.[[User:JoeCarson|JoeCarson]] 13:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
::Are you intending a parody here? I mean, please tell me in which ideology "beating up a random old lady" is ''condoned''? If that's how you scope out the parameters of the Libertarian view on violence, then you're representing it as a rather pointless addition to the political spectrum. I have never heard any advocate of any (minimally coherent) political/ethical persuasion asserting the moral rightness of "harming others without just cause." "harming others without just cause is un-libertarian"?? It's ''un''-everything! Where ideologies differ lies in how they ''define'' just cause. You're just offering truisms as argument here. This would be like me saying, if someone asked me why I opposed capital punishment, "because I'm against murder," and thinking I had made my point. It just begs the question as to what constitutes murder. [[User:24.90.17.134|24.90.17.134]] 02:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, ignoring the interesting remark about beating up police....there are many ways you can justifiably harm people who have done you no wrong. The classic example is any kind competition. Another way would be to be an alcoholic when there is a family that depends on you; this should not be illegal, even though it is harmful. You could vote for bad things, or for your personal self-interest over mine. And so on. Libertarian theory distinguishes wronging from harming. I am going to edit the sentence, if nobody objects.

I see your point. I assumed that physical harm was implied. You are correct. The people upstairs harm me with their terrible music all the time, but listening to garbage should not be outlawed. Libertarians oppose physical harm to others and their property. They generally do not oppose psychic harm. I have no problem with you improving the sentence.[[User:JoeCarson|JoeCarson]] 17:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

== Populist ==

The image near the bottom puts Populist on the bottom left corner of the box at the bottom of economic and political freedom, directly opposed to libertarianism. While a libertarian would be opposed to a populist on the fact that there is no principle guiding their belief except for popular opinion, because a populist's belief can be whatever the popular opinion is, it is not accurate to describe them as polar opposite as the scale in that image does. The usual word for a polar opposite of a libertarian is a statist, one who supports control in economic and personal matters, the extensive planned society of the state. Perhaps someone could edit the image? Though as it seemed to have a particular name, this graph, then I expect it can't be edited and kept with the name of that scale, but could be posed as a more accurate factual version of that scale.

: I think the idea is that Libertarianists (I am one but can't spell it!) would support even unpopular liberties, like the right to make racist comments, pay someone £1 for an hours labour, etc., while a popularist would restrain any liberty the public didn't aprove of- authoritarianisnm, if by the majority. Actually, I think the reason it isn't charted as fasicsm or statism is an act of modest- we're not (argueably falsly) putting ourselves against them, or relating the othetr two as being in some respects similar. [[User:Larklight|Larklight]] 10:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

== "Criticism of libertarianism" section has misleading title ==
This section should either be renamed "Libertarian response to criticism" or the portions of the section's text which respond to or attempt to undermine said criticisms should be removed. The section also carries the tone of the [[apologist]]. If the section were written with a non-Libertarian voice it would carry more weight.
 
<blockquote>
Much better (as of 20 Dec 2006). That's very close to NPOV now but could definitely be expanded. I'd be willing to write up a few paragraphs and submit for NPOV review (I'm not libertarian) if others agree that this section should be expanded. Also, a mention of communitarianism--in this section, in its own section, or at the very least in "See Also"--seems appropriate.
[[User:206.211.132.251|206.211.132.251]] 00:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
</blockquote>

== The formatting is messed up ==
On my Internet Explorer Version 6.0 there is a big gap between the heading "Principles" and the text. I'm not a geek so I am reluctant to muck around here, but I hope someone who is can fix it. In the edit page there's a "Political ideology entry points" with double one of this thing around it: { . This item does not appear on my screen, so that appears to be the problem.

== more criticism on anti-animal rights issues needed ==

american libertarians are known to be more anti-animal rights and anti-environmental issues than most republicans. the article needs to reflect it.
:Fair enough -- if we can find sourcing, it may be worth a mention. The first question I see is: are you referring to the American Libertarian Party in particular, or libertarian philosophy as a whole? There's an important distinction, there -- as an example, while many people would generally consider the US Republican Party conservative, they don't necessarily define the historic concept of conservatism. Make sense? [[User:Luna Santin|Luna Santin]] 04:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Luna here. Also, I believe that it would be a similar error to conclude too much about libertarianism by looking at liberarians opposed to animal rights. Nozick had some remarks in Anarchy, State and Utopia that could be read as supportive of animal rights. Most libertarians are probably opposed to governments using violence to defend animal rights, but this seems to be an issue where people could hold any number of views and still all be libertarians. [[User:JLW777|JLW777]] 00:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree with [[User:JLW777|JLW777]]. Yes, most libertarians ''are'' probably opposed to government violating the rights of human individuals in order to protect the rights of animals. However, there is nothing inherent in libertarianism that says animals can't have equal rights to humans. Also, this is related to children rights. Does someone have the right, to, for example, trespass onto someone's property in order to stop that someone from beating his child? How about torturing his pet? Indeed, any number of views can all be libertarian on these issues. Libertarianism is only cut and dried once rights are well-defined. But when it comes to relative rights, and conflicting rights, things get murky. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 01:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Environmentalism and the EPA (or any other State exercise of force) are not synonymous. It's possible to hold a view that both respects a sustainable environment ''and'' self-determination. However, [[self-ownership]] of the child trumps the trespassing infringement in that case, if the child requests aid and you choose to provide it. (The language of "''his'' child" is inherently confusing. A parent cannot own their child as property; that would be [[slavery]].) As for animal rights, all non-[[personhood theory|persons]] can be property. [[User:71.162.255.58|71.162.255.58]] 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: I think defining all non-persons as property is clearly [[speciesism]], and in the long run our species could pay the ultimate cost there from a scientific standpoint … which is why I believe this comment, was originally started to point out that this article might need to show that. Nonprof. Frinkus 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
:Libertarianism's advocacy for the private property owner allows them to stop acts of violence such as pollution to their property. As for animal husbandry I don't know of any school of Libertarian thought advocates acts of violence against livestock. [[User:GrEp|GrEp]] 15:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

== Protected ==
I protected this page and also [[Minarchism]] because of [[User:Irgendwer|Irgendwer]] who is using sockpuppets like crazy at the moment. I have a checkuser request up. If these are all proven to be him, he will be blocked. So this is a band aid to stop him from doing this. He's up to 3 socks and will continue to create them. This should just be for a day or two. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']][[User talk:Woohookitty|(meow)]] 09:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A new user account is not automatically a sockpuppet. Nobody is taken in here by "sockpuppets". You are abusing your authority. --[[User:Ööööö|Ööööö]] 14:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:A new user account used to evade a block is automatically a sockpuppet. Wikipedia has zero tolerance for block-evading uses of sockpuppets. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 17:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:: So what? --[[User:Ööööö|Ööööö]] 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Are you indicating lack of comprehension of Wikipedia's rules, or lack of caring about them? — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: nor. I am not banned from Wikipedia. --[[User:Ööööö|Ööööö]] 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::[[User:Irgendwer]] is blocked from editing (which is certainly not the same thing as being banned by the ArbCom), and the use of "new accounts" (aka sockpuppets) to evade a ''block'' is explicitly forbidden by the [[Wikipedia:blocking policy|blocking policy]]. See [[User talk:Ööööö]], because further discussion of this here would be disruptive. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::: "When it becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing '''banned''' user, the new account should likewise be blocked." --[[User:Ööööö|Ööööö]] 20:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a complete tyro as regards putting anything on Wikipedia. Just as I was about to try I find this page is locked. I would be happy to send the administrator who is protecting this page my brief list of suggested additional text and corrections, or paste them in here if that is more appropriate. Please let me know. Thanks. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Caveat|Caveat]] ([[User talk:Caveat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Caveat|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.
:Currently, the page is what we call ''semi-protected'' (sprotected, for short), which means that anonymous and very new users can't edit, so you've got a few options. If it's something urgent, you can use {{[[Template:editprotected|editprotected]]}} to request a change or two, or you can list your changes and see if people will make them, or you can wait a day or two, come back, and edit yourself. Hope that helps, and I look forward to seeing your contributions. :) [[User:Luna Santin|Luna Santin]] 22:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I think I shall wait a little longer to try to do it myself. [[User:Caveat|Caveat]] 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

==Negative liberty==
Sry about writing in here i'm not familiar with wikipedia. I think theres a mistake in the first paragraph it should say (positive liberty) not (negative liberty).

:"Negative liberty" is correct: the passage is talking about freedom from coercion, which is what [[negative liberty]] is about. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 09:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

== 'Libertarianism and politics' section ==

I'm removing this section because it is terribly written, indecipherable, and because the parts of it that are coherent violate [[WP:NPOV]]. It was successfully put into the article by the now-banned [[User:Irgendwer|Irgendwer]]. He inserted it exactly three times a day for a month until everyone either got tired of reverting or got distracted by one of the many other disputes over his tenditious editing. --[[User:rehpotsirhc|rehpotsirhc]] [[Canada|█♣█]] ▪ [[User talk:rehpotsirhc|Talk]] 20:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

* Thanks! --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

== Citation supporting "political"?? ==

I have removed this citation:

: <nowiki><ref></nowiki>Don Franzen, ''Los Angeles Times Book Review Desk'', review of "Neither Left Nor Right". January 19, 1997. Franzen states that "Murray and Boaz share the political philosophy of libertarianism, which upholds individual liberty--both economic and personal--and advocates a government limited, with few exceptions, to protecting individual rights and restraining the use of force and fraud." ([http://www.libertarianism.org/reviews.html Review on libertarianism.org]). MSN ''[[Encarta]]''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761551995/Libertarianism.html entry on Libertarianism] defines it as a "political philosophy" (Both accessed 24 June 2005). The ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' defines Libertarianism as "Political philosophy that stresses personal liberty." ([http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9370164&query=libertarian link], accessed 29 June 2005) [[Anarcho-capitalist]] Murray Rothbard says, "Libertarianism is a political philosophy which says: Given any existent human nature, liberty is the only moral and the most effective political system" in [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard12.html "Myth and Truth About Libertarianism"], ''Modern Age'', 24.1 (Winter 1980): 9-15.<nowiki></ref></nowiki>

from the intro. C'mon, do we really need to spell it out? If there is anything in the intro that needs a citation, this would be last on the list, wouldn't you think? —[[User:Twobitsprite|Two-Bit Sprite]] 18:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:A now-banned user edit warred for months to take "political" out of the lead. Yeah, I don't really think it's necessary, especially now that the Unique Point Of View of that one user is no longer influencing the article. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yeah, this same user was raising a ruckus over at [[Anarcho-capitalism]] over the same (non-)issue as well who was unable to formulate coherent sentances half of the time, let alone consistant arguments or even a convincing description of the users problem with calling it political... —[[User:Twobitsprite|Two-Bit Sprite]] 19:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

== Gun Control ==

Not to be a bother and such.
As a new member of the Wiki-world, I've never left a comment like this before.

Why does this article make it appear that a pro-gun stance is a requirement of Libertarianism?

I must assert that a Libertarian can be in favor of gun control.
This is not in itself a contradiction.

At the very least, this should be mentioned in the category of conflict.

-Jon Ivy

Final bracketed material now added:

... Libertarian perspectives on political alliances: Most libertarians ally politically with modern conservatives over economic issues, free speech, and gun laws (but for a libertarian defense of gun control, etc., see here [http://www.la-articles.org.uk/libcontrols.htm]
)....

[[User:Caveat|Caveat]] 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::'''''Frivolous discussion moved to archives''''' —[[User:Memotype|Memotype]] 13:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This might be a fascinating conversation, but would it not be more fruitful to dig up sources that say/deny that gun control is incompatible with libertarianism? — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

From an american libertarian perspective, gun control is pretty inconsistent with libertarian philosophy. This may be different in other countries where they don't have a constitutional right to bear arms. The liberatrian party's website has some specific info on this if someone wants to use it as a reference to update this section. see http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.shtml [[User:Arthurrh|Arthurrh]] 21:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

==Basically==

Libertarianism is to Anarchism as Socialism is to Communism, right?

-G {{unsigned|67.68.61.67|August 28, 2006}}

:Well, [[communism]] is a ''form'' of [[socialism]], so your analogy would state that [[anarchism]] is a form of libertarianism. If that is your question, then the answer is "no". Anarchism is distinct from libertarianism, however there is a form of anarchism which draws heavily upon libertarianism called [[Anarcho-capitalism]]. Does this answer your question? —[[User:Memotype|Memotype]] 16:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::Further, most forms of anarchism are socialist, so you analogy shows a misunderstanding of either anarchism, socialism, communism, or any combination thereof. I'd recommend reading the articles on all of them to expand your understanding of them. —[[User:Memotype|Memotype]] 17:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
: While everything said previously is accurate, in the way most people understand the words, G, yes, you are correct. [[User:Timmie.merc|Timmie.merc]] 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:: Care to explain? Perhaps start by explaining what the original analogy is supposed to mean, because I personally don't get it, in the same way that I don't get an analogy like: "apples are to pears as fruit are to oranges"... I don't see how this can be described as correct... This is ultimately, however, irrelevant, unless we can redirect this discussion in a way that would improve the article such that it clarifies confusion. —[[User:Memotype|Memotype]] 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Sure. In my experience, most people think of socialism as a less extreme form of communism, the way one might consider libertarianism a less extreme form of anarchy. Maybe not the greatest analogy, but using a common understanding of the words it's "accurate." [[User:Timmie.merc|Timmie.merc]] 17:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

comment re "Socialism is to Communism..." Communism is a political system. Socialism is an economic system.~~grey farmer~~
–==Redirection info on the top==
OK, two things: 
<ol>
<li>The redirection to libertarian political parties is totally unnecessary. What makes Canada and the US so awesome that their parties be listed? And we're not listing each and every party of the world. If you look at other articles about political philosophies, you won't find this.
<li>The line at the top should be kept to a minimum in length, probably just saying that if this isn't the article you're looking for, you should head to the disambig page.
</ol>
-[[User:Chef Ketone|Chef Ketone]] 19:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
* Nothing makes the US and Canada particularly "awesome", it's just that many times people will end up on this page when seeking information about a libertarian political party in one of those countries. I personally ended up on this page when I entered [[Libertarian]] when I was looking for [[Libertarian Party (United States)]] and there wasn't an obvious link. The whole purpose of disambiguation is to help people who will likely arrive at one page while looking for another. Betcha dollars to donuts that a ''lot'' more people end up at this article when looking for [[Libertarian Party (United States)]] than [[libertarian socialism]] or [[Libertarianism (metaphysics)]]. [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
*:True... but doesn't "For other uses, see [[Libertarianism (disambiguation)]]." do the job well and succinctly? I think that's the point being made. It's also a valid point that we shouldn't be NA-centric: various policy pages even exhort us to avoid it when possible. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 01:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
*:: [[Libertarianism (disambiguation)]] doesn't even include a link to the political parties. I understand the desire not to be NA-centric, but the fact is that the US and Canadian parties are (probably) the largest of their type and the ones that a Wikipedia reader is most likely to be searching for. Especially considering that this is after all the ''English'' Wikipedia and we can safely assume that the readers are most likely to come from English-speaking countries. [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
*:::Well, do you agree in principle that the disambig toplinks are excessively long? How that might be remedied can be set aside at least until (and if) there's agreement on that point. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 01:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

for what i's worth i would very much like to see a disambiguation or '''something''' at least that acknowledges that throughout history and throughout the vast majority of the contemporary world the words libertarianism and anarchism have been / are used interchangeably to mean the same thing. there's no need to go into a lot of depth, a disambiguation link to libertarian socialism and a note that this page covers libertarian capitalism would be good enough. [[User:Anarchocelt|Anarchocelt]] 03:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

==More external links needed!==
This article is badly in need of more external links. There are only about 100 of them now. There must be thousands of other webpages in existence which relate to this topic which we could link to. We must not rest until the external links section utterly dwarfs the main body of the article. --[[User:Xyzzyplugh|Xyzzyplugh]] 18:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

:As amusing as that ironic statement is, it might be more productive if you said what you meant directly. People might misunderstand you. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 21:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the external links to Libertarian parties, as Wikipedia already has a [[list of libertarian political parties]] linked to from this article. The number of links in this article is still completely absurd. If nobody takes action to remove these links, the problem will only get worse. People see lists like these and say, "Well, there's already a gazillion links here, and most of them are of fairly low quality, so what does it hurt if I add a link to my own favorite Libertarian essay/thinktank/blog/author/party," and thus the task of pruning the list becomes even more difficult and less likely to get done. End the vicious cycle, editors. Delete links. -- [[User:Schaefer|Schaefer]] ([[User talk:Schaefer|Talk]]) 21:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:[[WP:SPAMHOLE]] suggests in cases of extreme bloat that the most effective course of action is to nuke the whole external links section and start over. This might be called for here. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 23:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::I support removing all the external links. I'll do it myself if no objections are raised here in the next few days. -- [[User:Schaefer|Schaefer]] ([[User talk:Schaefer|Talk]]) 23:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I guess I object. I know wikipedia is not supposed to be a link farm, but libertarianism does seem to be a broad subject with many different aspects. I skimmed over the list and nothing blatantly irrelevant jumped out. If someone is doing research on the subject, at a glance, they all seem potentially pertinent. Unless some significant number can be shown to be problematic, I don't see what the problem is. Removing all the external links would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 23:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::A significant number ''are'' problematic. Almost all of the links already have Wikipedia stubs, and external links should not be used when internal ones are available. Those that don't have Wikipedia articles probably aren't notable enough to warrant inclusion anyway. The "Libertarian think tanks" section has websites of obscure political parties that aren't even in English. Same applies to "Other libertarian political projects". Under "Publications and Websites about Libertarianism" (''sic'', with improper caps) there's an ''internal'' link (under the superheading ''External links'') to the article on John Hospers. Also in this section, we have such gems as a link to a dmoz category, dozens of self-published pro-Libertarian sites, a site hosted for free on the ad-supported cjb.net domain, and as a crowning achievement: a web site simply linked with the word "site" whose text is entirely in Danish. -- [[User:Schaefer|Schaefer]] ([[User talk:Schaefer|Talk]]) 00:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
::::The "Publications and Websites about Libertarianism" section is, by definition, trying to be a directory listing. If somebody is doing research about libertarianism, Wikipedia's job is to provide information with references, not be a Google or DMOZ substitute for finding resources. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all the external links that were redundant with existing wikilinks. I removed ext. links to subjects with red wikilinks. It's not as good as a nuke-from-space, but at least it stops rewarding pagerank spammers for now. If I get around to it, I'll take a stab at sorting the remaining links (both ext. and int.). -- [[User:Schaefer|Schaefer]] ([[User talk:Schaefer|Talk]]) 19:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

=="Objectivism" title==
Someone changed the title of Ayn Rand's section to "Objectivist philosophy" as opposed to "Objectivism." Not a major deal or anything, but wouldn't it make more sense to have the section titled "Objectivism" since that's what it's most often called? [[User:Timmie.merc|Timmie.merc]] 20:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

==Criticism Question==

"Libertarians make a similiar point that criticisms of libertarianism fall into the same category as Libertarianism is untried."

What does that mean? How would the criticisms be "tried"?

:It's flat out untrue as well. The whole article is a mess from start to finish based on American Libertarians taking over the article, and thus everything has a anarcho-capitalist bent to it that the rest of the world doesn't consider Libertarianism. Since they have numbers, it almost makes more sense to split off "classical libertarianism" and this considering they are not the same thing at all.

==Politics of libertarian parties==

I'm very new to this, but strongly believe that this:

"By endorsing such things as the freedom to discriminate, libertarianism supports freedom of association which is the foundation of human rights."

would require a reference. I had thought that the ICCPR put the right to life (not in the abortion clinic bombing sense) at the top. It's also not a very good sentence.

Also, the left libertarian section seems very vague, but perhaps I am just tired. [[User:210.49.83.243|210.49.83.243]] 12:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

==Initiation of physical force==
There is a problem with the introduction. Libertarians do not oppose initiation of physical force. For example, if someone commits fraud, physical force may be initiatied to reclaim the stolen property. Fraud is not theft by physical force but by dishonesty, so taking the property back is truly an initiation of physical force. Also, knocking someone down that's threatening you with physical force is initiating physical force as well. A threat of physical force is not physical force, but the threat of it. So reacting physically against the one making the threat is an initiation of physical force. Libertarians don't oppose initiation of physical force. They oppose aggression. What matter is what the purpose of that force is. For example, if the purpose is to steal, it's aggression. If the purpose is to reclaim what was stolen, or to knock down someone who is threatening to use physical force against you, it is not aggression.[[User:Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho-capitalism]] 17:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:Libertarians do oppose initiation of physical force. That is the essence of libertarianism. By your usage, all use of force is initiated, and therefore all use of force is initiation of force. But that usage makes "initiation of force" meaningless. So what libertarians define as "initiatiation of force" is that it is use of force which is not justified. Therefore, physical force used in retaliation for fraud is not initiation of physical force, by definition. The one who commits the fraud in the first place is the initiator of using force. Therefore using force in response to that is not initiation of force, even if that response is physical, and the initial use was not. Any other interpretation renders "initiation of force" to be meaningless. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::That's really twisting the english language. Stealing by fraud is not physical force. That's why it's called fraud. It's stealing through dishonesty. Libertarians do not oppose initiation of physical force. We oppose aggression. And, keep in mind "initiation of force" and "initiation of PHYSICAL force" are not necessarily the same thing.[[User:Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho-capitalism]] 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Okay, yes, I agree, libertarians do not oppose initiation of ''physical'' force. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's how I reworded the relevant sentence:
:They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of force against another [[individual rights|person]] or his [[property rights|property]], meaning the use of physical force or the commission of [[fraud]] against someone who is innocent of initiating physical force or committing fraud, is a violation of that principle.
--[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 19:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
::I think that looks pretty good.[[User:Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho-capitalism]] 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The libertarian party in the US specifically states "... accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others;..." (see http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml) Also see article 7 section 1 of the bylaws. Note that individuals wishing to join the libertarian party are required to sign a document endorsing this view. [[User:Arthurrh|Arthurrh]] 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

== Problem in introduction ==

I have an issue with this statement in the introduction:

:Some libertarians regard all initiation of force as immoral, whereas others support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as minimal taxation and regulation) that they believe necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom.

What is described here as ''the minimum amount of '''initiatory force''' ''is not viewed as "initiatory force" by those libertarian [[minarchist]]s who support such use of force. I suggest the following revision:

:[[Anarcho-capitalism|Anarchist]] libertarians regard all use of force by government as initiatory and therefore immoral, whereas [[minarchism|minarchist]] libertarians support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of force (such as consensus-based taxation and regulation) that they believe necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom and is not initiatory (since it is based on consent).

Comments? Suggestions? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::It's not true that it's "based on consent." Minarchist libertarians support taxation even if everyone does not consent. It is an initiation of force. If it was truly consensual then it would not be a tax, and would be anarcho-capitalism.[[User:Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho-capitalism]] 17:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:::In home owner's associations fees are often raised by the board without unanimous consent of all the home owners. Never-the-less, this is not initiation of force, because all the home owners have agreed ''a priori'' to abide by the decisions of the board (they agree to this when they voluntarily decide to purchase a home within the association). The minarchist "tax" is similar: it is based on ''a priori'' consent to abide by the decisions of the governing body of the minarchist society. It is similar to an employer imposing a dress code on his employees - the employees have agreed to abide to such impositions as a condition of their choice to be employed there. Any society which imposes taxes or makes other impositions without such ''a priori'' agreements in place cannot be libertarian, by definition. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::::By your reasoning anything the state does can be justified. You assume just because I live on this land mass that I give "a priori" consent to the state to take anything it wants from me, but that's not the case. I don't consent to anything just by living where I do. At least be an honest libertarian and admit that you will take my money against my consent because you believe it will maximize utilitarian consequences. The homowners association that you're talking about is different because that's private property. The state cannot legitimately claim it owns the land I reside on and charge me rent for it.[[User:Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho-capitalism]] 17:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::I don't know whether or not you in particular have given''a priori'' consent to something because of where you live. But I do know that it's possible. There are entire private communities that are governed by such "states". See [[Pebble Beach, California]] for an example... everyone who lives there consents to abide by the CC&Rs. Conceptually, those CC&Rs can say anything. In practice, if they got out of hand people would leave. The point is that a minarchist community or area can be governed on a system based on consent. Taxes do not have to be initiatory force in a minarchist state just like the residents of Pebble Beach having to pay their fees does not comprise initiatory force. The powers of the governing minarchist state simply have to be limited to that which the governed have consented (including by any ''a priori'' consents). --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 16:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::But don't you see that if it's voluntary then it's not a tax? It's merely a purchase of offered goods and services. What you're describing is not minarchism, but anarchism, or what is called anarcho-capitalism. If it's voluntary arrangment then it's not a "state." If I go purchase an expanse of land and then charge people to live on it and require them to sign a contract to pay fees for maintainence, security, and so on, I am not a state. I'm just exercising my private property rights. A state would be situation where someone that does not own the property requires me to pay them money for services and security. That's obviously an act of aggression or an "initiation of force." I'm not familiar with Pebble Beach, but I'm sure it's not a voluntary situation. To be voluntary, then legitimate owners of the land would have to be charging the "tax." I don't think the Pebble Beach government owns the land it presumes to have authority over. "Private" and "state" are two different things.[[User:Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho-capitalism]] 18:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I think a tax is a particular type of fee which may or may not be based on consent. But if you want to define tax as a nonvoluntary fee not based on consent, then I would argue that the fees paid to the state in a minarchy cannot be "taxes", by definition, if it is a ''libertarian'' minarchy. Pebble Beach is, by the way, entirely private property, with the general areas owned by the corporation, and individual home lots owned by individuals. Whether or not the fee paid by Pebble Beach home owners to the Pebble Beach Corporation is a "tax" is a matter of semantics - the concept is what matters here. They contract with the county to provide police (sheriff) and fire services, etc., and it's all paid through the home owner fees to which each owner consents and is obligated to pay by contract. The end result is really not that different from neighboring [[Carmel-by-the-sea]], where the similar services are paid for through actual "taxes", except in Pebble Beach the arrangements are all ''explicitly'' consensual. Anyway, Pebble Beach is what I think of when I write "consensus-based taxation", and the main point is that no libertarian can advocate for traditional taxes based on initiatory force and still be a libertarian.
:::::::To be a libertarian minarchist, you have to promote raising revenue for the minimal state exclusively through voluntary and consensus-based systems. Otherwise, it's not libertarian. And whether the mechanism is called taxes or not is a separate and irrelevant semantic matter. --19:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Well that may be your POV that one can't be a libertarian if he supports involuntary taxation, but that's not how all libertarians define themselves. That's one form of libertarianism. The other is the libertarianism of someone like Milton Friedman (he does call himself a "libertarian"). This latter type are utilitarians, who support taxation and other forms of minimal initiation of force by the state. Not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, which appears to be what you actually are. There is actually a video attached to this article that explain the difference. It's at the bottom of the page called "[http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/99winter/324.html Uncommon Knowledge interview "Milton Friedman on Libertarianism"] Friedman says "But as a matter of fact there are two really different versions of libertarianism. The more extreme version of libertarianism has one central principle- it is immoral to initiate force on anyone else. That's the prime view, that's the Ayn Rand type of libertarianism. Immoral in and of itself..and all you need to know to know that something of the state is immoral is whether it involves the initiation of force. That's one brand, now there's another brand which is one I would be favorable to which you could call consequentialist libertarianism." [[User:Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho-capitalism]] 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

== Two types of libertarians? ==

I have a problem with the current wording in the intro:

:There are two types of libertarians. One type hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of force against another person or his property, with "force" meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle (many of these are individualist anarchists or anarcho-capitalists). The other type comes from a consequentialist or utilitarian standpoint. Instead of having moral prohibitions against initiation of force, these support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as levying taxes to provide some public goods such as defense and roads, as well as some minimal regulation), because they believe it to be necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom (these are minarchists).

I think saying there are just two types is misleading. In fact, with respect to adherence to the fundamental maxim, I suspect all libertarians fall somewhere along a continuum, not into one of two boxes. For example, if you see someone beating a child on private property, all but the most extreme libertarians would probably agree that it's okay to initiate force (trespass) to save the child in this case. On a broader spectrum, does the U.S. invasion of Iraq constitute initiation of force, or is it retaliatory (and therefore justified) because of Sadam's violation of agreements he made at the end of the gulf war? Are all taxes initiation of force? Or can some be viewed as consensual, like home owner's fees? In short, I think we should say that all libertarians support the maxim, but some believe there are certain situations where exceptions are warranted. I agree you can reach libertarianism from either a moral or utilitarian route, but that's a separate issue from how fundamentalist one may be with respect to the maxim. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 22:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:Indeed. And "classical liberals" are NOT "consequentialists". The founders of the United States republic were mostly "classical liberals" but mostly believed in "natural rights" which government was supposed to protect-- their view of government was NOT the "maximum (material) good for the maximum number of people." [[Special:Contributions/74.129.231.106|74.129.231.106]] ([[User talk:74.129.231.106|talk]]) 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

::John Stuart Mill was a consequentialist. Adam Smith was a consequentialist. The point of saying that Friedman, Hayek, and Mises are called classical liberals as well as libertarians is that it's true. That is, it's true that they are also called classical liberals. That's not the same thing as saying that all, or most, classical liberals are consequentialists.[[User:Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho-capitalism]] 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two extremes - individualism and collectivism.
Collectivism is established through the pursuit of authoritarianism (even if by voluntary association).
Individualism is established through the pursuit of libertarianism.
A third term - utilitarianism more appropriately establishes the ideology of "consequentialist libertarianism" without creating the egregious misrepresentations and deviation from the libertarian pursuit of individualism!!!
Deviation from individualism is a contemptuous application of the term libertarianism.
Consequentialist libertarianism is an oxymoron!!
Consequential libertarianism is frought with potential contradictions and ideological abuses!!! [[User:GeMiJa|GeMiJa]] 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

== Animal Rights ==

The treatment of animals is a important topic for many individuals, so what do libertarians advocate in this issue? Can Animals have rights, can they be object of ethical consideration? --[[User:80.136.57.231|80.136.57.231]] 18:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (Sorry for my Englisch ;-) )
:The [[Green Party]] would be the one for you then.--[[User:64.75.187.201|64.75.187.201]] 05:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
::Well, many [[libertarian socialist]]s are vegetarian or vegan and supportive of animal rights and/or liberation. I don't know about American big-L-Libertarians though. [[User:The Ungovernable Force|Ungovernable Force]][[User talk:The Ungovernable Force|Got something to say?]] 05:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the American big-L-Libertarian party has no official stance. I have met Libertarians who support animal rights based on their view of libertarian philosophy, as stated above. I have similarly met Libertarians who believe animals are property. So there you are. I don't think there is a consensus. [[User:Arthurrh|Arthurrh]] 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe this has been discussed before, look in the archives [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 17:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure one could advocate, in an intellectually consistent way, the owning of non-human animals as "property" without also advocating treating children or retarded people as property as well. To simply say that an individual is a member of the species Homo sapien tells us very little about that individual. It does not tell us whether they can think, feel pain, feel emotions or if they are self-aware. Clearly, most adult humans can do all of the above, but so can most members of certain other species (cetaceans and primates, for the best examples), and not all humans can. To assign a retarded baby to a higher moral status than a bright dolphin can only be accomplished through speciesist arguments that stink strongly of other -ist philosophies that no longer hold water.

Libertarians refrain from acts of violence against fellow citizens, and this behavior might have some carryover to their animal husbandry.[[User:GrEp|GrEp]] 15:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

== Some parts US centric ==

Some parts of this article are US centric. For example, it mentions the Libertratian Party at the bottom "Controversies among libertarians". What Libertratian Party? You mean the US? Also I believe the Free State Project is only intending to get Americans to migrate to one US state. They're not trying to get people from other countries join them [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 17:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

: Wikipedia is international in scope, so I agree some sections could be broadened. Specific U.S. libertarian issues could become a part of an article on the U.S. libertarian movement; though libertarian issues dealt with in the U.S. that are relative to the philosophy world-wide would be fine here. Nonprof. Frinkus 04:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::Simple solution to one issue raised here- change Libertarian Party to United States Libertarian Party. [[User:Lurker|Lurker]] [[User_talk:Lurker|''oi!'']] 13:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The introduction of this article seems to imply that libertarians are, without exception, right-wing: "Libertarians favour an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state…". Shouldn't there be some mention of left-libertarians in the introduction? After all, "libertarianism" was a term originally coined by the left; this article centers around only the US definition of libertarian. [[User:Prometheus 2|Prometheus 2]] 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

thats coz usa is extreme capitalist. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:86.139.204.43|86.139.204.43]] ([[User talk:86.139.204.43|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/86.139.204.43|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.

==============================
I have added the following sentence to the introductory paragraph as what is described is NOT Libertarianism rather an American viewpoint of Libertarianism.

It should be noted that this article deals with libertarianism from this (i.e a U.S.) viewpoint and is a disputed subject, please see discussion page for more details.

Again the sentence pointing out that this is a disputed article has been removed, I will keep on placing that innocuous sentence in there until you either leave it or mark the topic as disputed. I can get others to help and indeed can script my editing process, so *please* accept this comment. I believe in the concept of wikipedia especially because I am a non-authoritarian libertarian so I am prepared to put the effort in to make it more accurate; as such I find the article as it stands highly offensive due to it's biased viewpoint.

Steve Mayes

: There is NO non-american libertarianism. In the rest of the world this is called Liberalism. I am more wondering why these articles have not been merged. This is like having an article-series on Soccer and another on Football. [[User:Carewolf|Carewolf]] 09:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

==Children==
This article doesn't discuss children at all. I'm a libertarian but I support libertarian principles only for adults. There's probably some radical libertarians who don't make a distinction. There should be a section discussing this.[[User:Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho-capitalism]] 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:I agree. Much of libertarianism is related to the concept of ''consent'', which someone who "is not of the age of consent" is not able to give, by definition. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 05:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::The reason I brought this up is I heard a self-described libertarian host of a call-in show on Freetalk Live internet radio [http://freetalklive.com/] saying that parents should be allowed to have sex with their own underage children as long as it's consensual, including taking pictures of the sex act and publishing them as child pornography. I don't agree with that at all. Children needs special protections. Just because they consent to something, it doesn't mean it should be allowed. But, also they should also have less protections in other areas. For example, if a sick child refuses medicine it should be ok to initiate force - to make them take their medicine. I think it's absurd to try to apply libertarian standards to people that haven't reached the age of reason, whatever that age may be. But apparently they are some libertarians who apply libertarianism to all people, regardless of age.[[User:Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho-capitalism]] 05:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I, for one, fundamentally disagree. A person owns themself at any age, and if they then give their [[consent]] to to any act they should be able to whatever they want, even if it means they'll be hurting themselves. Furthermore, how is parental authoritarianism any different than government authoritarianism? - [[User:ZakuSage|ZakuSage]] 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: All your arguments rest upon the assertion "A child is not aware of the consequences of his or her actions.", but you can't just take that as a given, especially when generalising about over a billion people. For context, I agree with libertarianism, and believe that age discrimination should not be a part of a libertarian philosophy. [[User:219.78.67.153|219.78.67.153]] 12:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

== '''Right''' Libertarian confusion ==

"This article is primarily about what is sometimes referred to as '''''right''' libertarianism.''" It is probably very confusing to readers that the intro uses the term '''''right''' libertarianism'' since it could mean libertarianism associated heavily with the political right; or it could mean libertarianism in the sense of political rights. [[User:Deepstratagem|Deepstratagem]] 11:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:I believe it is clear. The latter would be ''rights libertarianism''.
:([[User:JoeCarson|JoeCarson]] 13:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC))
:I don't see it as confusing either, but that's just me. [[User:The Ungovernable Force|Ungovernable Force]][[User talk:The Ungovernable Force|Got something to say?]] 19:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related note. Anarcho-capitalism just added to the intro that libertarians do not consider themselves to be on the right. Though this is probably true of most libertarians, I do not believe it is generally true. Some libertarians consider themselves left and some right. Those who consider themselves neither are in the majority however.
([[User:JoeCarson|JoeCarson]] 12:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

:I don't like the term "right Libertarianism". It's simply inaccurate. A better term is needed for the type of libertarianism represented by the likes of the Libertarian party in the USA. But i can't think of one. [[User:Lurker|Lurker]] [[User_talk:Lurker|''oi!'']] 15:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe classical liberalism is most accurate.
([[User:JoeCarson|JoeCarson]] 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC))
:But anarchist libertarianism is not classical liberalism. Classical liberalism would only apply to the minarchists.[[User:Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho-capitalism]] 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Furthermore, the idea that minarchism is classical liberalism is a disputed point of view (I once [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&diff=prev&oldid=87566560 removed] the term "classical liberalism" from this article's intro because I felt it was POV). See the article on [[Classical Liberalism]] for details. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Lurker|Lurker]] ([[User talk:Lurker|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lurker|contribs]]) 12:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Easy answer - this is an article on Libertarian Capitalism, primarily of the North American variety, and should be described as such. There should be a disambiguation link in the header to direct users looking for other types of libertarianism. [[User:Anarchocelt|Anarchocelt]] 03:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:I agree. This article having the title "Libertarianism" when it only really talks about one small part of Libertarianism is highly misleading, but I've never been able to bring myself to do anything about it because of the [[WP:OWN]] issues surrounding Libertarianism on Wikipedia. Ideally, there should be an article about Libertarianism in general, and separate ones on different types, but I don't want to get into the war that will develop if i try to bring this about [[User:Lurker|Lurker]] 10:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

:"libertarianism" is used by supporters of freedom throughout the world. The fact that it is more prevalent in North America does not negate the fact that it is a global movement. Articles already exist that detail the other "libertarian" movements which are not supportive of freedom.[[User:JoeCarson|JoeCarson]] 12:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::And this kind of POV is why making this article about Libertarianism rather than one form of it is a pointless exercise [[User:Lurker|Lurker]] 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

:::What POV? The kind expressed on the talk page? Wikipedia does not require NPOV on the talk page as you clearly are aware of
:::"...it only really talks about one small part of Libertarianism..."
:::To say that the classical liberal form of libertarianism is only a small part of libertarianism is laughable. Classical liberals very likely form the majority of libertarians in the world. Even before the intro, this article makes it clear that it is only describing one particular form of libertarianism. It would be fine to rename the article to indicate the type of libertarianism it explains and to have a search for libertarianism point to the disambiguation page.[[User:JoeCarson|JoeCarson]] 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::::I didn't say you were wrong to express an opinion here. What should the article be renamed to? Capitalist Libertarianism? Individualist Libertarianism? [[User:Lurker|Lurker]] 14:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::I like Individualist Libertarianism or perhaps something like Property Libertarianism or Natural Rights Libertarianism. This is something we should definitely take a vote on.[[User:JoeCarson|JoeCarson]] 17:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::: I agree, there should be a vote on this [[User:Lurker|Lurker]] 17:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

== Conscription==
"Libertarians also strongly oppose conscription because they believe no one should be forced to fight a war they oppose." I'm interested by this. Does anybody have any theory/reference to suggest this to be the case? I can see libertarians being against conscription on the basis of it being 'forced', but it is the 'war they oppose' business that gets me. It suggest a libertarian in favour of a war would not disagree with conscription. Sorry if this seems picky just wondered if anyone had any input on whether this should be clarified/is correct as it is. [[User:Ny156uk|ny156uk]] 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:Good point. It's bad writing. I'll see if I can fix it.[[User:Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho-capitalism]] 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::I'd say it should be left as is. The reason Libertarians oppose conscription is not due to their support for/against a war. It is because another person may be against it. You see, conscription means everyone fights, therefore, it leaves no room for someone to disagree with and not fight that particular war.

—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Camick83|Camick83]] ([[User talk:Camick83|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Camick83|contribs]]) 06:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
== War ==
I think something should be added about the libertarian views on war. I found this article, http://www.zetetics.com/mac/articles/justwar.html but I don't fully agree with the conclusion. It seems like any group of libertarians have the duty to defend themselves from an unjust use of force, and that would include a libertarian group attacking a State that oppresses even 1 individual. There are no "borders" in a libertarian society, so if a group of people in USA feels that someone in DPRK is part of their libertarian community, they have the duty to protect that individual from oppression by the DPRK government. So a libertarian community attacking DPRK, Iraq or even Cuba with the pretext of freeing their citizens from oppression seems fully justified. But this is just my opinion, what are the prevailing views on this subject? [[User:User317|User317]] 19:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::Wow. That can really throw the door wide open to wars of conquest. Didn't Hitler claim he was rescuing oppressed Germans in the Sudetenland? And really, "just 1 individual"? I look forward to following your progress when you storm Guantanamo. As for there being "no borders" - I never heard that before. I assume you're leaving aside the borders around an individual's property. [[User:24.90.17.134|24.90.17.134]] 02:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

== Wikipedia is not the Open Directory Project- a proposal ==

Here's a suggestion to deal with the external links problem. Rather than pick through them one by one, why not make a list here of ten or so links that are indispensable and wipe the rest. This way we can avoid an edit war and the hassle of everyone constantly removing and adding links, which is what would happen if we got rid of them one by one. Of course, wikipedia is a work in progress and any list would be up for being edited. But I think a consensus list of a few links, and wiping the rest would give us a good place to start. [[User:Lurker|Lurker]] [[User_talk:Lurker|''oi!'']] 11:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:Since there was no response to this, I've cut down the links section to one FAQ, Open Directory and an encyclopaedia entry. Feel free to add more links, or restore some of those I have removed- as long as you can justify its inclusion using [[WP:LINKS]]. [[User:Lurker|Lurker]] [[User_talk:Lurker|''oi!'']] 17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

== Non-Gender Neutral Language ==

I would suggest that the opening paragraph be modified such that a 'person' becomes a gender-neutral. E.g. right to protect "their" property as distinct form "his" property.

I'm not sure how that lines up with Wikipedia's formatting rules.

[[User:203.206.28.80|203.206.28.80]] 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)DS

:Wikipedia rules don't have a problem with it as far as I know. There are some cases in which "[[singular they]]" can be confusing, but in general it isn't. (It's also not a new thing at all; Shakespeare uses it!) But, that said, it's usually frowned-on here to use Wikipedia articles to advocate a particular dialect or form of English (e.g. the British vs. American spellings thing). Since both "singular ''they''" and "generic ''he''" are common English usage, I don't think it's worth making a big deal. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 07:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

:Singular they is improper grammar. There's nothing else to say about it; the English language has no unique gender-neutral singular personal pronoun, and uses "he" and its derivatives to serve that function. There's nothing sexist about it; that's just the language. [[User:Rogue 9|Rogue 9]] 03:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

::Please consider reading our article on the history of [[singular they]] before you express your opinion on the subject again. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]]

:::You'll have to forgive me for not entirely trusting Wikipedia cited as a source for Wikipedia. "They" and its derivatives are plural pronouns. That is their function; using them in the singular sense creates subject/verb disagreement, which is by definition improper grammar. Now then, I will direct you to an [http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/esl/eslsubverb.html actual source] on subject/verb agreement. Please review your basic grammar, as apparently you've forgotten basic English sentence construction as it is taught to every school child in the United States. [[User:Rogue 9|Rogue 9]] 22:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

== politics of libertairians... ==

i belive the historical example of workplace descrimination is poorly written. i'm new to the editing of all this so i'm not going to touch it. i think it is extremely mis-leading to state that liberals would vote to punish the employer for such descrimination and conservatives would take the side of the employer. i don't want to rehash any liberal/conservative or dem./rep. debate, but the numbers show republicans for civil rights and democrates against it. they actually had the longest filibuster in history trying to block the civilrights act. also, even though the employee could leave, isn't descrimination itself and infringement on another's liberties? —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Camick83|Camick83]] ([[User talk:Camick83|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Camick83|contribs]]) 06:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

==Need to Simplify==
This article is absurdly long, and, in many cases, aimed so much at some insular community of libertarians that it is often harder to read/more incoherent than even the myriad [[Fourth International]] articles. Just thought I'd put that thought out there.

The stuff that's been covered in other articles can surely be summarized far more. Also, several of the sections, while still requiring major attention/rewrites, are long enough to be broken out into already well-developed separate articles. [[User:MrZaius|'''MrZaius''']][[User talk:MrZaius|'''talk''']] 05:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Cut it from 62k to 47k by moving [[Controversies within libertarianism]] out of this article. I could use a hand moving the appropriate citations, however. Also, note that there's still quite a few sections that use [[template:main]] but are essentially alternative versions of the main articles rather than summaries thereof. They could be greatly trimmed. [[User:MrZaius|'''MrZaius''']][[User talk:MrZaius|'''talk''']] 18:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Does anyone have any specific ideas on how to break some of the non-core stuff out of this article and make this article a bit more readable & to the point? Note that the article went back over the 50K mark recently, as well. [[User:MrZaius|'''MrZaius''']][[User talk:MrZaius|'''talk''']] 13:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::In retrospect, I believe it may have been improper for me to complain about the length of this article, given the topic's importance and [[WP:LENGTH]]. However, there are a handful of places where this article is needlessly wordy & written in a rather odd tone that still need of attention. [[User:MrZaius|'''MrZaius''']][[User talk:MrZaius|'''talk''']] 19:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

==New Template: Lib==
I just created a new template [[Template:Lib]]. (It's my first template). It takes one parameter, declaring whether the use on the page is "liberal", "libertarian", or "both". My idea was to use it to head articles such as [[Liberal International]] and [[Libertarian perspectives on gay rights]] where it might not be clear at first glance which meaning is intended. This would hopefully ensure consistent usage within an article, and prevent overly verbose unclear repetition from article to article. Feel free to discuss on the talk page [[Template_talk:Lib]]. [[User:Samwaltz|samwaltz]] 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:That is very confusing, and I can't make sense of what it says or is trying to say. A Libertarian of Liberal are two VERY different things. - [[User:hmwith|hmwith]][[User_talk:hmwith|talk]] 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::The US usage of the term "libertarian" and the European usage of the term "liberal" are synonymous. I have known a number of Europeans who refer to [[Fox News]] as being liberal (with regard to its take on gun rights, etc.). See [[Liberal Democrats]], [[European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party ]][[Liberal Democratic Party]], [[Free Democratic Party (Germany)]]. Read the into to [[Liberalism]] for more info. [[User:Samwaltz|samwaltz]] 00:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

:::The [[Liberal Democrats]] are not anywhere close to being libertarians. At least in the UK, "liberal" is not a synonym for "libertarian". [[User:Cadr|Cadr]] 18:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

:: No liberal and libertarian is exacly the same. The term libertarianism is just an invented right-wing term for liberalism, after liberalism had been associated with Democrats for too long, and therefore seen as tainted by the right-wing [[User:Carewolf|Carewolf]]

==References==
The references for this article are something of a mess. A number of the references aren't actually cited anywhere in the text, and a number of others were dropped into the text as direct links rather using any sort of citation template. Needs a major references cleanup, including the possible deletion of items in the References section that aren't referenced in the article proper. [[User:MrZaius|'''MrZaius''']][[User talk:MrZaius|'''talk''']] 19:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:I took care of the ones that were dropped in as direct links. - [[User:hmwith|hmwith]][[User_talk:hmwith|talk]] 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

==Attempt to delete "list of libertarian..." articles==
Someone is attempting to delete all the "list of libertarian.." articles. This is where to vote: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Libertarian_musicians] {{unsigned|taken actor}}

::This isn't about Libertarianism, articles with "list of" in the title tend to be in the firing line quite often. [[User:Lurker|Lurker]] 17:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that [[User:Taken actor]] has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned tendentious editor. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' [[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]] 17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

==Is Libertarianism compatible with authoritarianism?==

Do people have the right to vote in a libertarian society? Surely by allowing elections the majority are imposing things on the minority, and so reducing individual freedom? Is there a libertarian philosophy which is also authoritarian?

:In general, libertarianism is not compatible with authoritarianism, but neither is it compatible with unchecked democracy.[[User:JoeCarson|JoeCarson]] 12:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

:Try [[liberal democracy]]. [[User:Earth|__earth]] ([[User talk:Earth|Talk]]) 09:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, if by compatible you mean it could function. If the authoritarian leadership limited themselves to defensive military actions, maintaining an impartial judiciary, and negotiating free trade, while only taking a small percentage of GDP for personal gain then yes.

== Former Libertarian-Democrat alliance America ==

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/archive/resources/documents/ch16_02.htm (Democratic Platform of 1856)

http://www.civilwarhome.com/davisinauguraladdress.htm (Jefferson Davis Inaugural Address)

In today's terms the Democratic Party of the Civil War era was made up of two modern equivalent movements: Democrat and Libertarian. The Democrats were the emotionally bigotted demagogues. And the Libertarians were the more intellectual rationalizations of slavery such as "States Rights" and "Free Trade".

== What happened? ==

This article used to be a great source of information about libertarianism. What happened? This has turned into the same watered-down washed-out crappy summary like most of the other articles on wikipedia. [[User:143.127.3.10|143.127.3.10]]

==Clarification needed==
''Libertarians generally do not oppose force used in response to initiatory aggressions such as violence, fraud or trespassing... some support the U.S. invasion of Iraq while some oppose it.[4]''

Supporting the invasion is hard to square with the article's assertions in regard to Libertarians' stance on issues of force, given that the invasion was in no sense a responce to acts committed by Iraq. Or are we to conclude that someone is still a Libertarian if he/she condones pre-emptive violence? (assuming that to be the least ethically objectionable of the minimally plausible rationales for the invasion.)
Ayn Rand's support of the Vietnam War, and of the draft, is usually taken as an obvious contradiction of her philosophy - and surely a Libertarian endorsing the Iraq war represents an exception, rather than part of the (already rather broad) definition of the ideology? [[User:24.90.17.134|24.90.17.134]] 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::Concur. The reasoning for the war was that Iraq was using its right to bear arms, which no Libertarian could oppose. [[User:Samwaltz|samwaltz]] 02:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::It has to be stated that not all libertarians support the war. Many are against it too and [[Ron Paul]] is one of them. Reasons for divergence is the assumption of the cause of war. If the cause was 100% identified then or in retrospect, all libertarians would have taken the same stance based on [[non-aggression axiom]], be it for the war, or against it. [[User:Earth|__earth]] ([[User talk:Earth|Talk]]) 05:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Justifying the invasion of Iraq is comaptible with libertarian principles depending on how you view the invasion. If you view it as an attempt of self-defense in order to deprive Saddam of WMD then you're simply using force against a criminal to protect your life and liberty. Imagine if you believed your neighbor had WMD in his home. There wouldn't be anything unlibertarian about going and killing him. That would be the case even if some innocent bystanders got killed, if there were no other way to kill the guy. Yes it would be "initiation of force" but libertarianism isn't a suicide pact, and as the article points out not all libertarians are anti-initiation of force libertarians. It might be necessary to initiate force to preserve as much liberty as possible. You're not going to have any liberty at all if someone nukes you. So if you look at it like that it's consistent with libertarianism. If you look at Ron Paul, he's not really opposing the invasion on moral "initiation of force" grounds but practical ones. It doesn't work to maximize liberty is his argument. [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] 06:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the reply. That's interesting, but I still thinks it's a giant stretch. By this reasoning, draconian gun control laws, including, by your argument, actually killing someone who breaks them, along with any innocent parties who might be caught up nearby! would be considered "good libertarianism." (if you merely ''think'' - with no evidence - that the guy next door - who knows, perhaps a Libertarian with a particular partiality to the distorted NRA interpretation of the 2nd Amendment - is stockpiling bazookas and AR-5's, no problem, just drop a bomb on his house, so what if the rest of the street blows up as well!) Saddam had not attacked us. I don't know of any coherent political philosophy that ''is'' a "suicide pact" (that term is just a straw man). But I would certainly hope that Libertarianism is not a stupidity pact. Many, many people saw that Bush was inventing pretexts. Virtually no one, supporters and opponents alike, were surprised that the initiation of this purely optional war brought with it massive curtailments of civil liberties. And anyone who thinks the mass death, regional instability, and horrendous refugee crisis that ''very predictably resulted'' from Bush's actions was a good idea is ethically challenged, at the least. I submit to you again, that those Libertarians who supported the war were not thinking with the Libertarian lobes of their political brain, ''if the ideology as described in this article is at all coherent''. Much of the debate here seems to resolve itself to "Libertarians are against unprovoked violent coercion except when they're not." Oh well.
[[User:24.90.17.134|24.90.17.134]] 21:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

== Objectivism & US Military operations ==

In the second to last paragraph under the Objectivism heading, I think the following is wrong and misleadingly sourced:
"They have argued that it is right for the State to take pre-emptive military action when the evidence suggests a genuine risk that another State will initiate coercive use of physical force. Many also would like to see the State more aggressively protect the rights of US individuals and corporations abroad - by means including military action in response to nationalization.[22]"

The [22] source is a link to the Libertarian Party's website in which they discuss their opposition to US Military policy in Iraq. There is no source for these claims regarding Objectivist positions on military action abroad. These sentences should either be removed (I believe that the final sentence is particularly erroneous), or should be properly sourced.

Any thoughts?

[[User:Randallgood|Randallgood]] 20:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it remains undefended, I have removed the offending passage I mentioned above.

[[User:Randallgood|Randallgood]] 02:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

==The disambiguation page is better than this article==
It seems to me that the term "libertarianism" covers a spectrum of political philosophies centred around the general principle of individual freedom. Broadly there are two types of libertarian (for convenience, these can be called right and left respectively):
*those who regard the right to private property as a vital component of individual freedom; and
*those who view the concentration of economic power in the hands of individuals as a threat to the freedom of others, and therefore seek to limit private property rights in some way, typically through some form of communal ownership. It is in this sense that [[Murray Bookchin]], for example, called himself a "libertarian socialist".
This article seems to have hijacked the term on behalf of the first group. The disambiguation page actually does a better job of defining libertarianism than this article, which is titled "Libertarianism" but in fact covers only a part of the libertarian spectrum. [[User:Rodparkes|Rodparkes]] 02:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
:I agree and I feel that this page ought to redirect to the disambiguation. I live in Australia where the socialist and capitalist forms are both referred to freely as ''libertarianism'', though rarely both by the same individuals. In the north, for example, from whence my grandparents came, people are more likely to speak of [[libertarian socialism|''libertarianism'']] then ''[[libertarianism]]''; in the south where I live, it is the opposite.
:The problem occurs, of course, when considering that libertarianism can refer to [[anarchism]], [[libertarian socialism]] or, well, [[libertarianism]]. As far as I know there is no alternate name for libertarianism. The only solution I can think of is to merge this article with one of the [[liberalism]] articles, such as [[classical liberalism]]. ~ [[User:SwitChar|Switch]] ([[User talk:SwitChar|✉]][[Special:Contributions/SwitChar|✍]][[User:SwitChar/Gallery|☺]][[User:SwitChar/Userboxes|☒]]) 05:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:Why not rename the article? Perhaps "libertarian capitalism". [[User:JoeCarson|JoeCarson]] 12:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You maybe interested in a similar debate taking place at [[Talk:Liberalism]]. I however like the status quo. The article currently describes what libertarianism is about and goes on slowly to describe different kinds of libertarianism, just like the structure at [[liberalism]]. In a way, it is a disambiguity page, only that it is more refined. Furthermore, libertarian socialism is a merging of socialism and libertarianism. Surely we need to define libertarianism first before we could define libertarian socialism. If we are turning libertarianism into a disambiguity page, wouldn't that by extension mean [[socialism]] needs to be turned into a disambiguity page, simply because there are many branches of socialism? I don't think so and thus, I'm against turning this page into a disambiguity. [[User:Earth|__earth]] ([[User talk:Earth|Talk]]) 15:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just change the introduction a little to say that there is right libertarian and left libertarianism. There's already a section in this article on left libertarianism. So this article is not just about right libertarianism anyway. [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] 18:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I cannot agree with '''Earth''' that the article really covers the various types of libertarianism; the focus is very much to the right. The small section on "left-libertarianism" is very limited in scope, and fails to mention Murray Bookchin, probably the most important 20th Century contributor to left-libertarian thought. In fact the article's very first sentence explicitly states that it is about the type of libertarianism that advocates private property rights, thereby excluding most of the left wing of libertarian thinking from the outset. I believe that "Libertarianism" should point to the disambiguation page, and this article should, as '''JoeCarson''' suggests, be renamed "libertarian capitalism" or something similar. [[User:Rodparkes|Rodparkes]] 02:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:I agree again; I'd also like to point out that forms of libertarian socialism, as well as their being called libertarianism, predate the modern meaning of ''libertarianism'' by several decades. I would however contend that [[Noam Chomsky]] is probably a more prominent modern left-libertarian. The issue also exists that this article addresses ''left-libertarianism'' as variants of right-libertarianism — it covers [[agorism]] rather than [[council communism]] for example. It does make mention of Chomsky but in little context, and Bookchin is absent. ~ [[User:SwitChar|Switch]] ([[User talk:SwitChar|✉]][[Special:Contributions/SwitChar|✍]][[User:SwitChar/Gallery|☺]][[User:SwitChar/Userboxes|☒]]) 08:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
::Agorism is just anarcho-capitalism under another name that calls itself left-libertarian to attract the leftists to the anarcho-capitalism. I haven't seen any non-self-referential references for it being left libertarian. [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] 23:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Since we are discussing on whether libertarianism is libertarian socialism or libertarian capitalism, what does libertarianism on its own (i.e. neutral of the left and right connotation) mean? That neutralness should be the hallmark of this page instead of being a mere disambiguity page. Turning this into a disambiguity page would mean that libertarianism does not have a meaning on its own. [[User:Earth|__earth]] ([[User talk:Earth|Talk]]) 04:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:Each person should be allowed to do what he wills provided that he does not infringe on the liberty of others to do the same. That's basic libertarianism. Right libertianism and left libertarianism divide over property issues. Left libertarians believe natural resources are owned by everyone in common, or other egalitarian-based doctrines. [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] 05:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
::Spot on. Shall we start adapting the pages then? [[User:SwitChar|Switch]] ([[User talk:SwitChar|✉]][[Special:Contributions/SwitChar|✍]][[User:SwitChar/Gallery|☺]][[User:SwitChar/Userboxes|☒]]) 04:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't know what you mean by "adapting the pages." What's your suggestion? [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] 05:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Whatever that is, do we agree that this should not be a mere disambiguity page? [[User:Earth|__earth]] ([[User talk:Earth|Talk]]) 10:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::I believe we do agree. I think it should cover "libertarianism" as broadly as possible, as the group of ideologies all of which aim to maximise individual freedom. Libertarians, both left and right, oppose state ownership of industry, external intrusion into personal affairs and the abolition of victimless crimes (those last two overlap), for example. Libertarians can be minarchistic or anarchistic. Both left and right libertarians propose economic arrangements that they believe will lead to greater expression of individual freedom, but disagree on issues such as the market, property and usury (some say these all maximise liberty, others say all crush it; many have different opinions on each). You could say anarcho-capitalists are the most right; agorists, more left as they oppose intellectual property but still right; this continues until you reach collectivist anarchism and then libertarian communism on the far left. Interestingly, the far left and right share some characteristics the more centrist libertarians do not, including opposition to money.
:::::This page, I believe, should give an overview, describe similarities and differences between schools, and discuss the major issues (state or anarchy, socialism or capitalism or third way). It should include sections on the broadest of the schools and provide links to [[libertarian socialism]], [[anarchism]], [[minarchism]], the [[libertarian capitalism]] (or whatever it is to be called; I'd personally call it liberalism because I'm Australian) article to be created, and more.
:::::Please note that I'm trying to work with the "other side" here. If this were Switchopaedia [[libertarianism]] would redirect to [[anarchism]], which would not include [[anarcho-capitalism]]. I dare say that Operation Spooner could say the same. But together we can make this article NPOV, concise and accurate. ~ [[User:SwitChar|Switch]] ([[User talk:SwitChar|✉]][[Special:Contributions/SwitChar|✍]][[User:SwitChar/Gallery|☺]][[User:SwitChar/Userboxes|☒]]) 07:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::So what are you saying? If you could get away with it you would POV the anarchism article to exclude free-market anarchism? Well that's admirable. Anyway, you mentioned agorism and intellectual property. According the the agorism article it depends on the agorist whether he supports it or not. It's not an official agorist position either way. It also says agorism is a type of anarcho-capitalism, which of course it is. It's simply anarcho-capitalism under another name for marketing purposes for people that don't want to use the term "capitalism." What complicates matters though is that agorists call themselves left libertarians, but there's no secondary source acknowledging that claim. They say they're "left" simply because they advocate black markets. [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] 18:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::You know that A) that's not what I'm saying and B) it's not relevant to this discussion. What I'm saying is that ''if'' the ''[[anarchism]]'' article represented my personal opinion it would exclude anarcho-capitalism — it would include anti-capitalist free-market anarchisms like mutualism — but that's not the point here. I'm looking to discuss the status of the article. What do you think? What do the others think? ~ [[User:SwitChar|Switch]] ([[User talk:SwitChar|✉]][[Special:Contributions/SwitChar|✍]][[User:SwitChar/Gallery|☺]][[User:SwitChar/Userboxes|☒]]) 01:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Do you know what you're saying? A free market is a free market. The term "capitalism" in anarcho-capitalism just refers to a free market. [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] 23:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Please stop taking us off on a tangent, OS. We are meant to be discussing the status of this article. Please stick to the issue at hand. ~ [[User:SwitChar|Switch]] ([[User talk:SwitChar|✉]][[Special:Contributions/SwitChar|✍]][[User:SwitChar/Gallery|☺]][[User:SwitChar/Userboxes|☒]]) 00:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
A lot of this talk page consists of users putting forth arguments as to what various terms mean or should mean. I see very little reference to what the concepts are most commonly referred to in the literature: surely that would be a good place to start! If I pick up a polsci textbook in America, how does it define Libertarianism? Is it different than the definition given by a textbook written from another POV? If so, what do scholars "outside" the debate have to say about it? (And so on.) --[[User:Starwed|Starwed]] 08:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

==Continental Europe==
How can this statement be true: "In continental Europe and to a lesser extent the British Isles the older political meaning of "libertarianism" prevails..."? They don't speak English in Continental Europe. [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] 17:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:What do you mean? I know hundreds of people in continental Europe who speak English as well as, if not better than, many Americans I know. [[User:Samwaltz|samwaltz]] 12:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"Libertarianism" isn't an English word anyway. For example, French has "libertarine" Italian has "libertariano" and Holland has "liberijkenn". German has "Libertywenschenminister". —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.184.5.184|203.184.5.184]] ([[User talk:203.184.5.184|talk]]) 01:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 

== See Also to long? ==

Does anyone else think that the "See Also" section is to long? [[User:Harpakhrad11|Harpakhrad11]] 00:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarianism

2007-10-17T00:57:01Z

Harpakhrad11: /* See Also to long? */ new section

Luciferianism

2007-10-05T02:40:20Z

Harpakhrad11: /* Traditional Luciferianism */

{{nofootnotes}}
'''Luciferianism''' can be understood best as a belief system that venerates the essential characteristics that are affixed to [[Lucifer]].

Luciferianism is often identified as an auxiliary of [[Satanism]], due to the canonical identification of Lucifer with [[Satan]]. Some [[Luciferians]] accept this identification or consider Lucifer as the ''light bearer'' aspect of Satan, and thus could properly be called Satanists. Others reject it, arguing that Lucifer is a more positive ideal than Satan. They are inspired by the ancient myths of Egypt, Rome and Greece, [[Gnosticism]] and traditional Western occultism.

==Lucifer==
The name Lucifer is commonly tied to the biblical Satan. However, the name Lucifer does not appear in most translations of the Hebrew Bible. Lucifer does appear once in the King James version in Isaiah 14:12, in which the King of Babylon is referenced as "Son of the Morning" (translated from the Hebrew "Helel ben Shahar [Praise! Son of the Dawn"]), due to the original use of Lucifer as Latin for the planet [[Venus]], also known as the morning star. The designation of Satan as [[Lucifer]] has its origins in the Book of Revelations. Christian tradition and Scripture assert that Lucifer was the most beautiful of the angels (hence his title of Light-bearer) but was condemned to Hell, along with the angels who supported him, as punishment for the attempted usurpation of God's throne.

There are several different viewpoints on how Luciferianism is defined. These include:

* Religious/Traditional Luciferianism
* Spiritual/Gnostic Luciferianism
* Philosophic Luciferianism
* Modern Luciferianism

==Traditional Luciferianism==

A pantheistic thirteenth-century German sect which held that Lucifer should be worshiped as the ruler of the material world. This concept of the material world as Lucifer's domain was, most likely, taken from Catholic doctrine.<ref>{{cite book|title=Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics
|last=Clifton|first=Chas|isbn=0-7607-0823-1|publisher=Barnes & Noble Books, 1992, p. 82-83}}</ref>

==Spiritual/Gnostic Luciferianism==
{{Unreferenced|section|date=September 2007}}
Spiritual Luciferianism has its roots in the esoteric teachings of Western occultism and [[Hermeticism]]. This view holds that, while Satan represents the manifestation of the Material Realm, Lucifer represents the highest spiritual ideal, one's true Will, the Holy Guardian Angel, etc. As all “material” things are energy or light, Lucifer is seen as the creating force of the universe, ever present. Spiritual Luciferianism is more of a branch of Hermeticism than Satanism, having little or nothing to do with the latter. Magical practices are mostly influenced by Roger Williamson and [[Aleister Crowley]].

Various Gnostic Luciferian sects which emphasize the [[dualism]] of the universe have also been associated with the image of [[Lucifer]], in the root sense of the "bringer of light". The orthodox view has associated Lucifer with "[[Satan]] before the fall", though, as Bishop [[Lucifer Calaritanus]]'s name attests, Lucifer was not yet associated with "Satan" in the 4th century. Some classically-educated [[Freemasonry|Freemasons]] used "luciferian" in the scholarly sense of "bringing enlightenment," invoking [[Prometheus]] who stole fire from the gods to bring to man. Pro-Catholic polemicists linked such Masonic usage with sects worshiping Lucifer, which have had persistent groups of followers since the [[Middle Ages]].

==Philosophical Luciferianism==
{{Unreferenced|section|date=September 2007}}
Luciferianism is the embodiment of knowledge that acknowledges the Principles of Lucifer as the "Light of Conscious Evolution". As a god or as a principle, Lucifer is the "Light Bearer". The Light which illuminates the consciousness of sapient beings and heightens the senses and awareness to experience Higher Levels of Being. Luciferianism is the path of Self-Attainment, the Higher Self. It is the Centered Path, neither Left nor Right, for Lucfier is the Star that shines in the morning and evening, that point of light between opposing forces.

==Modern Luciferianism==
{{Unreferenced|section|date=September 2007}}

{{Main|Satanism}}

Modern Luciferianism and [[Modern Satanism]] share many primary aspects. In both, practitioners self-identify with a super-personal essence that they view as embodying desirable characteristics. Both work towards employing these characteristics as a means of bettering the Self. However, these two groups differ in that Modern Satanists, particularly younger ones, are believed to actively engage in the sinister or diabolical aspects traditionally associated with the biblical Satan due to criticism received by people who do not know a great deal about Satanism. It is therefore incorrect that crimes, such as child kidnapping, human sacrifices, vandalism, and so forth, are committed by true Satanists. Contrary to popular belief, many Luciferians and Satanists alike do not worship the devil, but rather worship nothing except the divinity within themselves.

==Followers of Lucifer Calaritanus==
{{split}}
''[[Luciferians]]'' described a [[Schism (religion)|schism]]atic group named after [[Lucifer Calaritanus]], Bishop of [[Cagliari]], Sardinia in the late 4th century. The movement was linked to the complex political machinations involving the emperor [[Constantius II]] and [[Pope Liberius]]. Lucifer was a staunch ultra-orthodox opponent of [[Arius]], declared a [[heresy|heretic]]. The movement died out early in the following century. All that we know of Bishop Lucifer's views derive from the anti-Luciferian polemic of [[Jerome]] in the form of a dialogue, ''Altercatio Luciferiani et orthodoxi'' ("Altercation of the Luciferian and the orthodox").

==Luciferian orders==
Structured systems that are fundamentally Luciferian are exceedingly rare.{{Fact|date=September 2007}}

The Church of Lucifer, which views [[Lucifer]] as both a symbol of the never-ending quest for wisdom and a force of and behind particular aspects of nature, has been active for over twenty years with [[United States]] and international membership. Founded by the late Rev. Robert Stills and passed on to Frederick Nagash, the Church of Lucifer is currently administered by Rev. Frederick Nagash, Rev. Satrinah Nagash and Rev. Maskim Xul. The organization encourages the study of several ancient cultures to learn its wisdom and incorporate that into the Luciferian's own repertoire.<ref>[http://churchoflucifer.org The Church of Lucifer website]</ref>

The [[Children of the Black Rose]] are a long-time Luciferian order who view Lucifer as a Supreme being encompassing all; "everything and nothing." <ref>Scholl, Veleska. [http://www.spiralnature.com/spirituality/satanism/luciferianism.html Satanic Denominations - Luciferianism]</ref>

A more modern structure inspired by Gnosticism, French occultism, [[Thelema]] and the works of Danish Luciferian author [[Carl William Hansen]] (Ben Kadosh) and Bishop [[Michael Bertiaux]] is the [[Neo-Luciferian Church]]. It works within a seven grade church system.{{Facts|date=September 2007}}

==See also==
*[[Theistic Satanism]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Further reading==
*"The Lucifer Gospel", Paul Christopher. Onyx.
*"A Revolução Luciferiana", Adriano Camargo Monteiro. Madras Editora.
*"Lucifer Rising", Gavin Baddeley. Plexus Publishings.
*"The Lucifer Light", Michael Salazar. Bantam.

==External links==
*[http://www.luciferian.org/ Church of Lucifer]
*[http://www.ordo-luciferi.org/ The Luciferian Order] Luciferic Illumination.
*[http://www.jeremycrow.com/ The Gnostic Witchcraft - A Luciferian Path]
*[http://www.spiralnature.com/spirituality/satanism/luciferianism.html Brief intro to Luciferian principles]
*[http://www.ummo.cc/ Voice of Lucifer]
*[http://www.neoluciferianchurch.org/ The Neo-Luciferian Church] Luciferianism and Gnosticism - inspired by Hansen-Kadosh, old European Luciferianism/Gnosticism and the teachings of Michael Bertiaux and other occult authors.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09410a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Lucifer]
*[http://www.leagueofsatanists.com/ The League of Independent Satanists]
*[http://www.luciferianwitchcraft.com/main.htm Luciferian Witchcraft]

[[Category:Luciferianism|*]]
[[Category:Left Hand Path]]
[[Category:Satanism]]

[[fr:Luciférisme]]
[[pt:Luciferianismo]]

Luciferianism

2007-09-29T20:43:18Z

Harpakhrad11: /* Traditional Luciferianism */

{{nofootnotes}}
'''Luciferianism''' can be understood best as a belief system that venerates the essential characteristics that are affixed to [[Lucifer]].

Luciferianism is often identified as an auxiliary of [[Satanism]], due to the canonical identification of Lucifer with [[Satan]]. Some Luciferians accept this identification or consider Lucifer as the ''light bearer'' aspect of Satan, and thus could properly be called Satanists. Others reject it, arguing that Lucifer is a more positive ideal than Satan. They are inspired by the ancient myths of Egypt, Rome and Greece, Gnosticism and traditional western occultism.

==Lucifer==
The name Lucifer is commonly tied to the biblical Satan. However, the name Lucifer does not appear in most translations of the Hebrew Bible. Lucifer does appear once in the King James version in Isaiah 14:12, in which the King of Babylon is referenced as "Son of the Morning" (translated from the Hebrew "Helel ben Shahar [Praise! Son of the Dawn"]), due to the original use of Lucifer as Latin for the planet [[Venus]], also known as the morning star. The designation of Satan as [[Lucifer]] has its origins in the Book of Revelations. Christian tradition and Scripture assert that Lucifer was the most beautiful of the angels (hence his title of Light-bearer) but was condemned to Hell, along with the angels who supported him, as punishment for the attempted usurpation of God's throne.

There are several different viewpoints on how Luciferianism is defined. These include:

* Religious/Traditional Luciferianism
* Spiritual/Gnostic Luciferianism
* Philosophic Luciferianism
* Modern Luciferianism

==Traditional Luciferianism==

A pantheistic thirteenth-century German sect that held that Lucifer should be worshiped as the ruler of the material world. This concept of the material world as Lucifer's domain was, most likely, taken from Catholic doctrine.<ref>{{cite book|title=Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics
|last=Clifton|first=Chas|isbn=0-7607-0823-1|publisher=Barnes & Noble Books, 1992, p. 82-83}}</ref>

==Spiritual/Gnostic Luciferianism==
Spiritual Luciferianism has its roots in the esoteric teachings of Western Occultism and Hermeticism. This view holds that, while Satan represents the manifestation of the Material Realm, Lucifer represents the highest spiritual ideal, one's true Will, the Holy Guardian Angel, etc. As all “material” things are energy or light, Lucifer is seen as the creating force of the universe, ever present. Spiritual Luciferianism is more of a branch of [[Hermeticism]] than Satanism, having little or nothing to do with the latter. Magical practices are mostly influenced by Roger Williamson and [[Aleister Crowley]].

Various Gnostic Luciferian sects which emphasize the [[dualism]] of the universe have also been associated with the image of [[Lucifer]], in the root sense of the "bringer of light". The orthodox view has associated Lucifer with "[[Satan]] before the fall", though, as Bishop [[Lucifer Calaritanus]]'s name attests, Lucifer was not yet associated with "Satan" in the 4th century. Some classically-educated [[Freemasonry|Freemasons]] used "luciferian" in the scholarly sense of "bringing enlightenment," invoking [[Prometheus]] who stole fire from the gods to bring to man. Pro-Catholic polemicists linked such Masonic usage with sects worshiping Lucifer, which have had persistent groups of followers since the [[Middle Ages]].

==Philosophical Luciferianism==

Luciferianism is the embodiment of knowledge that acknowledges the Principles of Lucifer as the "Light of Conscious Evolution". As a god or as a principle, Lucifer is the "Light Bearer". The Light which illuminates the consciousness of sapient beings and heightens the senses and awareness to experience Higher Levels of Being. Luciferianism is the path of Self-Attainment, the Higher Self. It is the Centered Path, neither Left nor Right, for Lucfier is the Star that shines in the morning and evening, that point of light between opposing forces.

==Modern Luciferianism==
{{Main|Satanism}}

Modern Luciferianism and [[Modern Satanism]] share many primary aspects. In both, practitioners self-identify with a super-personal essence that they view as embodying desirable characteristics. Both work towards employing these characteristics as a means of bettering the Self. However, these two groups differ in that Modern Satanists, particularly younger ones, are believed to actively engage in the sinister or diabolical aspects traditionally associated with the biblical Satan due to criticism received by people who do not know a great deal about Satanism. It is therefore incorrect that crimes, such as child kidnapping, human sacrifices, vandalism, and so forth, are committed by true Satanists. Contrary to popular belief, many Luciferians and Satanists alike do not worship the devil, but rather worship nothing except the divinity within themselves.

==Followers of Lucifer Calaritanus==
"Luciferians" described a [[Schism (religion)|schism]]atic group named after [[Lucifer Calaritanus]], Bishop of [[Cagliari]], Sardinia in the late 4th century. The movement was linked to the complex political machinations involving the emperor [[Constantius II]] and [[Pope Liberius]]. Lucifer was a staunch ultra-orthodox opponent of [[Arius]], declared a [[heresy|heretic]]. The movement died out early in the following century. All that we know of Bishop Lucifer's views derive from the anti-Luciferian polemic of [[Jerome]] in the form of a dialogue, ''Altercatio Luciferiani et orthodoxi'' ("Altercation of the Luciferian and the orthodox").

==Luciferian orders==
Structured systems that are fundamentally Luciferian are exceedingly rare. Most public and semi-public internet-based organizations resemble the [[Dot-Com bubble]] of the [[1990's]], not lasting far past the start-up phase.

The Church of Lucifer, ([http://churchoflucifer.org Official Website]) which views [[Lucifer]] as both a symbol of the never-ending quest for wisdom and a force of and behind particular aspects of nature, has been active for over twenty years with [[United States]] and international membership. Founded by the late Rev. Robert Stills and passed on to Frederick Nagash, the Church of Lucifer is currently administered by Rev. Frederick Nagash, Rev. Satrinah Nagash and Rev. Maskim Xul. The organization encourages the study of several ancient cultures to learn its wisdom and incorporate that into the Luciferian's own repertoire.

The [[Children of the Black Rose]] are a long-time Luciferian order who view Lucifer as a Supreme being encompassing all; "everything and nothing." <ref>http://www.spiralnature.com/spirituality/satanism/luciferianism.html</ref> This can be compared to the [[Gnostic]] deity [[Abraxas]], which is thought to contain both [[Wiktionary:absolute|Absolute]] [[Goodness and value theory|Good]] and [[Evil]]. A more modern structure inspired by [[Gnosticism]], French occultism, [[Thelema]] and the works of Danish Luciferian author [[Carl William Hansen]] (Ben Kadosh) and Bishop [[Michael Bertiaux]] is the [[Neo-Luciferian Church]]. It works within a seven grade church system.

The Ordo Luciferi (Luciferian Order), is an up and coming Order that was originally developed by Lucian Black in 2005. The philosophy of the Luciferian Order is based on that of Intellectual Light, wherein, light is knowledge (consciousness). And through the acquisition of such light may the individual intelligence work to advance his/her own conscious evolution. Luciferians work to evolve their own consciousness to higher states, the Opus Magnum. To ascend from our current Homo-Sapiens state to a higher ideal state of Homo-Divinus. The Ordo Luciferi implements a SIX degree non-religious system of recognition for its members. The O:L in no way interferes with ones religious or political opinions, be they what they may. The O:L was designed to serve as a hub for Luciferic Illumination, not for dogmatic discipline. For each conscious point of light within humanity is unique and each sol (sun) must find their own way to the Light that is within them, the O:L offers tools and fraternity with like minded people who seek the god within, the Higher Self.

==See also==
*[[Lucifer]]
*[[Luciferians]]
*[[Satanism]]
*[[Hermeticism]]
*[[Gnosticism]]
*[[Thelema]]
*[[Theistic Satanism]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Further reading==
*"The Lucifer Gospel", Paul Christopher. Onyx.
*"A Revolução Luciferiana", Adriano Camargo Monteiro. Madras Editora.
*"Lucifer Rising", Gavin Baddeley. Plexus Publishings.
*"The Lucifer Light", Michael Salazar. Bantam.

==External links==
*[http://www.luciferiangalleria.net LUCIFERIAN GALLERIA is a luciferian themed art gallery]
*[http://www.luciferian.org/ Church of Lucifer]
*[http://www.ordo-luciferi.org/ The Luciferian Order] Luciferic Illumination.
*[http://www.jeremycrow.com/ The Gnostic Witchcraft - A Luciferian Path]
*[http://www.spiralnature.com/spirituality/satanism/luciferianism.html Brief intro to Luciferian principles]
*[http://www.ummo.cc/ Voice of Lucifer]
*[http://www.neoluciferianchurch.org/ The Neo-Luciferian Church] Luciferianism and Gnosticism - inspired by Hansen-Kadosh, old European Luciferianism/Gnosticism and the teachings of Michael Bertiaux and other occult authors.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09410a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Lucifer]
*[http://www.leagueofsatanists.com/ The League of Independent Satanists]
*[http://www.luciferianwitchcraft.com/main.htm Luciferian Witchcraft]

[[Category:Luciferianism|*]]
[[Category:Left Hand Path]]
[[Category:Satanism]]

[[fr:Luciférisme]]
[[pt:Luciferianismo]]

Talk:Alex Jones

2007-09-28T03:03:49Z

Harpakhrad11: /* Alex Jones' contacts with the NWO */

{{talkheader}}
{{WPBiography
|living=yes
|class=start
|priority=
|listas=Jones, Alex
|filmbio-work-group=yes
}}
{{WikiProject Texas|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{reqimageother|a photo of Alex Jones and/or scans of the covers of his DVDs}}

{| class="infobox" width="300px"
|-
! align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
# [[Talk:Alex Jones (radio)/Archive01|Archive 1 (March 2004 to July 2006)]]
|}

== Jones's Education ==

The biographical info on Jones in this article has a lack of info about his life before his radio shows in the mid '90s. Is there any information about where he graduated from high school, and if he went to college?

I know he grew up in Dallas and went to High School there. He did go to college, I believe at the [[University of Texas at Austin]], but I'm not positive on that. - [[user:gobuffs10|gobuffs10]]

== NPOV ==

This entire article needs NPOV cleanup. There is absolutely no material about refutations of Jones' ideas. Additionally the whole thing reads rather like PR. I have removed the term "Conspiracy Realist" from the page because it is an inherently POV waesel word term. Jones deserves a comprehensive fair article, what we have is far from that.

I disagree entirely. If anything, this is propaganda against Alex Jones. I have very little bias with regards to this, I just googled to find out who he was. I can see how he might be seen as a bit over the top, but undeniably he is also a critical journalist who brings out some valid points.
Claiming that this is propaganda FOR Alex Jones is completely skewed, and takes the discussion off track. My impression reading this article was that the authors were desperate to make him look like a looney, especially with the first section ("Views") and the very poor descriptions of his filmography, which I believe is what most people will look at. [[User:84.210.30.185|84.210.30.185]] 02:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the people on this page calling for more criticism of Alex Jones should start signing.... [[User:84.210.30.185|84.210.30.185]] 02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely ludicurous that "conspiracy theorist" is listed as his occupation. Conspiracy Theorist is not an occupation, if it was then Tony Snow should have "propagandist" as his occupation (since that is clearly part of his job) but that would again be ludicurous. This is clearly a sign of POV and even character assassination (regardless of what you think of him, I personally disagree with him greatly).

[[User:128.100.36.147|128.100.36.147]] 23:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:''I'' have no objection to "conspiracy theorist" being removed as his occupation (even though it ''is'' the reason he ''has'' an occupation), provided it appears in the infobox ''above'' occupation, as "Known for", and prominently in the lead. To do less would be a clear violation of NPOV. It ''is'' what he's known for. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 07:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::I don't know a thing about him other than some stuff I've read on his website. The term ''investigative reporter'' strikes me as much more NPOV than ''conspiracy theorist.'' —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.123.251.29|71.123.251.29]] ([[User talk:71.123.251.29|talk]]) 04:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC) 

== Jones on homosexuality ==
Are there any concrete refs on Alex's take on homosexuality? (I'm not saying he's gay so relax.) Listening to his show some of his guests (like Alan Watt) have implied homosexuality is being promoted by the NWO as a way to bring down society. But searching around I haven't found any "Alex Jones: homosexuals are evil." articles. (The fact that Alex is a Christian doesn't necessarily mean he is anti-gay.) --Anonymous Coward

So what are you trying to say? :p Kidding...kidding. --[[User:Ιουστινιανός|Ιουστινιανός]] 08:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

: Does it really matter? I've never once heard Jones refer to gays, except in the context of hypocritical 'Christian Conservative' politicians engaging in gay acts.--[[User:Baltech22|Baltech22]] 02:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:I've never seen any references tying into this. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 03:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jones has said several times on his radio show that while he morally opposes homosexuality due to his religious persuasion, he very strongly supports equal rights for homosexuals due to his libertarian political beliefs.[[User:Vulcanhacker|Vulcanhacker]]
: Any reference for that? Regardless the man thinks the members of the NWO engage in gay sex with each other (including Nixon at the Bohemian Grove), and Jones has close ties with Pat Buchanan, so I think it's safe to say he doesn't support gay rights and equality. [[User:McDanger|McDanger]] 12:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

==Jones On The Bible==

Jones often claims that the Bible is "all about" standing up against evil and corruption. On the June 5, 2006 Broadcast of his show, a caller challenged this claim, citing Matthew 5:39, and asked Jones "was Jesus lying in that verse" (referring to Matthew 5:39 of the Bible), to which Jones replied "Yeah!" Jones went on to claim that Jesus "beat" the money changers and "smashed their heads." He went on to call Christians who don't resist corruption and tyranny "scum" and said they would all "burn in Hell". On the October 16, 2006 broadcast of his show, Jones responded to the same caller's implication that David's submission to Saul despite Saul's repeated attempts to have David killed disproved his claim about the Bible by saying, among other things, "God cursed Israel with a king because they asked Him for one."

The archives at GCN live provide access to all previous broadcasts of "The Alex Jones Show". Anyone can pay a nominal fee to access them and listen to the shows themselves for verification of the content. I include this because I feel that Jones misrepresents the Bible to justify his "infowar". No matter how worthy his cause is, I feel this is very wrong to do.

Jesus never lied. Come on, its the same guy who claims the government caused 9/11. [[User:66.218.13.249|66.218.13.249]]

This is misinterpretation. I even remember hearing this... He said 'yeah' in a sense 'yeah and moon is a blue cheese', or 'yeah, thats nice opinion of yours, good bye'. If this is the best 'Bible' attack on Jones you can bring on, you are pretty weak. Come on, stop using text out of context. Do you really have to lie to make him look bad?

TRee Hugger- WTF? A large part of the old testament was about God telling prophets to go against the Machine or fight the man. Prophets criticise unjust kings commonly.
While the rest of the old testament is about God telling the Isrealites they are the chosen ones and can run amok slaughtering anyone they choose and stealing their land.
----------------
Jones is right on alot he says about the Bible. Yes, God does require
rulers (and everyone else for that matter) to be just and God requires people that have the wherewithal to do so, to stand up for
the oppressed, weak, helpless, and poor. I am constantly amazed at how many silly jackasses there are out there that have no knowledge of the God of the Bible. - NoSnooz

I thought this page was to discuss the article and not the subject [[User:Dividebyzero|Dividebyzero]]

Jews were all out warriors who stood up against all nay sayers. Some theories say that christianity was added to the bible to water down the warriors of the jewish world... I may agree with many of these theories. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|69.254.65.58}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|69.254.65.58}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|69.254.65.58}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|02:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC)}}} 

== Tone ==
The tone of this article is silly and unencyclopedic imho...will fix it up a bit. [[User:PaulHanson|Paul]] 15:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC) I take it back, that was mostly due to vandalism by 70.247.106.166. [[User:PaulHanson|Paul]] 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Predictions ==
Since Jones is cited as "predicting" 9/11, why not throw all his predictions in there.

*"This is only the beginning. In the next few years, in this second phase--the period of escalating violence. They're gonna allow limited nuclear exchanges." "There's going to be more. This is only the kickoff." (9/13/01)
:*[[Depleted Uranium]] dont count?
::** [[Depleted Uranium]] is "waste" from nuclear material. It has no nuclear use other than being low-level nuclear waste. It's not even really useful for dirty bombs. [[User:Robbh66|Robbh66]] 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
*"Within 2 years I'm predicting...that you're going to see a suitcase nuke in this country. You're probably going to see a release in a few years of something communicable. & I am predicting that you will see a lot of conventional bombings...in the next year or so." (10/18/01)
:* more [[Antrax]] anyone? Take the chip or else!
::** Perhaps you mean [[Anthrax]]? Anyways, the suitcase nuke prediction is wrong and the Anthrax prediction was made a month after Anthrax had already hit numerous places. [[User:Robbh66|Robbh66]] 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
*"I'm telling you now...there's a very good chance there gonna blow something up overseas or here." "The evidence is all tilting toward...blowing up a building. They're really setting us up for a smallpox attack." Chemical attacks are "almost a guarantee in the next six months or so." (9/26/02)
:Bali Bombings? Ex-primeminister said western intel tied to it.
::Saying "they're going to blow something up overseas or here" is not a prediction- it's a given. It's been happening for years and it will continue to happen for years. He was dead wrong on the smallpox. [[User:Robbh66|Robbh66]] 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
*"They're preparing for new terrorist attacks that are much larger. & they're planning to bring in foreign armies....The U.S. government is going to engage in large terrorist attacks domestically & probably internationally...They may kill millions of Americans." There was going to be a nuclear release in Iraq, an international depression, formation of a world government, probably a nuclear release in Iraq, an international depression, a world government formed. Also, "They may kill millions of Americans." (7/11/02)
:*This quote can't be word for word.

*They're going to blow more stuff up. (4/13/04)
::7/7 49 dead can't be that? [[Tavistock Institute]] thanks you for your help.
:::Like I said above, this was not a prediction- it was a given. Its happened for years and will continue for years. [[User:Robbh66|Robbh66]] 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
*"I predict Arnold is gonna save children at a school shooting, or there'll be some type of bombing, & he will land by helicopter & run in & direct things. I predict it....I see it all aligning. I see it all coming together. I see their plan, clear as day....He'll fly in & things will be burninig & he'll run into it & save someone." [circa March of 2005. Kinda proves Alex is living a fantasy, doesn't it?]
::**Lenina Huxley said it was in the Swatzinegger Presidential Library![[Demolition Man]]
*Alex also said (several times) they were going to roll out Osama bin Laden "on ice" before the 2004 election.
:*citing media reports on remarks made about his head being frozen (Tim Osman/bin ladin that is)
from [http://perrylogan.org/Bogus%20Predictions.html].

Jones has also predicted that WW3 will begin before the Elections in November. Now, I bring all this up because if the article is crediting him with a successful prediction of 9/11, shouldn’t that be in the context of one lucky guess in the midst of dozens of other bogus predictions? [[User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:He puts those among his non-official views, he has done that a lot of times. But he has never called any of those fears by any "operation" name, he only did it pre-9/11. And of course, now. Other than that, he sometimes will go into "daydream" mode. Remeber that he is a talk show host also, and its easy to find quotes on things he have said during the year. But he has never raised the alarm like this or the previous one. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 20:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:: Isn't that pretty much a cop-out? A 'non-official' view is... I don't even know what the hell that is? How can you hold a view, but not officially hold it? Is that like the opposite of what Bush is doing with gay marriage? It's rather insincere, isn't it? To say a lot of stuff that you basically pull out of your ass, then only stand by the really shrill ones that you feel really strongly about, and disavow the others? --[[User:71.233.121.48|baltech22]] 18:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:::What a complete cop-out. You can't have a non official view that you use for all of your predictions depending on whether or not it suits you. If he makes the decision to broadcast something over public airwaves than it is his official view. He cannot go back and say "oh, that was unoffical so it doesn't count!" [[User:Robbh66|Robbh66]] 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
He does say he is speculating on many occasions, guessing, theorising, based on many collections of supposedly credible media outlets reports that may get sanitised later or be archived on the sites.

When Alex makes predictions, I say consider them more like scenarios to ponder. No individual in our country has a more scrutinizing eye on what's going on in the world than Alex. Of course, he is not going to call a majority of events right. Who could? I only know, and we all do if we're honest, the way history is playing out, we are in perilous times now. More than our liberties are at stake; our lives, as well. --Wikipedia[[User:WikipediaBG|BG]] 17:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

== Paragraph Cleanup ==
This paragraph:
"He stats that he has received multiple death-threats over due advocating his views, one time being beaten down by four persons. He states that he had received a death-threat as late as 2006-08-16, and that he has made himself ready for being killed, something he views is likely to happen if he succeeds in receiving much more attention. He further has said that he has a "life ensuarence"."

Has numerous spelling and gramatical errors, and needs to be cleaned up in general. I don't have time to listen to the talkshow segment provided as a source at this present time, but if no one else fixes it then I'll do it in a few days. [[User:Kytok|Kytok]] 04:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

==Split==
''This page is 35 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.''

And i am still expanding it. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 01:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Alex,

I am often amazed/baffled by your extraordinary ability to recall facts and dates.

I have recently noticed that there seem to be a group of people who are "helped," cognitively, in some fashion, reffered to as "Synthetic Telepathy"

I deal with these people as well. It seems they want me crazy or dead ! Of course, diagnosed or reffered to as -Schizophrenia-

I tell ya, the fu*$ing mind rape is wonderful..DUDE!

Really Alex...these ARE the THOUGHT POLICE--MY GOD!

Don't be THIS MAN. Don't you fu&%ing say you are one of these guys. People BELIEVE in you, Understand?

Thoughts/comments...etc ? Not gonna let you go until you have acknowledged. THE TRUTH

The above seems to be either someone with mental issues or more likely a troll. Is it against wikipedia "rules" to remove something like this from the talk page? [[User:84.210.30.185|84.210.30.185]] 03:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. It needs deleted for being a waste of time.

==Category==
Did you people miss the sign at the top? It states that ALL negative text MUST be sourced to somebody ELSE, or it must be AGRESIVLY DELETED, and its DOES NOT COUNT towards the 3rr. Wikipedia CAN NOT label anybody with a pejorative category per POLICY. I am for the FOURTH TIME reverting it per [[WP:BLP]] and the template at the top. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 21:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:* It's somewhat misleading to point out that "ALL negative text MUST be sourced to somebody ELSE, or it must be AGRESIVLY DELETED" This is entirely true, however, you should of pointed out that it is actually ALL controversial claims. That means positive too for those of you who are fans. [[User:Robbh66|Robbh66]] 05:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:* A large amount of the content of the article describes various conspiracies which the subject alledges have occured (eg: theories). How is he ''NOT'' a conspiracy theorist? Just because some people consider "conspiracy theorist" to mean the same thing as "crackpot" doesn't mean that it's true. This person is clearly a "conspiracy theorist". --[[User:Versageek|Versageek]] 21:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::*Conspiracies do not 'occur', they are being perpetrated. [[User:195.64.95.116|195.64.95.116]] 22:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
::*There is no lack of sources which call Jones a "conspiracy theorist". [http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/conspiracy_theorists_boycot_stone_film.htm][http://www.politicalhobbyist.com/debunked/alexjones.html][http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CDCC04E2-8DE8-4625-B380-DD74EC0F3AC9.htm][http://www.nndb.com/people/969/000048825/][http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Aug/11/en/FP608110312.html] Furthermore, if he is not a conspiracy theorist then we should remove references to him from articles about conspiracy theories, such as [[9/11 conspiracy theories]]. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:::*Dude's a very prominant theorist of conspiracies. What's the point of having a category for conspiracy theorists if the prominant one's aren't in it? This is a POV push.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|c]] 21:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::::**Which should end the discussion on whether or not to label him a conspiracy theorist. You can't put him in prominent conspiracy theorists categories when it suits you, but not have it in the article when it puts him in a negative light. This is a pretty simple and straightforward concept. [[User:Robbh66|Robbh66]] 05:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We should not have a pejorative category such as "conspiracy theorists". Yes, people call him a conspiracy theorist, but wikiepdia will not do it '''per policy''': '' The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of '''all kinds''', but especially for living people's bios, <big>rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim</big>.''.

"conspiracy theorists" is a pejorative term. And wikipedia will not call him that. But wikipedia will report that SPECIFIC people call him that. Ie, the intro can state "X, Y and Z view Alex Jones as a CT", but it will NOT state "AJ is a CT". Puting him in the category is equal to embracing those peoples view, and wikipedia WILL AGRESIVLY remove that PER POLICY. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 00:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:It's sourced. The so-called "pejorative term" is more than acceptable. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] [[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]] 00:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::Agreed. There's really not any dispute here over whether or not Jones is a conspiracy theorist, because he is; the term "conspiracy theorist" may be somewhat perjorative, but he does indeed theorize about conspiracies. [[User:BarrettBrown|BarrettBrown]] 01:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Using the meaning of "conspiracy" and "theory" to conclude that it is not a pejorative label is... not honest. Its is sources that people lables him as such, but wikipedia WILL NOT PER POLICY endorse that pejorative labeling. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 11:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Numerous sources, including at least one posted on Jones' own site, refer to him as a "conspiracy theorist". It is not against Wikipedia policy to use the term. If you think that it is then please post a reference to the policy. Simply repeating an opinion in caps does not make it more persuasive. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 11:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::The source on his page is a mere copy paste of some other source, he does that often and it does not imply enorsment, as he also does that with people holding the opposite view. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::I suggest you read my post again, Striver. I wrote that the term "may be somewhat perjorative." How you get from that that I'm trying to "conclude that it is not a perjorative label" is beyond me. [[User:70.112.97.118|70.112.97.118]] 15:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I sugest you read the bolded "all kinds" a bit above.--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 00:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::Obviously, Wikipedia will use the label "conspiracy theorists", because we have a category for them.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|c]] 22:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Put dead people on that pejorative labeled category, they can not sue wikipedia.--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 00:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(Undent) I think it's quite fair to use the "conspiracy theorist" category here; if Jones isn't one, then there aren't any. Moreover, note that he is listed on [[Conspiracy theory]].
::Being a conspiracy theorist is a pov statment, nobody will address themselves with a pejorative label. Even if they did that ones, it would not be enough, i say once "i am an ashole", you dont get to put on my biography "Striver, wikipedian and an ashole". Maybe if you could find multiple references of him refering to himself as a conspiracy theorist, then it would be valid.--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 00:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, fine, that might be using Wikipedia to document Wikipedia. But simply read the first few paragraphs under "Views". Assuming that this is an accurate description of Jones' beliefs, then this much is true: he claims that a secret, powerful group controls banking and the media and is manipulating public opinion to destroy, or weaken, US sovereignity. What about that is ''not'' conspiracy theory? [[User:Deville|Deville]] ([[User talk:Deville|Talk]]) 22:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:The term "conspiracy theory" has a clear pejorative conotation in the english language. Even if factualy correct, the pejorative conotation is enough for not endorsing it. And then, Alex does not view his statments as "Theories", he belives them to be factual. A "conspiracy theory" is usualy meant to mean STRONGLY unlickely theory, such as Bush being a lizard-man. Clearly, Jones does not view that his theories are such. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 00:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

::Then should we removes mentions of Jones from articles about conspiracy theories? If he's not a conspiracy theorist then he isn't relevant. More seriously, there is no rule against using pejorative terms for people, so long as they are properly sourced. Do you have a source for him saying he does not consider himself a conspiracy theorist? -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The text at the TOP of this page:
:''"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy as it directly concerns one or more living people. Poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals."''

[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]]:
:''"These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in '''other articles'''.", "The responsibility for justifying '''controversial claims''' in Wikipedia, '''of all kinds''', but especially for living people's bios, rests '''firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim'''."

# Removed immediately
# Three-revert rule does not apply
# Includes other articles
# Of all kinds
# Firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim

There is no debate on this issue. None, its an absolut and firm policy:

"Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, '''if derogatory, should not be used at all'''."

Basicly: Alex Jones does not reffer to himslef with the pejorative "Conspiracy theorist" term, and has not been sentenced as one in a court of law, hence, it is controversial, disputed and pejorative term that will not be applied to him.

The term is pejorative in the sense that it labels him a nut-case, as person that belives in non-sense. Wikipedia will not endorse that. However, Wikipedia can describe his views as "controversial", describe him as a part of the "9/11 Truth Movement" or just plainly state that "Jones belives x".

And yes, this extends to other articles as well, per above. I suggest you creat a non-pejorative article to inlude him in. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 13:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What you ''can'' do, is to cite in the "views" section some ''specific'' people who call him a conspiracy theorist. That is legitimate and welcomed. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How about "conspiracy analyst" instead? --[[User:RevWaldo|RevWaldo]] 16:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How about "journalist" and "radio and television personality?" I can accept "alternative journalist." [[User:GeorgeC|GeorgeC]] 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

All of GeorgeC's suggestions are acceptable by me. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 07:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, perhaps "conspiracy theorist" should be replaced with "investigative journalist." Somewhere it could be mentions that his critics consider him to be a "conspiracy theorist." This would maintain neutrality. Do I have permission to make the edit?--[[User:Mr. Edit | Mr. Edit]] 11:00PM EST 26 September 2006

As stated before, you would have to name specific sources, i.e. person x and person y call him a conspiracy theorist, not just 'critics'.

::It's interesting how people argue that Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist because he theorises on conspiracies, yet these same people would go berserk if someone were to change the page on 9/11 to say that the official story on what happened is nothing more than a conspiracy theory in itself, because it is a theory about a conspiracy and is not fact. Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, however I would resist the use of such a POV term on Wikipedia unless people who promote the official theory are counted as such also. [[User:Coconuteire|Coconuteire]] 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:: If you can't prove it, it's a theory, hence "conspiraacy theorist". Jones has never submitted any of his ideas to be vetted by an impartial third party. If he does, and they prove viable, then he ceases to be a conspiracy theorist and becomes a sucessful social activist. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/67.180.193.148|67.180.193.148]] ([[User talk:67.180.193.148|talk]]) 00:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

::: I agree, he has theories, and the same must be said for the official stories behind countless attacks, incl. 9/11 and 7/7, which have yet to be proven also. [[User:Coconuteire|Coconuteire]] 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Look up the definition of "occupation" and it becomes clear that the word in most instances implies what they do that they get paid for. Alex Jones is NOT paid to be a "conspiracy theorist," rather, he is paid for being a radio show host and paid for being a documentary filmmaker. Saying that his occupation is "conspiracy theorist" lacks a neutral POV. It should be mentioned shortly into the article (with sources, perhaps including the fox news snippet with Michelle Malkin calling him a "crazy conspiracy theorist") that there are people who oppose his views and call him that.--[[User:Shink X|Shink X]] 05:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

==Typos==
the article is still locked so i can't edit it, but there are multiple typos on his "Opposes" and "Supports" sections under more than one entry.

===Related discussion===
Is currently ongoing at the actual policy page, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#.22Conspiracy_theorist.22 here], for those interested. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 03:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:Reuters calls him a conspiracy theorist here: [http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-06-25T204155Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-256711-1.xml]. [[User:Not a dog|Not a dog]] 16:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
::::No it did'nt. Give me the quote. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 07:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::"Conspiracy theorists" were mentioned in the title of the piece, but only implied that Alex Jones was a conspiracy theorist. [[User:GeorgeC|GeorgeC]] 20:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::That's right, and implied is not good enough. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 00:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
::Reuters is reportedly owned by a Bilderberg member. [[User:GeorgeC|GeorgeC]] 05:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

== Cleanup ==
The article needs some copyediting, particularly moving punctuation in front of references. It can't be done right now because the article is protected. --[[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 05:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I could also do without the year-by-year biographical data. Just hit the key events. I don't think the tables are necessary either. [[User:GeorgeC|GeorgeC]] 20:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
:Then split them out to a new article and make a summary. that is how wikipedia works. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::It can also do without a 3 paragraph blockquote. (Greg Palast's views). --[[User:Mmx1|Mmx1]] 04:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:::yes, this extensive quote should be removed as generally unencyclopedic (see [[WP:QUOTE]] for starters) -- [[User:ZimZalaBim|ZimZalaBim]] ([[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]]) 21:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::Striver, like I said the article is protected. None of us can do ''any'' of these edits, so it's kinda useless to tell us to. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 05:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

==Spellcheck, for the love of *insert your favorite deity here*==
I'm not here to comment on the article itself, but rather on its presentation. There are numerous glaring spelling errors in the text, which make the article look more amateurish than controversial. If it's gonna be locked for the time being, could someone with admin powers step in and do a quick cleanup? I'll give you candy. --[[User:RicardoC|RicardoC]] 10:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

== Muse ==

Why was the info about Muse supporting Terrorstorm removed?

:Relevance would be my guess.--[[User:71.233.121.48|71.233.121.48]] 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

::It would be more relevant on the pages about [[Muse]] and [[Terrorstorm]], just not on Alex Jones' page. [[User:Coconuteire|Coconuteire]] 19:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== Gullible Simpletons ==

Alex's conspiracy followers are known as the Gullible Simpletons. Shouldn't this be in this article?—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:86.131.144.26|86.131.144.26]] ([[User talk:86.131.144.26|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/86.131.144.26|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.

:Our policy requires that I ask for a citation for that. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] [[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]] 02:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose "Gullible Simpletons" actually believe that the
"[[Northwoods Document]]" was declassified to destabilise 'merica;
I further suppose that the survivers of the [[USS Liberty]] in 1967 actually think that the Israeli's accidently attacked with unmarked jets and torpedo boats while jamming 'merican frequencies and LBJ called back the planes TWICE because it was good fer 'merica.
Then thair is the "[[Lavon Affair]]", Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonken,
the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Georgia guidestones, Texas Monthy Magazine's BumSteer award to the FBI for creating a creaton clan group to blow up a refinery ( as thay was invested in gasoline futures?) but the baffons couldnt set off the bomb the agents built for them; and about 20 other factual events that I lernt 'bout from listening to right wing gun nut whako antigovernment shortwave radio that wernt taught in skool nor the lamestream media that is taught in jernalizm skool to write to a jethro (clampit ) 6th grade level.

I "listen" to( but am not a "follower" of) Jones on many occassions and his preacher rants and suppositions about the "globalist plans" are not that entertaining to me. THE interviews and information research points are what I have always found to be the crown jewels of 'niche' radio on WWCR WWRB and the likes of [[Chuck Harder]] and his "For the People" organisation that was destroyed by the IRS perhaps due to "Pat Chote's" run with Ross Perot as VP. Many conspiracy's aren't simple premis but are SUPPORTED BY MUCH RESEARCH AND TRIPS TO THE LAW LIBRARY AND RARE BOOK STORES ET CETERA AD NAUSIUM.

Just because you are constantly under pavlovian conditioning and
social engineering to dumb you down it is no excuse for this level of selective ignorance and bigotry and predjudice without exaustive research slapping the label and derogatory use of "conspiracy theorist" Posted by annon fed up with the real simpletons thotcriminal...—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:209.209.140.21|209.209.140.21]] ([[User talk:209.209.140.21|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/209.209.140.21|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.

HA HA HA. Thank you, annonymous coward...
I listen to Alex Jones. I acknowledge that, at times, he enlightens us to things we otherwise may never have known. However, I also note that he tends to get overzealous and way too emotional. I do not "follow" anyone, let alone someone like that. It's a fact that the first time I, and many others I'm sure, learned about Operation Northwoods, it was from a "conspiracy theorist" like Alex Jones, or from Jones himself. I personally didn't learn of it until I saw Loose Change, their first edition. And they would fall into that same category, I believe.

Your "suggestion" was nothing more than ''argumentum ad hominem''. And not very well done, either.
--[[User:Ιουστινιανός|Ιουστινιανός]] 08:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

==Consolidate articles on movies into this article==

It seems to me that sections of the now-deleted articles on the Jones' movies need to be readded to this page, to establish his notability. I would say no more than two or three paragraphs per movie, to summarize Jones's key theses. [[User:Calwatch|Calwatch]] 04:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of his "movies" are chopped and pasted home movies with continuity problems and really nice intros followed by a introduction rant that is usually too long. I have just about all of them up to the martial law including the "emergency" releases. His Blairwitch style on Bohemian Grove was above average. But his 'movies' as movies go, are not that critially aclaimed from a production value or videography perspective. If you want to establish notability the videos arent the direction to go. Anyone doing research on Jones will find the videos easy enough. I have researched most of the videos subjects claims and find they are verifiable and worthy of further study and wariness. Wikipedia is culturally biased as a web community against reform efforts of folks like jones and there are plenty of troll like editors to censor your best efforts to NPOV and source your postings. They selectively enforce the "rules" from my experience. Efforts for most are best spent elsewhere at somepoint you have to conclude. Waste all the time you want.

== Criticism ==

Newcomer here...so don't bite. This article has no opposing view points or criticisms of Alex Jones. This is the first I've read of him but I doubt that a controversial figure such as this is without criticism.

: We need to put together a consensus of the kind of criticisms he is subject to. The problem is, we can't seem to arrive at one, and a lot of the harsher criticisms leveled at Jones come from sources who are 'crazier' than he is often accused of being. I will say that the most significant criticisms of Jones that seem to emerge repeatedly are that:
:a) He takes some of his information from dubious sources [publications and websites on the fringe right and fringe left, as well as books written from a conspiratorial perspective similar to his own on subjects that lack a great deal of mainstream/reliable scholarship].
:b) When the facts he cites are solid, the conclusions he draws do not necessarily follow from those facts.
: Jones seems to have critics and enemies on all corners of the spectrum. In the 2 months or so that I've been following and reading about him, I've seen him referred to as a 'conspiracy nut', 'government disinfo agent', 'anti-semite', 'crypto-zionist', 'hatemonger', 'pacifist', 'gullible idiot', 'clever snake oil salesman', 'left wing lunatic', 'right wing lunatic', 'friend of David Icke', 'critic of David Icke', 'Bullhorning jackass' and 'Rush Limbaugh wannabe'... So yah, he must be doing something right. --[[baltech22]] 18:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::hahahaha, thanks for this compilation of "criticisms"! Very amusing (as well as tragic, ofcourse)  [[User:Xiutwel|Xiutwel]] [[User_talk:Xiutwel|(talk)]] 18:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Regarding some of his criticism from people considered 'crazier' than him, I have found a website called I am the witness[http://www.iamthewitness.com/Alex-Jones-summary.html] featuring a page talking about Alex Jones spreading disinformation about the 'real' perpetrators of 9/11, Zionists(this according to them). Antisemitism is a phrase thrown around by all kinds of people to discredit this or that, to muddy up a conversation about someone or their ideas. It doesn't debunk anything. Stranger still, this website says he's protecting the 'real' puppet masters. Does anyone have any input on the subjects the link raises? I might be interested to call Alex (whom I support and enjoy listening to) and see what he says in defense of himself to these claims.--[[User:Shink X|Shink X]] 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Disregard. At least Alex Jones has documents and sources to back his claims.--[[User:Shink X|Shink X]] 22:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Um.. You have to be kidding right? --[[User:117.102.157.128|117.102.157.128]] 07:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I just added a "Criticism" section, and somebody deleted it before I could even finish editing the section. This kind of Censorship is ridiculous, and against the spirit of Wikipedia. It's pretty rich to think that Alex Jones "fans" decry censorship in all its forms, except when it applies to Jones. He is an interesting and charismatic figure, but a wiki on him imho is incomplete without some of the fairly prominent criticism of him that exists in the public domain. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|117.102.157.38}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|117.102.157.38}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|117.102.157.38}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|07:43, August 24, 2007 (UTC)}}} 

This just happened again. I included a criticism section, and referenced a specific radio interview between Alex Jones and one of his detractors. --[[User:117.102.159.179|117.102.159.179]] 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well unfortunately most of the people who refuse to have a criticism section have more prominence in Wikipedia so literally have all the power in the world to do what they want by their divine authority. The fact is though, it is extremely hard to find criticism on Alex Jones simply because most prominent media sources and people simply don't pay attention to him. He has temper tantrums on his radio stations and frequently scares his listeners by going on a tangent against the people that "repress" him. (i don't think he has been kidnapped and thrown into a river yet) - [[User:IamMcLovin|IamMcLovin]] 09:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not right. In anticipation that somebody might attempt to censor the criticism section I added, I actually referred to an interview that Alex Jones himself actually conducted. Alex Jones' followers seem to go on and on about mainstream media censorship, yet when you post a -slightly- negative comment on one of their forums, rather than engage in intelligent conversation they jump on you and accuse you of working for "The NWO" or the government. I've watched the PrisonPlanet website move from Haloscan forums (where generally everyone can participate) to a private forum, where you basically get banned the second you post a remotely contrary point of view. Jones' shitstirring started out as something that could have potentially been a source of good, but he's been co-opted by those two British nutbags who have soured the "movement" and mobilised it into an intolerant, unquestioning mob. Alex Jones' followers frequently use the words "Sheeple", apparently without even a tiny bit of irony. Sheeple indeed. Let the record show, I posted a "Criticism" section, in which was (briefly) described an encounter between Alex Jones and David De Mayer Rothschild, wherein Rothschild criticised Jones for being selective in his use of facts, poorly sourced, and giving people a "false sense of hope" over global warming and climate change. Given that Rothschild is a fairly prominent public figure (I don't care if he's a lizard or a monster, I could care less about the man, but there is this thing called BALANCE), I don't quite see how his PUBLIC criticism of Jones on his own radio station is not worthy of inclusion in an article about Alex Jones. --[[User:117.102.158.179|117.102.158.179]] 10:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

: I listened to that show. On it Mr. Rothschild (wrongly) claimed that Jupiter was closer to the sun than the earth is in order to discount the fact that "global warming" is happening on Jupiter. Were you going to include the fact that David Rothschild apparently doesn't know elementary school science facts in his "criticism" about Jones on global warming? Just because Rothschild is a "prominent public figure" doesn't mean that what he says has any validity to it. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

:: So let me get this right, Alex Jones, who routinely dismisses the vast majority of scientific consensus on Global Warming and focuses on fringe science espoused by non-peer reviewed sources, often connected to big oil and big energy, is exempt from criticism from someone who appears to represent that consensus? Just because Rothschild is a "Prominent Public Figure" has nothing to do with it. The fact is that he is a Prominent public figure, criticising Jones on his own radio show. Are you suggesting Jones' own radio show not be considered a reliable source? In that case I uphold your argument. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/202.124.84.168|202.124.84.168]] ([[User talk:202.124.84.168|talk]]) 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 

==Notability==
'''Proposal''' 
Some articles on productions by Jones have been deleted in September 2006. Perhaps these could be included sort of as an appendix in this article? This could perhaps satisfy the "unnotability"-camp, by not having too many articles about a single "Idiot", while at the same time providing the info for those who need it.  [[User:Xiutwel|Xiutwel]] [[User_talk:Xiutwel|(talk)]] 18:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
:We already list his videos. What were you thinking of adding? [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] [[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]] 18:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
::The entire deleted articles [[TerrorStorm]] and [[9-11: The Road to Tyranny]] (don't know whether more Alex Jones related articles were deleted).  [[User:Xiutwel|Xiutwel]] [[User_talk:Xiutwel|(talk)]] 19:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed this. It seems very odd, given TerrorStorm's success and high visibility on Google. It occurs to me that whoever pulled the articles is, ironically, helping lend credence to the belief of Alex Jones and his adherents that he is being conspired against. --- [[Buddy-Rey]]

Somebody put those back in. This whole article is rediculous. Looks like it was just meant to make this guy look bad. I just saw "Terrorstorm", and although this guy sadly goes over the top a few times, it was teeming with very interesting information, which seems accurate. This article does nothing to clarify matters though. I was looking for real info, and this article is pretty much a disgrace. I think there should be a tag about the neutrality of this article being disputed on this page. [[User:84.210.30.185|84.210.30.185]] 02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Which "SEEMS" accurate? Are you serious? How exactly is "interesting information" that "seems" accurate deemed "factual"? This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:123.200.152.182|123.200.152.182]] ([[User talk:123.200.152.182|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/123.200.152.182|contribs]]) 15:25, August 10, 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})
==Xenophobia==
I would like to encourage editors to address Alex Jones' disturbing xenophobia if they have sources available. There were a couple of articles I came across sometime ago that did analyse xenophobic and potentially racist comments made by Jones, but I have to sort through my bookmarks to find them again. I'll do my best. [[User:VivaRiva|VivaRiva]] 02:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
: I predict that these will all be with regard to Latin American illegal aliens...--[[User:Baltech22|Baltech22]] 01:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
::Why do you say that? [[User:VivaRiva|VivaRiva]] 21:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
::: I'll hold off explaining until you make your case.--[[User:Baltech22|Baltech22]] 23:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Viva, if you provide the citations, and the sources are reliable (i.e. mainstream media), I will work the material into the article. [[User:Morton devonshire|Morton devonshire]] 00:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
::Hi, Morton. I've been kind of busy lately but hopefully soon I'll have enough time to spare to find the articles in question. [[User:VivaRiva|VivaRiva]] 06:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

: Surprise, Surprise.
:Don't be too hasty about this. Context is extremely important when you're talking about labeling someone with a potentially pejorative tag. Talking negatively about someone and referring to him as a 'dual citizen' in the context of questioning his allegiances to the United States is different from simply stating that someone being a dual citizen is empirically negative.--[[User:Baltech22|Baltech22]] 00:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

::Unfortunately you are incorrect. Jones has constantly referred to Arnold and other naturalized citizens as "foreigners." He intentionally misquotes U.S. law - instead of accurately saying that the law prevents "foreign-born" citizens from becoming President, he simply lumps all naturalized citizens with "foreigners" which obviously refers to non-citizens (and non-residents) and on top of that, refers to them as "foreign usurpers." That is really pathetic and it's a flagrantly cheap shot, to attack someone, a citizen of the United States of America, because they weren't born here. Simply put, he is a classic xenophobe. I'd like to know if he also considers "hyphenated" Americans (Italian-American, Polish-American, etc.) as "foreigners" and potential "foreign usurpers." [[User:VivaRiva|VivaRiva]] 06:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Whoa, whoa, hold up there. Jones' whole agenda is in resisting the creation of a one-world government, and part and parcel with that is the resistance against the United States losing its sovereignty and voiding its constitution (i.e. as part of a Pan-American Union that's in the works). The law against foreign-born individuals becoming President is on the books specifically to prevent foreign agents from compromising U.S. sovereignty.
:::And furthermore, the term 'foreigner' might be semi-colloquial [or at least, not P.C.], but it's not intrinsically pejorative, I suggest you check out [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foreigner]] before suggesting someone is xenophobic simply for using the term.
:::I should mention that I, myself, am a naturalized citizen and don't find the word at all offensive. --[[User:Baltech22|Baltech22]] 13:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I do not find Alex Jones to be racist. You speak about his apparent xenophobia as if it is a bad thing. It is perfectly natural for one to be protective of one's culture, identity and nation and to resist all attempts to usurp them by outsiders. His concern with Arnold Schwarzenegger's attempt to become US president is, in my opinion, entirely justified. If I were, heaven forbid, to move to the US and become a naturalised citizen, I would not find the term "foreigner" offensive whatsoever, because that's EXACTLY WHAT I AM TO THE AMERICANS AND VICE-VERSA! [[User:Coconuteire|Coconuteire]] 19:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Coconuteire, for not bowing to the parroted rhetoric of the PC zealots. Took the words right out of my mouth.
--[[User:Ιουστινιανός|Ιουστινιανός]] 08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

: Alex Jones is not racist. Anyone who listens to his show will tell you as much. Why would he speak out about tuskegee or myrid other topics if he was racist?? - [[User:SeriousCat|SeriousCat]] 10:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

: He is not racist but dislikes illegal immigrants. Enough "talk" more action! Someone source a Alex Jones immigration quote. [[User:Chendy|Chendy]] 03:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and neither do I. Neither do a large portion of Americans. They're here illegally making demands. Not a good way to endear yourself to the host population. Anyway, his anti-illegal immigration activism is directly connected to his opposition of the government or "New World Order", if you will. --[[User:Ιουστινιανός|Ιουστινιανός]] 08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Coconuteire - how is somebody who is a US citizen, regardless of their ethnicity, a "foreigner"? If you were an American citizen, and someone called you a "Foreigner" because your grandmother was German, would you not be offended? While it's obvious that Jones' anti-Mexican sentiment has its roots in (perceived) geopolitical threats, he rarely masks his fear of Latinos and foreign "takeovers" very well, I don't think it would be inaccurate to describe him as xenophobic, going by the dictionary definition of the term.

== "One World Order" ==

I believe this to be a mistake. I checked the cited source and at no point does he refer to a "One World Order". I suggest someone changes it back to "New World Order". [[User:80.171.52.53|80.171.52.53]] 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

== YouTube links ==
[[Image:Information_icon.svg|left|30px]] This article is one of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=%2A.youtube.com&limit=500&offset=10000 thousands] on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the [[WP:EL|External links]] policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. '''99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a [[WP:V|source]]'''. 2. '''[[WP:C#Linking_to_copyrighted_works|We must not link to material that violates someones copyright]]'''. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] ([[User_talk:J.smith|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|c]]) 07:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Alex Jones said he put his videos on video.google.com himself to allow people to watch it. He even for noncomercial (educational) reasons encourages people to share the movies. Even if he does not, section 107 of copyright act should allow this. Its not violation of his copyright. (anon user)

:Alex Jones' policy is that anyone can freely redistribute his videos as long as they are redistributed unedited and in their entirety. [[User:Coconuteire|Coconuteire]] 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

::I can confirm this, Alex Jones has said as much on his show numerous times. - [[User:SeriousCat|SeriousCat]] 10:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Still doesn't change the first point that youtube shouldn't be linked. It might seem like a good idea to some but in my opinion linking to youtube is about as useful as citing wikipedia in a wikipedia article. [[User:Dividebyzero|Dividebyzero]]

:"Still doesn't change the first point that youtube shouldn't be linked."... There is nothing that says youtube (now also google video) should not be linked. It should not be used as a source, and Must Not violate copyright. As far as I know there is no policy against linking to an outside video released by the person or company in question, or else we would have to remove every link on movie pages that go to official trailers.. From [[WP:EL|External links]] "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright." "Due care" is not a black list. Alex's company, AEJ Productions, has released 7 feature length films and several smaller pieces through google video for world wide distribution. Linking them isn't saying his views are correct or wrong (God knows he's out there quite a bit), simply saying that "This is where these exist at." -[[User:Electrostatic1|Electrostatic1]] 12:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

== German-Jewish-American deletion ==

I deleted the part where it claims that Alex Jones is of German-Jewish descent since he is not. He describes himself as a Christian and has never mentioned his descent.
:Just to comment, one can be of German-Jewish descent and still be a Christian (conversion, took faith of one parent, etc). While any claim must be cited, there is no inherent contradiction that makes this ''prima facie'' false. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|ZimZalaBim]] ([[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]]) 21:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jews are a distinct ethnic group, or race, according to some. Regardless of whether or not you believe that...he's never said such a thing. Again...we need a source. Sources are your friends. If I ever see that up on this page without a source, I'm going to edit the Magic Johnson article to say he was a Scotsman. A Scotsman...or a Martian. And it would make just as much sense because I wouldn't have a damn thing to back that up with either.--[[User:Ιουστινιανός|Ιουστινιανός]] 08:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have heard his wife is Jewish. What makes you think he can't be Jewish himself? He can still be a Christian, and Have Jewish blood! [[User:I'mDown|Manic Hispanic]] 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Alex claims an Anglo descent, which makes sense since his surname is Jones, common in the British Isles. [[User:Trooper96|Trooper96]] 21:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

== "Investigative Journalist" tag should be removed. ==

I do not think he should be tagged as an investigative journalist. As someone who used to read and watch his stuff (I know better now), I have to say I have never come across any material of his that could be considered investigative journalism. Has he uncovered anything? Has he reported things that have gone unreported (and I mean ''anywhere'', including some dude posting rants on the internet)? Has he ever broken any stories? If not, he is not an investigative journalist. Oh, and, no I am not a shill for the Bush administration. So, don't even go there. I'm a left-wing commie. I just don't like right-wingers on power trips ranting on the radio.[[User:Rlh 1984|Rlh 1984]] 01:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:Mate, I'm a far lefty and I still consider AJ to count as an investigative journalist even though I haven't listened to him in a long time and probably won't again. IJs travel a lot, conduct interviews, break stories, expose crimes and attempt to put pieces of the puzzle together. Alex Jones does all of these things. [[User:Coconuteire|Coconuteire]] 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I have moved away from the way that Alex Jones communicates his opinions and information, I would still disagree with you and say simply that a few of the things Alex has independently researched and looked into and reported were recognized as something he essentially "broke", according to lots of folks in the "alternative media". I'll leave it to others to list some specific examples, but to be honest, I disagree with your premise that someone needs to have their own "I'm the only one who discovered this" credit to deserve the I.J. label :)

The lead para states that he "questions the standard accounts of the September 11th terrorist attacks" and reading further on, it emerges that he promotes the notion that the US government was knowingly involved in this and other atrocities. That makes him a conspiracy theorist. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] 00:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

*Labelling anyone a "[[conspiracy theorist]]" is not very helpful, since some conspiracies actually exist, and others do not exist but are mere products of imagination. I believe wikipedia would be wise not to issue this label (also: [[WP:OR]]).
:It is my honest opinion that Jones' work involves research and investigation in a manner very similar to that of a journalist. If his conclusions would be wrong, that would not alter that fact, therefore I think this label ''investigative journalist'' is helpful to the reader.  [[User:Xiutwel|Xiutwel]] [[User_talk:Xiutwel|(talk)]] 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

::He's a conspiracy theorist. If and when it is widely accepted that the US Government conspired in the S11 attacks, then maybe we can remove the "theorist" label. Until then, it's a good description. As for original research, just google "Alex Jones" and "conspiracy theorist" and you'll find any number of sources. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Something should not be referred to as a theory simply because it has minority support. The official 9/11 story is a conspiracy theory. Please do not subjectively use the term to refer to critics of governments while supporting equally dubious claims by the same governments. [[User:Coconuteire|Coconuteire]] 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Using your logic, nothing should be labeled conspiracy theory and that is just absurd. Perhaps we shouldn't label evolution as "theory" because other, mainly religious, theories have a minority support. Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorists, plain and simple. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/65.67.115.80|65.67.115.80]] ([[User talk:65.67.115.80|talk]]) 04:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

:Video of the Creamation Of Care, and numerous other stories don't count? What about when he was live outside the Bilderburg group meetings? Or the evidence of the use of thermite to demolish the twin towers? I could go on forever... - [[User:SeriousCat|SeriousCat]] 10:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

*Remember, the question is of calling him an "investigative journalist," not of calling him a conspiracy theorist. That being said: in reference to Xiutwel's comment, I believe it not helpful to label people conspiracy theorists '''simply because the phrase carries inherent, negative connotations toward that person's credibility--''' and doesn't Wikipedia strive to avoid just such bias in the content?
Anyway, as far as the label "IJ" is concerned, I'd say that just one fulfillment of the evidences given by Coconuteire would be enough to qualify many a ''less controversial'' IJ as such, so how, then, can we deprive the journalist in question of this same description, if we are being neutral?
--Jacob Kline, [[User:Funkitronian|Funkitronian]] 08:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no way AJ can be labelled a "journalist" of any kind, as he editorialises on -everything-. The guy who said he should still be labelled a journalist even if his conclusions are wrong has eloquently proved this point - journalists do not reach 'conclusions' - they simply document the evidence and let the readers decide where it points.

Lets go through Wikipedia and remove labels like dictator, traitor, spy, thief, robber, murderer, rapist, etc. When Alex Jones shows concrete evidence then he can lose the Conspiracy Theorist tag. I wrote to him regarding my theory around the negroes actually planning their own kidnapping and enslavery in America so that one day they could control the country. He did not reply. How rude.

==Move this page to [[Alex Jones]]?==
It seems as if the other two Alex Joneses have less than 10 other articles that link to them and this accounting for 90% of all linked pages that has to do with an Alex Jones. I think that there shouldn't be the need for the '''(radio)''' disambiguation at all. --[[User:Zimbabweed|Zimbabweed]] 11:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree [[User:Chendy|Chendy]] 11:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

'''Agreed. I change it so that "alex jones" now redirects to this page instead of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_%28radio%29 disambiguation page].''' --[[User:Timberlax|Timberlax]] 10:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

==To my knowledge, Alex Jones did not retract his own prediction of more terror attacks before the end of 2006 ==
"However, it should be noted that Alex Jones later retracted those same statements on his radio show, claiming increased public awareness." There is no reference to this sentence. To my knowledge, Mr. Jones, still believes it is possible, that from his work and that of others in the 9/11 truth community, more government-sponsored terror attacks were called off or at least postponed.
[[User:Lakeshorebaby|Lakeshorebaby]] 20:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 3:30 PM Feb 10, 2007

I find it very interesting that he seems to have predicted the first 911 and even knew who was going to be blamed for it ( Osama ). This clarvoiyance seems to be unreported - maybe the government assumes he was just lucky or a great analyst. [[User:159.105.80.141|159.105.80.141]] 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How was a vague, rambling 'prediction' that was being made in intelligent mainstream press sources as early as 1997 "clairvoyance". I've seen the clip in question, and while it was indeed prescient, I think Alex Jones using it as some kind of badge of honour with regards to his prescience is really quite detrimental to his credibility.
—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:123.200.152.182|123.200.152.182]] ([[User talk:123.200.152.182|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/123.200.152.182|contribs]]) 15:30, August 10, 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})

== Regarding Alex Jones ethnicity and his wife. ==

I have heard he is German-Jewish. I have also heard his wife is Jewish. This would make for an interesting twist and as he does bash Israel alot on his radio show. Any information one way or the other? [[User:I'mDown|Manic Hispanic]] 00:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean Israel as a political system, not a group of people. In that sense, why would it matter if his wife is Jewish? ([[User:Pwnage8|Pwnage8]] 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

There are actually a number of Jews that love their religion and people but wish the nation of Isreal would not do the things they do. There are some that outright hate the nation. Being Isreali is not the same as being Jewish and vise versa. Hell there are a growing number of Isrealis that don't support the Isreali government. Governments, nations, ethnicities and religions are all seperate entities and should always be viewed as such. [[User:Dividebyzero|Dividebyzero]]

== Changed Conspiracy Theorist to Realist ==

It's not a theory if you have evidence. Alex Jones only makes allegations when he has evidence. He has always cited his sources which are always credible. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.

You're joking, right? —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:70.113.37.140|70.113.37.140]] ([[User talk:70.113.37.140|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/70.113.37.140|contribs]]) 03:40, May 2, 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})

In my experience, it's extremely rare that Jones has "hard" evidence. Usually it consists of a vastly unrelated piece of information used to justify the point of view that he is trying to espouse. For example, the constant use of "Operation Northwoods" as evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. I am an 9/11 Truther, but I see no reason why the Northwoods document can in any way be meaningfully connected to an event that happened some forty years later. If he had uncovered a memo such as the one where Bush and Blair discussed using a Spy plane painted in UN colours flown over Iraq to be shot down to justify war - that would be a different story. Simply put, if somebody can point to a single piece of HARD documentary evidence on a single one of Jones' claims, I will eat my hat, but until then it appears to me that most of his evidence is (while often disturbing) only indicative of patterns, rather than damning, "smoking gun" type information.

== Since when did Raw Story become the authority on who is a conspiracy theorist ==

How dare you use that article to label Alex Jones an conspiracy theorist.

I will continue to remove this article so you might as well give up. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Webucation|Webucation]] ([[User talk:Webucation|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Webucation|contribs]]) 02:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
:Oh, "Raw Story" is what you meant on my talk page? I didn't know what you were talking about when you typed "Roaw Story." I'm not concerned with that, I'm concerned with your insistence on changing "theorist" to "realist" and moving this article into a non-existant category as a result. If you do "continue to remove this article" then you will be violating [[WP:3RR]] (as I've already noted on your talk page), and you could be blocked as a result. Please keep this in mind. [[User:Janejellyroll|janejellyroll]] 02:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:::May a neutral observer point out that it is not worth fighting about words. It is better to have the article just explain his theories, and the readers will be able to decide which of the two categories he belongs in. WP does not make judgements of which ones are likely or not. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 23:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I agree with you in principle that it is not worth fighting about words. However the (now-deleted) "conspiracy realist" article and category was an attempt by this editor to create a POV fork and group together those who s/he felt based their ideas on "facts," not "baseless theories." It was a violation of [[WP:NPOV]]. I would have no problem with the words "conspiracy theorist" being removed from the article altogether, I just opposed replacing it with "conspiracy realist." [[User:Janejellyroll|janejellyroll]] 00:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

==COI==
Its time the obvious POV of the article and COI got fixed. I have no particular interest in the subject of the article , but I do have an interest about maintaining & increasing the quality of WP articles. A proportionate article is the basis concept of NPOV. The first step will be to remove the video covers, which is straight out advertising. The second will be to get some third party comments in, including critical ones. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 06:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:If you remove his films, then all disocgraphies should be taken down from music pages. This article is being treated unfairly. - [[User:SeriousCat|SeriousCat]] 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

==POV==
People have been removing the word "documentary" from the intro. I placed it there for clarity, and I believe removing it effectvely "pushes" an Anti-Jones point of view. This page is '''being treated unfairly''' and it needs to stop. - [[User:SeriousCat|SeriousCat]] 23:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:Under the circumstances, we need a [[WP:RS]] calling them "documentary"(ies). If you can do that, I'll defend the inclusion of the term. (Also under the circumstances, may I suggest that you place the source ''here'' on the talk page, so that I can re-insert "documentary", rather than your risking [[WP:3RR]].) — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
::Well now, we wouldn't want things to get too heated up -- they might go "Nuclear". [[User:Morton_devonshire|'''  MortonDevonshire ''']][[User talk:Morton_devonshire| Yo ]] · 23:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
::I'm not going to make more than three reverts. - [[User:SeriousCat|SeriousCat]] 00:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
::Furthermore, are other documentary filmakers requaired have mainstream scources calling them "documentary"(ies) in order to have the term included in the articles about them? I may be new here, but this seems highly irregular. - [[User:SeriousCat|SeriousCat]] 01:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
:::When a person says he gets his information by reading the secret web sites of the immortal Moloch-worshipping Illuminati, then it would be advisable to get pretty solid external verification that he is indeed attempting to document reality. As opposed to, say, making up stories for a quick buck. [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22alex+jones%22+%22vicente+fox%22+%22green+devil%22 Google] for some more of the things Mr. Jones has "documented" for our education. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 12:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

:::: Perry Logan isn't a great source hes been know to take things way out of context. anonymous —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/24.176.25.1|24.176.25.1]] ([[User talk:24.176.25.1|talk]]) 06:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
:::::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elAPUwFssiA Hear and see Alex Jones] himself describe the secret policy documents of the immortal UN globalist Illuminati, detailing the currently ongoing program to exterminate 80% of world population. "Documentary?" Please... [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 09:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::So I guess you think there isn't flouride in the water either? I give up. Jones isn't going to get a fair article. - [[User:SeriousCat|SeriousCat]] 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Of course there's flouride in the water. The fact that it might somehow be used for mind control, or whatever it is Jones-ites believe is more or less irrelevant. Nobody can get a "fair" article if you're being 100% accurate. Are you suggesting the article should be completely positive, rather than truthful? Jones always goes on about the truth.. my my...

== Requested move ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the {{{type|proposal}}}. '''Please do not modify it.''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

{{{result|The result of the proposal was}}} '''NO CONSENSUS''' to move page, per discussion below. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
<hr/>
[[Alex Jones (radio)]] → [[Alex Jones]] — The radio host and conspiracy theorist [[Alex Jones (radio)]] is clearly the most recognizable Alex Jones on Wikipedia. The other two Alex Joneses have a total of '''TWO''' articles that link to them. The Alex Jones article in question has a significant larger amount of articles that link to it. [[Alex Jones]] should then be moved to [[Alex Jones (disambiguation)]] to be used as a disambiguation page. [[User:Zimbabweed|Zimbabweed]] 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

===Survey===
:''Add  <tt><big><nowiki># '''Support'''</nowiki></big></tt>  or  <tt><big><nowiki># '''Oppose'''</nowiki></big></tt>  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Please remember that this survey is [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|not a vote]], and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.''

====Survey - in support of the move====
#'''Support'''. No question, today more people are interested in this Alex Jones than the others. I find the suggestion that he's "non notable" to be off the wall- if he's not an example of a notable conspiracy theorist, who is? I can sympathize with those who take umbrage that he could overshadow a Pulitzer winner; for instance, I find it maddening that at [[Talk:Paul O'Neill]] they could decide that someone who swatted balls was equal to a cabinet secretary. But though one might wish that the general public was more familiar with Pulitzer winners, at this point he is a Trivial Pursuit question. Still, in fifty or a hundred years, this Jones might be as obscure as the others, so I'm not going to sweat it. --[[User:WacoKid|WacoKid]] 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

====Survey - in opposition to the move====
#'''Oppose''' Not notable, largely unsourced conspiracy theorist. I presume the paragraphs about bodily functions are vandalism. Whether this article should be kept is open to question; but its subject is not any more notable than a Pulitser prize-winner, much less overwhelmingly more notable. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] [[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]] 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', per Septentrionalis. - [[User:Cyrus XIII|Cyrus XIII]] 18:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

===Discussion===
:''Add any additional comments:''
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. '''Please do not modify it.''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>

== Daily Vandalism ==

This article needs protection. I am concerned as much of the vandalism seems to go unattended. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/66.69.23.174|66.69.23.174]] ([[User talk:66.69.23.174|talk]]) 07:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
:You should have reverted, rather than trying to undo each individual vandalism edit. It was difficult to determine whether you had realy been reverting vandalism or adding new vandalism while reverting some of the other vandalism. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

== "Conspiracy Theorist"? ==

Why "Conspiracy Theorist"? Is George w. Bush called a "Conspiracy Theorist" because of his absolutely unproven, undocumented and unrealistic 9/11 conspiracy theory? No. Is the Northwoods Document "conspiracy Theory"? No, it is proven Conspiracy Fact.

BJ —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Bjornyvan|Bjornyvan]] ([[User talk:Bjornyvan|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bjornyvan|contribs]]) 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Why "Conspiracy Theorist"? I agree. this should be changed to "political theorist" or similar. [[User:Chendy|Chendy]] 11:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jones's theory is that 9/11 is a huge conspiracy. Therefore, he is a Conspiracy Theorist. [[User:Robbh66|Robbh66]] 18:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all as I understand it that is just one of his theories and he's entitled to present his research on the subject. As wacky as you may think he is, he's not the only person making this claim. Right or wrong it's not a de facto nut job rant. I know that *technically* conspiracy theorist is a legitimate term but in common usage (and a large amount of it's usage in this discussion from what I can tell) is equivilant to calling someone crazy. Conspiracy realist is just as bad because as good willed as it is, it's just an attempt to counter the folks that are calling your man a nut. Personally I do not support the use of either term either here or any where else for that matter. I know everyone has an opinion on the subject but this is supposed to be a collection of facts as they can best be laid out. I feel it is in the best interest of all parties that this and every other contraversial article to remain neutral. No one is going to be persuaded by childish banter in a free encyclopedia plus it just lowers the reputation of the project and those involved in it. Go complain and argue on blogs because that's what they are for. Here we make reference articles and last time I checked reference still had some integrity. [[User:Dividebyzero|Dividebyzero]]

:Is there any reference, other than by other conspiracy theorists, which does ''not'' call him a conspiracy theorist? I agree we need references, but deletion is more appropriate than removing all information which you do not like. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theorist" is a POV label, and while it may be used to describe him if properly sourced I strongly disagree with it being listed as one of his official "occupations" in his biography box. Is "Right Wing Luny" one of Rush Limbaugh's listed occupations? Is "Left Wing Nutcase" one of Michael Moore's listed occupations? I mean please, I realize this guy's a bit out there, but to have that in his occupation line and not "Author" or "Web Publisher" is a bit off. [[User:Electrostatic1|Electrostatic1]] 13:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:You know, I think that by truly technical definition of the term he is a consipiracy theorist, but as that term carries weight implying that his theories are inherently wrong/loony it should not be used. It kind of sucks when the english language gets implied connotations so heavily tacked onto them that it loses its technical meaning. -Hellkyte

::He's a [[conspiracy theorist]] because he's ''known'' for supporting [[conspiracy theories]]. The validity of the theories is irrelevant. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 17:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A better term would be 'Nutburger' -- how 'bout we use that? [[User:Morton_devonshire|'''  MortonDevonshire ''']][[User talk:Morton_devonshire| Yo ]] · 19:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there such a term as an aritmetic conspiracy theorist - whether arithmetic is valid or not seems to be irrelevant. If you can add "conspiacy" to a word how far along are you in "winning" your argument. It seems to be able to reduce the effort needed by quite a lot. Being able to tack it on means we can source it and reduce any discussion even more - neat trick. Sort of like using a proof you don't understand to prove something new ( just hope the previous guy knew his stuff).[[User:159.105.80.141|159.105.80.141]] 11:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia not like Alex Jones? Every time his name comes up in relation to New world order,911,Oklahoma city bomb,ect ect His reasearch is shown all the respect of a compleat Looney Tunes nut case....

:: For many of us, his research seems slightly less reliable than a Looney Toons show. That said, I'm not sure wikipedia doesn't like him - and, more important, his article seems fair (generous, I'd say), listing a whole range of the guy's 'achievements'. [[User:Jon m|Jon m]] 12:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

== Quotes section needs work. ==

Needs citations. Or better yet, outright deletion. [[User:I'mDown|Manic Hispanic]] 03:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

== Trivia????? ==

I heard on his show a few weeks ago that He almost lost his index finger. He almost cut all the way off. I cant recall though if it was the left or right although I think it was the right. So anyway Im thinking maybe we could put that in the article as trivia or as a fact.[[User:216.211.51.150|216.211.51.150]] 11:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:How Unbelievably irrelevant. Lets also list his favorite color and belt-shirt combo while we're at it. [[User:Robbh66|Robbh66]] 04:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I'm dying to find out his color and belt/shirt preferences. [[User:The Slowphase|The Slowphase]] 19:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

== Views ==

Is this really a good introduction for a biography?
I think there should be something about what his recent activities are, his claims to fame, what he is praised for and what he is shunned for etc..
At present, this article presents some of his seemingly most extreme theories (if they are actually his theories, I don't know) as a guide to the man, which is very misleading if you are trying to find out what people in most cases mean when referring to him.
The section on his views should mention his emphasis on examples of historic falsifications of data, which are not controversial anymore (eg. the pretext for the Vietnam War), and his scepticism towards the nature of present day administrated mass media.
Although I agree that some mention should also be made about his more "far out" claims, the specific examples given are not very informative.
[[User:84.210.30.185|84.210.30.185]] 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements further down the page (in the comments about his movies) says that he believes "that all major 20th and 21st century terrorist attacks were orchestrated by governments". That sounds pretty far out, is that accurate? It sounds very strange to me that he would dismiss the IRA, ETA, Hezbollah and so on like that, even if he doesn't attribute all, or even most, terrorist attacks to such organisations.
In any case, this should be moved to the "Views" section, or rewritten, as it is a poor movie description.
[[User:84.210.30.185|84.210.30.185]] 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me also urge you all to remember that this page will, conspiracy or not (I believe not), be targeted not only by people with mental problems and Bush haters or lovers, but also by professional PR companies, as this guy does attack political campaigns and big businesses.
PR companies are big business (I even have a friend that works for one), and to try and sway public opinion is what they do. Wikipedia is an obvious target for PR.
[[User:84.210.30.185|84.210.30.185]] 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How? I don't understand your point about PR. Wikipedia isn't a creditable source for most college classes so why would any professional organization even think of risking their creditability on this source. Love it or hate it but that's the way it is and it's mostly because of trolls and vandals. [[User:Dividebyzero|Dividebyzero]]

Likewise Alex Jones' Cult-like fans seem to be judiciously deleting information that might portray him in a negative light. Today I added to the "Views" Section the fact that Jones' websites regularly post articles championing would-be 2008 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul, which appears to have been undone. I also mentioned that Jones is Anti-Abortion (deleted), and mentioned a number of the advertisers that are using Jones' websites (deleted). Could somebody please explain to me how these things are not relevant to a section called "views" ? Is this just a personal PR page for Alex Jones? [[User:220.157.71.165|220.157.71.165]] 16:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:Your mentions weren't sourced. (Neither were the advertisers, but I believe they are sourcable from the websites themselves, so I restored anyway.) And anyone who thinks I'm a "Cult-like fan" hasn't been paying attention. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 18:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
::Fair call.. The advertisers were sourced from the websites themselves. The mention about abortion was from a statement he made condemning abortion on one of his radio shows. The one about Ron Paul? Have a look at this http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/ronpaul/index.htm The comments about cult-like fans was generalised, I wasn't necessarily directing it specifically at you. [[User:220.157.71.165|220.157.71.165]] 01:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

==rewrite, re-arranging and removals==
I re-arrange the article and removed a lot of redundant info. I removed the quotes section because none of it was sourced. If you can find sourced quotes, and you think it can add to the article, please add to appropriate places in the article.

As I was re-arranging, I had an edit-conflict with another editor, but it appears their fixes were minor. If not, please do not revert but instead add whatever material you were adding. [[User:El_hombre_de_haha|El hombre]] [[User_Talk:El_hombre_de_haha|de haha]] 18:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the bumper music info, as I don't think anyone will be coming to Wikipedia to read about Alex Jones' bumper music. Sort of trivial. [[User:El_hombre_de_haha|El hombre]] [[User_Talk:El_hombre_de_haha|de haha]] 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited one of the links, propganda matrix is not Alex Jones' site, it belongs to a writer on his staff, Paul Joseph Watson. Please whoever posts the links, do your homework. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:24.176.50.122|24.176.50.122]] ([[User talk:24.176.50.122|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/24.176.50.122|contribs]]) 16:26, April 28, 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})

== Virginia Tech Section ==

I am removing the section about the Virginia Tech Massacre because the article cited as a source was not written by Alex Jones. In addition, If seperate sub headings are given to his more outrageous views, and not to any of his more widely held views it is extremely POV. If you add a seperate subsection for one, you pretty much have to add one for all of his views. The article in question was written by Paul Joseph Watson, and is located here. [http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/190407mindcontrolled.htm] Attemping to directly credit him with every article on all of his websites would be like trying to directly credit the CEO of Viacom for every word in every one of their shows.

I would also suggest moving the part under the Communism sub section to his filmography where it belongs, as that paragraph is talking about a specific film and not his beliefs as a whole. (Unless you feel like listing ALL of his beliefs, which would take quite a while.) --[[User:Electrostatic1|Electrostatic1]] 13:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:You make a good point. However, Paul Joseph Watson seems to be a writer that reflects Jones' views. No one that reads Jones' website(s) is particularly concerned with what Paul Joseph Watson says, he simply reflects and (in some cases further researches) Alex's views. For instance, I don't think that Watson uses Jones' website(s) to push his own opinions or "go against" Jones' views. My analogy would be not taking a test written by a professor's aide because the professor didn't write it. Watson is simply an agent acting on behalf of Jones.

:I'll go along with your sentiment that separate subsections on his more extreme views is probably unnecessary. A counter argument would be his extreme views is what makes him interesting and "notable". I don't know if there is a queasy balance and if there is, it will be hard writing.

:While we're at it though, the information on his "9/11 prediction" is often removed. It is usually linked to the video of the broadcast when he made that statement.

#Is the addition of the 911 prediction considered a negative view or trying to push a particular POV?
#Is it not sourced well enough? I guess the link to the video where he made the prediction may be a primary source.

:I agree on moving the communism section to the more appropriate videos section. [[User:Daveh4h|daveh4h]] 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:: I mostly agree with what you are saying.

:# I would consider any video of him saying something as being a source that he believes it ''provided'' that as primary source it not may not be taken out of context, simply stated [[WP:OR]]. Please note that there is no copyright issue here as he has specifically said on many occasions that his views may be reproduced for any reason.
:# Any given belief in and of itself in the views section would not be out of place provided it was framed correctly. One thing about conspiracy theorists is that they often take verifiable facts and add them together to make unverifiable claims. It might be good to point some of these out in their entirety in the views section. This would, however, require finding secondary sources that link the facts he presents to the conclusions he makes, or else it too would violate original research. (IMO)
:# That said, I'm not sure predicting 9/11 is a view. Seems more like an incident. --[[User:Electrostatic1|Electrostatic1]] 04:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
==Alex Jones' contacts with the NWO==
Ever since [[Aaron Russo]] claimed that a descendent of Rockefeller promised him money, nightclubs, and a privliged biometric chip that would help him evade legal trouble, Jones has stated on his radio show several different situations where listless NWO members invited him to join. The following is an unreferenced list, but I recall hearing these claims while listening to his show:
* A "gray-haired old governor" of Texas approached Alex and politely asked Alex to join the NWO so that he may look after his own family and attempt change within the system. Jones indicated that this occurred around the year 2000 and that the governor was male. Because this governor was gray haired and likely male, this rules out recent governors [[Rick Perry]], [[George W. Bush]], and [[Ann Richards]]. Between the 70s and 80s there were four different governors ([[Bill Clements]], [[Mark White]], [[Dolph Briscoe]], and [[Preston Smith]].) Smith, Briscoe, Clements, and White are still alive/were alive during the time of which the purported event occurred. Thus, one of these men, according to Jones, is a heavily connected NWO member.
*Jones once attended a meeting in a "smoke filled room" in the late 90s or early 00s where he was offered membership in the NWO.
*On May 15, 2007, Jones claimed that he had members of the NWO threaten his life (how literal the threats were is not known, Jones purports that he would get calls from people telling him what his dog is doing or following him in automobiles), but also was once offered "a million dollars." Whether the million dollar offer is a 3rd situation or somehow connected to Jones' meeting in the smoke-filled room is not known.

Gray-haired? Male? NWO? [[Kevin Nash]], brother. I'd be scared if I were intimidated by Nash, [[Scott Hall]] and that gang of pro wrestlers. nWo Wolfpac, not so much. [[User:The Slowphase|The Slowphase]] 08:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No no no friend...you got it all wrong. Nash is just a dog lover and he likes to observe them from afar. If he really likes one, he'll stalk the owner, break into their home and get their telephone number, and then leave without anyone knowing he was ever there. Then whenever the next time he observes the dog doing something he deems "interesting"...he phones the owner speaking in a rasp voice with an Italian accent. But it's no threat...it's just to hide who he really is. Because if Alex knew he was talking to the Kev doggy, he would mark out and say "2 sweeeet".

...because when you're NWO, you're NWO...4...LIFE.

--[[User:Ιουστινιανός|Ιουστινιανός]] 07:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

PS - I really appreciate the "back room" intellectual conversations that go on here. I'm learning lots!--[[User:Ιουστινιανός|Ιουστινιανός]] 07:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All of this information seems difficult to verify.[[User:Harpakhrad11|Harpakhrad11]] 03:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

==Alex Jones' and His Past==
Alex Jones is not very specific about his past. He has visited many parts of the world, including Latin America, because of his father's career (a dentist.) Alex Jones' sometimes implires he has a strained relationship with his father (even though, according to a show broadcast, he watched the first half of Super Bowl this year with his father.) In earlier Jones documentaries, Alex claims he began his public access career in 1994. Jones would have been 19 at the time. Jones claims he is addicted to smoking and an alcoholic, but has not taken any drugs (he has only tried marijuana) since high school. After high school, Jones went to college. It is not known which one he went to, nor whether he finished. What is clear is that he saw the school's globalist agenda and he "woke up." It is likely this occurred his freshman year of college and that he shortly after left and began his radio career.

:Yeah, theres alot of things we DON'T know about Alex Jones [[User:I'mDown|Manic Hispanic]] 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

==Fair use rationale for Image:Martiallawdvd.png==
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|70px|left]]
'''[[:Image:Martiallawdvd.png]]''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] but there is no [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline|explanation or rationale]] as to why its use in '''this''' Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use|boilerplate fair use template]], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with [[WP:FU|fair use]].

Please go to [[:Image:Martiallawdvd.png|the image description page]] and edit it to include a [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline |fair use rationale]]. Using one of the templates at [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline]] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.[[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

==Occupation==

I don't know why [[User:Arthur Rubin]] continues to add on "conspiracy theorist" as an occupation. According to our own site an [[occupation]] ''is the principal activity (job, employment, or calling) that earns money (regular wage or salary) for a person (see employment, profession, business, List of occupations)''. Hence "conspiracy theorist" is not an occupation. I have removed it as such.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 22:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:You're assuming that our infobox uses our definitions, in spite of [[WP:NOT]] a dictionary. Even so, being a conspiracy theorist is part of his ''job'' as a radio talk show host, so it's ''still'' his occupation. If he wasn't a conspiracy theorist, he wouldn't be a radio talk show host. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 22:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::Anyone's definition of "occupation" is "a salaried position". What else would it be? And with regards to that being related to his actual occupation as a radio host, that is completely irrelevant. We wouldn't put "conservative" in the infobox of Rush Limbaugh as his occupation because "conservative" isn't an occupation.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 22:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::You also shouldn't use rollback with regards to content disputes like as if it is vandalism. That is completely wrong that you did that.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:::A number of editors have inserted or reinserted "conspiracy theorist" as an occupation, so I was looking your edit as an edit against clear consensus, upon which rollback can be used. But it was a mistake.
:::And he wouldn't be a radio host or a (successful) filmmaker if he '''hadn't''' been a conspiracy theorist. Rush could have been a radio host if he hadn't been conservative; in fact, he's argued the liberal side of some issues. No source has been presented to suggest that Alex hasn't supported any conspiracy theory which he became aware of. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Actually, around a month or two months ago I was listening to his show and a man called in saying he read a recent article from BBC describing a zombie outbreak. Alex was immediately skeptical, assuming it likely to be a prank, but that he'd have people look into it. I found the article, and it was not very recent, from 2005[http://65.127.124.62/south_asia/4483241.stm.htm]. It would be time consuming to find a source showing Alex Jones' reaction to a specific call, I suppose, but as it's not even the issue at hand, it doesn't matter. See above defining of "occupation."--[[User:Shink X|Shink X]] 21:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::The problem is that an occupation has a definition. It is a salaried position, that is the end of the discussion. Jones is paid to be a radio host for a show in which he promotes conspiracy theories. Therefore his occupation is "radio host", that is what he is paid to do. With regards to your comment regarding Limbaugh, it makes no sense. The two situations are exactly the same and I am not concerned with what political positions he has supported. What is relevant is what he is paid to do, which is being a host of a radio program as is the subject of this article. And yes, you were wrong in using rollback. I am an established user here, an administrator who has had his fair share of dealings with 9/11 truth POV pushers and I would at least ask for the respect of not having my edits treated as simple vandalism. Thank you.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 23:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::Perhaps if a "known for" field were added to {{tl|Infobox Celebrity}}, we could agree to put "conspiracy theorist" there, instead of in "occupation". You may be right that not everything a person does and is best known for is an occupation, but "conspiracy theorist" has as much right to appear in the infobox as what he's specifically paid for. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 23:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I think that might be a better alternate solution. Only problem is that it would effect all celebrity infoboxes and some people might disagree with the existence of such a field.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::In Alex's case, I don't think there's any question that what he's known for is supporting conspiracy theories. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 20:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::I just removed it again. As it is not an occupation. Feel free to add it on to any other relevant parts of the article.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 00:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::I gree with Jersey Devil here.. Yes he is known for "Conspiracy Theories", but that is not what he would be putting on his W2... --[[User:Electrostatic1|Electrostatic1]] 06:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::I don't know why *this* is the thing that bothers me here, but Jersey Devil is completely wrong to say that an "occupation is a salaried position, that is the end of the discussion." The most germane definition of occupation in the OED (i.e. not related to e.g. the "occupation" of Iraq),is "A particular action or course of action in which a person is engaged, esp. habitually; a particular job or profession; a particular pursuit or activity." This is not to say that I think "Conspiracy Theorist" is an occupation, although it could be, just that there are plenty of people in occupations that are not salaried positions -- "salaries" exist mostly only in Capitalist systems too -- where people exchange their time for money as opposed to simply doing a job, making something, overseeing something, running their own business, working within a co-op, etc. Thanks [[User:Saudade7|Saudade7]] 19:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

== Communism ==

I think the sections supporting Alex's statements on corporate support of communism should be in another article, and referenced here. If it's relevent to Alex (at least marginally), it's relevant to a number of different Wikipedia articles. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
:could just clone it [[User:Chendy|Chendy]] 01:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
== Opening Paragraph ==

"Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11, 1974) is a American radio host and filmmaker who is best known for his work in exposing conspiracies."

Exposing what conspiracies? No sources for any conspiracy he's 'exposed' that has been accepted by peer-review, the best I've seen is conjucture that is dismissed. Surely "Best known for his support of conspiracy theorys" is more accurate?

:Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. (temporarily off Wikibreak). — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

== Link to scans of Hustler article ==

Under the "Views" section there is an external link to a Hustler article about Jones & 911. The link, however, is to a blog that has high-res jpg scans of the Hustler article. Are such scans allowable under [[copyright]], and should we be linking to them? Perhaps a direct link to the article on Huster.com (if available) would be more appropriate. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|ZimZalaBim]] ([[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]]) 14:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
: The problem with that is that Huslter.com would be blocked by most library and school filters. Besides I doubt that's even up on their web page. What "sells" Hustler is not the political articles so this should be covered under fair use. In fact Hustler would likely be thankful for the free advertising. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 15:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
::The fact that the link might be censored doesn't justify linking to copyright-violating material, thus putting Wikipedia at risk. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|Zim'''Zala'''Bim]] [[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]] 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

== Misspelled name ==

I was listening to the Alex Jones show and he complained that his middle name is spelled wrong, can anyone rectify that?

== Removing Views section ==

Jones' views (nor anyone else's, for that matter) aren't inherently notable for encyclopedic mention - only if some other reliable sources remarks as to their notability. I feel this entire section should be cut, since this encyclopedia is not a soapbox merely for repeating a handful of his personal opinions. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|Zim'''Zala'''Bim]] [[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]] 23:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
:We're coming up to a week with no comment on this, which leads me to think my removing this section will be ''non''controversial... --[[User:ZimZalaBim|Zim'''Zala'''Bim]] [[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]] 14:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
::Removing this section now. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|Zim'''Zala'''Bim]] [[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]] 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Actually, I don't think your standard is correct. His views are not notable, but if he is notable enough for his own article, his views are fair game for summarization within that article. After all, its about the man, so his views are central to this.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
::::If I were to accept your reasoning, then I would assume the views summarized in the article would relate directly to the topics for which he is notable: 9/11, conspiracy theories, and the like. As it is, the views I removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_%28radio%29&diff=148818658&oldid=148818302] were seemingly random samples of his viewpoints: communism & international banking, John Birch Society, and the US Liberty. While the latter 2 seem related to conspiracy theories, why highlight these particular minor instances? --[[User:ZimZalaBim|Zim'''Zala'''Bim]] [[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]] 19:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::True. The assumption is logical. His views should be regarding the views which are relevant to his notability. However, these views for which he is notable for, are part of a world view, which is good to understand--and to understand his world view, his other opinions may indeed faciliate such an understanding. This can be tricky as just not any opinion that he says randomly would warrant mentioning, but beliefs regarding the same category (conspiratorial, political, etc), seem to fit, i.e. they are relevant views to his conspiratorial ideology.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 20:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::This slope becomes slippery - how do you/we decide which of his views do/do not contribute to his "world view"? That said, I don't quite agree that the purpose of an encyclopedia article on a person is to explore and make known all of the subject's personal beliefs that might contribute to the personality/psychology of that subject (or for which the subject is notable). We're supposed to describe who he is, not what makes him think the way he does. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|Zim'''Zala'''Bim]] [[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]] 20:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::We don't enterain what makes him think the way he does, we describe who he is. What better way to describe who he is thant to state what his main claims are in regard to relevant areas that he is notable for, i.e. his politics and conspiracy theories? My point about his world view is a question of relevance for this stated beliefs, not an attempt to critique his psychology or figure out what makes him think the way he does. Its descriptive, only; theres no analysis (that would be OR, anyway, and there are BLP concerns also, even with using others to do so). No, I am talking about relvevant beliefs related to his notablity, i.e. his political and conspiratorial views, provided he doesnt mention it only once in passing but forms a consistent part of his message, logically connected to the genre of thought he is known for. There is no slippery slop if we use that common sense criteria.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 22:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I don't think its right for the previous two editors to have a debate and then come to a conclusion where they remove a reasonible amount of sourced information. His views are extremely important. I am angry as i personally contributed alot to the views section. I can understand debate on wikipedia for the relevence of certain information in the context of certain articles, but removing sourced relevinformation seems unjusified. I feel a appropriate sub page could be a good compromise in most of these like situations.[[User:Chendy|Chendy]] 12:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, I had suggested it on July 26, waited a week, got no objections, so removed it on August 2nd. Feel free to enter the debate with reasoned arguments based on policy, but just because the info was true and sourced doesn't make it necessarily appropriate for inclusion. His views need to be deemed relevant by a cited source, not just your opinion of its relevance. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|Zim'''Zala'''Bim]] [[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]] 13:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::This is getting very silly. Unless your are employed to this, surely this is a waste of everybodies lives. ''I had suggested it on July 26, waited a week, got no objections, so removed it on August 2nd'' - I haven't got 24 hours a day to patrol edits like some people....anyway: ''"His views need to be deemed relevant by a cited source, not just your opinion of its relevance."'' Alex jones is known as a commentator on various socio-political, whatevery one may think of him/his views. It therefore follows that inteligent analysis of his views are added, not because his views are important generally, but because his views are important to people interested in alex jones. I not actually a fan of his, but i cant see how removing analysis of his views helps anything. What is wrong with a subpage? This may seem silly to you but if there are many examples of biographies on wikpedia where there are chunky view sections interegrated within main articles. If you are then saying that some peoples views maybe notable, but Jones's are not then I feel you are wrong, evidence being from the nature of this debate on the talk page, the size of the talk page, the amount of fans and web hits he gets etc. I understand there are issues in wikipedia to prevent it getting bloated but pointlessly limiting helpful information seems wrong. We don't want wikipedia turning into a bureaucracy - killing off the spirit that gives it life. [[User:Chendy|Chendy]] 14:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::If you wish to include "inteligent analysis of his views" then find [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] providing such analysis, otherwise you'll be adding [[WP:OR|original research]]. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|Zim'''Zala'''Bim]] [[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]] 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::Naturally. I feel this is now resolved :) {{unsigned|Chendy}}
:::::::::::::(edit conflict x2)A week seems enough time to establish consensus. Of course, consensus can be reviewed. (The subarticle idea is just wrong, though.) However, his views, even if notable, can only be included if a third party comments on them, or he specifically said "my view is ...." We can't extract his views from his statements; that would be [[WP:OR|original research]], as we define it. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 14:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

==section in question==

I have some problems with the claims on this section:

''"Communism
In Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State, Jones claims that Communism was a plot by international banks in the early 1900s to oppress the Russian serfs. He further claims that Communists in the West today are funded by corporations.[15]"''

That part above is ok. However, below, it pushes this fringe POV as "plausable" by use of the "however," and then saying it was was "researched and documented extensively... and has been acknowelged by academic figures such as...":

''"Although the claim about international banks is considered implausible by most historians, this corporate funding was researched and documented extensively by the late Professor Antony Sutton, and has been acknowledged by academic figures such as Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Professor Richard Pipes.[16][17]"''

However, the source do not support that, that I can see. In particular, I refer to the dubious claim that ''"communists in the West today are funded by corporations."'' Even if that particular claim is repeated by Sutton, Brzezinsky, and Pipes (this is doubtful and needs to be shown), the language presents this fringe view as one that has some widespread respectiblity to it, and that, I don't think is true. I've heard this kind of claim before but usually only with extreme fringe groups that are often times extreme right wing, i.e. neo fasicsts. For example, fringe conspiracy groups like this [http://www.watch.pair.com/jbs-cnp.html], noted for their conspiracies involving satan, or more notably some of the conspriacies propagated by [[Lyndon LaRouche]]. In anycase, these claims must be properly framed.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 21:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

==Jones attacks a Wikipedian==
Does this merti mention in the article? [http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=65&contentid=4594]. [[User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] 21:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think so, unless this story is picked up by a credible, third-party source. [[User:Pablothegreat85|Pablo]] [[User talk:Pablothegreat85|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Pablothegreat85|Contributions]] 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

==LACKING CRITICISM SECTION!==

:What the heck is this? Another completely one-sided Wiki self-love piece!?

:Why are tin foil hatters like Jones permitted to hijack Wiki with these one-sided love pieces?

:This piece should be deleted immediately --it is completely non-objective, lacking any critique nor merits any Encyclopedic-style virtue.
::
Thank you for your suggestion{{{{#if:notsubsted||subst:}}#if:{{{1|}}}| regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]}}! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a [[wiki]], so ''anyone'' can edit almost any article by simply following the '''{{MediaWiki:edit}}''' link at the top. You don't even need to [[Special:Userlogin|log in]] (although there are [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|many reasons why you might want to]]). The Wikipedia community encourages you to [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|be bold in updating pages]]. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out [[Wikipedia:how to edit a page|''how to edit a page'']], or use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]] to try out your editing skills. [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|New contributors are always welcome]]. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|Zim'''Zala'''Bim]] [[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]] 16:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Let the record show that I added a "Criticism" section, and it was removed. I added it again, and it was removed. I have yet to see an explanation
from anyone as to why this has happened. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|117.102.158.179}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|117.102.158.179}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|117.102.158.179}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|11:01, August 26, 2007 (UTC)}}} 
:I think the above comment refers to this edit.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_%28radio%29&diff=prev&oldid=153315346] [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

:: Why can't there be a criticism section, there is a source but it was deleted along with the rest of the section because it had someone else who had a biography on wikipedia (David de Rothschild) as the person (Arthur Rubin) said in his Revert summary. - [[User:IamMcLovin|IamMcLovin]] 01:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Thanks for that explanation. If I may, I'd like to add a bit more for the sake of completeness. The source that was cited was derogatory to de Rothschild and did not meet the standards specified in [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. Please see [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 02:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

:::: I respect that rationale. - [[User:IamMcLovin|IamMcLovin]] 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

== Picture Removed ==

On August 6th, I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_%28radio%29&oldid=149648151 edited this articles] and added [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alex_jones.jpg a image of Alex], but for some reason it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_%28radio%29&oldid=149779537 removed]. Just wondering why?? [[User:Noahcs|Noahcs]] 21:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
:Well, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_%28radio%29&diff=prev&oldid=149779537 edit summary] for the removal by {{user|Wsiegmund}} states "Revert to last edit by ZimZalaBim per ZimZalaBim's edit summary". Which seems to be referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_%28radio%29&diff=prev&oldid=149555748 this edit] with the edit summary of "rv - that is likely a copy vio, or at least a questionable fair use". So, presumably that was Wsiegmund's logic, but perhaps you should [[User talk:Wsiegmund|ask him directly]]. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|Zim'''Zala'''Bim]] [[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]] 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
:I tagged the image as a copy violation. No justification is given for the PD tag and it is not easily found at the source cited. I found it at another URL with no indication that it is in the public domain. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 05:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
:The image was deleted as a copywrite violation by {{user2|Quadell}} on 20 August..[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Alex_jones.jpg] [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 17:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

== question ==

I would like to know why the link to prison planet was taken off seeing as it was on the article first before the New York daily news link

Because Prisonplanet is an extremist wacko website, while new york is not. [[User:IamMcLovin|IamMcLovin]] 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all, personally I think since the [http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/090907_alex_arrested.htm Prison Planet link] was on the article first it should stay there, and don't you think there should be a better reason for it being taken off besides it being A Quote '''extremist wacko website''' Unquote. 07:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.26.216.168|216.26.216.168]] ([[User talk:216.26.216.168|talk]]) {{{2|}}} 

yeah...that...primarily, and it shouldn't be biased like prisonplanet is. get a non-biased link, and we need RELIABLE sources. [[User:IamMcLovin|IamMcLovin]] 16:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
:Exactly. Not only do sources need to be verifiable and reliable, they should be independent. Prison Planet isn't an independent source when it comes to talking about Alex Jones, considering he runs the site. --[[User:Clpo13|clpo13]]([[User_talk:Clpo13|talk]]) 19:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

== Dubious ==

The [current http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_%28radio%29&oldid=160796087] version of the lead reads:

<blockquote>
'''Alexander Emerick Jones''' (born [[February 11]] [[1974]]) is an [[United States|American]] [[Talk radio|radio host]] and documentary filmmaker who is best known for his work in promotion of awareness of government, banking and corporate activities that are admitted and verifiable, and which therefore cannot be classed as existing within the domain of [[conspiracy theories]].
</blockquote>

I feel the last accurate version of the lead reads:

<blockquote>
'''Alexander Emerick Jones''' (born [[February 11]] [[1974]]) is an [[United States|American]] [[Talk radio|radio host]] and filmmaker who is best known for his work in promotion of [[conspiracy theories]].
</blockquote>

I'd accept "documentary" filmmaker, but he's known for conspiracy theories, not for promoting <s>lies</s> ''awareness of government, banking and corporate activities'' which are totally bogus and unverified, even if theoretically verifiable. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

: I agree, Arthur Rubin, and it should be kept the way it was. Basically, the most news he gets is when he is arrested, and the rest is usually on one of his web pages. None of his claims have ever been "admitted" by any government officials, and in my opinion most of his claims are just paranoia. The thing is, all he is IS a conspiracy theorist, and I agree that he could at least be a documentary film maker, if you could call his films that. [[User:IamMcLovin|IamMcLovin]] 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

::Well, I'm at [[WP:3RR]], and the edits aren't '''pure''' vandalism, so I can't handle it myself. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 23:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

== 9/11 ==

{{tl|dubious}} 2.
:I can't find any source other than himself saying that he "predicted 9/11", even based on the transcripts and audio files of the shows. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 02:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jones

2007-09-28T02:52:01Z

Harpakhrad11: /* Official */

{{otherpeople2|Alex Jones}}
{{Infobox Celebrity
| name = Alex Jones
| image = Alex Jones.PNG
| image_size = 250px
| caption = Alex in his film ''Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove''.
| birth_name = Alexander Emerick Jones
| birth_date = {{Birth date and age|1974|2|11}}
| birth_place = {{flagicon|USA}} [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|25px]] [[Dallas, Texas]], [[United States|U.S.]]
| death_date =
| death_place =
| occupation = [[talk radio|Radio host]], [[television host]], [[film producer]]
| spouse = Violet Nichols
| children =
| website = [http://infowars.com InfoWars.com] [http://prisonplanet.com PrisonPlanet.com] [http://infowars.net InfoWars.net] [http://prisonplanet.tv PrisonPlanet.tv] [http://jonesreport.com The Jones Report]
| footnotes =
}}
'''Alexander Emerick Jones''' (born [[February 11]] [[1974]]) is an [[United States|American]] [[Talk radio|radio host]] and filmmaker who is best known for his work in promotion of [[conspiracy theories]].

== Biography ==
Jones was born in [[Parkland Memorial Hospital|Parkland Hospital]] in [[Dallas, Texas|Dallas]], [[Texas]],<ref>Jones, Alex. ''[[Coast to Coast AM]]''. [[January 27]] [[2007]].</ref> and grew up in the suburb of [[Rockwall, Texas|Rockwall]].<ref>Jones, Alex. ''The Alex Jones Radio Show''. [[February 6]] [[2006]].</ref> He graduated from [[Anderson High School (Austin, Texas)|Anderson High School]] in northwest [[Austin, Texas]] in 1993 and briefly attended [[Austin Community College]].

His father was a dentist with Castle Dental and encouraged him to begin his career in [[Austin, Texas|Austin]] with a live, call-in format [[public-access television|cable access television]] program. In 1996, Jones switched format to KJFK, hosting a show named ''The Final Edition''.<ref name="KJFK">{{Cite web
| last = Nichols
| first = Lee
| url = http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/1999-12-10/pols_media.html
| title = Psst, It's a Conspiracy: KJFK Gives Alex Jones the Boot Media Clips
| Publisher = [[The Austin Chronicle]]
| date = [[December 10]], [[1999]]}}</ref> In 1997, he released his first documentary-style film, ''America Destroyed By Design''.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Jones
| first = Alex
| coauthors = Paul Joseph Watson
| title = The Port Sell-Out and the Dismantling of America
| publisher = PrisonPlanet.com
| date = [[2006-02-23]]
| url = http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/port_deal_sell_out_dismantle_america.htm
| accessdate = 2007-08-14}}</ref>

In 1999, he tied with Shannon Burke for that year's "Best Austin Talk Radio Host" poll as voted by ''[[The Austin Chronicle]]'' readers.<ref>{{Citation | title=Best of Austin 1999 Readers Poll | year=1999 | url=http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Awards/BestOfAustin/?BOACategory=Media&Year=1999&Poll=Readers&Display=Long | accessdate=2007-08-14}}</ref> Later that year, he was fired from KJFK-FM. According to the station's operations manager, Jones was fired because his viewpoints made the show hard to sell to advertisers and he refused to broaden his topics.<ref name="KJFK">{{Cite web | last=Nichols | first=Lee | url=http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/1999-12-10/pols_media.html | title=Psst, It's a Conspiracy: KJFK Gives Alex Jones the Boot Media Clips | Publisher=[[The Austin Chronicle]] | date=[[December 10]], [[1999]]}}</ref> Jones argued: "It was purely political, and it came down from on high," and, "I was told 11 weeks ago to lay off Clinton, to lay off all these politicians, to not talk about rebuilding the church, to stop bashing the Marines, A to Z."<ref name="KJFK">{{Cite web | last=Nichols | first=Lee |url=http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/1999-12-10/pols_media.html | title=Psst, It's a Conspiracy: KJFK Gives Alex Jones the Boot Media Clips | Publisher=[[The Austin Chronicle]] | date=[[December 10]], [[1999]]}}</ref>

In 2000, Jones and assistant Mike Hanson claimed that they infiltrated the [[Bohemian Grove]] and filmed the opening weekend ceremony, known as the [[Cremation of Care]], a mock human sacrifice, which he says has [[Druidic]] and [[Pagan]] backgrounds. His footage can be viewed in his film "Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove."

On [[June 8]], [[2006]], while he was on his way to cover a meeting of the [[Bilderberg group]] in [[Ottawa]], [[Canada]], Jones was stopped and detained at the Ottawa airport by Canadian authorities who confiscated his passport, camera equipment, and most of his belongings. He was later released.<ref>{{cite news
| last = Payton
| first = Laura
| title = Bilderberg-bound filmmaker held at airport
| publisher = [[The Ottawa Citizen]]
| date = [[2006-06-08]]
| url = http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f67cbe75-4eed-4daf-877e-189e52d1f33c&k=12919
| accessdate = 2007-08-13 }}</ref>

On Saturday, September 8, 2007 Jones was arrested while protesting at Sixth Avenue and Forty-Eighth Street in New York, NY. He was charged with operating a bullhorn without a permit.<ref>{{cite news
| last = Grace
| first = Melissa
| coauthors = Xana O'Neill
| title = Filmmaker arrested during city protest
| date = [[2007-09-09]]
| url = http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/09/09/2007-09-09_filmmaker_arrested_during_city_protest.html
| accessdate = 2007-09-10 }}</ref>

Jones has appeared in two [[Richard Linklater]] movies as an [[actor]]: ''[[Waking Life]]'' (2001) and ''[[A Scanner Darkly (film)|A Scanner Darkly]]'' (2006).

Jones is also the main figure in a History Channel documentary titled ''The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction'' which attempts to debunk ideas that 9/11 was an inside job.

Jones says that on his public-access television show, he predicted 9/11 several months before it occurred.

== Media productions ==
{{911tm}}

=== Alex Jones Show ===
The "Alex Jones Show" is a [[radio show]] aired on Emmis Communications' [[KLBJ]] 590 AM in Austin every Sunday afternoon from 4-6pm. The show is nationally syndicated and is associated with Genesis Communications Network.<ref>[http://www.austinpact.org/programming/channel10.php PACT Channel 10 Programming Schedule]. Accessed [[26 April]], 2006.</ref>

Notable guests have included:

*[[Norman Baker]] MP (Liberal Democrat)
*[[Charlie Sheen]] Actor
*[[Christine Ebersole]] Actress
*[[Matthew Bellamy]] (lead singer of the British band [[Muse (band)|Muse]])
*[[Pat Buchanan]] (Author and former Presidential Candidate)
*[[Michael Badnarik]], former Libertarian Party presidential candidate
*[[Andreas von Bülow]], former state-secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Defence (1976-1980) and Minister for Research and Technology (1980-1982)and author
*[[Noam Chomsky]] (MIT linguistics professor)
*[[Warren Cuccurullo]] (ex [[Duran Duran]] guitarist)
*[[George Galloway]] MP (Respect)
*[[David Lynch]] (Movie Director)
*[[Ray McGovern]], former chair of the National Intelligence Estimates <ref>{{cite news
| last = Edwards
| first = David
| title = Ex-CIA analyst: Forged 'yellowcake' memo 'leads right back to' Cheney
| publisher = [[The Raw Story]]
| date = [[2007-05-30]]
| url = http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ExCIA_analyst_Forged_yellowcake_memo_leads_0430.html
| accessdate = 2007-08-13}}</ref>
*[[Cynthia McKinney]], former Georgia Democratic Congresswoman and political activist
*[[Michael Meacher]] MP (Labour)
*[[Craig Murray]], former British Ambassador
*[[Andrew Napolitano]]
*[[Greg Palast]] (BBC)
*[[Ron Paul]], Texas Republican Congressman and presidential candidate
*[[Scott Ritter]] (United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq)
*[[David Mayer de Rothschild]] (Environmentalist)
*[[Cindy Sheehan]] (anti-war activist)
*[[Joseph Stiglitz]] (Economist,Former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank)
*[[Gore Vidal]] (author)
*[[William Rodriguez]] (was at the North Tower of the World Trade Center, pulled several people to safety during the September 11, 2001 attacks)

Regular guests have included [[Dylan Avery]], [[William Rodriguez]], Professor [[Steven Jones]], [[Aaron Russo]], [[David Ray Griffin]], [[Jeff Rense]], [[David Icke]], [[Jim Marrs]], Mike Rivero, [[Webster Tarpley]], and [[David Shayler]]. <ref>http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio.html</ref>

On [[March 20]], [[2006]], he had [[Charlie Sheen]] as a guest on his talk show. The interview received mainstream media coverage and commentary by CNN [[Showbiz Tonight]], Fox News' [[Hannity & Colmes]], and [[Jimmy Kimmel Live]].

=== Websites ===
In June 2001, Jones launched Prisonplanet.com. He also maintains a network of related websites, with a central site at Infowars.com. In April 2004, Jones debuted Prisonplanet.tv, a subscription-based site which provides access to his films, radio interview archives, clips from his cable access television show, and digital versions of books he has written. His affiliates run Infowars.net and Infowarsnetwork.com, a hosting service. Jones also maintains Jonesreport.com (a take on the [[Drudge Report]]).

=== Videos ===
Jones has produced a series of videos about what he believes is the emergence of a [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] [[world government]], based on what he views as the erosion of the United States' national sovereignty and its civil liberties, as well as the misuse of government power, corporate deception, and cohesion between disparate power structures. Jones has said that he is working on a new movie which will explain what he terms the [[New World Order (conspiracy)|New World Order]].

{| border="1" width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0"
|-
|'''America Destroyed By Design''' (1997)
|Jones' first documentary-style film. He travels the United States and discusses how he feels the country's sovereignty is being subordinated to global interests.
|-
|'''America Wake Up (Or Waco)''' (2000)
|About the 1993 [[Waco Siege]] incident with the [[Branch Davidian]]s.
|-
|'''Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports Exposed''' (2000)
|Jones interviews Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) Walter Burien.
|-
|'''Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove''' (2000)
|About Jones' and cameraman Mike Hanson's [[July 15]], [[2000]] infiltration of the annual gathering of the [[Bohemian Club]]'s [[Bohemian Grove]] compound and their capture of the "Cremation of Care" ceremony.
|-
|'''Police State 2000''' (2000)
|First in a three-part series. Jones focuses on alleged militarization of American law enforcement with footage of training drills.
|-
|'''Police State 2: The Takeover''' (2000)
|Second in a three-part series. Jones says that the American people are too accepting of a highly controlled society.
|-
|'''9-11: The Road to Tyranny''' (2002)
|Jones says that most major 20th and 21st century terrorist attacks were orchestrated by governments, including the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. Jones says these attacks were designed to stir up war, and get the people to accept the erosion of their liberty.
|-
|'''Masters of Terror''' (2002)
|Jones explains why he believes the elite are using manufactured terrorism to get the population to go along with pre-planned wars in an effort to grab the world's remaining natural resources.
|-
|'''Police State 3: Total Enslavement''' (2003)
|Last in a three-part series. Jones covers the creation of the [[United States Department of Homeland Security]], the [[USA PATRIOT Act]], and the [[Information Awareness Office]]. Jones also accuses the US government of running [[white slavery]] rings.
|-
|'''Matrix of Evil''' (2003)
|A collection of footage of speeches and conversations with Alex Jones, Congressman [[Ron Paul]], Colonel Craig Roberts, former US representative [[Cynthia McKinney]], and activist [[Frank Morales]].
|-
|'''American Dictators: Documenting The Staged 2004 Election''' (2004)
|About the major candidates in the [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004 United States presidential election]].
|-
|'''Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State''' (2005)
|Jones shows what he believes are signs of a growing [[police state]].
|-
|'''The Order of Death''' (2005)
|Follow-up to ''Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove''. Jones says that the [[Bohemian Grove]], [[Freemasonry]], and the [[Illuminati]] are secretly ruling most of the world by proxy.
|-
|'''TerrorStorm: A History of Government-Sponsored Terrorism''' (2006) [[Image:Terrorstorm.jpg|thumb|TerrorStorm cover]]
|Jones covers what he believes are terrorist attacks induced by governments throughout history, most particularly the [[7 July 2005 London bombings]].
|-
|'''TerrorStorm: Final Cut Special Edition, Re-Mixed + Re-Mastered ''' (2007)
|This edition has more than 17 minutes of new documentation.
|-
|'''End Game: Blueprint for Global Enslavement''' <ref>[http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/130807_b_alamo.htm Alex Jones Presents End Game: Live at the Alamo Drafthouse, Austin]</ref> (October 2007)
|Jones covers what he believes to be the gradual erosion of [[national sovereignty]] in favor of a [[one world government]]. Also expected to be covered in-depth in this film are groups that Jones claims are ushering in world government, such as the [[Bilderberg Group]]. In July 2007, Jones said in his radio show that the film would also focus on [[eugenics]].
|-
|}

== Media appearances ==
He has been featured as a prominent figure of the [[9/11 Truth Movement]] in such publications as ''[[The New York Times]]'',<ref>{{Citation
| last = Feuer
| first = Alan
| author-link = http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/alan_feuer/index.html?inline=nyt-per
| title = 500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet To Seek the Truth of 9/11
| newspaper = [[New York Times]]
| pages = Section B, Page 1, Column 1
| year = 2006
| date = [[June 5th]]
| url = http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C10FF3F550C768CDDAF0894DE404482}}</ref> ''[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]]'', and ''[[Popular Mechanics]]''.<ref name="press">[http://www.americanscholarssymposium.org/media/press_release_061606.htm americanscholarssymposium.org]</ref>

In September 2007, he was part of the [[History Channel]] Documentary [[9/11 Fact or Fiction]]. The show was about debunking 9/11 myths. He compared himself to [[Galileo]],{{Fact|date=September 2007}} who was persecuted for supporting the heliocentric view of the solar system.

He is a frequent guest of [[George Noory]] on ''[[Coast to Coast AM]]'', and has appeared on [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]], [[Fox News Channel]], [[Washington Post]], [[WorldNetDaily]],<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16967 WorldNetDaily - February 15, 1999 -- Fear and loathing in Kingsville, Texas]</ref> [[USA Today]],<ref>[http://www.infowars.com/clippings/USAtdy.JPG September 20 1999]</ref> [[San Antonio Express-News]],<ref>[http://www.infowars.com/clippings/saenpg1.JPG September 20 1999]</ref> [[Austin American-Statesman]], [[Alan Colmes|The Alan Colmes Show]],<ref>{{cite web
| title =Alex Jones discusses 9/11 on the Alan Colmes show
| publisher =PrisonPlanet.com
| date =[[2006-04-02]]
| url =http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/020406colmes.htm
| accessdate = 2007-08-14 }}
</ref> and [[C-SPAN]].<ref>[http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/september2004/030904alexoncspan.htm prisonplanet.tv]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Mark Dice]]
*[[James Fetzer]]
*[[David Ray Griffin]]
*[[Steven E. Jones]]
*[[Jim Marrs]]
*[[Jeff Rense]]
*[[Aaron Russo]]
*[[Webster Tarpley]]
*[[Loose Change]]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

== External links ==
=== Official ===
*[http://www.propagandamatrix.com/index.html Paul Joseph Watson's Propaganda Matrix.]
*[http://infowars.com Alex Jones' Infowars.com]
*[http://www.infowars.net Alex Jones' Infowars.net]
*[http://prisonplanet.com Alex Jones' PrisonPlanet.com]
*[http://www.jonesreport.com Alex Jones' Jones report]
*[http://prisonplanet.tv Alex Jones' PrisonPlanet.tv]
*[http://endgamethemovie.com Endgame the Movie]

=== Other ===
*{{MySpace|alex_infowarrior|Alex Jones}}
*{{imdb name|1093953|Alex Jones}}
*{{Allmovie|2:141955|Alex Jones}}
*[http://www.infowars.tv Infowars.tv] - UK based Alex Jones support site
*[http://www.gcnlive.com/samplalex.htm The Genesis Communications Network - Alex Jones Show]
*[http://www.590klbj.com/Bios/Alex_Jones.aspx KLBJ AM 590 Biography]
*[http://www.alexjonespodcasts.com Archive of The Alex Jones Show]

{{911ct}}

{{Persondata
|NAME=Jones, Alexander Emerick
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES=
|SHORT DESCRIPTION=Radio host, movie producer
|DATE OF BIRTH=[[February 11]], [[1974]]
|PLACE OF BIRTH=[[Dallas, Texas]], [[United States]]
|DATE OF DEATH=
|PLACE OF DEATH=
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Jones, Alex}}
[[Category:American radio personalities]]
[[Category:American television talk show hosts]]
[[Category:American film directors]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:Global warming skeptics]]
[[Category:Minarchists]]
[[Category:American Christians]]
[[Category:American anti-communists]]
[[Category:People from Austin, Texas]]
[[Category:People from the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex area]]
[[Category:Former atheists and agnostics]]
[[Category:1974 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]

[[de:Alex Jones]]
[[fr:Alex Jones]]
[[it:Alex Jones]]
[[nl:Alex Jones]]
[[simple:Alex Jones]]
[[fi:Alex Jones]]
[[sv:Alex Jones]]

Gnosticism

2007-09-28T02:45:17Z

Harpakhrad11: /* See also */

{{expert-subject|Religion}}
{{npov}}
'''Gnosticism''' (from [[Greek (language)|Greek]] ''gnosis'', [[knowledge]]) refers to a diverse, [[syncretistic]] [[religious movement]] consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine [[soul]]s trapped in a [[material world]] created by an imperfect spirit, the [[demiurge]], who is frequently identified with the [[Abrahamic]] [[God]]. The demiurge, who is often depicted as an embodiment of evil, at other times as simply imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy allows, exists alongside another remote and unknowable [[supreme being]] that embodies good. In order to free oneself from the inferior material world, one needs [[gnosis]], or [[esoteric]] spiritual knowledge available only to a learned elite. [[Jesus of Nazareth]] is identified by some (though not all) Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the Earth.

Gnosticism was popular in the [[Mediterranean]] and [[middle east]]ern regions in the first centuries [[Common Era|CE]], but it was suppressed<ref>[[Bart D. Ehrman]], Lost Christianities. (Oxford University press, 2003) P.188-202</ref>as a [[dualistic]] [[heresy]] in areas controlled by the [[Roman Empire]] when [[Christianity]] became its official religion in the fourth century. Conversion to [[Islam]] greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the [[middle ages]], though a few isolated communities continue to exist to the present. Gnostic ideas became influential in the philosophies of various [[esoteric]] [[mystical]] movements of the late [[19th century|19th]] and [[20th century|20th centuries]] in [[Europe]] and [[North America]], including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier gnostic groups.

{{Gnosticism}}

==Nature and structure of Gnosticism==
===A typological model: the main features of gnosticism===
Difficulties have arisen in offering a definitive, categorical definition of Gnosticism (see [[# 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category|below]]), and various strategies have been applied in overcoming the problem, with varying degrees of success. It is therefore appropriate to discuss a typological model of those ancient philosophical movements typically called Gnostic; the model offered is adapted from [[Christoph Markschies]]' version, as described in 'Gnosis: An Introduction'.

Gnostic systems are typically marked by:

# The notion of a remote, supreme [[monad (Gnosticism)|monadic]] divinity - this figure is known under a variety of names, including '[[Pleroma]]' and '[[Bythos]]' (Greek 'deep');
# The introduction by emanation of further divine beings, which are nevertheless identifiable as aspects of the God from which they proceeded; the progressive emanations are often conceived metaphorically as a gradual and progressive distancing from the ultimate source, which brings about an instability in the fabric of the divine nature;
# The subsequent identification of [[the Fall of Man]] as an occurrence with its ultimate foundations within ''divinity itself'', rather than as occurring either entirely or indeed partially through human agency; this stage in the divine emanation is usually enacted through the recurrent Gnostic figure of [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]] (Greek 'Wisdom'), whose presence in a wide variety of [[Gnostic texts]] is indicative of her central importance;
# The introduction of a distinct creator god, who is named as in the [[Platonist]] tradition ''demiurgos''. Evidence exists that the conception of the [[demiurge]] has derivation from figures in Plato's ''[[Timaeus]]'' and ''[[The Republic (Plato)|Republic]]''. In the former, the demiurge is the benevolent creator of the universe from pre-existent matter, to whose limitations he is enthralled in creating the cosmos; in the latter, the description of the leontomorphic 'desire' in [[Socrates]]' model of the [[Psyche (psychology)|psyche]] bears a strong resemblance to descriptions of the demiurge as being in the shape of the lion. Elsewhere this figure is called '[[Demiurge|Ialdabaoth]]', 'Samael' ([[Aramaic]] ''sæmʕa-ʔel'', 'blind god') or 'Saklas' ([[Syriac]] ''sækla'', 'the foolish one'), who is sometimes ignorant of the superior God, and sometimes opposed to it; thus in the latter case he is correspondingly malevolent. The demiurge typically creates a group of coactors named '[[Archons]]', who preside over the material realm and, in some cases, present obstacles to the soul seeking ascent from it;
# The estimation of the world, owing to the above, as flawed or a production of 'error' but nevertheless as good as its constituent material might allow. This world is typically an inferior [[simulacrum]] of a higher-level reality or consciousness. The inferiority may be compared to the technical inferiority of a [[painting]], [[sculpture]], or other [[handicraft]] to the thing(s) those crafts are supposed to be a [[Mimesis|representation]] of. In certain other cases it is also perceived as evil and constrictive, a deliberate prison for its inhabitants;
# The explanation of this state through the use of a complex mythological-cosmological drama in which a divine element 'falls' into the material realm and lodges itself within certain human beings; from here, it may be returned to the divine realm through a process of awakening (leading towards salvation). The salvation of the individual thus mirrors a concurrent restoration of the divine nature; a central Gnostic innovation was to elevate individual redemption to the level of a cosmically significant event;
# Knowledge of a specific kind as a central factor in this process of restoration, achieved through the mediation of a redeemer figure ([[Christ]], or, in other cases, [[Seth]] or [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]]).

The model limits itself to describing characteristics of the [[# Major gnostic schools and their texts|Syrian-Egyptian]] school of Gnosticism. This is for the reason that the greatest expressions of the [[# Major gnostic schools and their texts|Persian gnostic school]] - [[Manicheanism]] and [[Mandaeanism]] - are typically conceived of as religious traditions in their own right; indeed, the typical usage of 'Gnosticism' is to refer to the Syrian-Egyptian schools alone, while 'Manichean' describes the movements of the Persia school.

The conception of Gnosticism offered above has recently been challenged by Michael Allen William's groundbreaking work 'Rethinking Gnosticism', which re-examines the common conception of categorical 'Gnosticism' in an effort to demonstrate the somewhat nebulous nature of the term (see [[# 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category|below]]). Despite this, the understanding presented above remains in common usage, and retains at least some usefulness in aiding meaningful discussion of the phenomena that compose Gnosticism, even if the extent of that usefulness is in doubt.

===Dualism and monism===
Typically, Gnostic systems are loosely described as being 'dualistic' in nature, meaning that they had the view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities. Within this definition, they run the gamut from the 'extreme' or 'radical dualist' systems of Manicheanism to the 'weak' or 'mitigated dualism' of classic gnostic movements; Valentinian developments arguably approach a form of [[monism]], expressed in terms previously used in a dualistic manner.

* '''Radical Dualism''' - or absolute Dualism which posits two co-equal divine forces. Manichaeism conceives of two previously coexistent realms of light and darkness which become embroiled in conflict, owing to the chaotic actions of the latter. Subsequently, certain elements of the light became entrapped within darkness; the purpose of material creation is to enact the slow process of extraction of these individual elements, at the end of which the kingdom of light will prevail over darkness. Manicheanism likely inherits this dualistic mythology from [[Zoroastrianism]], in which the eternal spirit [[Ahura Mazda]] is opposed by his antithesis, [[Angra Mainyu]]; the two are engaged in a cosmic struggle, the conclusion of which will likewise see Ahura Mazda triumphant. The Mandaean creation myth witnesses the progressive emanations of Supreme Being of Light, with each emanation bringing about a progressive corruption resulting in the eventual emergence of [[Ptahil]], the god of darkness who had a hand in creating and henceforward rules the material realm. Additionally, general Gnostic thought (specifically to be found in Iranian sects; for instance, see '[[The Hymn of the Pearl]]') commonly included the belief that the material world corresponds to some sort of malevolent intoxication brought about by the powers of darkness to keep elements of the light trapped inside it, or literally to keep them 'in the dark', or ignorant; in a state of drunken distraction.
* '''Mitigated Dualism''' - where one of the two principles is in some way inferior to the other. Such classical Gnostic movements as the Sethians conceived of the material world as being created by a lesser divinity than the true God that was the object of their devotion. The spiritual world is conceived of as being radically different from the material world, co-extensive with the true God, and the true home of certain enlightened members of humanity; thus, these systems were expressive of a feeling of acute alienation within the world, and their resultant aim was to allow the soul to escape the constraints presented by the physical realm.
* '''Qualified Monism''' - where it is arguable whether or not the second entity is divine or semi-divine. Elements of Valentinian versions of Gnostic myth suggest to some that its understanding of the universe may have been monistic rather than a dualistic one: 'Valentinian gnosticism [...] differs essentially from dualism' ([[Elaine Pagels]], ''The Gnostic Gospel'', [[1978]]); 'a standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally monistic' (William Schoedel, 'Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth' in ''The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.1: The School of Valentinus'', edited by Bentley Layton, E.J.Brill, Leiden, [[1980]]). In these myths, the malevolence of the demiurge is mitigated; his creation of a flawed materiality is not due to any moral failing on his part, but due to his honest ignorance of the superior spiritual world above him. As such, Valentinians already have more cause to treat physical reality with less contempt than might a Sethian Gnostic. Perhaps for this reason Valentinus appears to conceive of materiality, rather than as being a separate substance from the divine, as attributable to an ''error of perception''. Thus it follows that the Valentinian conception of the universe may be of a fundamentally monistic nature, in which all things are aspects of the divine; our ordinary view which is limited to the material realm is owing to our errors of perception, which become symbolized mythopoetically as the demiurge's act of creation.

===Moral and ritual practice===
The question of Gnostic morality can only be resolved by reading the claims of their contemporaries. Numerous Christian writers accused some Gnostic teachers of claiming to eschew the physical realm, while simultaneously freely indulging their physical appetites. We can only rely upon contemporary written claims and accounts, but this writer will attempt to grapple with some evidence to show that there is reason to question the accuracy of these claims.

Evidence in the source texts indicates Gnostic moral behaviour as being generally [[asceticism|ascetic]] in basis, expressed most fluently in their sexual and dietary practice. Many monks would deprive themselves of food, water, or necessary needs for living. This presented a problem for the heresiologists writing on gnostic movements: this mode of behavior was one which they themselves favoured and supported, so the Church Fathers, it seemed, would be required perforce to offer support to the practices of their theological opponents. In order to avoid this, a common heresiological approach was to avoid the issue completely by resorting to slanderous (and, in some cases, excessive) allegations of [[libertinism]], or to explain Gnostic asceticism as being based on incorrect interpretations of scripture, or simply duplicitous in nature. [[Epiphanes (gnostic)|Epiphanius]] provides an example when he writes of the 'Archontics' 'Some of them ruin their bodies by dissipation, but others feign ostensible fasts and deceive simple people while they pride themselves with a sort of [[abstinence]], under the disguise of monks' (''[[Panarion]]'', 40.1.4).

In other areas of morality, Gnostics were less rigorously ascetic, and took a more moderate approach to correct behaviour. Ptolemy's ''Epistle to Flora'' lays out a project of general asceticism in which the basis of action is the moral inclination of the individual:

{{Quotation|External physical fasting is observed even among our followers, for it can be of some benefit to the soul if it is engaged on with reason (''[[logos]]''), whenever it is done neither by way of limiting others, nor out of habit, nor because of the day, as if it had been specially appointed for that purpose.|[[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]]|Letter to Flora}}

This extract marks a definite shift away from the position of orthodoxy, that the correct behaviour for Christians is best administered and prescribed by the central authority of the church, as transmitted through the apostles. Instead, the internalised inclination of the individual assumes paramount importance; there is the recognition that ritualistic behaviour, though well-intentioned, possesses no significance or effectiveness unless its external prescription is matched by a personal, internal motivation.

Charges of Gnostic libertinism find their source in the works of [[Irenaeus]]. According to this writer, [[Simon Magus]] (whom he has identified as the prototypical source of Gnosticism) founded the school of moral freedom ('[[amorality|amoralism]]'). Irenaeus reports that Simon's argument, that those who put their trust in him and his consort Helen, need trouble themselves no further with the biblical prophets or their moral exhortations and are free 'to do what they wish', as men are saved by his (Simon's) grace, and not by their 'righteous works' (adapted from ''[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Adversus Haereses]]'', I.23.3).

Simon is not known for any libertinistic practice, save for his curious attachment to Helen, typically reputed to be a prostitute. There is, however, clear evidence in the [[Testimony of Truth]] that followers of Simon did, in fact, get married and beget children, so a general tendency to asceticism can likewise be ruled out.

Irenaeus reports of the Valentinians, whom he characterizes as eventual inheritors of Simon, that they are lax in their dietary habits (eating food that has been 'offered to idols'), sexually promiscuous ('immoderately given over to the desires of the flesh') and guilty of taking wives under the pretence of living with them as adopted 'sisters'. In the latter case, Michael Allen Williams has argued plausibly that Irenaeus was here broadly correct in the behaviour described, but not in his apprehension of its causes. Williams argues that members of a cult might live together as 'brother' and 'sister': intimate, yet not sexually active. Over time, however, the self-denial required of such an endeavour becomes harder and harder to maintain, leading to the state of affairs Irenaeus criticizes.

Irenaeus also makes reference to the Valentinian practise of [[the Bridal Chamber|Bridal Chamber]], a ritualistic [[sacrament]] in which sexual union is seen as analogous to the activities of the paired [[syzygy|syzygies]] that constitute the Valentinian [[Pleroma]]. Though it is known that Valentinus had a more relaxed approach to sexuality than much of the orthodox church (he allowed women to hold positions of ordination in his community), it is not known whether the Bridal Chamber was a ritual involving actual intercourse, or whether human sexuality is here simply being used in a metaphorical sense.

Of the [[Carpocratians]] Irenaeus makes much the same report: they 'are so abandoned in their recklessness that they claim to have in their power and be able to practise anything whatsoever that is ungodly (irreligious) and impious ... they say that conduct is only good or evil in the eyes of man' (''Adversus Haereses'', I.25.4). Once again a differentiation might be detected between a man's actions and the grace he has received through his adherence to a system of ''gnosis''; whether this is due to a common sharing of such an attitude amongst Gnostic circles, or whether this is simply a blanket-charge used by Irenaeus is open to conjecture.

On the whole, it would seem that Gnostic behavior tended towards the ascetic. This said, the heresiological accusation of duplicity in such practises should not be taken at face value; nor should similar accusations of amoral libertinism. The Nag Hammadi library itself is full of passages which appear to encourage abstinence over indulgence. Fundamentally, however, gnostic movements appear to take the 'ancient schema of the two ways, which leaves the decision to do what is right to human endeavour and promises a reward for those who make the effort, and punishment for those who are negligent' (Kurt Rudolph, ''Gnosis:The Nature and History of Gnosticism'', 262).

==Major Gnostic movements and their texts==
As noted [[# History|above]], schools of Gnosticism can be defined according to one classification system as being a member of two broad categories. These are the 'Eastern'/'Persian' school, and a 'Syrian-Egyptic' school. The former possesses more demonstrably dualist tendencies, reflecting a strong influence from the beliefs of the Persian [[Zoroastrians]]. Among the Syrian-Egyptian schools and the movements they spawned are a typically more Monist view. Notable exceptions include relatively modern movements which seem to include elements of both categories, namely: the Cathars, Bogomils, and Carpocratians which are included in their own section.

===Persian Gnosticism===
The Persian Schools are representative of what is believed to be among the oldest of the Gnostic thought forms. These movements are considered by most to be religions in their own right, and are not emanations from [[Christianity]] or [[Judaism]].

* ''[[Mandaeanism]]'' is still practised in small numbers, in parts of southern [[Iraq]] and the Iranian province of [[Khuzestan]]. The name of the group derives from the term: Mandā d-Heyyi which roughly means "Knowledge of Life." Although the exact chronological origins of this movement are not known, John the Baptist eventually would come to be a key figure in the religion. As part of the core of their beliefs is an emphasis placed on baptism. As with Manichaeism, despite certain ties with Christianity, Mandaeans do not believe in Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed. Their beliefs and practices likewise have little overlap with the religions that manifested from those religious figures and the two should not be confused. Significant amounts of original Mandaean Scripture survive in the modern era. The primary source text is known as the [[Ginza Rba|Genzā Rabbā]] and has portions identified by some scholars as being copied as early as the 2nd century CE. There is also the [[Qolusta|Qolastā]], or Canonical Book of Prayer and The [[Book of John the Baptist]] (sidra ḏ-iahia).

* ''[[Manichaeism]]'' which represented an entire independent religious heritage, but is now mostly extinct was founded by the Prophet Mani (210-276 CE). Although most of the literature/scripture of the Manichaeins was believed lost, the discovery of an original series of documents have helped to shed new light on the subject. Now housed in [[Cologne]] [[Germany]], the [[Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis]] contains mainly biographical information on the prophet and details on his claims and teachings. Despite connections with [[Jesus Christ]], it is not believed that the Manichaeins in any way practiced a religion with identifiable overlap with any of the various Christian sects.

===Syrian-Egyptian Gnosticism===
The Syrian-Egyptian school derives much of its outlook from [[platonism|Platonist]] influences. Typically, it depicts creation in a series of emanations from a primal monadic source, finally resulting in the creation of the material universe. As a result, there is a tendency in these schools to view evil in terms of matter which is markedly inferior to goodness, evil as lacking spiritual insight and goodness, rather than to emphasize portrayals of evil as an equal force. These schools of gnosticism may be said to use the terms 'evil' and 'good' as being ''relative'' descriptive terms, as they refer to the relative plight of human existence caught between such realities and confused in its orientation, with 'evil' indicating the extremes of distance from the principle and source of goodness, without necessarily emphasizing an ''inherent'' negativity. As can be seen below, many of these movements included source material related to Christianity, with some identifying themselves as specifically Christian (albeit quite different from the so-called [[Orthodox]] or [[Roman Catholic]] forms).

====Syrian-Egyptic scripture====
Most of the literature from this category is known/confirmed to us in the modern age through the Library discovered at [[Nag Hammadi]].
* '''Sethian''' works are named after the third son of Adam and Eve, believed to be a possessor and disseminator of gnosis. These typically include:
** ''The [[Apocryphon of John]]''
** ''The [[Apocalypse of Adam]]''
** ''[[The Reality of the Rulers]], Also known as [[The hypostasis of the Archons]]''
** ''[[The Thunder Perfect Mind|The Thunder-Perfect Mind]]''
** ''[[Trimorphic Protennoia|The Three-fold First Thought]]'' ''(Trimorphic Protennoia)''
** ''The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit'' (also known as the ''[[Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians|(Coptic) Gospel of the Egyptians]]'')
** ''[[Zostrianos]]''
** ''[[Allogenes]]''
** ''The [[Three Steles of Seth]]''

* '''Thomasine''' works are so-named after the School of St. [[Thomas the Apostle]]. See [[Thomasine Church (Gnostic)]]. The texts commonly attributed to this school are:
** ''[[The Hymn of the Pearl]]'', or, the ''[[Hymn of the Pearl|Hymn of Jude Thomas the Apostle in the Country of Indians]]''
** ''The [[Gospel of Thomas]]''
** ''[[Book of Thomas the Contender|The Book of Thomas: The Contender Writing to the Perfect]]''

* '''Valentinian''' works are named in reference to the Bishop and teacher [[Valentinius]], also spelled Valentinus. [[Circa|ca.]] [[153]] AD/CE, Valentinius developed a complex Cosmology outside of the Sethian tradition. At one point he was close to being appointed the [[Bishop of Rome]] of what is now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Works attributed to his school are listed below, and fragmentary pieces directly linked to him are noted with an asterisk:
** ''[[The Divine Word Present in the Infant]]'' (Fragment A) *
** ''[[On the Three Natures]]'' (Fragment B) *
** ''[[Adam's Faculty of Speech]]'' (Fragment C) *
** ''[[To Agathopous: Jesus' Digestive System]]'' (Fragment D) *
** ''[[Annihilation of the Realm of Death]]'' (Fragment F) *
** ''[[On Friends: The Source of Common Wisdom]]'' (Fragment G) *
** ''[[Epistle on Attachments]]'' (Fragment H) *
** ''[[Summer Harvest]]''*
** ''[[Gospel of Truth|The Gospel of Truth]]''*
** ''[[Ptolemy's Version of the Gnostic Myth]]''
** ''[[The Prayer of the Apostle Paul]]''
** ''[[Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora]]''
** ''[[Treatise on Resurrection]]'' (''Epistle to Rheginus'')
** ''[[Gospel of Philip]]''

* '''Basilidian''' works are named for the founder of their school, [[Basilides]] ([[132]]–? CE/AD). These works are mainly known to us through the criticisms of one of his opponents, [[Irenaeus]] in his work ''[[Adversus Haereses]]''. The other pieces are known through the work of [[Clement of Alexandria]]:
** The Octet of Subsistent Entities (Fragment A)
** The Uniqueness of the World (Fragment B)
** Election Naturally Entails Faith and Virtue (Fragment C)
** The State of Virtue (Fragment D)
** The Elect Transcend the World (Fragment E)
** Reincarnation (Fragment F)
** Human Suffering and the Goodness of Providence (Fragment G)
** Forgivable Sins (Fragment H)

* The [[Gospel of Judas]] is the most recently discovered Gnostic text. [[National Geographic]] has published an English translation of it, bringing it into mainstream awareness. It portrays [[Judas Iscariot]] as the most enlightened disciple, who acted at Jesus' request when he handed Jesus over to the authorities. Its reference to [[Barbelo]] and inclusion of material similar to the Apocryphon of John and other such texts, connects the text to Barbeloite and/or Sethian Gnosticism.

===Later Gnosticism and Gnostic-influenced groups===
* '''Other schools and related movements'''; these are presented in chronological order:[[Image:Simple crossed circle.svg|right|frame|The [[Sun cross|circular, harmonic cross]] was an [[emblem]] used most notably by the [[Cathars]], a [[medieval]] group that related to Gnosticism]]
** ''[[Simon Magus]]'' and ''[[Marcion of Sinope]]'' both had Gnostic tendencies, but such familiar ideas that they presented were as-yet unformed; they might thus be described as pseudo- or proto-Gnostics. Both developed a sizeable following. Simon Magus' pupil ''Menander of Antioch'' could potentially be included within this grouping. Marcion is popularly labelled a gnostic, however most scholars do not consider him a gnostic at all, for example, the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] article on [http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MAL_MAR/MARCION.html Marcion] clearly states: "In Marcion's own view, therefore, the founding of his church — to which he was first driven by opposition — amounts to a reformation of [[Christendom]] through a return to the gospel of Christ and to Paul; nothing was to be accepted beyond that. This of itself shows that it is a mistake to reckon Marcion among the Gnostics. A [[dualist]] he certainly was, but he was not a Gnostic."
** ''[[Cerinthus]]'' (''c'' 100), the founder of a heretical school with gnostic elements. Like a Gnostic, Cerinthus depicted Christ as a heavenly spirit separate from the man Jesus, and he cited the demiurge as creating the material world. Unlike the Gnostics, Cerinthus taught Christians to observe the Jewish law; his demiurge was holy, not lowly; and he taught the Second Coming. His gnosis was a secret teaching attributed to an apostle. Some scholars believe that the First Epistle of John was written as a response to Cerinthus. <ref name = "gonzález">González, Justo L.(1970). ''A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I''. Abingdon. pp. 132-3</ref>
** The ''[[Ophites]]'', so-named because they worshipped the serpent of [[Genesis]] as the bestower of knowledge.
** The ''[[Cainites]]'', as the term implies, worshipped [[Cain]], as well as [[Esau]], [[Korah]], and the [[Sodom]]ites. There is little evidence concerning the nature of this group; however, it is surmisable that they believed that indulgence in sin was the key to salvation because since the body is evil, one must defile it through immoral activity (see [[libertinism]]).
** The ''[[Carpocrates|Carpocratians]]''
** The ''[[Borborites]]''
** The ''[[Bogomils]]''
** The ''[[Cathar]]s'' (''Cathari'', ''Albigenses'' or ''Albigensians'') are typically seen as being imitative of Gnosticism; whether or not the Cathari possessed direct historical influence from ancient Gnosticism is disputed. Though the basic conceptions of Gnostic cosmology are to be found in Cathar beliefs (most distinctly in their notion of a lesser, [[Satan]]ic, creator god), they did not apparently place any special relevance upon knowledge (''gnosis'') as an effective salvific force. For the relationship between these medieval heresies and earlier Gnostic forms, see [[# The development of the Persian school|historical discussion above]].
** The Kabbalists who originated in Provence which was at that time the center of the Cathars as well, also took many core Gnostic ideas and reinterpreted earlier Jewish sources according to this new foreign influence. See Gershom Scholem's ''Origins of the Kabbalah'' for further discussion on this topic.

==Important terms and concepts==
{{main|List of gnostic terms}}

===Aeons===
{{main|Aeon}}
In many Gnostic systems, the various [[emanationism|emanations]] of the [[God]], who is also known by such names as [[the One]], the [[Monad (Gnosticism)|Monad]], Aion teleos (The Perfect Aeon), [[Bythos]] (Depth or profundity, Greek Βυθος), Proarkhe (Before the Beginning, Greek προαρχη), E Arkhe (The Beginning, Greek ἡ ἀρχή), are called ''aeons''. This first being is also an æon and has an inner being within itself, known as Ennoia (Thought), Charis (Grace), or Sige (Greek Σιγη, Silence). The split perfect being conceives the second aeon, Caen (Power), within itself. Along with the male Caen comes the female æon Akhana (Truth, Love).

The aeons often came in male/female pairs called ''syzygies'', and were numerous (20-30). Two of the most commonly listed æons were [[Jesus]] and [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]]. The aeons constitute the ''[[pleroma]]'', the "region of light". The lowest regions of the pleroma are closest to the darkness; that is, the physical world.

When an æon named ''Sophia'' emanated without her partner aeon, the result was the ''[[Demiurge]]'', or half-creator (Occasionally referred to as ''Ialdaboth'' in Gnostic texts), a creature that should never have come into existence. This creature does not belong to the pleroma, and the One emanates two savior æons, ''[[Christ]]'' and ''the [[Holy Spirit]]'' to save man from the Demiurge. Christ then took the form of the man, ''Jesus'', in order to be able to teach man how to achieve [[gnosis]]; that is, return to the pleroma.

These systems, however, are only a sample of the various interpretations that exist. The roles of familiar beings such as Jesus, Christ, Sophia, and the Demiurge usually share the same general themes between systems but may have somewhat different functions or identities ascribed to them.

===Archon===
{{main|Archon}}
In late antiquity some variants of Gnosticism used the term ''Archon'' to refer to several servants of the ''[[Demiurge]]'', the "[[creator god]]" that stood between spiritual humanity and a transcendent God that could only be reached through gnosis. In this context they may be seen as having the roles of the angels and demons of the [[Old Testament]].

The [[Orphism (religion)|Orphics]] accepted the existence of seven archons: [[Demiurge|Iadabaoth]] or Ialdabaoth (who created the six others), [[Iao]], [[Sabaoth]], [[Adonaios]], [[Elaios]], [[Astaphanos]] and [[Horaios]] ([[Origen]], [[Contra Celsum]], VI.31). Ialdabaoth had a head of a lion, just like [[Mithraic]] Kronos ([[Chronos]]) and [[Historical Vedic religion|Vedic]] [[Narasimha]], a form of [[Vishnu]].{{Verify source|date=June 2007}}

===Abraxas/Abrasax===
{{main|Abraxas}}
[[Image:Abraxas, Nordisk familjebok.png|thumb|right|150px|Engraving from an Abraxas stone.]]
The Egyptian Gnostic [[Basilideans]] referred to a figure called ''Abraxas'' who was at the head of 365 spiritual beings ([[Irenaeus]], ''[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Adversus Haereses]]'', I.24); it is unclear what to make of Irenaeus' use of the term 'Archon', which may simply mean 'ruler' in this context. The role and function of Abraxas for Basilideans is not clear.

The word [[Abrasax]] was engraved on certain [[ancient history|antique]] stones, called on that account Abraxas stones, which may have been used as [[amulets]] or charms by Gnostic sects. In popular culture, Abraxas is sometimes considered the name of a [[god (male deity)|god]] who incorporated both [[Good]] and [[Evil]] (God and [[Demiurge]]) in one entity, and therefore representing the [[monotheistic God]], singular, but (unlike, for example, the Christian God) not [[eutheism|omni-benevolent]] (See Hesse's Demian, and Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead). Opinions abound on Abraxas, who in recent centuries has been claimed to be both an [[Egypt]]ian god and a [[demon]], sometimes even being associated with the dual nature of [[Satan]]/[[Lucifer]]. The word [[abracadabra]] may be related to Abraxas.

The above information relates to interpretations of ancient amulets and to reports of Christian heresy hunters which are not always clear.

Actual ancient Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi Library, such as the [[Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians|Gospel of the Egyptians]], refer to Abrasax as an Aeon dwelling with Sophia and other Aeons of the Spiritual Fullness in the light of the luminary Eleleth. In several texts, the luminary Eleleth is the last of the luminaries (Spiritual Lights) that come forward, and it is the Aeon Sophia, associated with Eleleth, who encounters darkness and becomes involved in the chain of events that leads to the Demiurge and Archon's rule of this world, and the salvage effort that ensues. As such, the role of Aeons of Eleleth, including Abrasax, Sophia, and others, pertains to this outer border of the Divine Fullness that encounters the ignorance of the world of Lack and interacts to rectify the error of ignorance in the world of materiality.

Words like or similar to Abraxas or Abrasax also appear in the Greek Magical Papyrii. There are similarities and differences between such figures in reports about Basiledes' teaching, in the larger magical traditions of the Graeco-Roman world, in the classic ancient Gnostic texts such as the Gospel of the Egyptians, and in later magical and esoteric writings.

The great Swiss Psychologist [[Carl Jung]] wrote a short Gnostic treatise in 1916 called [[The Seven Sermons to the Dead]], which called Abraxas a God higher than the Christian God and Devil, that combines all opposites into one Being.

===Demiurge===
{{main|Demiurge}}
[[Image:Lion-faced deity.jpg|thumb|right|150px|A lion-faced deity found on a Gnostic gem in [[Bernard de Montfaucon]]'s ''L'antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures'' may be a depiction of the Demiurge.]]
The term ''Demiurge'' refers to an entity (usually seen as evil) responsible for the creation of the [[physical universe]] and the physical aspect of [[Human nature|humanity]].

The term occurs in a number of other religious and philosophical systems, most notably [[Platonism]]. While always suggestive of a [[creator god]], the moral judgements regarding the demiurge vary wildly, from a benign [[grand architect]] to an evil subvertor of God's will.

Like [[Plato]], Gnosticism presents a distinction between the highest, unknowable "alien God" and the demiurgic "creator" of the material. However, in contrast to Plato, several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme God: his act of creation either in unconscious imitation of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed, or else formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine ''in'' materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to the [[problem of evil]]. In the [[Apocryphon of John]] (several versions of which are found in the [[Nag Hammadi library]]), the Demiurge has the name "[[Yaltabaoth]]", and proclaims himself as God:

:''"Now the [[archon]] who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is [[Saklas]], and the third is [[Samael]]. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come."''

[[Gnostic]] myth recounts that [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]] (Greek, literally meaning "wisdom"), the Demiurge's mother and a partial aspect of the divine [[Pleroma]] or "Fullness", desired to create something apart from the divine totality, and without the receipt of divine assent. In this abortive act of separate creation, she gave birth to the monstrous Demiurge and, being ashamed of her deed, she wrapped him in a cloud and created a throne for him within it. The Demiurge, isolated, did not behold his mother, nor anyone else, and thus concluded that only he himself existed, being ignorant of the superior levels of reality that were his birth-place.

The Gnostic myths describing these events are full of intricate nuances portraying the declination of aspects of the divine into human form; this process occurs through the agency of the Demiurge who, having stolen a portion of power from his mother, sets about a work of creation in unconscious imitation of the superior Pleromatic realm. Thus Sophia's power becomes enclosed within the material forms of humanity, themselves entrapped within the material universe: the goal of Gnostic movements was typically the awakening of this spark, which permitted a return by the subject to the superior, non-material realities which were its primal source. (See [[Sethian|Sethian Gnosticism]].)

"Samael" may equate to the [[Judaism|Judaic]] [[Death (personification)# Death .28angels.29 in religion|Angel of Death]], and corresponds to the Christian [[demon]] of [[Samael|that name]], as well as [[Satan]]. Literally, it can mean "Blind God" or "God of the Blind" in [[Aramaic]] ([[Syriac]] ''sæmʕa-ʔel''). Another alternative title for Yaldabaoth, "Saklas", is Aramaic for "fool" (Syriac ''sækla'' "the foolish one").

Some Gnostic philosophers identify the Demiurge with [[Yahweh]], the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]], in opposition and contrast to the God of the [[New Testament]]. Still others equated the being with [[Satan]]. [[Catharism]] apparently inherited their idea of Satan as the creator of the evil world directly or indirectly from Gnosticism.

===Gnosis===
{{main|Gnosis}}
The word 'Gnosticism' is a modern construction, though based on an antiquated linguistic expression: it comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] word meaning 'knowledge', ''gnosis'' (γνῶσις). However, ''gnosis'' itself refers to a very specialised form of knowledge, deriving both from the exact meaning of the original Greek term and its usage in [[Plato]]nist [[philosophy]].

Unlike modern [[English language|English]], ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being [[propositional knowledge]], indicative of knowledge acquired ''indirectly'' through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know ''of'' George Bush" or "I know Berlin ''is in'' Germany"), and [[empirical]] knowledge acquired by ''direct participation'' or ''acquaintance'' (such as "I know George Bush personally" or "I know Berlin, having visited").

''Gnosis'' (γνῶσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'Gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on [[knowledge]] in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to [[Mysticism|mystical]] or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine. Indeed, in most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of [[salvation]] is this 'knowledge of' ('acquaintance with') the divine. This is commonly identified with a process of inward 'knowing' or self-exploration, comparable to that encouraged by [[Plotinus]] (''[[Circa|ca]].'' [[205]]–[[270]] AD). However, as may be seen, the term 'gnostic' also had precedent usage in several ancient [[philosophy|philosophical]] traditions, which must also be weighed in considering the very subtle implications of its appellation to a set of ancient religious groups.

===Monad (apophatic theology)===
{{main|Monad (Gnosticism)}}
In many [[Gnostic]] systems (and heresiologies), [[God]] is known as the ''Monad'', [[the One]], [[The Absolute]], ''Aion teleos'' (The Perfect [[Æon]]), ''Bythos'' (Depth or Profundity, Βυθος), ''Proarkhe'' (Before the Beginning, προαρχη), and ''E Arkhe'' (The Beginning, η αρχη). God is the high source of the [[pleroma]], the region of light. The various emanations of God are called [[æon]]s.

Within certain variations of Gnosticism, especially those inspired by [[Monoimus]], the ''Monad'' was the highest [[God]] which created lesser [[deity|gods]], or elements (similar to æons).

According to [[Hippolytus (writer)|Hippolytus]], this view was inspired by the [[Pythagoreans]], who called the first thing that came into existence the ''Monad'', which begat the [[dyad]], which begat the [[number]]s, which begat the [[Point (geometry)|point]], begetting [[line]]s, etc. This was also clarified in the writings of [[Plato]], [[Aristotle]] and [[Plotinus]]. This teaching being largely [[Pythagoreanism|Neopythagorean]] via [[Numenius of Apamea|Numenius]] as well.

This Monad is the [[supernatural|spiritual]] source of everything which [[emanationism|emanates]] the [[pleroma]], and could be contrasted to the dark [[Demiurge]] (Yaldabaoth) that controls [[matter]].

The [[Sethian]] cosmogony as most famously contained in the Apocryphon ('Secret book') of John describes an unknown [[God]], very similar to the [[orthodoxy|orthodox]] apophatic theology, although very different from the orthodox credal teachings that there is one such god who is identified also as creator of heaven and earth. In describing the nature of a creator god associated with Biblical texts, orthodox theologians often attempt to define God through a series of explicit positive statements, themselves universal but in the divine taken to their superlative degrees: he is [[omniscient]], [[omnipotent]] and truly [[benevolent]]. The Sethian conception of the most hidden transcendent God is, by contrast, defined through [[negative theology]]: he is immovable, invisible, intangible, ineffable; commonly, 'he' is seen as being [[hermaphroditic]], a potent symbol for being, as it were, 'all-containing'. In the Apocryphon of John, this god is good in that it bestows goodness. After the apophatic statements, the process of the Divine in action are used to describe the effect of such a god.

An apophatic approach to discussing the Divine is found throughout gnosticism, Vendantic hinduism, and Platonic and Aristotelian theology as well. It is also found in some Judaic sources.

===Pleroma===
{{main|Pleroma}}
''Pleroma'' (Greek πληρωμα) generally refers to the totality of God's powers. The term means ''fullness'', and is used in Christian theological contexts: both in Gnosticism generally, and in [[Colossians]] 2.9.

Gnosticism holds that the world is controlled by evil [[archon]]s, one of whom is the demiurge, the deity of the [[Old Testament]] who holds the human spirit captive.

The heavenly pleroma is the center of divine life, a region of light "above" (the term is not to be understood spatially) our world, occupied by spiritual beings such as [[aeon]]s (eternal beings) and sometimes [[archon]]s. [[Jesus]] is interpreted as an intermediary aeon who was sent from the pleroma, with whose aid humanity can recover the lost knowledge of the divine origins of humanity. The term is thus a central element of Gnostic [[cosmology]].

Pleroma is also used in the general Greek language and is used by the Greek Orthodox church in this general form since the word appears under the book of Colossians. Proponents of the view that [[Gnosticism and the New Testament|Paul was actually a gnostic]], such as [[Elaine Pagels]] of [[Princeton University]], view the reference in Colossians as something that was to be interpreted in the gnostic sense.

===Sophia===
{{main|Sophia (Gnosticism)}}
In Gnostic tradition, the term ''Sophia'' (Σoφíα, [[Greek language|Greek]] for "wisdom") refers to the final and lowest emanation of God.

In most if not all versions of the gnostic myth, Sophia births the [[demiurge]], who in turn brings about the creation of materiality. The positive or negative depiction of materiality thus resides a great deal on mythic depictions of Sophia's actions. She is occasionally referred to by the [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] equivalent of ''Achamoth'' (this is a feature of [[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]]'s version of the [[Valentinius|Valentinian]] gnostic myth). Jewish Gnosticism with a focus on Sophia was active by 90 <ref> [http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/jew_gnostic.htm Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity]</ref>

Almost all gnostic systems of the [[Gnosticism#Major gnostic schools and their texts|Syrian]] or [[Gnosticism# Major gnostic schools and their texts|Egyptian]] type taught that the universe began with an original, unknowable [[God]], referred to as the Parent or [[Bythos]], as the [[Monad (Gnosticism)|Monad]] by [[Monoimus]], or the first [[Aeon]] by still other traditions. From this initial unitary beginning, the One spontaneously [[emanationism|emanated]] further [[Aeon]]s, pairs of progressively 'lesser' beings in sequence. The lowest of these pairs were Sophia and [[Christ]]. The Aeons together made up the Pleroma, or fullness, of God, and thus should not be seen as distinct from the divine, but symbolic abstractions of the divine nature.

==History==
{{main|History of Gnosticism}}

===The development of the Syrian-Egyptian school===
[[Bentley Layton]] has sketched out a relationship between the various gnostic movements in his introduction to ''The Gnostic Scriptures'' (SCM Press, London, [[1987]]). In this model, 'Classical Gnosticism' and 'The School of Thomas' antedated and influenced the development of [[Valentinus]], who was to found his own school of Gnosticism in both [[Alexandria]] and [[Rome]], whom Layton called 'the great [Gnostic] reformer' and 'the focal point' of Gnostic development. While in Alexandria, where he was born, Valentinus probably would have had contact with the Gnostic teacher [[Basilides]], and may have been influenced by him.

[[Valentinianism]] flourished throughout the early centuries of the common era: while Valentinus himself lived from ''[[Circa|ca]]''. [[100]]–[[180]] AD/CE, a list of sectarians or heretics, composed in [[388]] AD/CE, against whom Emperor Constantine intended legislation includes Valentinus (and, presumably, his inheritors). The school is also known to have been extremely popular: several varieties of their central myth are known, and we know of 'reports from outsiders from which the intellectual liveliness of the group is evident' (Markschies, ''Gnosis: An Introduction'', 94). It is known that Valentinus' students, in further evidence of their intellectual activity, elaborated upon the teachings and materials they received from him (though the exact extent of their changes remains unknown), for example, in the version of the Valentinian myth brought to us through [[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]].

Valentinianism might be described as the most elaborate and philosophically 'dense' form of the Syrian-Egyptian schools of Gnosticism, though it should be acknowledged that this in no way debarred other schools from attracting followers: Basilides' own school was popular also, and survived in [[Egypt]] until the 4th century.

Simone Petrement, in ''A Separate God'', in arguing for a Christian origin of Gnosticism, places Valentinus after Basilides, but before the Sethians. It is her assertion that Valentinus represented a moderation of the anti-Judaism of the earlier Hellenized teachers; the demiurge, widely regarded to be a mythological depiction of the Old Testament God of the Hebrews, is depicted as more ignorant than evil. (See below.)

[[Image:Manicheans.jpg|thumb|250px|Manichean priests writing at their desks, with panel inscription in [[Sogdian language|Sogdian]]. Manuscript from Khocho, [[Tarim Basin]].]]

===The development of the Persian school===
An alternate heritage is offered by [[Kurt Rudolph]] in his book ''Gnosis: The Nature & Structure of Gnosticism'' (Koehler and Amelang, [[Leipzig]], [[1977]]), to explain the lineage of Persian Gnostic schools. The decline of [[Manicheism]] that occurred in Persia in the 5th century AD/CE was too late to prevent the spread of the movement into the east and the west. In the west, the teachings of the school moved into [[Syria]], [[Arabia|Northern Arabia]], [[Egypt]] and [[Africa|North Africa]] (where [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] was a member of school from [[373]]-[[382]]); from Syria it progressed still farther, into [[Palestine]], [[Asia Minor]] and [[Armenia]]. There is evidence for Manicheans in Rome and [[Dalmatia]] in the 4th century, and also in [[Gaul]] and [[Spain]]. The influence of Manicheanism was attacked by imperial elects and polemical writings, but the religion remained prevalent until the 6th century, and still exerted influence in the emergence of the [[Paulicians]], [[Bogomil]]s and [[Cathars|Cathari]] in the Middle Ages, until it was ultimately stamped out as a heresy by the Catholic Church.

In the east, Rudolph relates, Manicheanism was able to bloom, given that the religious monopoly position previously held by Christianity and [[Zoroastrianism]] had been broken by nascent [[Islam]]. In the early years of the Arab conquest, Manicheanism again found followers in Persia (mostly amongst educated circles), but flourished most in [[Central Asia]], to which it had spread through Iran. Here, in [[762]], Manicheanism became the state religion of the [[Uyghur Empire]].

===Buddhism and Gnosticism===
Early [[3rd century]]–[[4th century]] [[Christian]] writers such as [[Hippolytus (writer)|Hippolytus]] and [[Epiphanius of Salamis|Epiphanius]] write about a [[Scythianus]], who visited India around [[50|50 CE]] from where he brought "the doctrine of the Two Principles". According to [[Cyril of Jerusalem]], Scythianus' pupil [[Terebinthus]] presented himself as a "Buddha" ("He called himself Buddas" {{Fact|date=June 2007}}). Terebinthus went to [[Palestine]] and [[Judea|Judaea]] ("becoming known and condemned"), and ultimately settled in [[Babylon]], where he transmitted his teachings to [[Mani (prophet)|Mani]], thereby creating the foundation of [[Manichaeism]]:

{{quote|"But Terebinthus, his disciple in this wicked error, inherited his money and books and heresy, and came to Palestine, and becoming known and condemned in Judæa he resolved to pass into Persia: but lest he should be recognised there also by his name he changed it and called himself Buddas."|[[Cyril of Jerusalem]], [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310106.htm "Catechetical lecture 6"]}}

In the 3rd century, the Syrian writer and Christian [[Gnosticism|Gnostic]] theologian [[Bar Daisan]] described his exchanges with the religious missions of holy men from India (Greek: Σαρμαναίοι, Sramanas), passing through [[Syria]] on their way to [[Elagabalus]] or another [[Severan dynasty]] [[Roman Emperor]]. His accounts were quoted by [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] (De abstin., iv, 17 {{Fact|date=June 2007}}) and [[Stobaeus]] (Eccles., iii, 56, 141).

Finally, from the 3rd century to the [[12th century]], some Gnostic religions such as Manichaeism, which combined Christian, Hebrew and Buddhist influences ([[Mani (prophet)|Mani]], the founder of the religion, resided for some time in [[Kushan]] lands), spread throughout the [[Old World]], to [[Gaul]] and [[Great Britain]] in the West, and to [[China]] in the East. Some leading Christian theologians such as [[Augustine of Hippo]] were Manichaeans before converting to orthodox Christianity.

Such exchanges, many more of which may have gone unrecorded, suggest that Buddhism may have had some influence on early [[Christianity]]: "Scholars have often considered the possibility that Buddhism influenced the early development of Christianity. They have drawn attention to many parallels concerning the births, lives, doctrines, and deaths of the Buddha and Jesus" (Bentley, "Old World Encounters").

===Influence in East Asia===
Early missionaries, including [[Manicheans]], [[Zoroastrians]], and [[Nestorians]], traveled and proselytized along the [[Silk Road]] east to [[Chang'an]], the [[Tang Dynasty]] capital of China. The first introduction of Christianity, under the Chinese name ''Jĭngjiào'' (景教, literally "bright/luminous religion"), was from [[Nestorianism in China|Nestorianism]] or the [[Assyrian Church of the East]]. In 635, when Nestorian missionaries arrived in Chang'an, the Emperor assigned his famous Prime Minister Fang Xuanling (房玄齡) to hold a grand welcome ceremony. Chinese Nestorianism was popular in the late 8th century, but never became a widely-practice mainstream religion in China. In 845, [[Emperor Wuzong of Tang]] ordered the Great Persecution of Buddhism, which affected other foreign religions, weakened Nestorianism and practically destroyed Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism in China.

Chinese Nestorianism revived during the 13th-14th century [[Yuan Dynasty]], but was replaced by [[Roman Catholicism]] in 16th-17th centuries. Rudolph reported that despite the suppression, Manichean traditions are reputed to have survived until the 17th century (based on the reports of [[Portugal|Portuguese]] sailors).

=='Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category==
In [[1966]] in [[Messina]], [[Italy]], a conference was held concerning systems of ''gnosis''. Among its several aims were the need to establish a program to translate the recently-acquired Nag Hammadi library (see [[# Translation|above]]) and the need to arrive at an agreement concerning an accurate definition of 'Gnosticism'. This was in answer to the tendency, prevalent since the eighteenth century, to use the term 'gnostic' less as its origins implied, but rather as an interpretive category for ''contemporary'' philosophical and religious movements. For example, in [[1835]], [[New Testament]] scholar [[Ferdinand Christian Baur]] constructed a developmental model of Gnosticism that culminates in the religious philosophy of [[Hegel]]; one might compare [[literary critic]] [[Harold Bloom]]'s recent attempts to identify Gnostic elements in contemporary [[United States|American]] religion, or [[Eric Voegelin]]'s analysis of [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] impulses through the interpretive lens of Gnosticism.

The 'cautious proposal' reached by the conference concerning Gnosticism is described by Markschies:

{{Quotation|In the concluding document of Messina the proposal was 'by the simultaneous application of historical and typological methods' to designate 'a particular group of systems of the second century after Christ' as 'gnosticism', and to use 'gnosis' to define a conception of knowledge transcending the times which was described as 'knowledge of divine mysteries for an élite'.|Markschies|Gnosis: An Introduction, p. 13}}

In essence, it had been decided that 'Gnosticism' would become a historically-specific term, restricted to mean the Gnostic movements prevalent in the 3rd century, while 'gnosis' would be an universal term, denoting a system of knowledge retained 'for a privileged élite.' However, this effort towards providing clarity in fact created more conceptual confusion, as the historical term 'Gnosticism' was an entirely modern construction, while the new universal term 'gnosis' ''was'' a historical term: 'something was being called "gnosticism" that the ancient theologians had called "gnosis" ... [A] concept of gnosis had been created by Messina that was almost unusable in a historical sense' (Markschies, ''Gnosis: An Introduction'', 14-15). In antiquity, all agreed that knowledge was centrally important to life, but few were agreed as to what exactly ''constituted'' knowledge; the unitary conception that the Messina proposal presupposed did not exist.

These flaws have meant that the problems concerning an exact definition of Gnosticism persist. It remains current convention to use 'Gnosticism' in a historical sense, and 'gnosis' universally. Leaving aside the issues with the latter noted above, the usage of 'Gnosticism' to designate a category of religions in the 3rd century has recently been questioned as well. Of note is the work of [[Michael Allen Williams]] in ''Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for the Dismantling of a Dubious Category'', in which the author examines the terms by which gnosticism as a category is defined, and then closely compares these suppositions with the contents of actual Gnostic texts (the newly-recovered Nag Hammadi library was of central importance to his thesis).

Williams argues that the conceptual foundations on which the category of Gnosticism rests are the remains of the agenda of the heresiologists. Too much emphasis has been laid on perceptions of dualism, body-and-matter hatred, and anticosmism, without these suppositions being properly ''tested''. In essence, the interpretive definition of Gnosticism that was created by the antagonistic efforts of the heresiologists has been taken up by modern scholarship and reflected in a ''categorical'' definition, even though the means now exist to verify its accuracy. Attempting to do so, Williams contests, reveals the dubious nature of categorical 'Gnosticism', and he concludes that the term needs replacing in order to more accurately reflect those movements it comprises. Williams' observations have provoked debate; however, to date his suggested replacement term 'the Biblical demiurgical tradition' has not become widely used.

==Gnosticism in modern times==
{{main|Gnosticism in modern times}}

A number of 19th century thinkers such as [[William Blake]], [[Schopenhauer]],<ref>[[Schopenhauer]], ''[[The World as Will and Representation]]'', Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII </ref> [[Albert Pike]], [[Helena Petrovna Blavatsky|Madame Blavatsky]], studied Gnostic thought extensively and were influenced by it, and even figures like [[Melville]] and [[W. B. Yeats]] were more tangentially influenced.<ref name="smith">Smith, Richard. "The Modern Relevance of Gnosticism" in The Nag Hammadi Library, 1990 ISBN 0-06-066935-7</ref> [[Jules Doinel]] "re-established" a Gnostic church in France in 1890 which altered its form as it passed through various direct successors (Fabre des Essarts as ''Tau Synésius'' and Joanny Bricaud as ''Tau Jean II'' most notably), and which, although small, is still active today (cf. [http://www.plerome.org l'Eglise du Plérôme]).

Early 20th century thinkers who heavily studied and were influenced by Gnosticism include [[Carl Jung]] (who supported Gnosticism), [[Eric Voegelin]] (who opposed it), and [[Aleister Crowley]], with figures such as [[Hermann Hesse]] being more moderatedly influenced. [[Rene Guenon]] founded the gnostic review, Le Gnose in 1909 (before moving to a more [[Traditionalist School|"Perennialist"]] position). Several of the [[Thelema|Thelemite]] organizations tracing themselves to Crowley's thought, think of themselves as Gnostic organizations today, such as [[Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica]] and [[Ordo Templi Orientis]].

The discovery and translation of the [[Nag Hammadi library]] after 1945 had a huge impact on Gnosticism since World War II. Thinkers who were heavily influenced by Gnosticism in this period include [[Hans Jonas]], [[Phillip K. Dick]] and [[Harold Bloom]], with [[Albert Camus]] and [[Allen Ginsberg]] being more moderately influenced.<Ref name="smith" /> A number of ecclesiastical bodies which think of themselves as Gnostic have been set up or re-founded since World War II as well, including the [[Society of Novus Spiritus]], [[Ecclesia Gnostica]], the [[Thomasine Church]], the [[Apostolic Johannite Church]], the [[North American College of Gnostic Bishops]], and the World Gnostic Movement of [[Samael Aun Weor]]. [[Celia Green]] has written on Gnostic Christianity in relation to her own philosophy<ref name = "Green">Green, Celia (1981,2006). ''Advice to Clever Children''. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Ch.s XXXV-XXXVII</ref>
.

==See also==
{{multicol}}
* [[Antinomianism]]
* [[Anthroposophy]]
* [[Apocrypha]]
* [[Black Iron Prison]]
* [[Christian anarchism]]
* [[Christian theosophy]]
* [[Christian mysticism]]
{{multicol-break}}
* [[First Council of Nicaea]]
* [[Gospel]]
* [[Gnosiology]]
* [[Hermeticism]]
* [[Ontology]]
* [[Sufism]]
* [[Theodicy]]
{{multicol-break}}
* [[Occult]]
* [[Esotericism]]
{{multicol-end}}

==Footnotes==
{{reflist|2}}
<references/>

==References==
===Books===
====Primary sources====
* {{cite book | authorlink = Bentley Layton | last = Layton | first = Bentley | title = The Gnostic Scriptures | publisher = SCM Press | year = 1987 | id = ISBN 0-334-02022-0 | pages = 526 pages }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = James M. Robinson | last = Robinson | first = James | title = The Nag Hammadi Library in English | publisher = | year = 1978 | id = ISBN 0-06-066934-9 | pages = 549 pages }}
* {{cite book | author = [[Plotinus]] | other = translated by A.H. Armstrong | title = The [[Enneads]] | publisher = [[Harvard University|Harvard University Press]] | year = 1989 | id = }} (in 7 volumes), vol. 1: ISBN 0-674-99484-1
* The Gnostic Bible, Ed. Willis Barstone

====Secondary sources====
* {{cite book | last = Aland | first = Barbara | title = [[Festschrift]] für Hans Jonas | publisher = Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | year = 1978 | id = ISBN 3-525-58111-4 }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Robert A. Anderson | last= Anderson | first = Robert A. | title = Church of God? or the Temples of Satan - A Reference Book of Spiritual Understanding & Gnosis | publisher = TGS Publishers | year = 2006 | id = ISBN 0-9786249-6-3 }}
* {{cite book | last= Burstein | first = Dan | title = Secrets of Mary Magdalene | publisher = CDS Books | year = 2006 | id = ISBN 1-59315-205-1 }}
* {{cite book | last = Freke | first = Timothy | coauthors = Gandy, Peter | title = The Hermetica: The Lost Wisdom of the Pharaohs | publisher = Tarcher | year = 1999 | id = ISBN 0-87477-950-2 }}
* {{cite book | last = Freke | first = Timothy | coauthors = Gandy, Peter | title = Jesus and the Lost Goddess : The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians | publisher = Three Rivers Press | year = 2002 | id = ISBN 0-00-710071-X }}
* {{cite book | last = Green | first = Henry | title = Economic and Social Origins of Gnosticism | publisher = Scholars P.,U.S. | year = 1985 | id = ISBN 0-89130-843-1 }}
* {{cite book | last = Haardt | first = Robert | title = Die Gnosis: Wesen und Zeugnisse | publisher = Otto-Müller-Verlag, Salzburg | year = 1967 | id = | pages = 352 pages }}, translated as {{cite book | last = Haardt | first = Robert | title = Gnosis: Character and Testimony | publisher = Brill, Leiden | year = 1971 | id = }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Stephan A. Hoeller | last = Hoeller | first = Stephan A. | title = Gnosticism - New Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing | publisher = | year = 2002 | id = ISBN 0-8356-0816-6 | pages = 257 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Jones | first = Peter | title = The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back: An Old Heresy for the New Age | publisher = Presbyterian & Reformed | year = 1992 | id = ISBN 0-87552-285-8 | pages = 112 pages }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Hans Jonas | last = Jonas | first = Hans | title = Gnosis und spätantiker Geist vol. 2:1-2, Von der Mythologie zur mystischen Philosophie | publisher = | year = | id = ISBN 3-525-53841-3 }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Charles William King | last = King | first = Charles William | title = The Gnostics and Their Remains | year = 1887 | url = http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/gar/ }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Karen Leigh King| last = King | first = Karen L. | title = What is Gnosticism? | publisher = Harvard University Press | year = 2003 | id = ISBN 0-674-01071-X | pages = 343 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Klimkeit | first = Hans-Joachim | title = Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Texts from Central Asia | publisher = Harper, San Francisco | year = 1993 | id = ISBN 0-06-064586-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = Layton | first = Bentley | editor = edited by L. Michael White, O. Larry Yarbrough | chapter = Prolegomena to the study of ancient gnosticism | title = The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks | publisher = Fortress Press, Minneapolis | year = 1995 | id = ISBN 0-8006-2585-4 }}
* {{cite book | author = Layton, Bentley (ed.) | title = The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Sethian Gnosticism | publisher = E.J. Brill | year = 1981 }}
* {{cite book | last = Longfellow | first = Ki | title = The Secret Magdalene | publisher = | year = 2005 | id = ISBN 0-9759255-3-9 | pages = 458 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Markschies | first = Christoph | other = trans. John Bowden | title = Gnosis: An Introduction | publisher = T & T Clark | year = 2000 | id = ISBN 0-567-08945-2 | pages = 145 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Mins | first = Denis | title = Irenaeus | publisher = Geoffrey Chapman | year = 1994 | id = }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Elaine Pagels | last = Pagels | first = Elaine | title = The Gnostic Gospels | publisher = | year = 1979 | id = ISBN 0-679-72453-2 | pages = 182 pages }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Elaine Pagels | last = Pagels | first = Elaine | title = The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis | publisher = | year = 1989 | id = ISBN 1-55540-334-4 | pages = 128 pages }}
* Petrement, Simone (1990), ''A Separate God: The Origins and Teachings of Gnosticsim'', Harper and Row ISBN 0-06-066421-5
* {{cite book | last = Puma | first = Jeremy | title = Running Towards the Bomb: Gnosticism and the End of Civilisation | publisher = Geosynchronous Lamps | year = 2005 | id = ISBN 1-4116-4523-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = Rudolph | first = Kurt | title = Gnosis: The Nature & Structure of Gnosticism | publisher = Harper & Row | year = 1987 | id = ISBN 0-06-067018-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = [[Benjamin Walker|Walker]] | first = [[Benjamin Walker|Benjamin]] | title = Gnosticism: Its History and Influence | publisher = Harper Collins | year = 1990 | id = ISBN 1-85274-057-4 }}
* {{cite book | last = Wapnick | first = Kenneth | title = Love Does Not Condemn: The World, the Flesh, and the Devil According to Platonism, Christianity, Gnosticism, and A Course in Miracles | publisher = Foundation for A Course in Miracles | year = 1989 | id = ISBN 0-933291-07-8 | pages = 614 pages}}
* Wilberg, Peter (2003) ''From New Age to New Gnosis'' - ''On'' ''the Contemporary Significance of a New Gnostic Spirituality'', ISBN 1-904519-07-5
* {{cite book | last = Williams | first = Michael | title = Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category | publisher = Princeton University Press | year = 1996 | id = ISBN 0-691-01127-3 }}

===Audio lectures===
* [http://www.bcrecordings.net/store/ BC Recordings] - Offers an extensive collection of downloadable MP3 lecture by Stephan A. Hoeller on Gnosticism.
* [http://www.futurehi.net/media.html Future Hi] - Provides MP3s of a multi-part lecture by [[Huston Smith]]
* [http://thegodabovegod.com/]- Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis: A weekly program on The Gnostics, Gnosticism & Gnosis.

===Videos===
* ''The Naked Truth: Exposing the Deceptions About the Origins of Modern Religions'' (1995).

==External links==


===Ancient Gnosticism===
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm Religious Tolerance] - A survey of Gnosticism
* [http://sacredwisdom.net Sacred Wisdom] - Gnosticism and Christian Esotericism
* [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html Early Christian Writings] - primary texts
* [http://www.gnosis.org/library.html The Gnostic Society Library]
* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/gnostic.htm Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Gnosticism]
* [http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/intro.htm Introduction to Gnosticism]
* [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=280&letter=G&search=gnosticism Jewish Encyclopedia: Gnosticism]
* [http://www.theandros.com/pregnostic.html Proto-Gnostic elements in the Gospel according to John]
* [http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/index.html Gnostic version of the Bible and more on Gnostics]
* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Gnosticism]

===Modern Gnosticism===

* [http://www.americangnosticAssociation.org/ American Gnostic Association]
* [http://www.gnosis.org/eghome.htm Ecclesia Gnostica (Gnosis Archive)]
* [http://www.gnosticcenter.org/ The Alexandrian Gnostic Church]
* [http://www.lectoriumrosicrucianum.org/ Lectorium Rosicrucianum]
* [http://www.johannite.org/ Apostolic Johannite Church]
* [http://www.ageac.org/ AGEAC (Gnostic Association of Anthropological, Cultural and Scientific Studies)]

{{belief systems}}

[[Category:Gnosticism|*]]
[[Category:Ancient Roman Christianity]]
[[Category:New Testament Apocrypha]]
[[Category:Anti-Christianity]]

{{Link FA|eo}}

[[af:Gnostisisme]]
[[ar:غنوصية]]
[[be-x-old:Гнастыцызм]]
[[bg:Гностицизъм]]
[[cs:Gnosticismus]]
[[da:Gnosticisme]]
[[de:Gnostizismus]]
[[et:Gnostitsism]]
[[el:Γνωστικισμός]]
[[es:Gnosticismo]]
[[eo:Gnostikismo]]
[[fr:Gnosticisme]]
[[ilo:Gnosticismo]]
[[ia:Gnosticismo]]
[[it:Gnosticismo]]
[[he:גנוסיס]]
[[nl:Gnosticisme]]
[[ja:グノーシス主義]]
[[no:Gnostisisme]]
[[pl:Gnostycyzm]]
[[pt:Gnosticismo]]
[[ro:Gnosticism]]
[[ru:Гностицизм]]
[[sq:Gnosticizmi]]
[[sk:Gnosticizmus]]
[[sl:Gnosticizem]]
[[sr:Гностицизам]]
[[fi:Gnostilaisuus]]
[[sv:Gnosticism]]
[[zh:諾斯底主義]]

Gnosticism

2007-09-28T02:42:28Z

Harpakhrad11: /* See also */

{{expert-subject|Religion}}
{{npov}}
'''Gnosticism''' (from [[Greek (language)|Greek]] ''gnosis'', [[knowledge]]) refers to a diverse, [[syncretistic]] [[religious movement]] consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine [[soul]]s trapped in a [[material world]] created by an imperfect spirit, the [[demiurge]], who is frequently identified with the [[Abrahamic]] [[God]]. The demiurge, who is often depicted as an embodiment of evil, at other times as simply imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy allows, exists alongside another remote and unknowable [[supreme being]] that embodies good. In order to free oneself from the inferior material world, one needs [[gnosis]], or [[esoteric]] spiritual knowledge available only to a learned elite. [[Jesus of Nazareth]] is identified by some (though not all) Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the Earth.

Gnosticism was popular in the [[Mediterranean]] and [[middle east]]ern regions in the first centuries [[Common Era|CE]], but it was suppressed<ref>[[Bart D. Ehrman]], Lost Christianities. (Oxford University press, 2003) P.188-202</ref>as a [[dualistic]] [[heresy]] in areas controlled by the [[Roman Empire]] when [[Christianity]] became its official religion in the fourth century. Conversion to [[Islam]] greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the [[middle ages]], though a few isolated communities continue to exist to the present. Gnostic ideas became influential in the philosophies of various [[esoteric]] [[mystical]] movements of the late [[19th century|19th]] and [[20th century|20th centuries]] in [[Europe]] and [[North America]], including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier gnostic groups.

{{Gnosticism}}

==Nature and structure of Gnosticism==
===A typological model: the main features of gnosticism===
Difficulties have arisen in offering a definitive, categorical definition of Gnosticism (see [[# 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category|below]]), and various strategies have been applied in overcoming the problem, with varying degrees of success. It is therefore appropriate to discuss a typological model of those ancient philosophical movements typically called Gnostic; the model offered is adapted from [[Christoph Markschies]]' version, as described in 'Gnosis: An Introduction'.

Gnostic systems are typically marked by:

# The notion of a remote, supreme [[monad (Gnosticism)|monadic]] divinity - this figure is known under a variety of names, including '[[Pleroma]]' and '[[Bythos]]' (Greek 'deep');
# The introduction by emanation of further divine beings, which are nevertheless identifiable as aspects of the God from which they proceeded; the progressive emanations are often conceived metaphorically as a gradual and progressive distancing from the ultimate source, which brings about an instability in the fabric of the divine nature;
# The subsequent identification of [[the Fall of Man]] as an occurrence with its ultimate foundations within ''divinity itself'', rather than as occurring either entirely or indeed partially through human agency; this stage in the divine emanation is usually enacted through the recurrent Gnostic figure of [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]] (Greek 'Wisdom'), whose presence in a wide variety of [[Gnostic texts]] is indicative of her central importance;
# The introduction of a distinct creator god, who is named as in the [[Platonist]] tradition ''demiurgos''. Evidence exists that the conception of the [[demiurge]] has derivation from figures in Plato's ''[[Timaeus]]'' and ''[[The Republic (Plato)|Republic]]''. In the former, the demiurge is the benevolent creator of the universe from pre-existent matter, to whose limitations he is enthralled in creating the cosmos; in the latter, the description of the leontomorphic 'desire' in [[Socrates]]' model of the [[Psyche (psychology)|psyche]] bears a strong resemblance to descriptions of the demiurge as being in the shape of the lion. Elsewhere this figure is called '[[Demiurge|Ialdabaoth]]', 'Samael' ([[Aramaic]] ''sæmʕa-ʔel'', 'blind god') or 'Saklas' ([[Syriac]] ''sækla'', 'the foolish one'), who is sometimes ignorant of the superior God, and sometimes opposed to it; thus in the latter case he is correspondingly malevolent. The demiurge typically creates a group of coactors named '[[Archons]]', who preside over the material realm and, in some cases, present obstacles to the soul seeking ascent from it;
# The estimation of the world, owing to the above, as flawed or a production of 'error' but nevertheless as good as its constituent material might allow. This world is typically an inferior [[simulacrum]] of a higher-level reality or consciousness. The inferiority may be compared to the technical inferiority of a [[painting]], [[sculpture]], or other [[handicraft]] to the thing(s) those crafts are supposed to be a [[Mimesis|representation]] of. In certain other cases it is also perceived as evil and constrictive, a deliberate prison for its inhabitants;
# The explanation of this state through the use of a complex mythological-cosmological drama in which a divine element 'falls' into the material realm and lodges itself within certain human beings; from here, it may be returned to the divine realm through a process of awakening (leading towards salvation). The salvation of the individual thus mirrors a concurrent restoration of the divine nature; a central Gnostic innovation was to elevate individual redemption to the level of a cosmically significant event;
# Knowledge of a specific kind as a central factor in this process of restoration, achieved through the mediation of a redeemer figure ([[Christ]], or, in other cases, [[Seth]] or [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]]).

The model limits itself to describing characteristics of the [[# Major gnostic schools and their texts|Syrian-Egyptian]] school of Gnosticism. This is for the reason that the greatest expressions of the [[# Major gnostic schools and their texts|Persian gnostic school]] - [[Manicheanism]] and [[Mandaeanism]] - are typically conceived of as religious traditions in their own right; indeed, the typical usage of 'Gnosticism' is to refer to the Syrian-Egyptian schools alone, while 'Manichean' describes the movements of the Persia school.

The conception of Gnosticism offered above has recently been challenged by Michael Allen William's groundbreaking work 'Rethinking Gnosticism', which re-examines the common conception of categorical 'Gnosticism' in an effort to demonstrate the somewhat nebulous nature of the term (see [[# 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category|below]]). Despite this, the understanding presented above remains in common usage, and retains at least some usefulness in aiding meaningful discussion of the phenomena that compose Gnosticism, even if the extent of that usefulness is in doubt.

===Dualism and monism===
Typically, Gnostic systems are loosely described as being 'dualistic' in nature, meaning that they had the view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities. Within this definition, they run the gamut from the 'extreme' or 'radical dualist' systems of Manicheanism to the 'weak' or 'mitigated dualism' of classic gnostic movements; Valentinian developments arguably approach a form of [[monism]], expressed in terms previously used in a dualistic manner.

* '''Radical Dualism''' - or absolute Dualism which posits two co-equal divine forces. Manichaeism conceives of two previously coexistent realms of light and darkness which become embroiled in conflict, owing to the chaotic actions of the latter. Subsequently, certain elements of the light became entrapped within darkness; the purpose of material creation is to enact the slow process of extraction of these individual elements, at the end of which the kingdom of light will prevail over darkness. Manicheanism likely inherits this dualistic mythology from [[Zoroastrianism]], in which the eternal spirit [[Ahura Mazda]] is opposed by his antithesis, [[Angra Mainyu]]; the two are engaged in a cosmic struggle, the conclusion of which will likewise see Ahura Mazda triumphant. The Mandaean creation myth witnesses the progressive emanations of Supreme Being of Light, with each emanation bringing about a progressive corruption resulting in the eventual emergence of [[Ptahil]], the god of darkness who had a hand in creating and henceforward rules the material realm. Additionally, general Gnostic thought (specifically to be found in Iranian sects; for instance, see '[[The Hymn of the Pearl]]') commonly included the belief that the material world corresponds to some sort of malevolent intoxication brought about by the powers of darkness to keep elements of the light trapped inside it, or literally to keep them 'in the dark', or ignorant; in a state of drunken distraction.
* '''Mitigated Dualism''' - where one of the two principles is in some way inferior to the other. Such classical Gnostic movements as the Sethians conceived of the material world as being created by a lesser divinity than the true God that was the object of their devotion. The spiritual world is conceived of as being radically different from the material world, co-extensive with the true God, and the true home of certain enlightened members of humanity; thus, these systems were expressive of a feeling of acute alienation within the world, and their resultant aim was to allow the soul to escape the constraints presented by the physical realm.
* '''Qualified Monism''' - where it is arguable whether or not the second entity is divine or semi-divine. Elements of Valentinian versions of Gnostic myth suggest to some that its understanding of the universe may have been monistic rather than a dualistic one: 'Valentinian gnosticism [...] differs essentially from dualism' ([[Elaine Pagels]], ''The Gnostic Gospel'', [[1978]]); 'a standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally monistic' (William Schoedel, 'Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth' in ''The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.1: The School of Valentinus'', edited by Bentley Layton, E.J.Brill, Leiden, [[1980]]). In these myths, the malevolence of the demiurge is mitigated; his creation of a flawed materiality is not due to any moral failing on his part, but due to his honest ignorance of the superior spiritual world above him. As such, Valentinians already have more cause to treat physical reality with less contempt than might a Sethian Gnostic. Perhaps for this reason Valentinus appears to conceive of materiality, rather than as being a separate substance from the divine, as attributable to an ''error of perception''. Thus it follows that the Valentinian conception of the universe may be of a fundamentally monistic nature, in which all things are aspects of the divine; our ordinary view which is limited to the material realm is owing to our errors of perception, which become symbolized mythopoetically as the demiurge's act of creation.

===Moral and ritual practice===
The question of Gnostic morality can only be resolved by reading the claims of their contemporaries. Numerous Christian writers accused some Gnostic teachers of claiming to eschew the physical realm, while simultaneously freely indulging their physical appetites. We can only rely upon contemporary written claims and accounts, but this writer will attempt to grapple with some evidence to show that there is reason to question the accuracy of these claims.

Evidence in the source texts indicates Gnostic moral behaviour as being generally [[asceticism|ascetic]] in basis, expressed most fluently in their sexual and dietary practice. Many monks would deprive themselves of food, water, or necessary needs for living. This presented a problem for the heresiologists writing on gnostic movements: this mode of behavior was one which they themselves favoured and supported, so the Church Fathers, it seemed, would be required perforce to offer support to the practices of their theological opponents. In order to avoid this, a common heresiological approach was to avoid the issue completely by resorting to slanderous (and, in some cases, excessive) allegations of [[libertinism]], or to explain Gnostic asceticism as being based on incorrect interpretations of scripture, or simply duplicitous in nature. [[Epiphanes (gnostic)|Epiphanius]] provides an example when he writes of the 'Archontics' 'Some of them ruin their bodies by dissipation, but others feign ostensible fasts and deceive simple people while they pride themselves with a sort of [[abstinence]], under the disguise of monks' (''[[Panarion]]'', 40.1.4).

In other areas of morality, Gnostics were less rigorously ascetic, and took a more moderate approach to correct behaviour. Ptolemy's ''Epistle to Flora'' lays out a project of general asceticism in which the basis of action is the moral inclination of the individual:

{{Quotation|External physical fasting is observed even among our followers, for it can be of some benefit to the soul if it is engaged on with reason (''[[logos]]''), whenever it is done neither by way of limiting others, nor out of habit, nor because of the day, as if it had been specially appointed for that purpose.|[[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]]|Letter to Flora}}

This extract marks a definite shift away from the position of orthodoxy, that the correct behaviour for Christians is best administered and prescribed by the central authority of the church, as transmitted through the apostles. Instead, the internalised inclination of the individual assumes paramount importance; there is the recognition that ritualistic behaviour, though well-intentioned, possesses no significance or effectiveness unless its external prescription is matched by a personal, internal motivation.

Charges of Gnostic libertinism find their source in the works of [[Irenaeus]]. According to this writer, [[Simon Magus]] (whom he has identified as the prototypical source of Gnosticism) founded the school of moral freedom ('[[amorality|amoralism]]'). Irenaeus reports that Simon's argument, that those who put their trust in him and his consort Helen, need trouble themselves no further with the biblical prophets or their moral exhortations and are free 'to do what they wish', as men are saved by his (Simon's) grace, and not by their 'righteous works' (adapted from ''[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Adversus Haereses]]'', I.23.3).

Simon is not known for any libertinistic practice, save for his curious attachment to Helen, typically reputed to be a prostitute. There is, however, clear evidence in the [[Testimony of Truth]] that followers of Simon did, in fact, get married and beget children, so a general tendency to asceticism can likewise be ruled out.

Irenaeus reports of the Valentinians, whom he characterizes as eventual inheritors of Simon, that they are lax in their dietary habits (eating food that has been 'offered to idols'), sexually promiscuous ('immoderately given over to the desires of the flesh') and guilty of taking wives under the pretence of living with them as adopted 'sisters'. In the latter case, Michael Allen Williams has argued plausibly that Irenaeus was here broadly correct in the behaviour described, but not in his apprehension of its causes. Williams argues that members of a cult might live together as 'brother' and 'sister': intimate, yet not sexually active. Over time, however, the self-denial required of such an endeavour becomes harder and harder to maintain, leading to the state of affairs Irenaeus criticizes.

Irenaeus also makes reference to the Valentinian practise of [[the Bridal Chamber|Bridal Chamber]], a ritualistic [[sacrament]] in which sexual union is seen as analogous to the activities of the paired [[syzygy|syzygies]] that constitute the Valentinian [[Pleroma]]. Though it is known that Valentinus had a more relaxed approach to sexuality than much of the orthodox church (he allowed women to hold positions of ordination in his community), it is not known whether the Bridal Chamber was a ritual involving actual intercourse, or whether human sexuality is here simply being used in a metaphorical sense.

Of the [[Carpocratians]] Irenaeus makes much the same report: they 'are so abandoned in their recklessness that they claim to have in their power and be able to practise anything whatsoever that is ungodly (irreligious) and impious ... they say that conduct is only good or evil in the eyes of man' (''Adversus Haereses'', I.25.4). Once again a differentiation might be detected between a man's actions and the grace he has received through his adherence to a system of ''gnosis''; whether this is due to a common sharing of such an attitude amongst Gnostic circles, or whether this is simply a blanket-charge used by Irenaeus is open to conjecture.

On the whole, it would seem that Gnostic behavior tended towards the ascetic. This said, the heresiological accusation of duplicity in such practises should not be taken at face value; nor should similar accusations of amoral libertinism. The Nag Hammadi library itself is full of passages which appear to encourage abstinence over indulgence. Fundamentally, however, gnostic movements appear to take the 'ancient schema of the two ways, which leaves the decision to do what is right to human endeavour and promises a reward for those who make the effort, and punishment for those who are negligent' (Kurt Rudolph, ''Gnosis:The Nature and History of Gnosticism'', 262).

==Major Gnostic movements and their texts==
As noted [[# History|above]], schools of Gnosticism can be defined according to one classification system as being a member of two broad categories. These are the 'Eastern'/'Persian' school, and a 'Syrian-Egyptic' school. The former possesses more demonstrably dualist tendencies, reflecting a strong influence from the beliefs of the Persian [[Zoroastrians]]. Among the Syrian-Egyptian schools and the movements they spawned are a typically more Monist view. Notable exceptions include relatively modern movements which seem to include elements of both categories, namely: the Cathars, Bogomils, and Carpocratians which are included in their own section.

===Persian Gnosticism===
The Persian Schools are representative of what is believed to be among the oldest of the Gnostic thought forms. These movements are considered by most to be religions in their own right, and are not emanations from [[Christianity]] or [[Judaism]].

* ''[[Mandaeanism]]'' is still practised in small numbers, in parts of southern [[Iraq]] and the Iranian province of [[Khuzestan]]. The name of the group derives from the term: Mandā d-Heyyi which roughly means "Knowledge of Life." Although the exact chronological origins of this movement are not known, John the Baptist eventually would come to be a key figure in the religion. As part of the core of their beliefs is an emphasis placed on baptism. As with Manichaeism, despite certain ties with Christianity, Mandaeans do not believe in Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed. Their beliefs and practices likewise have little overlap with the religions that manifested from those religious figures and the two should not be confused. Significant amounts of original Mandaean Scripture survive in the modern era. The primary source text is known as the [[Ginza Rba|Genzā Rabbā]] and has portions identified by some scholars as being copied as early as the 2nd century CE. There is also the [[Qolusta|Qolastā]], or Canonical Book of Prayer and The [[Book of John the Baptist]] (sidra ḏ-iahia).

* ''[[Manichaeism]]'' which represented an entire independent religious heritage, but is now mostly extinct was founded by the Prophet Mani (210-276 CE). Although most of the literature/scripture of the Manichaeins was believed lost, the discovery of an original series of documents have helped to shed new light on the subject. Now housed in [[Cologne]] [[Germany]], the [[Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis]] contains mainly biographical information on the prophet and details on his claims and teachings. Despite connections with [[Jesus Christ]], it is not believed that the Manichaeins in any way practiced a religion with identifiable overlap with any of the various Christian sects.

===Syrian-Egyptian Gnosticism===
The Syrian-Egyptian school derives much of its outlook from [[platonism|Platonist]] influences. Typically, it depicts creation in a series of emanations from a primal monadic source, finally resulting in the creation of the material universe. As a result, there is a tendency in these schools to view evil in terms of matter which is markedly inferior to goodness, evil as lacking spiritual insight and goodness, rather than to emphasize portrayals of evil as an equal force. These schools of gnosticism may be said to use the terms 'evil' and 'good' as being ''relative'' descriptive terms, as they refer to the relative plight of human existence caught between such realities and confused in its orientation, with 'evil' indicating the extremes of distance from the principle and source of goodness, without necessarily emphasizing an ''inherent'' negativity. As can be seen below, many of these movements included source material related to Christianity, with some identifying themselves as specifically Christian (albeit quite different from the so-called [[Orthodox]] or [[Roman Catholic]] forms).

====Syrian-Egyptic scripture====
Most of the literature from this category is known/confirmed to us in the modern age through the Library discovered at [[Nag Hammadi]].
* '''Sethian''' works are named after the third son of Adam and Eve, believed to be a possessor and disseminator of gnosis. These typically include:
** ''The [[Apocryphon of John]]''
** ''The [[Apocalypse of Adam]]''
** ''[[The Reality of the Rulers]], Also known as [[The hypostasis of the Archons]]''
** ''[[The Thunder Perfect Mind|The Thunder-Perfect Mind]]''
** ''[[Trimorphic Protennoia|The Three-fold First Thought]]'' ''(Trimorphic Protennoia)''
** ''The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit'' (also known as the ''[[Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians|(Coptic) Gospel of the Egyptians]]'')
** ''[[Zostrianos]]''
** ''[[Allogenes]]''
** ''The [[Three Steles of Seth]]''

* '''Thomasine''' works are so-named after the School of St. [[Thomas the Apostle]]. See [[Thomasine Church (Gnostic)]]. The texts commonly attributed to this school are:
** ''[[The Hymn of the Pearl]]'', or, the ''[[Hymn of the Pearl|Hymn of Jude Thomas the Apostle in the Country of Indians]]''
** ''The [[Gospel of Thomas]]''
** ''[[Book of Thomas the Contender|The Book of Thomas: The Contender Writing to the Perfect]]''

* '''Valentinian''' works are named in reference to the Bishop and teacher [[Valentinius]], also spelled Valentinus. [[Circa|ca.]] [[153]] AD/CE, Valentinius developed a complex Cosmology outside of the Sethian tradition. At one point he was close to being appointed the [[Bishop of Rome]] of what is now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Works attributed to his school are listed below, and fragmentary pieces directly linked to him are noted with an asterisk:
** ''[[The Divine Word Present in the Infant]]'' (Fragment A) *
** ''[[On the Three Natures]]'' (Fragment B) *
** ''[[Adam's Faculty of Speech]]'' (Fragment C) *
** ''[[To Agathopous: Jesus' Digestive System]]'' (Fragment D) *
** ''[[Annihilation of the Realm of Death]]'' (Fragment F) *
** ''[[On Friends: The Source of Common Wisdom]]'' (Fragment G) *
** ''[[Epistle on Attachments]]'' (Fragment H) *
** ''[[Summer Harvest]]''*
** ''[[Gospel of Truth|The Gospel of Truth]]''*
** ''[[Ptolemy's Version of the Gnostic Myth]]''
** ''[[The Prayer of the Apostle Paul]]''
** ''[[Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora]]''
** ''[[Treatise on Resurrection]]'' (''Epistle to Rheginus'')
** ''[[Gospel of Philip]]''

* '''Basilidian''' works are named for the founder of their school, [[Basilides]] ([[132]]–? CE/AD). These works are mainly known to us through the criticisms of one of his opponents, [[Irenaeus]] in his work ''[[Adversus Haereses]]''. The other pieces are known through the work of [[Clement of Alexandria]]:
** The Octet of Subsistent Entities (Fragment A)
** The Uniqueness of the World (Fragment B)
** Election Naturally Entails Faith and Virtue (Fragment C)
** The State of Virtue (Fragment D)
** The Elect Transcend the World (Fragment E)
** Reincarnation (Fragment F)
** Human Suffering and the Goodness of Providence (Fragment G)
** Forgivable Sins (Fragment H)

* The [[Gospel of Judas]] is the most recently discovered Gnostic text. [[National Geographic]] has published an English translation of it, bringing it into mainstream awareness. It portrays [[Judas Iscariot]] as the most enlightened disciple, who acted at Jesus' request when he handed Jesus over to the authorities. Its reference to [[Barbelo]] and inclusion of material similar to the Apocryphon of John and other such texts, connects the text to Barbeloite and/or Sethian Gnosticism.

===Later Gnosticism and Gnostic-influenced groups===
* '''Other schools and related movements'''; these are presented in chronological order:[[Image:Simple crossed circle.svg|right|frame|The [[Sun cross|circular, harmonic cross]] was an [[emblem]] used most notably by the [[Cathars]], a [[medieval]] group that related to Gnosticism]]
** ''[[Simon Magus]]'' and ''[[Marcion of Sinope]]'' both had Gnostic tendencies, but such familiar ideas that they presented were as-yet unformed; they might thus be described as pseudo- or proto-Gnostics. Both developed a sizeable following. Simon Magus' pupil ''Menander of Antioch'' could potentially be included within this grouping. Marcion is popularly labelled a gnostic, however most scholars do not consider him a gnostic at all, for example, the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] article on [http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MAL_MAR/MARCION.html Marcion] clearly states: "In Marcion's own view, therefore, the founding of his church — to which he was first driven by opposition — amounts to a reformation of [[Christendom]] through a return to the gospel of Christ and to Paul; nothing was to be accepted beyond that. This of itself shows that it is a mistake to reckon Marcion among the Gnostics. A [[dualist]] he certainly was, but he was not a Gnostic."
** ''[[Cerinthus]]'' (''c'' 100), the founder of a heretical school with gnostic elements. Like a Gnostic, Cerinthus depicted Christ as a heavenly spirit separate from the man Jesus, and he cited the demiurge as creating the material world. Unlike the Gnostics, Cerinthus taught Christians to observe the Jewish law; his demiurge was holy, not lowly; and he taught the Second Coming. His gnosis was a secret teaching attributed to an apostle. Some scholars believe that the First Epistle of John was written as a response to Cerinthus. <ref name = "gonzález">González, Justo L.(1970). ''A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I''. Abingdon. pp. 132-3</ref>
** The ''[[Ophites]]'', so-named because they worshipped the serpent of [[Genesis]] as the bestower of knowledge.
** The ''[[Cainites]]'', as the term implies, worshipped [[Cain]], as well as [[Esau]], [[Korah]], and the [[Sodom]]ites. There is little evidence concerning the nature of this group; however, it is surmisable that they believed that indulgence in sin was the key to salvation because since the body is evil, one must defile it through immoral activity (see [[libertinism]]).
** The ''[[Carpocrates|Carpocratians]]''
** The ''[[Borborites]]''
** The ''[[Bogomils]]''
** The ''[[Cathar]]s'' (''Cathari'', ''Albigenses'' or ''Albigensians'') are typically seen as being imitative of Gnosticism; whether or not the Cathari possessed direct historical influence from ancient Gnosticism is disputed. Though the basic conceptions of Gnostic cosmology are to be found in Cathar beliefs (most distinctly in their notion of a lesser, [[Satan]]ic, creator god), they did not apparently place any special relevance upon knowledge (''gnosis'') as an effective salvific force. For the relationship between these medieval heresies and earlier Gnostic forms, see [[# The development of the Persian school|historical discussion above]].
** The Kabbalists who originated in Provence which was at that time the center of the Cathars as well, also took many core Gnostic ideas and reinterpreted earlier Jewish sources according to this new foreign influence. See Gershom Scholem's ''Origins of the Kabbalah'' for further discussion on this topic.

==Important terms and concepts==
{{main|List of gnostic terms}}

===Aeons===
{{main|Aeon}}
In many Gnostic systems, the various [[emanationism|emanations]] of the [[God]], who is also known by such names as [[the One]], the [[Monad (Gnosticism)|Monad]], Aion teleos (The Perfect Aeon), [[Bythos]] (Depth or profundity, Greek Βυθος), Proarkhe (Before the Beginning, Greek προαρχη), E Arkhe (The Beginning, Greek ἡ ἀρχή), are called ''aeons''. This first being is also an æon and has an inner being within itself, known as Ennoia (Thought), Charis (Grace), or Sige (Greek Σιγη, Silence). The split perfect being conceives the second aeon, Caen (Power), within itself. Along with the male Caen comes the female æon Akhana (Truth, Love).

The aeons often came in male/female pairs called ''syzygies'', and were numerous (20-30). Two of the most commonly listed æons were [[Jesus]] and [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]]. The aeons constitute the ''[[pleroma]]'', the "region of light". The lowest regions of the pleroma are closest to the darkness; that is, the physical world.

When an æon named ''Sophia'' emanated without her partner aeon, the result was the ''[[Demiurge]]'', or half-creator (Occasionally referred to as ''Ialdaboth'' in Gnostic texts), a creature that should never have come into existence. This creature does not belong to the pleroma, and the One emanates two savior æons, ''[[Christ]]'' and ''the [[Holy Spirit]]'' to save man from the Demiurge. Christ then took the form of the man, ''Jesus'', in order to be able to teach man how to achieve [[gnosis]]; that is, return to the pleroma.

These systems, however, are only a sample of the various interpretations that exist. The roles of familiar beings such as Jesus, Christ, Sophia, and the Demiurge usually share the same general themes between systems but may have somewhat different functions or identities ascribed to them.

===Archon===
{{main|Archon}}
In late antiquity some variants of Gnosticism used the term ''Archon'' to refer to several servants of the ''[[Demiurge]]'', the "[[creator god]]" that stood between spiritual humanity and a transcendent God that could only be reached through gnosis. In this context they may be seen as having the roles of the angels and demons of the [[Old Testament]].

The [[Orphism (religion)|Orphics]] accepted the existence of seven archons: [[Demiurge|Iadabaoth]] or Ialdabaoth (who created the six others), [[Iao]], [[Sabaoth]], [[Adonaios]], [[Elaios]], [[Astaphanos]] and [[Horaios]] ([[Origen]], [[Contra Celsum]], VI.31). Ialdabaoth had a head of a lion, just like [[Mithraic]] Kronos ([[Chronos]]) and [[Historical Vedic religion|Vedic]] [[Narasimha]], a form of [[Vishnu]].{{Verify source|date=June 2007}}

===Abraxas/Abrasax===
{{main|Abraxas}}
[[Image:Abraxas, Nordisk familjebok.png|thumb|right|150px|Engraving from an Abraxas stone.]]
The Egyptian Gnostic [[Basilideans]] referred to a figure called ''Abraxas'' who was at the head of 365 spiritual beings ([[Irenaeus]], ''[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Adversus Haereses]]'', I.24); it is unclear what to make of Irenaeus' use of the term 'Archon', which may simply mean 'ruler' in this context. The role and function of Abraxas for Basilideans is not clear.

The word [[Abrasax]] was engraved on certain [[ancient history|antique]] stones, called on that account Abraxas stones, which may have been used as [[amulets]] or charms by Gnostic sects. In popular culture, Abraxas is sometimes considered the name of a [[god (male deity)|god]] who incorporated both [[Good]] and [[Evil]] (God and [[Demiurge]]) in one entity, and therefore representing the [[monotheistic God]], singular, but (unlike, for example, the Christian God) not [[eutheism|omni-benevolent]] (See Hesse's Demian, and Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead). Opinions abound on Abraxas, who in recent centuries has been claimed to be both an [[Egypt]]ian god and a [[demon]], sometimes even being associated with the dual nature of [[Satan]]/[[Lucifer]]. The word [[abracadabra]] may be related to Abraxas.

The above information relates to interpretations of ancient amulets and to reports of Christian heresy hunters which are not always clear.

Actual ancient Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi Library, such as the [[Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians|Gospel of the Egyptians]], refer to Abrasax as an Aeon dwelling with Sophia and other Aeons of the Spiritual Fullness in the light of the luminary Eleleth. In several texts, the luminary Eleleth is the last of the luminaries (Spiritual Lights) that come forward, and it is the Aeon Sophia, associated with Eleleth, who encounters darkness and becomes involved in the chain of events that leads to the Demiurge and Archon's rule of this world, and the salvage effort that ensues. As such, the role of Aeons of Eleleth, including Abrasax, Sophia, and others, pertains to this outer border of the Divine Fullness that encounters the ignorance of the world of Lack and interacts to rectify the error of ignorance in the world of materiality.

Words like or similar to Abraxas or Abrasax also appear in the Greek Magical Papyrii. There are similarities and differences between such figures in reports about Basiledes' teaching, in the larger magical traditions of the Graeco-Roman world, in the classic ancient Gnostic texts such as the Gospel of the Egyptians, and in later magical and esoteric writings.

The great Swiss Psychologist [[Carl Jung]] wrote a short Gnostic treatise in 1916 called [[The Seven Sermons to the Dead]], which called Abraxas a God higher than the Christian God and Devil, that combines all opposites into one Being.

===Demiurge===
{{main|Demiurge}}
[[Image:Lion-faced deity.jpg|thumb|right|150px|A lion-faced deity found on a Gnostic gem in [[Bernard de Montfaucon]]'s ''L'antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures'' may be a depiction of the Demiurge.]]
The term ''Demiurge'' refers to an entity (usually seen as evil) responsible for the creation of the [[physical universe]] and the physical aspect of [[Human nature|humanity]].

The term occurs in a number of other religious and philosophical systems, most notably [[Platonism]]. While always suggestive of a [[creator god]], the moral judgements regarding the demiurge vary wildly, from a benign [[grand architect]] to an evil subvertor of God's will.

Like [[Plato]], Gnosticism presents a distinction between the highest, unknowable "alien God" and the demiurgic "creator" of the material. However, in contrast to Plato, several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme God: his act of creation either in unconscious imitation of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed, or else formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine ''in'' materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to the [[problem of evil]]. In the [[Apocryphon of John]] (several versions of which are found in the [[Nag Hammadi library]]), the Demiurge has the name "[[Yaltabaoth]]", and proclaims himself as God:

:''"Now the [[archon]] who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is [[Saklas]], and the third is [[Samael]]. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come."''

[[Gnostic]] myth recounts that [[Sophia (gnosticism)|Sophia]] (Greek, literally meaning "wisdom"), the Demiurge's mother and a partial aspect of the divine [[Pleroma]] or "Fullness", desired to create something apart from the divine totality, and without the receipt of divine assent. In this abortive act of separate creation, she gave birth to the monstrous Demiurge and, being ashamed of her deed, she wrapped him in a cloud and created a throne for him within it. The Demiurge, isolated, did not behold his mother, nor anyone else, and thus concluded that only he himself existed, being ignorant of the superior levels of reality that were his birth-place.

The Gnostic myths describing these events are full of intricate nuances portraying the declination of aspects of the divine into human form; this process occurs through the agency of the Demiurge who, having stolen a portion of power from his mother, sets about a work of creation in unconscious imitation of the superior Pleromatic realm. Thus Sophia's power becomes enclosed within the material forms of humanity, themselves entrapped within the material universe: the goal of Gnostic movements was typically the awakening of this spark, which permitted a return by the subject to the superior, non-material realities which were its primal source. (See [[Sethian|Sethian Gnosticism]].)

"Samael" may equate to the [[Judaism|Judaic]] [[Death (personification)# Death .28angels.29 in religion|Angel of Death]], and corresponds to the Christian [[demon]] of [[Samael|that name]], as well as [[Satan]]. Literally, it can mean "Blind God" or "God of the Blind" in [[Aramaic]] ([[Syriac]] ''sæmʕa-ʔel''). Another alternative title for Yaldabaoth, "Saklas", is Aramaic for "fool" (Syriac ''sækla'' "the foolish one").

Some Gnostic philosophers identify the Demiurge with [[Yahweh]], the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]], in opposition and contrast to the God of the [[New Testament]]. Still others equated the being with [[Satan]]. [[Catharism]] apparently inherited their idea of Satan as the creator of the evil world directly or indirectly from Gnosticism.

===Gnosis===
{{main|Gnosis}}
The word 'Gnosticism' is a modern construction, though based on an antiquated linguistic expression: it comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] word meaning 'knowledge', ''gnosis'' (γνῶσις). However, ''gnosis'' itself refers to a very specialised form of knowledge, deriving both from the exact meaning of the original Greek term and its usage in [[Plato]]nist [[philosophy]].

Unlike modern [[English language|English]], ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being [[propositional knowledge]], indicative of knowledge acquired ''indirectly'' through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know ''of'' George Bush" or "I know Berlin ''is in'' Germany"), and [[empirical]] knowledge acquired by ''direct participation'' or ''acquaintance'' (such as "I know George Bush personally" or "I know Berlin, having visited").

''Gnosis'' (γνῶσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'Gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on [[knowledge]] in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to [[Mysticism|mystical]] or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine. Indeed, in most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of [[salvation]] is this 'knowledge of' ('acquaintance with') the divine. This is commonly identified with a process of inward 'knowing' or self-exploration, comparable to that encouraged by [[Plotinus]] (''[[Circa|ca]].'' [[205]]–[[270]] AD). However, as may be seen, the term 'gnostic' also had precedent usage in several ancient [[philosophy|philosophical]] traditions, which must also be weighed in considering the very subtle implications of its appellation to a set of ancient religious groups.

===Monad (apophatic theology)===
{{main|Monad (Gnosticism)}}
In many [[Gnostic]] systems (and heresiologies), [[God]] is known as the ''Monad'', [[the One]], [[The Absolute]], ''Aion teleos'' (The Perfect [[Æon]]), ''Bythos'' (Depth or Profundity, Βυθος), ''Proarkhe'' (Before the Beginning, προαρχη), and ''E Arkhe'' (The Beginning, η αρχη). God is the high source of the [[pleroma]], the region of light. The various emanations of God are called [[æon]]s.

Within certain variations of Gnosticism, especially those inspired by [[Monoimus]], the ''Monad'' was the highest [[God]] which created lesser [[deity|gods]], or elements (similar to æons).

According to [[Hippolytus (writer)|Hippolytus]], this view was inspired by the [[Pythagoreans]], who called the first thing that came into existence the ''Monad'', which begat the [[dyad]], which begat the [[number]]s, which begat the [[Point (geometry)|point]], begetting [[line]]s, etc. This was also clarified in the writings of [[Plato]], [[Aristotle]] and [[Plotinus]]. This teaching being largely [[Pythagoreanism|Neopythagorean]] via [[Numenius of Apamea|Numenius]] as well.

This Monad is the [[supernatural|spiritual]] source of everything which [[emanationism|emanates]] the [[pleroma]], and could be contrasted to the dark [[Demiurge]] (Yaldabaoth) that controls [[matter]].

The [[Sethian]] cosmogony as most famously contained in the Apocryphon ('Secret book') of John describes an unknown [[God]], very similar to the [[orthodoxy|orthodox]] apophatic theology, although very different from the orthodox credal teachings that there is one such god who is identified also as creator of heaven and earth. In describing the nature of a creator god associated with Biblical texts, orthodox theologians often attempt to define God through a series of explicit positive statements, themselves universal but in the divine taken to their superlative degrees: he is [[omniscient]], [[omnipotent]] and truly [[benevolent]]. The Sethian conception of the most hidden transcendent God is, by contrast, defined through [[negative theology]]: he is immovable, invisible, intangible, ineffable; commonly, 'he' is seen as being [[hermaphroditic]], a potent symbol for being, as it were, 'all-containing'. In the Apocryphon of John, this god is good in that it bestows goodness. After the apophatic statements, the process of the Divine in action are used to describe the effect of such a god.

An apophatic approach to discussing the Divine is found throughout gnosticism, Vendantic hinduism, and Platonic and Aristotelian theology as well. It is also found in some Judaic sources.

===Pleroma===
{{main|Pleroma}}
''Pleroma'' (Greek πληρωμα) generally refers to the totality of God's powers. The term means ''fullness'', and is used in Christian theological contexts: both in Gnosticism generally, and in [[Colossians]] 2.9.

Gnosticism holds that the world is controlled by evil [[archon]]s, one of whom is the demiurge, the deity of the [[Old Testament]] who holds the human spirit captive.

The heavenly pleroma is the center of divine life, a region of light "above" (the term is not to be understood spatially) our world, occupied by spiritual beings such as [[aeon]]s (eternal beings) and sometimes [[archon]]s. [[Jesus]] is interpreted as an intermediary aeon who was sent from the pleroma, with whose aid humanity can recover the lost knowledge of the divine origins of humanity. The term is thus a central element of Gnostic [[cosmology]].

Pleroma is also used in the general Greek language and is used by the Greek Orthodox church in this general form since the word appears under the book of Colossians. Proponents of the view that [[Gnosticism and the New Testament|Paul was actually a gnostic]], such as [[Elaine Pagels]] of [[Princeton University]], view the reference in Colossians as something that was to be interpreted in the gnostic sense.

===Sophia===
{{main|Sophia (Gnosticism)}}
In Gnostic tradition, the term ''Sophia'' (Σoφíα, [[Greek language|Greek]] for "wisdom") refers to the final and lowest emanation of God.

In most if not all versions of the gnostic myth, Sophia births the [[demiurge]], who in turn brings about the creation of materiality. The positive or negative depiction of materiality thus resides a great deal on mythic depictions of Sophia's actions. She is occasionally referred to by the [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] equivalent of ''Achamoth'' (this is a feature of [[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]]'s version of the [[Valentinius|Valentinian]] gnostic myth). Jewish Gnosticism with a focus on Sophia was active by 90 <ref> [http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/jew_gnostic.htm Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity]</ref>

Almost all gnostic systems of the [[Gnosticism#Major gnostic schools and their texts|Syrian]] or [[Gnosticism# Major gnostic schools and their texts|Egyptian]] type taught that the universe began with an original, unknowable [[God]], referred to as the Parent or [[Bythos]], as the [[Monad (Gnosticism)|Monad]] by [[Monoimus]], or the first [[Aeon]] by still other traditions. From this initial unitary beginning, the One spontaneously [[emanationism|emanated]] further [[Aeon]]s, pairs of progressively 'lesser' beings in sequence. The lowest of these pairs were Sophia and [[Christ]]. The Aeons together made up the Pleroma, or fullness, of God, and thus should not be seen as distinct from the divine, but symbolic abstractions of the divine nature.

==History==
{{main|History of Gnosticism}}

===The development of the Syrian-Egyptian school===
[[Bentley Layton]] has sketched out a relationship between the various gnostic movements in his introduction to ''The Gnostic Scriptures'' (SCM Press, London, [[1987]]). In this model, 'Classical Gnosticism' and 'The School of Thomas' antedated and influenced the development of [[Valentinus]], who was to found his own school of Gnosticism in both [[Alexandria]] and [[Rome]], whom Layton called 'the great [Gnostic] reformer' and 'the focal point' of Gnostic development. While in Alexandria, where he was born, Valentinus probably would have had contact with the Gnostic teacher [[Basilides]], and may have been influenced by him.

[[Valentinianism]] flourished throughout the early centuries of the common era: while Valentinus himself lived from ''[[Circa|ca]]''. [[100]]–[[180]] AD/CE, a list of sectarians or heretics, composed in [[388]] AD/CE, against whom Emperor Constantine intended legislation includes Valentinus (and, presumably, his inheritors). The school is also known to have been extremely popular: several varieties of their central myth are known, and we know of 'reports from outsiders from which the intellectual liveliness of the group is evident' (Markschies, ''Gnosis: An Introduction'', 94). It is known that Valentinus' students, in further evidence of their intellectual activity, elaborated upon the teachings and materials they received from him (though the exact extent of their changes remains unknown), for example, in the version of the Valentinian myth brought to us through [[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]].

Valentinianism might be described as the most elaborate and philosophically 'dense' form of the Syrian-Egyptian schools of Gnosticism, though it should be acknowledged that this in no way debarred other schools from attracting followers: Basilides' own school was popular also, and survived in [[Egypt]] until the 4th century.

Simone Petrement, in ''A Separate God'', in arguing for a Christian origin of Gnosticism, places Valentinus after Basilides, but before the Sethians. It is her assertion that Valentinus represented a moderation of the anti-Judaism of the earlier Hellenized teachers; the demiurge, widely regarded to be a mythological depiction of the Old Testament God of the Hebrews, is depicted as more ignorant than evil. (See below.)

[[Image:Manicheans.jpg|thumb|250px|Manichean priests writing at their desks, with panel inscription in [[Sogdian language|Sogdian]]. Manuscript from Khocho, [[Tarim Basin]].]]

===The development of the Persian school===
An alternate heritage is offered by [[Kurt Rudolph]] in his book ''Gnosis: The Nature & Structure of Gnosticism'' (Koehler and Amelang, [[Leipzig]], [[1977]]), to explain the lineage of Persian Gnostic schools. The decline of [[Manicheism]] that occurred in Persia in the 5th century AD/CE was too late to prevent the spread of the movement into the east and the west. In the west, the teachings of the school moved into [[Syria]], [[Arabia|Northern Arabia]], [[Egypt]] and [[Africa|North Africa]] (where [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] was a member of school from [[373]]-[[382]]); from Syria it progressed still farther, into [[Palestine]], [[Asia Minor]] and [[Armenia]]. There is evidence for Manicheans in Rome and [[Dalmatia]] in the 4th century, and also in [[Gaul]] and [[Spain]]. The influence of Manicheanism was attacked by imperial elects and polemical writings, but the religion remained prevalent until the 6th century, and still exerted influence in the emergence of the [[Paulicians]], [[Bogomil]]s and [[Cathars|Cathari]] in the Middle Ages, until it was ultimately stamped out as a heresy by the Catholic Church.

In the east, Rudolph relates, Manicheanism was able to bloom, given that the religious monopoly position previously held by Christianity and [[Zoroastrianism]] had been broken by nascent [[Islam]]. In the early years of the Arab conquest, Manicheanism again found followers in Persia (mostly amongst educated circles), but flourished most in [[Central Asia]], to which it had spread through Iran. Here, in [[762]], Manicheanism became the state religion of the [[Uyghur Empire]].

===Buddhism and Gnosticism===
Early [[3rd century]]–[[4th century]] [[Christian]] writers such as [[Hippolytus (writer)|Hippolytus]] and [[Epiphanius of Salamis|Epiphanius]] write about a [[Scythianus]], who visited India around [[50|50 CE]] from where he brought "the doctrine of the Two Principles". According to [[Cyril of Jerusalem]], Scythianus' pupil [[Terebinthus]] presented himself as a "Buddha" ("He called himself Buddas" {{Fact|date=June 2007}}). Terebinthus went to [[Palestine]] and [[Judea|Judaea]] ("becoming known and condemned"), and ultimately settled in [[Babylon]], where he transmitted his teachings to [[Mani (prophet)|Mani]], thereby creating the foundation of [[Manichaeism]]:

{{quote|"But Terebinthus, his disciple in this wicked error, inherited his money and books and heresy, and came to Palestine, and becoming known and condemned in Judæa he resolved to pass into Persia: but lest he should be recognised there also by his name he changed it and called himself Buddas."|[[Cyril of Jerusalem]], [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310106.htm "Catechetical lecture 6"]}}

In the 3rd century, the Syrian writer and Christian [[Gnosticism|Gnostic]] theologian [[Bar Daisan]] described his exchanges with the religious missions of holy men from India (Greek: Σαρμαναίοι, Sramanas), passing through [[Syria]] on their way to [[Elagabalus]] or another [[Severan dynasty]] [[Roman Emperor]]. His accounts were quoted by [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] (De abstin., iv, 17 {{Fact|date=June 2007}}) and [[Stobaeus]] (Eccles., iii, 56, 141).

Finally, from the 3rd century to the [[12th century]], some Gnostic religions such as Manichaeism, which combined Christian, Hebrew and Buddhist influences ([[Mani (prophet)|Mani]], the founder of the religion, resided for some time in [[Kushan]] lands), spread throughout the [[Old World]], to [[Gaul]] and [[Great Britain]] in the West, and to [[China]] in the East. Some leading Christian theologians such as [[Augustine of Hippo]] were Manichaeans before converting to orthodox Christianity.

Such exchanges, many more of which may have gone unrecorded, suggest that Buddhism may have had some influence on early [[Christianity]]: "Scholars have often considered the possibility that Buddhism influenced the early development of Christianity. They have drawn attention to many parallels concerning the births, lives, doctrines, and deaths of the Buddha and Jesus" (Bentley, "Old World Encounters").

===Influence in East Asia===
Early missionaries, including [[Manicheans]], [[Zoroastrians]], and [[Nestorians]], traveled and proselytized along the [[Silk Road]] east to [[Chang'an]], the [[Tang Dynasty]] capital of China. The first introduction of Christianity, under the Chinese name ''Jĭngjiào'' (景教, literally "bright/luminous religion"), was from [[Nestorianism in China|Nestorianism]] or the [[Assyrian Church of the East]]. In 635, when Nestorian missionaries arrived in Chang'an, the Emperor assigned his famous Prime Minister Fang Xuanling (房玄齡) to hold a grand welcome ceremony. Chinese Nestorianism was popular in the late 8th century, but never became a widely-practice mainstream religion in China. In 845, [[Emperor Wuzong of Tang]] ordered the Great Persecution of Buddhism, which affected other foreign religions, weakened Nestorianism and practically destroyed Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism in China.

Chinese Nestorianism revived during the 13th-14th century [[Yuan Dynasty]], but was replaced by [[Roman Catholicism]] in 16th-17th centuries. Rudolph reported that despite the suppression, Manichean traditions are reputed to have survived until the 17th century (based on the reports of [[Portugal|Portuguese]] sailors).

=='Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category==
In [[1966]] in [[Messina]], [[Italy]], a conference was held concerning systems of ''gnosis''. Among its several aims were the need to establish a program to translate the recently-acquired Nag Hammadi library (see [[# Translation|above]]) and the need to arrive at an agreement concerning an accurate definition of 'Gnosticism'. This was in answer to the tendency, prevalent since the eighteenth century, to use the term 'gnostic' less as its origins implied, but rather as an interpretive category for ''contemporary'' philosophical and religious movements. For example, in [[1835]], [[New Testament]] scholar [[Ferdinand Christian Baur]] constructed a developmental model of Gnosticism that culminates in the religious philosophy of [[Hegel]]; one might compare [[literary critic]] [[Harold Bloom]]'s recent attempts to identify Gnostic elements in contemporary [[United States|American]] religion, or [[Eric Voegelin]]'s analysis of [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] impulses through the interpretive lens of Gnosticism.

The 'cautious proposal' reached by the conference concerning Gnosticism is described by Markschies:

{{Quotation|In the concluding document of Messina the proposal was 'by the simultaneous application of historical and typological methods' to designate 'a particular group of systems of the second century after Christ' as 'gnosticism', and to use 'gnosis' to define a conception of knowledge transcending the times which was described as 'knowledge of divine mysteries for an élite'.|Markschies|Gnosis: An Introduction, p. 13}}

In essence, it had been decided that 'Gnosticism' would become a historically-specific term, restricted to mean the Gnostic movements prevalent in the 3rd century, while 'gnosis' would be an universal term, denoting a system of knowledge retained 'for a privileged élite.' However, this effort towards providing clarity in fact created more conceptual confusion, as the historical term 'Gnosticism' was an entirely modern construction, while the new universal term 'gnosis' ''was'' a historical term: 'something was being called "gnosticism" that the ancient theologians had called "gnosis" ... [A] concept of gnosis had been created by Messina that was almost unusable in a historical sense' (Markschies, ''Gnosis: An Introduction'', 14-15). In antiquity, all agreed that knowledge was centrally important to life, but few were agreed as to what exactly ''constituted'' knowledge; the unitary conception that the Messina proposal presupposed did not exist.

These flaws have meant that the problems concerning an exact definition of Gnosticism persist. It remains current convention to use 'Gnosticism' in a historical sense, and 'gnosis' universally. Leaving aside the issues with the latter noted above, the usage of 'Gnosticism' to designate a category of religions in the 3rd century has recently been questioned as well. Of note is the work of [[Michael Allen Williams]] in ''Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for the Dismantling of a Dubious Category'', in which the author examines the terms by which gnosticism as a category is defined, and then closely compares these suppositions with the contents of actual Gnostic texts (the newly-recovered Nag Hammadi library was of central importance to his thesis).

Williams argues that the conceptual foundations on which the category of Gnosticism rests are the remains of the agenda of the heresiologists. Too much emphasis has been laid on perceptions of dualism, body-and-matter hatred, and anticosmism, without these suppositions being properly ''tested''. In essence, the interpretive definition of Gnosticism that was created by the antagonistic efforts of the heresiologists has been taken up by modern scholarship and reflected in a ''categorical'' definition, even though the means now exist to verify its accuracy. Attempting to do so, Williams contests, reveals the dubious nature of categorical 'Gnosticism', and he concludes that the term needs replacing in order to more accurately reflect those movements it comprises. Williams' observations have provoked debate; however, to date his suggested replacement term 'the Biblical demiurgical tradition' has not become widely used.

==Gnosticism in modern times==
{{main|Gnosticism in modern times}}

A number of 19th century thinkers such as [[William Blake]], [[Schopenhauer]],<ref>[[Schopenhauer]], ''[[The World as Will and Representation]]'', Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII </ref> [[Albert Pike]], [[Helena Petrovna Blavatsky|Madame Blavatsky]], studied Gnostic thought extensively and were influenced by it, and even figures like [[Melville]] and [[W. B. Yeats]] were more tangentially influenced.<ref name="smith">Smith, Richard. "The Modern Relevance of Gnosticism" in The Nag Hammadi Library, 1990 ISBN 0-06-066935-7</ref> [[Jules Doinel]] "re-established" a Gnostic church in France in 1890 which altered its form as it passed through various direct successors (Fabre des Essarts as ''Tau Synésius'' and Joanny Bricaud as ''Tau Jean II'' most notably), and which, although small, is still active today (cf. [http://www.plerome.org l'Eglise du Plérôme]).

Early 20th century thinkers who heavily studied and were influenced by Gnosticism include [[Carl Jung]] (who supported Gnosticism), [[Eric Voegelin]] (who opposed it), and [[Aleister Crowley]], with figures such as [[Hermann Hesse]] being more moderatedly influenced. [[Rene Guenon]] founded the gnostic review, Le Gnose in 1909 (before moving to a more [[Traditionalist School|"Perennialist"]] position). Several of the [[Thelema|Thelemite]] organizations tracing themselves to Crowley's thought, think of themselves as Gnostic organizations today, such as [[Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica]] and [[Ordo Templi Orientis]].

The discovery and translation of the [[Nag Hammadi library]] after 1945 had a huge impact on Gnosticism since World War II. Thinkers who were heavily influenced by Gnosticism in this period include [[Hans Jonas]], [[Phillip K. Dick]] and [[Harold Bloom]], with [[Albert Camus]] and [[Allen Ginsberg]] being more moderately influenced.<Ref name="smith" /> A number of ecclesiastical bodies which think of themselves as Gnostic have been set up or re-founded since World War II as well, including the [[Society of Novus Spiritus]], [[Ecclesia Gnostica]], the [[Thomasine Church]], the [[Apostolic Johannite Church]], the [[North American College of Gnostic Bishops]], and the World Gnostic Movement of [[Samael Aun Weor]]. [[Celia Green]] has written on Gnostic Christianity in relation to her own philosophy<ref name = "Green">Green, Celia (1981,2006). ''Advice to Clever Children''. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Ch.s XXXV-XXXVII</ref>
.

==See also==
{{multicol}}
* [[Antinomianism]]
* [[Anthroposophy]]
* [[Apocrypha]]
* [[Black Iron Prison]]
* [[Christian anarchism]]
* [[Christian theosophy]]
* [[Christian mysticism]]
{{multicol-break}}
* [[First Council of Nicaea]]
* [[Gospel]]
* [[Gnosiology]]
* [[Hermeticism]]
* [[Ontology]]
* [[Sufism]]
* [[Theodicy]]
* [[Occult]]
{{multicol-end}}

==Footnotes==
{{reflist|2}}
<references/>

==References==
===Books===
====Primary sources====
* {{cite book | authorlink = Bentley Layton | last = Layton | first = Bentley | title = The Gnostic Scriptures | publisher = SCM Press | year = 1987 | id = ISBN 0-334-02022-0 | pages = 526 pages }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = James M. Robinson | last = Robinson | first = James | title = The Nag Hammadi Library in English | publisher = | year = 1978 | id = ISBN 0-06-066934-9 | pages = 549 pages }}
* {{cite book | author = [[Plotinus]] | other = translated by A.H. Armstrong | title = The [[Enneads]] | publisher = [[Harvard University|Harvard University Press]] | year = 1989 | id = }} (in 7 volumes), vol. 1: ISBN 0-674-99484-1
* The Gnostic Bible, Ed. Willis Barstone

====Secondary sources====
* {{cite book | last = Aland | first = Barbara | title = [[Festschrift]] für Hans Jonas | publisher = Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | year = 1978 | id = ISBN 3-525-58111-4 }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Robert A. Anderson | last= Anderson | first = Robert A. | title = Church of God? or the Temples of Satan - A Reference Book of Spiritual Understanding & Gnosis | publisher = TGS Publishers | year = 2006 | id = ISBN 0-9786249-6-3 }}
* {{cite book | last= Burstein | first = Dan | title = Secrets of Mary Magdalene | publisher = CDS Books | year = 2006 | id = ISBN 1-59315-205-1 }}
* {{cite book | last = Freke | first = Timothy | coauthors = Gandy, Peter | title = The Hermetica: The Lost Wisdom of the Pharaohs | publisher = Tarcher | year = 1999 | id = ISBN 0-87477-950-2 }}
* {{cite book | last = Freke | first = Timothy | coauthors = Gandy, Peter | title = Jesus and the Lost Goddess : The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians | publisher = Three Rivers Press | year = 2002 | id = ISBN 0-00-710071-X }}
* {{cite book | last = Green | first = Henry | title = Economic and Social Origins of Gnosticism | publisher = Scholars P.,U.S. | year = 1985 | id = ISBN 0-89130-843-1 }}
* {{cite book | last = Haardt | first = Robert | title = Die Gnosis: Wesen und Zeugnisse | publisher = Otto-Müller-Verlag, Salzburg | year = 1967 | id = | pages = 352 pages }}, translated as {{cite book | last = Haardt | first = Robert | title = Gnosis: Character and Testimony | publisher = Brill, Leiden | year = 1971 | id = }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Stephan A. Hoeller | last = Hoeller | first = Stephan A. | title = Gnosticism - New Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing | publisher = | year = 2002 | id = ISBN 0-8356-0816-6 | pages = 257 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Jones | first = Peter | title = The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back: An Old Heresy for the New Age | publisher = Presbyterian & Reformed | year = 1992 | id = ISBN 0-87552-285-8 | pages = 112 pages }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Hans Jonas | last = Jonas | first = Hans | title = Gnosis und spätantiker Geist vol. 2:1-2, Von der Mythologie zur mystischen Philosophie | publisher = | year = | id = ISBN 3-525-53841-3 }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Charles William King | last = King | first = Charles William | title = The Gnostics and Their Remains | year = 1887 | url = http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/gar/ }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Karen Leigh King| last = King | first = Karen L. | title = What is Gnosticism? | publisher = Harvard University Press | year = 2003 | id = ISBN 0-674-01071-X | pages = 343 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Klimkeit | first = Hans-Joachim | title = Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Texts from Central Asia | publisher = Harper, San Francisco | year = 1993 | id = ISBN 0-06-064586-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = Layton | first = Bentley | editor = edited by L. Michael White, O. Larry Yarbrough | chapter = Prolegomena to the study of ancient gnosticism | title = The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks | publisher = Fortress Press, Minneapolis | year = 1995 | id = ISBN 0-8006-2585-4 }}
* {{cite book | author = Layton, Bentley (ed.) | title = The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Sethian Gnosticism | publisher = E.J. Brill | year = 1981 }}
* {{cite book | last = Longfellow | first = Ki | title = The Secret Magdalene | publisher = | year = 2005 | id = ISBN 0-9759255-3-9 | pages = 458 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Markschies | first = Christoph | other = trans. John Bowden | title = Gnosis: An Introduction | publisher = T & T Clark | year = 2000 | id = ISBN 0-567-08945-2 | pages = 145 pages }}
* {{cite book | last = Mins | first = Denis | title = Irenaeus | publisher = Geoffrey Chapman | year = 1994 | id = }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Elaine Pagels | last = Pagels | first = Elaine | title = The Gnostic Gospels | publisher = | year = 1979 | id = ISBN 0-679-72453-2 | pages = 182 pages }}
* {{cite book | authorlink = Elaine Pagels | last = Pagels | first = Elaine | title = The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis | publisher = | year = 1989 | id = ISBN 1-55540-334-4 | pages = 128 pages }}
* Petrement, Simone (1990), ''A Separate God: The Origins and Teachings of Gnosticsim'', Harper and Row ISBN 0-06-066421-5
* {{cite book | last = Puma | first = Jeremy | title = Running Towards the Bomb: Gnosticism and the End of Civilisation | publisher = Geosynchronous Lamps | year = 2005 | id = ISBN 1-4116-4523-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = Rudolph | first = Kurt | title = Gnosis: The Nature & Structure of Gnosticism | publisher = Harper & Row | year = 1987 | id = ISBN 0-06-067018-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = [[Benjamin Walker|Walker]] | first = [[Benjamin Walker|Benjamin]] | title = Gnosticism: Its History and Influence | publisher = Harper Collins | year = 1990 | id = ISBN 1-85274-057-4 }}
* {{cite book | last = Wapnick | first = Kenneth | title = Love Does Not Condemn: The World, the Flesh, and the Devil According to Platonism, Christianity, Gnosticism, and A Course in Miracles | publisher = Foundation for A Course in Miracles | year = 1989 | id = ISBN 0-933291-07-8 | pages = 614 pages}}
* Wilberg, Peter (2003) ''From New Age to New Gnosis'' - ''On'' ''the Contemporary Significance of a New Gnostic Spirituality'', ISBN 1-904519-07-5
* {{cite book | last = Williams | first = Michael | title = Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category | publisher = Princeton University Press | year = 1996 | id = ISBN 0-691-01127-3 }}

===Audio lectures===
* [http://www.bcrecordings.net/store/ BC Recordings] - Offers an extensive collection of downloadable MP3 lecture by Stephan A. Hoeller on Gnosticism.
* [http://www.futurehi.net/media.html Future Hi] - Provides MP3s of a multi-part lecture by [[Huston Smith]]
* [http://thegodabovegod.com/]- Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis: A weekly program on The Gnostics, Gnosticism & Gnosis.

===Videos===
* ''The Naked Truth: Exposing the Deceptions About the Origins of Modern Religions'' (1995).

==External links==


===Ancient Gnosticism===
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm Religious Tolerance] - A survey of Gnosticism
* [http://sacredwisdom.net Sacred Wisdom] - Gnosticism and Christian Esotericism
* [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html Early Christian Writings] - primary texts
* [http://www.gnosis.org/library.html The Gnostic Society Library]
* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/gnostic.htm Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Gnosticism]
* [http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/intro.htm Introduction to Gnosticism]
* [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=280&letter=G&search=gnosticism Jewish Encyclopedia: Gnosticism]
* [http://www.theandros.com/pregnostic.html Proto-Gnostic elements in the Gospel according to John]
* [http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/index.html Gnostic version of the Bible and more on Gnostics]
* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Gnosticism]

===Modern Gnosticism===

* [http://www.americangnosticAssociation.org/ American Gnostic Association]
* [http://www.gnosis.org/eghome.htm Ecclesia Gnostica (Gnosis Archive)]
* [http://www.gnosticcenter.org/ The Alexandrian Gnostic Church]
* [http://www.lectoriumrosicrucianum.org/ Lectorium Rosicrucianum]
* [http://www.johannite.org/ Apostolic Johannite Church]
* [http://www.ageac.org/ AGEAC (Gnostic Association of Anthropological, Cultural and Scientific Studies)]

{{belief systems}}

[[Category:Gnosticism|*]]
[[Category:Ancient Roman Christianity]]
[[Category:New Testament Apocrypha]]
[[Category:Anti-Christianity]]

{{Link FA|eo}}

[[af:Gnostisisme]]
[[ar:غنوصية]]
[[be-x-old:Гнастыцызм]]
[[bg:Гностицизъм]]
[[cs:Gnosticismus]]
[[da:Gnosticisme]]
[[de:Gnostizismus]]
[[et:Gnostitsism]]
[[el:Γνωστικισμός]]
[[es:Gnosticismo]]
[[eo:Gnostikismo]]
[[fr:Gnosticisme]]
[[ilo:Gnosticismo]]
[[ia:Gnosticismo]]
[[it:Gnosticismo]]
[[he:גנוסיס]]
[[nl:Gnosticisme]]
[[ja:グノーシス主義]]
[[no:Gnostisisme]]
[[pl:Gnostycyzm]]
[[pt:Gnosticismo]]
[[ro:Gnosticism]]
[[ru:Гностицизм]]
[[sq:Gnosticizmi]]
[[sk:Gnosticizmus]]
[[sl:Gnosticizem]]
[[sr:Гностицизам]]
[[fi:Gnostilaisuus]]
[[sv:Gnosticism]]
[[zh:諾斯底主義]]

Luciferianism

2007-09-28T02:41:05Z

Harpakhrad11: /* Religious or traditional Luciferianism */

{{nofootnotes}}
'''Luciferianism''' can be understood best as a belief system that venerates the essential characteristics that are affixed to [[Lucifer]].

Luciferianism is often identified as an auxiliary of [[Satanism]], due to the canonical identification of Lucifer with [[Satan]]. Some Luciferians accept this identification or consider Lucifer as the ''light bearer'' aspect of Satan, and thus could properly be called Satanists. Others reject it, arguing that Lucifer is a more positive ideal than Satan. They are inspired by the ancient myths of Egypt, Rome and Greece, Gnosticism and traditional western occultism.

==Lucifer==
The name Lucifer is commonly tied to the biblical Satan. However, the name Lucifer does not appear in most translations of the Hebrew Bible. Lucifer does appear once in the King James version in Isaiah 14:12, in which the King of Babylon is referenced as "Son of the Morning" (translated from the Hebrew "Helel ben Shahar [Praise! Son of the Dawn"]), due to the original use of Lucifer as Latin for the planet [[Venus]], also known as the morning star. The designation of Satan as [[Lucifer]] has its origins in the Book of Revelations. Christian tradition and Scripture assert that Lucifer was the most beautiful of the angels (hence his title of Light-bearer) but was condemned to Hell, along with the angels who supported him, as punishment for the attempted usurpation of God's throne.

There are several different viewpoints on how Luciferianism is defined. These include:

* Religious/Traditional Luciferianism
* Spiritual/Gnostic Luciferianism
* Philosophic Luciferianism
* Modern Luciferianism

==Traditional Luciferianism==

A pantheistic thirteenth-century German sect that held that Lucifer should be worshiped as the ruler of the material world. This concept of the material world as Lucifer's domain was, most likely, taken from Catholic doctrine.<ref>{{cite book|title=Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics
|last=Clifton|first=Chas|isbn=0-7607-0823-1|publisher=Barnes & Noble Books}}</ref>

==Spiritual/Gnostic Luciferianism==
Spiritual Luciferianism has its roots in the esoteric teachings of Western Occultism and Hermeticism. This view holds that, while Satan represents the manifestation of the Material Realm, Lucifer represents the highest spiritual ideal, one's true Will, the Holy Guardian Angel, etc. As all “material” things are energy or light, Lucifer is seen as the creating force of the universe, ever present. Spiritual Luciferianism is more of a branch of [[Hermeticism]] than Satanism, having little or nothing to do with the latter. Magical practices are mostly influenced by Roger Williamson and [[Aleister Crowley]].

Various Gnostic Luciferian sects which emphasize the [[dualism]] of the universe have also been associated with the image of [[Lucifer]], in the root sense of the "bringer of light". The orthodox view has associated Lucifer with "[[Satan]] before the fall", though, as Bishop [[Lucifer Calaritanus]]'s name attests, Lucifer was not yet associated with "Satan" in the 4th century. Some classically-educated [[Freemasonry|Freemasons]] used "luciferian" in the scholarly sense of "bringing enlightenment," invoking [[Prometheus]] who stole fire from the gods to bring to man. Pro-Catholic polemicists linked such Masonic usage with sects worshiping Lucifer, which have had persistent groups of followers since the [[Middle Ages]].

==Philosophical Luciferianism==

Luciferianism is the embodiment of knowledge that acknowledges the Principles of Lucifer as the "Light of Conscious Evolution". As a god or as a principle, Lucifer is the "Light Bearer". The Light which illuminates the consciousness of sapient beings and heightens the senses and awareness to experience Higher Levels of Being. Luciferianism is the path of Self-Attainment, the Higher Self. It is the Centered Path, neither Left nor Right, for Lucfier is the Star that shines in the morning and evening, that point of light between opposing forces.

==Modern Luciferianism==
{{Main|Satanism}}

Modern Luciferianism and [[Modern Satanism]] share many primary aspects. In both, practitioners self-identify with a super-personal essence that they view as embodying desirable characteristics. Both work towards employing these characteristics as a means of bettering the Self. However, these two groups differ in that Modern Satanists, particularly younger ones, are believed to actively engage in the sinister or diabolical aspects traditionally associated with the biblical Satan due to criticism received by people who do not know a great deal about Satanism. It is therefore incorrect that crimes, such as child kidnapping, human sacrifices, vandalism, and so forth, are committed by true Satanists. Contrary to popular belief, many Luciferians and Satanists alike do not worship the devil, but rather worship nothing except the divinity within themselves.

==Followers of Lucifer Calaritanus==
"Luciferians" described a [[Schism (religion)|schism]]atic group named after [[Lucifer Calaritanus]], Bishop of [[Cagliari]], Sardinia in the late 4th century. The movement was linked to the complex political machinations involving the emperor [[Constantius II]] and [[Pope Liberius]]. Lucifer was a staunch ultra-orthodox opponent of [[Arius]], declared a [[heresy|heretic]]. The movement died out early in the following century. All that we know of Bishop Lucifer's views derive from the anti-Luciferian polemic of [[Jerome]] in the form of a dialogue, ''Altercatio Luciferiani et orthodoxi'' ("Altercation of the Luciferian and the orthodox").

==Luciferian orders==
Structured systems that are fundamentally Luciferian are exceedingly rare. Most public and semi-public internet-based organizations resemble the [[Dot-Com bubble]] of the [[1990's]], not lasting far past the start-up phase.

The Church of Lucifer, ([http://churchoflucifer.org Official Website]) which views [[Lucifer]] as both a symbol of the never-ending quest for wisdom and a force of and behind particular aspects of nature, has been active for over twenty years with [[United States]] and international membership. Founded by the late Rev. Robert Stills and passed on to Frederick Nagash, the Church of Lucifer is currently administered by Rev. Frederick Nagash, Rev. Satrinah Nagash and Rev. Maskim Xul. The organization encourages the study of several ancient cultures to learn its wisdom and incorporate that into the Luciferian's own repertoire.

The [[Children of the Black Rose]] are a long-time Luciferian order who view Lucifer as a Supreme being encompassing all; "everything and nothing." <ref>http://www.spiralnature.com/spirituality/satanism/luciferianism.html</ref> This can be compared to the [[Gnostic]] deity [[Abraxas]], which is thought to contain both [[Wiktionary:absolute|Absolute]] [[Goodness and value theory|Good]] and [[Evil]]. A more modern structure inspired by [[Gnosticism]], French occultism, [[Thelema]] and the works of Danish Luciferian author [[Carl William Hansen]] (Ben Kadosh) and Bishop [[Michael Bertiaux]] is the [[Neo-Luciferian Church]]. It works within a seven grade church system.

The Ordo Luciferi (Luciferian Order), is an up and coming Order that was originally developed by Lucian Black in 2005. The philosophy of the Luciferian Order is based on that of Intellectual Light, wherein, light is knowledge (consciousness). And through the acquisition of such light may the individual intelligence work to advance his/her own conscious evolution. Luciferians work to evolve their own consciousness to higher states, the Opus Magnum. To ascend from our current Homo-Sapiens state to a higher ideal state of Homo-Divinus. The Ordo Luciferi implements a SIX degree non-religious system of recognition for its members. The O:L in no way interferes with ones religious or political opinions, be they what they may. The O:L was designed to serve as a hub for Luciferic Illumination, not for dogmatic discipline. For each conscious point of light within humanity is unique and each sol (sun) must find their own way to the Light that is within them, the O:L offers tools and fraternity with like minded people who seek the god within, the Higher Self.

==See also==
*[[Lucifer]]
*[[Luciferians]]
*[[Satanism]]
*[[Hermeticism]]
*[[Gnosticism]]
*[[Thelema]]
*[[Theistic Satanism]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Further reading==
*"The Lucifer Gospel", Paul Christopher. Onyx.
*"A Revolução Luciferiana", Adriano Camargo Monteiro. Madras Editora.
*"Lucifer Rising", Gavin Baddeley. Plexus Publishings.
*"The Lucifer Light", Michael Salazar. Bantam.

==External links==
*[http://www.luciferiangalleria.net LUCIFERIAN GALLERIA is a luciferian themed art gallery]
*[http://www.luciferian.org/ Church of Lucifer]
*[http://www.ordo-luciferi.org/ The Luciferian Order] Luciferic Illumination.
*[http://www.jeremycrow.com/ The Gnostic Witchcraft - A Luciferian Path]
*[http://www.spiralnature.com/spirituality/satanism/luciferianism.html Brief intro to Luciferian principles]
*[http://www.ummo.cc/ Voice of Lucifer]
*[http://www.neoluciferianchurch.org/ The Neo-Luciferian Church] Luciferianism and Gnosticism - inspired by Hansen-Kadosh, old European Luciferianism/Gnosticism and the teachings of Michael Bertiaux and other occult authors.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09410a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Lucifer]
*[http://www.leagueofsatanists.com/ The League of Independent Satanists]
*[http://www.luciferianwitchcraft.com/main.htm Luciferian Witchcraft]

[[Category:Luciferianism|*]]
[[Category:Left Hand Path]]
[[Category:Satanism]]

[[fr:Luciférisme]]
[[pt:Luciferianismo]]

Lysander Spooner

2007-09-28T01:26:05Z

Harpakhrad11: /* Works online */

[[Image:LysanderSpooner.jpg|thumb|right|Lysander Spooner]]{{anarchism}}
'''Lysander Spooner''' ([[January 19]], [[1808]] – [[May 14]], [[1887]]) was an [[American individualist anarchism|American individualist anarchist]], [[entrepreneur]], political philosopher, [[Abolitionism|abolitionist]], and legal theorist of the [[19th century]]. He is also known for competing with the [[United States Post Office Department|U.S. Post Office]] with his [[American Letter Mail Company]], which was forced out of business by the [[United States government]].

==Life overview==
Spooner was born on a farm in [[Athol, Massachusetts|Athol]], [[Massachusetts]], on January 19, 1808, and died "at one o'clock in the afternoon of Saturday, May 14, [[1887]], in his little room at 109 Myrtle Street, surrounded by trunks and chests bursting with the books, manuscripts, and pamphlets which he had gathered about him in his active pamphleteer's warfare over half a century long."<ref>[[Benjamin Tucker]], "Our Nestor Taken From Us."</ref>

Later known as an early [[individualist anarchism|individualist anarchist]], Spooner advocated what he called [[Natural law|Natural Law]] — or the "Science of Justice" — wherein acts of actual [[coercion]] against individuals and their property were considered "illegal" but the so-called criminal acts that violated only man-made legislation were not.

He believed that the price of borrowing capital could be brought down by competition of lenders if the government de-regulated banking and money. This he believed would stimulate entrepreneurship. In his '''Letter to Cleveland''', Spooner argued, ''"All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another."''<ref>quoted by Eunice Minette Schuster, Native American Anarchism, p. 148</ref> Spooner took his own advice and started his own business called American Letter Mail Company which competed with the U.S. Post Office.

Spooner was a lifelong [[deist]].

==Early years and the postal monopoly==
His activism began with his career as a [[lawyer]], which itself violated Massachusetts law. Spooner had studied law under the prominent lawyers and [[politician]]s [[John Davis (Massachusetts Governor)|John Davis]] and [[Charles Allen (Massachusetts politician)|Charles Allen]], but he had never attended [[college]]. According to the laws of the state, college graduates were required to study with an attorney for three years, while non-graduates were required to do so for five years.

With the encouragement of his legal mentors, Spooner set up his practice in [[Worcester, Massachusetts|Worcester]] after only three years, openly defying the courts. He saw the three-year privilege for college graduates as a state-sponsored discrimination against the poor and also providing a monopoly income to those with who met the requirements. He argued that such discrimination was "so monstrous a principle as that the rich ought to be protected by law from the competition of the poor." In [[1836]], the legislature abolished the restriction. He opposed all licensing requirements for lawyers, doctors or anyone else that was prevented from being employed by such requirements. To prevent a person from doing business with a person without a professional license he saw as a violation of the natural right to contract.

After a disappointing legal career — his radical writing seems to have kept away potential clients — and a failed career in [[real estate]] speculation in [[Ohio]], Spooner returned to his father's farm in [[1840]].

Postal rates were notoriously high in the 1840s[http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n1-1.html], and in [[1844]], Spooner founded the [[American Letter Mail Company]] to contest the United States Post Office's [[monopoly]]. As he had done when challenging the rules of the Massachusetts bar, he published a pamphlet titled "The Unconstitutionality of the Laws of Congress Prohibiting Private Mails." Although Spooner had finally found commercial success with his mail company, legal challenges by the government eventually exhausted his financial resources. He closed up shop without ever having had the opportunity to fully litigate his constitutional claims. The lasting legacy of Spooner's challenge to the postal service was the 3-cent stamp, adopted in response to the competition his company provided. [http://www.lysanderspooner.org/STAMP3.htm]

{{libertarianism}}

==Abolitionism==
Spooner attained his greatest fame as a figure in the [[abolitionism|abolitionist]] movement. His most famous work, a book titled ''[[The Unconstitutionality of Slavery]]'', was published in 1846 to great acclaim among many abolitionists but criticism from others. Spooner's book contributed to a controversy within the abolitionist movement over whether the [[United States Constitution]] supported the institution of slavery. The "disunionist" faction, led by [[William Lloyd Garrison]] and [[Wendell Phillips]], argued the Constitution legally recognized and enforced the oppression of slaves (as, for example, in the provisions for the capture of fugitive slaves in Article IV, Section 2). They also cited the frequent appeals to Constitutional compromise by Southern politicians, who insisted that protection of the "peculiar institution" was part of the sectional compromise on which the Constitution was based. The disunionists thus argued that keeping the free states in a political union with the slave states made the citizens of the free states complicit in the slave system, and denounced the Constitution as "a covenant with death and an agreement with hell."<ref>[http://www.masshist.org/objects/2005july.cfm Donald Yacovone, Massachusetts Historical Society: "A Covenant with Death and an Agreement with Hell"]. </ref>

Spooner challenged the claim that the ''text'' of the Constitution supported slavery. Although he recognized that the Founders had probably not ''intended'' to outlaw slavery when writing the Constitution, he argued that only the ''meaning'' of the text, not the private intentions of its writers, was enforceable. Spooner used a complex system of legal and natural law arguments in order to show that the clauses usually interpreted as supporting slavery did not, in fact, support it, and that several clauses of the Constitution prohibited the states from establishing slavery under the law. Spooner's arguments were cited by other pro-Constitution abolitionists, such as [[Gerrit Smith]] and the [[Liberty Party (U.S.)|Liberty Party]], which adopted it as an official text in its 1848 platform. [[Frederick Douglass]], originally a Garrisonian disunionist, later came to accept the pro-Constitution position, and cited Spooner's arguments to explain his change of mind.<ref>Cf. Douglass, [http://douglassarchives.org/doug_a10.htm "What to a Slave is the Fourth of July?"]</ref>

From the publication of this book until 1861, Spooner actively campaigned against slavery. He published subsequent pamphlets on [[Jury Nullification]] and other legal defenses for escaped slaves and offered his legal services, often free of charge, to fugitives. In the late 1850s, copies of his book were distributed to members of Congress sparking some debate over their contents. Even Senator [[Albert Gallatin Brown]] of [[Mississippi]], a slavery proponent, praised the argument's intellectual rigor and conceded it was the most formidable legal challenge he had seen from the abolitionists to date. In [[1858]], Spooner circulated a [http://praxeology.net/LS-PAS.htm "Plan for the Abolition of Slavery"], calling for the use of [[guerrilla warfare]] against slaveholders by black slaves and non-slaveholding free Southerners, with aid from Northern abolitionists. Spooner also participated in an aborted plot to free [[John Brown (abolitionist)|John Brown]] after his capture following the failed raid on [[Harper's Ferry]], [[Virginia]].

In 1860 Spooner was actively courted by [[William H. Seward|William Seward]] to support the fledgling [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]]. An admitted sympathizer with the [[Jeffersonian political philosophy]], Spooner adamantly refused the request and soon became an outspoken abolitionist critic of the party. To Spooner, the Republicans were hypocrites for purporting to oppose slavery's expansion but refusing to take a strong, consistent moral stance against slavery itself. Although Spooner had advocated the use of violence to ''abolish slavery'', he denounced the Republicans' use of violence to prevent the Southern states from seceding during the [[American Civil War]]. He published several letters and pamphlets about the war, arguing that the Republican war aim was not the overthrow of slavery, but rather to maintain the Union by force. He blamed the bloodshed on Republican political leaders such as [[Secretary of State]] [[William H. Seward|Seward]] and Senator [[Charles Sumner]], who often spoke out against slavery but would not attack it on a constitutional basis, and who pursued military policies seen as vengeful and abusive. [http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo87.html]

Though denouncing its embrace of slavery, Spooner sided with the [[Confederate States of America]]'s right to secede on the basis that they were choosing to exercise government by consent — a fundamental constitutional and legal principle to Spooner's philosophy. The North, by contrast, was trying to deny the [[Southern United States|Southerners]] their inherent right to be governed by their consent. He believed they were attempting to coerce the obedience of the southern states to a union they did not wish to enter. He believed that [[Compensated Emancipation]] was a preferable way to end slavery, something many nations had done. He argued that the right for states to secede derives from the same right of the slaves to be free. This argument was not popular in the North or South once the war started, as it was contrary to the government positions held on both sides.

==Reconstruction==
Spooner harshly condemned the [[American Civil War|Civil War]] and the [[Reconstruction]] period that followed. Though he approved of the fact that black slavery was abolished, he criticized the North for failing to make this the purpose of their cause. Instead of fighting to abolish slavery, they fought to "preserve the union" and, according to Spooner, to bolster business interests behind that union. Spooner believed a war of this type was hypocritical and dishonest, especially on the part of Radical Republicans like Sumner who were by then claiming to be abolitionist heroes for ending slavery. Spooner also argued that the war came at a great cost to liberty and proved that the rights expressed in the [[Declaration of Independence (United States)|Declaration of Independence]] no longer held true – the people could not "dissolve the political bands" that tie them to a government that "becomes destructive" of the consent of the governed because if they did so, as Spooner believed the south had attempted to do, they would be met by the bayonet to enforce their obedience to the former government.

Reacting to the war, Spooner published one of his most famous political tracts, ''[[No Treason]]''. In this lengthy essay, Spooner argued that the Constitution was a contract of government (see [[social contract]] theory) which had been irreparably violated during the war and was thus void. Furthermore, since the government now existing under the Constitution pursued coercive policies that were contrary to the Natural Law and to the consent of the governed, it had been demonstrated that document was unable to adequately stop many abuses against liberty or to prevent tyranny from taking hold. Spooner bolstered his argument by noting that the Federal government, as established by a legal contract, could not legally bind all persons living in the nation since none had ever signed their names or given their consent to it - that consent had always been assumed, which fails the most basic burdens of proof for a valid contract in the courtroom.

Spooner widely circulated the ''No Treason'' pamphlets, which also contained a legal defense against the crime of [[treason]] itself intended for former Confederate soldiers (hence the name of the pamphlet, arguing that "no treason" had been committed in the war by the south). These excerpts were published in [[DeBow's Review]] and some other well known southern periodicals of the time.

==Later life==
Spooner continued to write and publish extensively in the decades following Reconstruction, producing works such as "Natural Law or The Science of Justice" and "Trial By Jury." In "Trial By Jury" he defended the doctrine of "[[Jury nullification|Jury Nullification]]," which holds that in a free society a trial jury not only has the authority to rule on the facts of the case, but also on ''the legitimacy of the law under which the case is tried'', and which would allow juries to refuse to convict if they regard the law they are asked to convict under as illegitimate. He became closely associated with [[Benjamin Tucker]]'s [[anarchism|anarchist]] journal ''[[Liberty (1881-1908)|Liberty]]'', which published all of his later works in serial format, and for which he wrote several editorial columns on current events [http://uncletaz.com/liberty/spooner.html]. He argued that all people had a "natural right" to the fruits of their own labor arguing that capitalism denies this right, ''". . . almost all fortunes are made out of the capital and labour of other men than those who realise them. Indeed, except by his sponging capital and labour from others."'' <ref>quoted by Martin J. James, Men Against the State, p. 173f</ref>

Spooner died in 1887 at the age of 79. [[Benjamin Tucker]] arranged his funeral service and wrote an obituary, entitled "Our Nestor Taken From Us," which appeared in ''Liberty'' on [[May 28]].

==Influence==
Spooner's influence extends to the wide range of topics he addressed during his lifetime. He is remembered today primarily for his abolitionist activities and for his challenge to the post office monopoly, which had a lasting influence of significantly reducing postal rates. Spooner's writings contributed to the development of [[libertarian]] political theory in the United States, and were often reprinted in early libertarian journals such as the ''Rampart Journal''.<ref>"A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard," in ''Rampart Journal'' Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring 1965), "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority," with an introduction by James J. Martin, in ''Rampart Journal'' Vol. 1, No. 3 (Fall 1965).</ref> His writings were also a major influence on [[Austrian School]] economist [[Murray Rothbard]] and libertarian law professor and legal theorist [[Randy Barnett]].

In January 2004, Laissez Faire Books established the Lysander Spooner Award for advancing the literature of liberty. The honor is awarded monthly to the most important contributions to the literature of liberty, followed by an annual award to the author of the top book on liberty for the year. The annual "Spooner" earns $1,500 cash for the winning author.<ref>[http://www.lfb.com/index.php?action=help&helpfile=spooneraw.html "Lysander Spooner Award"]</ref>

==See also==
* [[Voluntaryism]]
* [[Benjamin Tucker]]
* [[Natural rights]]
* [[Individualist anarchism]]

==References and external links==
* [http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/lysander+spooner Lysander Spooner Quotes] at Liberty-Tree.ca
* [http://www.theihs.org/libertyguide/people.php/75860.html Lysander Spooner article from Libertyguide.com]
* ''[http://web.archive.org/web/20030608231101/http://www.memoryhole.com/people/tucker/ontfu.html Our Nestor Taken From Us]'' via The Wayback Machine
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20030412103901/http://www.memoryhole.com/people/spooner/bibliography.html Lysander Spooner's Bibliography] via The Wayback Machine
* [http://www.LysanderSpooner.org/ LysanderSpooner.org]
* [http://www.BlackCrayon.com/people/spooner/ BlackCrayon.com: People: Lysander Spooner]
* [http://www.fija.org/ The Fully Informed Jury Association]
* [http://www.mises.org/rothbardintros/spooner.asp Lysander Spooner: Libertarian Pietist] by Murray Rothbard
* [http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Woods2/4.mp3/ Lysander Spooner and other Antebellum Radicalism] by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

==Notes==

<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

== Works online ==
{{wikisource author|Lysander Spooner}}
* {{gutenberg author| id=Lysander+Spooner | name=Lysander Spooner}}
* [http://www.gutenberg.net/browse/BIBREC/BR1201.HTM Essay On The Trial By Jury]
* [http://praxeology.net/LS-PAS.htm "To the Non-Slaveholders of the South: A Plan for the Abolition of Slavery"] (1858)
* [http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm Vices Are Not Crimes: A vindication of Moral Liberty] (1875)
* ''[http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm No Treason]'' (1867 – 1870 text)
* [http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/images/stories/audio/spooner_no_treason_full.mp3 No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority] mp3 audio reading by [[Marc Stevens (radio host)]]
* [http://www.panarchy.org/spooner/law.1882.html ''Natural Law, or the Science of Justice''] (1882)
* [http://praxeology.net/LS-LB.htm "A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard: Challenging His Right - And that of All the Other So-Called Senators and Representative in Congress - To Exercise Any Legislative Power Whatever Over the People of the United States"] (1882)
* [http://books.google.com/books?id=S9g0AAAAIAAJ&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=ixGpZZXK4V&sig=PVLYwwOQM_5BbcmLgO7LYXaRMHo&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3DThe%2BUnconstitutionality%2Bof%2BSlavery%26start%3D0%26start%3D0%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26client%3Dmozilla%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title#PPA6,M1 The Unconstitutionality of Slavery] (1860)
* [http://lysanderspooner.org/intellect/contents.htm The Law of Intellectual Property: or an essay on the right of authors and inventors to a perpetual property in their ideas] (1855)


{{Persondata
|NAME=Spooner, Lysander
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES=
|SHORT DESCRIPTION=[[Anarchist]], [[Entrepreneur]], [[Abolitionist]]
|DATE OF BIRTH=[[January 19]], [[1808]]
|PLACE OF BIRTH=[[Athol, Massachusetts]]
|DATE OF DEATH=[[May 14]], [[1887]]
|PLACE OF DEATH=
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Spooner, Lysander}}
[[Category:1808 births]]
[[Category:1887 deaths]]
[[Category:American abolitionists]]
[[Category:American anarchists]]
[[Category:American essayists]]
[[Category:American lawyers]]
[[Category:American libertarians]]
[[Category:American political writers]]
[[Category:Mutualists]]
[[Category:Individualist anarchists]]
[[Category:Libertarian theorists]]
[[Category:Deist thinkers]]
[[Category:People of Massachusetts in the American Civil War]]
[[Category:People from Worcester County, Massachusetts]]
[[Category:People from Massachusetts]]

[[de:Lysander Spooner]]
[[es:Lysander Spooner]]
[[fr:Lysander Spooner]]
[[nl:Lysander Spooner]]
[[pl:Lysander Spooner]]
[[sv:Lysander Spooner]]
[[zh:萊桑德·斯波納]]

Benjamin Tucker

2007-09-26T16:08:30Z

Harpakhrad11: /* See also */

[[Image:BenjaminTucker.jpg|thumb|right|Benjamin Ricketson Tucker]]
'''Benjamin Ricketson Tucker''' ([[April 17]], [[1854]] – [[June 22]], [[1939]]) was the leading proponent of [[American individualist anarchism]] in the [[19th century]].

==Summary==
Tucker's contribution to American individualist anarchism was as much through his [[publishing]] as his own writing. In editing and publishing the anarchist periodical ''[[Liberty (19th century magazine)|Liberty]]'', Tucker both filtered and integrated the theories of such European thinkers as [[Herbert Spencer]] and [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]] with the thinking of American individualist activists, [[Lysander Spooner]], [[William B. Greene]] and [[Josiah Warren]], as well as the ideas of the [[Free thinker|free thought]] and [[free love]] movements in order to produce a rigorous system of philosophical or [[individualist anarchism]] that he called ''Anarchistic-Socialism''. Tucker defined socialism as the claim that "labor should be put in possession of its own."<ref>Tucker, Benjamin. [http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/state-socialism-and-anarchism#art1p1 "State Socialism and Anarchism," ¶ 1].</ref> Thus, he believed that workers should be in possession of their own means of production privately rather than in common. Essentially such a society would be one where all workers would be owners and all owners would be workers simultaneously. Tucker argued ''"[the] most perfect Socialism is possible only on the condition of the most perfect individualism."'' <ref>cited by Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 390</ref> According to historian of American individualist anarchism, Frank Brooks, it is easy to misunderstand Tucker's claim of "socialism." Before "socialism" was monopolized by Marxists, "the term socialism was a broad concept." Tucker (as well as most of the writers and readers in Liberty) understood "socialism" to refer to any of various theories and demands aimed to solve "[[the labor problem]]" through radical changes in the capitalist economy; descriptions of the problem, explanations of it causes, and proposed solutions (e.g., abolition of private property, cooperatives, state-ownership, etc.) varied among "socialist" philosophies.<ref>Brooks, Frank H. 1994. The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881-1908). Transaction Publishers. p. 75.</ref>

Tucker shared with the advocates of free love and free thought a disdain for prohibitions on non-invasive behavior and [[religious]]ly-based [[legislation]], but he saw the poor condition of American workers as a result of four [[monopoly|monopolies]] based in authority:
# the money monopoly,
# the land monopoly,
# tariffs, and
# patents.

His focus for several decades became the state's economic control of how trade could take place, and what [[currency]] counted as legitimate. He saw interest and profit as a form of exploitation made possible by the [[banking]] monopoly, which was in turn maintained through coercion and invasion. Any such interest and profit, Tucker called "[[usury]]" and he saw it as the basis for the oppression of the workers. In his words, ''"interest is theft, Rent Robbery, and Profit Only Another Name for Plunder."'' <ref>Martin Blatt, Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 29</ref> Tucker believed that usury was immoral, however, he upheld the right for all people to engage in immoral contracts. "Liberty, therefore, must defend the right of individuals to make contracts involving usury, rum, marriage, prostitution, any many other things which is believes to be wrong in principle and opposed to human well-being. The right to do wrong involves the essence of all rights."<ref>Benjamin R. Tucker, "Right and Individual Rights," Liberty I (January 7, 1882): 3.</ref>

He asserted that anarchism is meaningless "unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market — that is, private property." But, he made an exception "in the case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is so limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities."<ref>Tucker, Benjamin, [http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/more-questions#art14n1 "Instead of a Book", page 61, footnote.]</ref> Tucker opposed title to land that was not in use, arguing that an individual would have to use land continually in order to retain exclusive right to it. If this practice is not followed, he believed it results in a "land monopoly."

Tucker also opposed state protection of the banking monopoly, the requirement that one must obtain a charter to engage in the business of banking. He hoped to raise wages by deregulating the banking industry, reasoning that competition in banking would drive down interest rates and stimulate entrepreneurship. Tucker believed this would decrease the proportion of individuals seeking employment and therefore wages would be driven up by competing employers. "Thus, the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up."<ref>[http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm] Libertarian Heritage No. 23. ISSN 0959-566X ISBN 1-85637-549-8, Libertarian Alliance, 2002.</ref> He did not oppose individuals being employment by others, but due to his interpretation of the [[labor theory of value]], he believed that in the present economy individuals do not receive a wage that fully compensates them for their labor. He that if the four "monopolies" were ended, "it will make no difference whether men work for themselves, or are employed, or employ others. In any case they can get nothing but that wages for their labor which free competition determines."<ref>Tucker, Benjamin. Instead of a Book. p. 274</ref>

Tucker opposed [[protectionism]], believing that tariffs cause high prices by preventing national producers from having to compete with foreign competitors. He believed that [[free trade]] would help keep prices low and therefore would assist laborers in receiving their "natural wage." Tucker did not believe in a right to intellectual property in the form of patents. This was a source of conflict with the philosophy of fellow individualist [[Lysander Spooner]] who saw ideas as the product of "intellectual labor" and therefore private property.<ref>Spooner, Lysander. [http://lysanderspooner.org/intellect/contents.htm The Law of Intellectual Property: or an essay on the right of authors and inventors to a perpetual property in their ideas.], Chaper 1, Section VI.</ref>

According to [[Victor Yarros]]: {{quote|He [Tucker] opposed savagely any and all reform movements that had paternalistic aims and looked to the state for aid and fulfillment...For the same reason, consistent, unrelenting opposition to compulsion, he combatted "populism," "greenbackism," the single-tax movement, and all forms of socialism and communism. He denounced and exposed [[Johann Most]], the editor of ''Freiheit'', the anarchist-communist organ. The end, he declared, could never justify the means, if the means were intrinsically immoral — and force, by whomsoever used, was immoral except as a means of preventing or punishing aggression.<ref name="Yarros">{{cite journal| author = [[Victor Yarros]]| title = Philosophical Anarchism: Its Rise, Decline, and Eclipse| year=1936 | journal = [[The American Journal of Sociology]]|volume=41|issue=4|pages = 470-483}}</ref>}} Tucker rejected the legislative programs of labor unions, laws imposing a short day, minimum wage laws, forcing businesses to provide insurance to employes, and compulsory pension systems.<ref name="Yarros"/> He believed instead that strikes should be composed by free workers rather than by bureaucratic union officials and organizations. He argued, ''"strikes, whenever and wherever inaugurated, deserve encouragement from all the friends of labour. . . They show that people are beginning to know their rights, and knowing, dare to maintain them."'' <ref>Benjamin Tucker, Liberty, 15/4/1881</ref> and furuthermore, ''"as an awakening agent, as an agitating force, the beneficent influence of a strike is immeasurable. . . with our present economic system almost every strike is just. For what is justice in production and distribution? That labour, which creates all, shall have all."'' <ref>Benjamin Tucker, Liberty, #19, 1882</ref> Tucker envisioned an individualist anarchist society as ''"each man reaping the fruits of his labour and no man able to live in idleness on an income from capital....become[ing] a great hive of Anarchistic workers, prosperous and free individuals [combining] to carry on their production and distribution on the cost principle."'' <ref>The Individualist Anarchists, p. 276</ref> rather than a bureaucratic organization of workers organized into rank and file unions. However, he did hold a genuine appreciation for labor unions (which he called ''"trades-union socialism"'') and saw it as ''"an intelligent and self-governing socialism"'' saying, ''"[they] promise the coming substitution of industrial socialism for usurping legislative mobism."'' <ref>The Individualist Anarchists, pp. 283-284</ref>

Tucker did not have a utopian vision of anarchy where individuals would not coerce others.<ref name="Yarros"/> He advocated that liberty and property be defended by private institutions. Opposing the monopoly of the state in providing security, he advocated a free market of competing defense providers, saying "defense is a service like any other service; ... it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand." <ref>"On Picket Duty." Liberty. Jul 30, 1887; 4, 26. p4.</ref> He said that anarchism "does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force. Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice. It does not signify the abolition of force-symbols but the application of force to real invaders."<ref>Tucker, Benjamin. ''Liberty'' October 19, 1891.</ref> Tucker believed that such defence associations should be freely accessible to all workers, ''"The land for the people' . . . means the protection by . . . voluntary associations for the maintenance of justice . . . of all people who desire to cultivate land in possession of whatever land they personally cultivate . . . and the positive refusal of the protecting power to lend its aid to the collection of any rent, whatsoever."'' <ref>quoted by Martin Blatt, Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 299</ref>

Tucker was the first to translate into English Proudhon's ''[[What is Property?]]'' and [[Max Stirner]]'s ''[[The Ego and Its Own]]'' — which Tucker claimed was his proudest accomplishment.

In ''Liberty'', he published the original work of [[Stephen Pearl Andrews]], [[Joshua K. Ingalls]], Lysander Spooner, [[Auberon Herbert]], Victor Yarros, and [[Lillian Harman]], daughter of the free love anarchist [[Moses Harman]]. He also published such items as [[George Bernard Shaw]]'s first original article to appear in the United States and the first American translated excerpts of [[Friedrich Nietzsche]].

==Conversion to Egoist individualist anarchism==
Tucker's periodical also served as the main conduit of Stirnerite [[Egoism]], of which Tucker became a proponent. This led to a split in American Individualism between the growing number of Egoists and the contemporary Spoonerian "[[Natural Law]]yers". Both Egoists and Natural Law theorists rejected coercive authority, involuntary legislation, and the notion of a "[[social contract]]." However, they differed over the philosophical basis for their individualism: Natural Law theory derived it from a conception of a natural individual right to be free from coercion, whereas Egoism defended anarchism as a pragmatic compromise in a system where each individual sought only self-interest and where nothing was immoral. As a result of Tucker's egoist foundation, he began to favor conseqentialism over deontological rules. For example, he believed that aggressing against other was justifiable if doing so led to a greater decrease in "aggregate pain" than refraining from doing so. He said:

{{quote|the ultimate end of human endeavor is the minimum of pain. We aim to decrease invasion only because, as a rule, invasion increases the total of pain (meaning, of course, pain suffered by the ego, whether directly or through sympathy with others). But it is precisely my contention that this rule, despite the immense importance which I place upon it, is not absolute; that, on the contrary, there are exceptional cases where invasion--that is, coercion of the non-invasive--lessens the aggregate pain. Therefore coercion of the non-invasive, when justifiable at all, is to be justified on the ground that it secures, not a minimum of invasion, but a minimum of pain. . . . [T]o me [it is] axiomatic--that the ultimate end is the minimum of pain <ref>"Land Tenure Again." Liberty. Oct 19, 1895; 11, 12; p.3.</ref>}}

Tucker now said that there were only two rights, "the right of might" and "the right of contract." He also said, after converting to Egoist individualism, "In times past...it was my habit to talk glibly of the right of man to land. It was a bad habit, and I long ago sloughed it off....Man's only right to land is his might over it."<ref>Benjamin R. Tucker, "Response to 'Rights,' by William Hansen," ''Liberty'', Dec 31, 1892; 9, 18;
pg. 1</ref> Principles such as "equal liberty" and "occupancy and use," taken out of the realm of "natural law," could then be rethought as examples of a species of "generally trustworthy guiding principle of action," derived from the two fundamental rights.<ref>Benjamin R. Tucker, "The Two Conceptions of Equal Freedom," ''Liberty'', Apr 6, 1895; 10, 24; pg. 4</ref> Though he believed that non-invasion, and "occupancy and use as the title to land" were general rules that people would find in their own interests to follow, he said that these rules "must be sometimes trodden underfoot."<ref>Tucker, "Land Tenure Again"</ref>

==Late life==
{{stub section}}
Late in life, in private correspondence, Tucker wrote: "[[Capitalism]] is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of [[Socialism]] or [[Communism]]"<ref>James J. Martin, Men Against the State, 1970:275, quoting from the Baskette Collection</ref>. Susan Love Brown claims that this private letter served in "providing the shift further illuminated in the 1970's by anarcho-capitalists."<ref>Susan Love Brown, The Free Market as Salvation from Government, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Wester Culture, page 108</ref> However, in his published works, even late in life, Tucker was always careful to distinguish between two forms of socialism, state socialism and anarchist socialism. He always opposed one (State Socialism) and supported the other (Anarchist Socialism), there is no evidence of him ever supporting capitalism in late life.<ref>Tucker, Benjamin. 'State Socialism and Anarchism: How far they agree, and wherein they differ.' Individual Liberty - Vanguard Press (1926) postscript</ref> This distinction, which is evident in all of Tucker's work, can be seen especially in his essay "State Socialism and Anarchism":
<blockquote> There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destructive, the other constructive. </blockquote>

==Dates, places and events==
Born April 17, [[1854]] in South Dartmouth, Massachusetts.
* 1872 — While a student at M.I.T., Tucker attended a convention of the New England Labor Reform League in Boston, chaired by [[William B. Greene]], author of [[Mutual Banking]] (1850). At the convention, Tucker purchased ''Mutual Banking'', ''True Civilization'', and a set of Ezra Heywood's pamphlets. Furthermore, [[Free-love]] anarchist, [[Ezra Heywood]] introduced Tucker to William B. Greene and [[Josiah Warren]], author of ''True Civilization'' (1869). He also started a relationship with [[Victoria Woodhull]] at this time, lasting for 3 years.
* 1876 — Tucker's debut into radical circles: Heywood published Tucker's English translation of [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon|Proudhon's]] classic work ''What is Property?''.
* 1877-1878 — Published his original journal, ''Radical Review'', which lasted four issues.

August 1881 to April 1908 — published the periodical, ''Liberty'', "widely considered to be the finest individualist-anarchist periodical ever issued in the English language."
* 1892 — moved ''Liberty'' from Boston to New York
* 1906 — Opened '''Tucker's Unique Book Shop''' in New York City — promoting "Egoism in Philosophy, Anarchism in Politics, Iconoclasm in Art".
* 1908 — A fire destroyed Tucker's uninsured printing equipment and his 30-year stock of books and pamphlets. Tucker's lover, Pearl Johnson — 25 years his junior — was pregnant with their daughter, Oriole Tucker. Six weeks after Oriole's birth, Tucker closed both ''Liberty'' and the book shop and moved his family to France.
* 1913 — Tucker comes out of retirement for two years to contribute articles and letters to ''[[The New Freewoman]]'' which he called "the most important publication in existence"
* 1939 — Tucker died in [[Monaco]], in the company of his lover Pearl Johnson and their daughter, Oriole, who reported, "Father's attitude towards communism never changed one whit, nor about religion.... In his last months he called in the French housekeeper. 'I want her,' he said, 'to be a witness that on my death bed I'm not recanting. I do not believe in God!"<ref>{{cite book|author=Paul Avrich|title=Anarchist Voices|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=1996|isbn=0-691-04494-5|chapter=Oriole Tucker Riché|pages=11}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Anarchism in the United States]]
* ''[[Liberty (1881-1908)|Liberty]]'', Tucker's periodical
* [[Individualist anarchism]]
* [[Lysander Spooner]]
* [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]
* [[Max Stirner]]

==Works Online==
* [http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/ ''Instead of a Book, by a Man Too Busy to Write One''] (1893, 1897)
* [http://travellinginliberty.blogspot.com/2007/08/index-of-liberty-site.html ''Travelling in Liberty'']: a complete online archive of Tucker's journal ''Liberty'' (1881–1908)
* [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/tucker/ Several works by Tucker at Anarchy Archives]

==References==

<references/>

==External links==
{{commons|Benjamin Tucker|Benjamin Tucker}}
{{wikiquote}}
* [http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append11.html#app4 Tucker on Property, Communism and Socialism]
* [http://www.BlackCrayon.com/people/tucker/ BlackCrayon.com: People: Benjamin Tucker]
* [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/tucker/ Benjamin Tucker] Anarchy Archives
* [http://www.zetetics.com/mac/tir1.htm ''Benjamin Tucker, Liberty, and Individualist Anarchism'' by Wendy McElroy]
* [http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_classicalliberalism_archive.html ''Benjamin Ricketson Tucker''] from "CLASSicalLiberalism" archive
* [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_4/1_4_4.pdf ''Benjamin Tucker and His Periodical, Liberty''] by [[Carl Watner]]
* [http://www.panarchy.org/tucker/taxation.html Benjamin Tucker, Liberty and Taxation]
* [http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=697 ''Memories of Benjamin Tucker''] by [[J. William Lloyd]] (1935)
* [http://uncletaz.com/liberty/oriole.html ''An Interview With Oriole Tucker''] Tucker's daughter reveals biographical information, by Paul Avrich
* [http://uncletaz.com/liberty/ ''Benjamin R Tucker & the Champions of Liberty - A Centenary Anthology''] Edited by Michael E. Coughlin, Charles H. Hamilton and Mark A. Sullivan
* {{gutenberg author| id=Benjamin+R.+Tucker | name=Benjamin Tucker}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tucker, Benjamin}}
[[Category:1854 births]]
[[Category:1939 deaths]]
[[Category:American anarchists]]
[[Category:American magazine editors]]
[[Category:American magazine publishers (people)]]
[[Category:American political writers]]
[[Category:American tax resisters]]
[[Category:American atheists]]
[[Category:Egoists (individualist anarchists)]]
[[Category:Individualist anarchists]]
[[Category:Mutualists]]
[[Category:Political philosophers]]

[[de:Benjamin Tucker]]
[[es:Benjamin Tucker]]
[[fr:Benjamin Tucker]]
[[pt:Benjamin Tucker]]
[[sv:Benjamin Tucker]]
[[zh:班傑明·塔克]]

Talk:Mark Dice

2007-09-26T07:18:33Z

Harpakhrad11: /* TheResistanceManifesto.com */

{{WPBiography
|living=yes
|class=start
|priority=low
|a&e-work-group=yes
|listas=Dice, Mark
}}

{{talkheader}}

==Newsworthy?==
I don't understand why one would say John Conner is not newsworthy, he's been on Fox several times, he's been on the view, he's huge on youtube. {{unsigned|Deb4ser|01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)}}
: because he is a wacko...idiot! {{unsigned|24.136.37.36|23:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)}}

==9 11==
Changed "9/11 truth movement" to "his theories on 9/11." Dice's theory regarding 9/11 has NOT been established as truth. {{unsigned|75.41.23.114|12:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)}}

==Pseudonym==
perhapse someone should make a page for Mark Dice or forward the John Conner search to the Mark Dice page now that he isn't using the pseudonym. {{unsigned|208.54.15.1|19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)}}

== Deletion ==
OK, first off, this article has an assertion of notability, so it's not eligible for speedy. That said, I'm skeptical of the notability and/or truthfulness of this article. I can find no reliable sources for this person's existence: only MySpace, YouTube and personal webistes. Can anyone show me that this person has really been on Fox? I found no mention of him in the sources given. [[User:Heimstern|Heimstern Läufer]] 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::This article may be subject for speedy as the recreation of a previously deleted article on [[John Conner]]. In fact, it's been deleted a couple of times I think. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:·]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 05:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Does he exist? Reliable Sources for John Conner (real name Mark Dice)
MARK DICE IN THE NEWS
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN2rl2yK_kw O'Reilly Factor [youtube]
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb9Moy15EBY ABC's The View [youtube]
:http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/483865p-407205c.html New York Daily News
:http://entertainment.myway.com/celebgossip/pgsix/id/06_30_2005_8.html the NYPOST
:http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7471582/moby?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single1&rnd=1121372452031&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1212 Rollingstone
:http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0632,halter,74115,20.html The Village Voice
:http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=413722 Tehran Times in Iran
:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7992114920283511318&q=john+conner+coast+to+coast Coast to Coast AM [googlevideo]
:http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover032205.htm Canada Free Press
:http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/292005f.asp Agape Press
:http://www.washtimes.com/entertainment/20050703-101111-4616r_page2.htm Washington Times
:http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds22222.html Digital Spy in the UK
:http://smartmoney.com/life/index.cfm?story=20050729-tech Smart Money
:http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=213062 Rotten Tomatoes
:http://entertainment.iafrica.com/news/457017.htm iAfrica in South Africa
:http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/19/19466/1.html Telopolis in Germany
:http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-7-2005_pg9_9 Pakistan Daily Times

{{unsigned|208.54.15.1|00:14-00:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)}}

== Name Change from Connor to Dice ==
Uh. . .I am curious to know why he changed his alias. And who has confirmed that his real name is Mark Dice? I ''could'' just ask him on myspace, but he doesn't really talk to people on myspace. I guess i'll just have to call into his show and risk looking like a dumbass. But i'm curious to know who went in the Wiki article and changed all the "John Connor"s to "Mark Dice"s. I think perhaps it was the man himself. [[User:ToxicArtichoke|ToxicArtichoke]] 08:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
:There was a statement on MarkDice.com which points to TheResistanceManifesto.co explaining that he was sick of being called John and refering to himself as john since it was a pseudonym presumably taken from the terminator character. All his videos on youtube use the name mark dice also. {{unsigned|72.192.185.188|05:46-05:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)}} {{spa|72.192.185.188}}
::Words cannot express how happy I am that this wacko finally changed his name. My name really is "John Conner", and if all of the Terminator jokes/references/remarks for the past twenty years weren't bad enough, I have recently been identified with this remarkably twisted idividual. Maybe I can do something productive with my life, and the name "John Conner" won't go down in history as belonging to another conspiracy theorist nut case. {{unsigned|24.158.165.71|03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)}}
I am fairly sure Dice is not his real last name. I'm almost sure Mark is. I remember when he announced the change from Connor to Dice. It was on the Alex Jones show, he said, "My real name is Mark Diceshewski (or something along those lines), but you can call me Mark Dice." I do not think "Mark Dice" is as much as a pseudonym as it is a shortening of his real name. --[[User:Zimbabweed|Zimbabweed]] 11:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

==Neutrality issue in video section==
I think i fixed the neutrality issue in the video section. {{unsigned|MagicMemory|03:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)}} {{spa|MagicMemory}}

==Famous for being famous==
This guy is famous, but not notable. '''Delete''' it, please! [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] 00:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

==Famous and notable==
Who ever flagged this article for lack of "notability" did so for personal reasons. there are countless articles on wikipedia that cover individuals or topics which are extremely less notable than Mark Dice. Dice has gotten more mainstream media coverage than almost all others in the 9/11 truth movement. only Alex Jones and Loose Change creators have topped his news coverage.

Dice is an extremely successfull culture jammer, and his culture jams have been covered around the world. He is rising to the status of other great culture jammers such as Banksy and the Yes Men. Again, those who appose this article likely do so for personal reasons. Likely a difference of political or religious views of Dice. Or maybe they are Mormon who seem to hate Dice for his views on the subject.
or right wingers who hate anyone who is in the truth movement. and by the way, Dice is a right winger, so don't call him a liberal because he dissagrees with the war and with Bush.
14 June 2007 {{unsigned|72.192.187.241|23:39-23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC) and 00:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)}} {{spa|72.192.187.241}}

::To some extent I think you are correct, Dice has become notable as a culture jammer. That should be the focus of this article. He is less notable for his ideas, so we needn't cover those in depth. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it another venue for culture jamming. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 08:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

== TheResistanceManifesto.com ==

Why is "TheResistanceManifesto.com = a thoroughly commercial website requiring paypal"? How can the man have an article when we can not reference his own site as a External link? He does use paypal, but it hardly seems to be "required". —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Harpakhrad11|Harpakhrad11]] ([[User talk:Harpakhrad11|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Harpakhrad11|contribs]]) 06:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 
:I'm not sure I follow you. Regardless, unless it's used as a source, a link isn't a reference. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to use the site as a reference. My confusion is this in the editing someone states:

<blockquote>
MarkDice.com = TheResistanceManifesto.com = a thoroughly commercial website requiring paypal, etc. See [[WP:EL]].</blockquote>

I don't really understand why it is there. [[User:Harpakhrad11|Harpakhrad11]] 07:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Mark Dice

2007-09-26T07:17:53Z

Harpakhrad11: /* TheResistanceManifesto.com */

{{WPBiography
|living=yes
|class=start
|priority=low
|a&e-work-group=yes
|listas=Dice, Mark
}}

{{talkheader}}

==Newsworthy?==
I don't understand why one would say John Conner is not newsworthy, he's been on Fox several times, he's been on the view, he's huge on youtube. {{unsigned|Deb4ser|01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)}}
: because he is a wacko...idiot! {{unsigned|24.136.37.36|23:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)}}

==9 11==
Changed "9/11 truth movement" to "his theories on 9/11." Dice's theory regarding 9/11 has NOT been established as truth. {{unsigned|75.41.23.114|12:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)}}

==Pseudonym==
perhapse someone should make a page for Mark Dice or forward the John Conner search to the Mark Dice page now that he isn't using the pseudonym. {{unsigned|208.54.15.1|19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)}}

== Deletion ==
OK, first off, this article has an assertion of notability, so it's not eligible for speedy. That said, I'm skeptical of the notability and/or truthfulness of this article. I can find no reliable sources for this person's existence: only MySpace, YouTube and personal webistes. Can anyone show me that this person has really been on Fox? I found no mention of him in the sources given. [[User:Heimstern|Heimstern Läufer]] 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::This article may be subject for speedy as the recreation of a previously deleted article on [[John Conner]]. In fact, it's been deleted a couple of times I think. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:·]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 05:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Does he exist? Reliable Sources for John Conner (real name Mark Dice)
MARK DICE IN THE NEWS
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN2rl2yK_kw O'Reilly Factor [youtube]
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb9Moy15EBY ABC's The View [youtube]
:http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/483865p-407205c.html New York Daily News
:http://entertainment.myway.com/celebgossip/pgsix/id/06_30_2005_8.html the NYPOST
:http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7471582/moby?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single1&rnd=1121372452031&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1212 Rollingstone
:http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0632,halter,74115,20.html The Village Voice
:http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=413722 Tehran Times in Iran
:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7992114920283511318&q=john+conner+coast+to+coast Coast to Coast AM [googlevideo]
:http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover032205.htm Canada Free Press
:http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/292005f.asp Agape Press
:http://www.washtimes.com/entertainment/20050703-101111-4616r_page2.htm Washington Times
:http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds22222.html Digital Spy in the UK
:http://smartmoney.com/life/index.cfm?story=20050729-tech Smart Money
:http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=213062 Rotten Tomatoes
:http://entertainment.iafrica.com/news/457017.htm iAfrica in South Africa
:http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/19/19466/1.html Telopolis in Germany
:http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-7-2005_pg9_9 Pakistan Daily Times

{{unsigned|208.54.15.1|00:14-00:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)}}

== Name Change from Connor to Dice ==
Uh. . .I am curious to know why he changed his alias. And who has confirmed that his real name is Mark Dice? I ''could'' just ask him on myspace, but he doesn't really talk to people on myspace. I guess i'll just have to call into his show and risk looking like a dumbass. But i'm curious to know who went in the Wiki article and changed all the "John Connor"s to "Mark Dice"s. I think perhaps it was the man himself. [[User:ToxicArtichoke|ToxicArtichoke]] 08:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
:There was a statement on MarkDice.com which points to TheResistanceManifesto.co explaining that he was sick of being called John and refering to himself as john since it was a pseudonym presumably taken from the terminator character. All his videos on youtube use the name mark dice also. {{unsigned|72.192.185.188|05:46-05:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)}} {{spa|72.192.185.188}}
::Words cannot express how happy I am that this wacko finally changed his name. My name really is "John Conner", and if all of the Terminator jokes/references/remarks for the past twenty years weren't bad enough, I have recently been identified with this remarkably twisted idividual. Maybe I can do something productive with my life, and the name "John Conner" won't go down in history as belonging to another conspiracy theorist nut case. {{unsigned|24.158.165.71|03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)}}
I am fairly sure Dice is not his real last name. I'm almost sure Mark is. I remember when he announced the change from Connor to Dice. It was on the Alex Jones show, he said, "My real name is Mark Diceshewski (or something along those lines), but you can call me Mark Dice." I do not think "Mark Dice" is as much as a pseudonym as it is a shortening of his real name. --[[User:Zimbabweed|Zimbabweed]] 11:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

==Neutrality issue in video section==
I think i fixed the neutrality issue in the video section. {{unsigned|MagicMemory|03:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)}} {{spa|MagicMemory}}

==Famous for being famous==
This guy is famous, but not notable. '''Delete''' it, please! [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] 00:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

==Famous and notable==
Who ever flagged this article for lack of "notability" did so for personal reasons. there are countless articles on wikipedia that cover individuals or topics which are extremely less notable than Mark Dice. Dice has gotten more mainstream media coverage than almost all others in the 9/11 truth movement. only Alex Jones and Loose Change creators have topped his news coverage.

Dice is an extremely successfull culture jammer, and his culture jams have been covered around the world. He is rising to the status of other great culture jammers such as Banksy and the Yes Men. Again, those who appose this article likely do so for personal reasons. Likely a difference of political or religious views of Dice. Or maybe they are Mormon who seem to hate Dice for his views on the subject.
or right wingers who hate anyone who is in the truth movement. and by the way, Dice is a right winger, so don't call him a liberal because he dissagrees with the war and with Bush.
14 June 2007 {{unsigned|72.192.187.241|23:39-23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC) and 00:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)}} {{spa|72.192.187.241}}

::To some extent I think you are correct, Dice has become notable as a culture jammer. That should be the focus of this article. He is less notable for his ideas, so we needn't cover those in depth. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it another venue for culture jamming. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 08:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

== TheResistanceManifesto.com ==

Why is "TheResistanceManifesto.com = a thoroughly commercial website requiring paypal"? How can the man have an article when we can not reference his own site as a External link? He does use paypal, but it hardly seems to be "required". —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Harpakhrad11|Harpakhrad11]] ([[User talk:Harpakhrad11|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Harpakhrad11|contribs]]) 06:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 
:I'm not sure I follow you. Regardless, unless it's used as a source, a link isn't a reference. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to use the site as a reference. My confusion is this in the editing someone states:

<blockquote>
</blockquote>

I don't really understand why it is there. [[User:Harpakhrad11|Harpakhrad11]] 07:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thelema

2007-09-26T07:09:32Z

Harpakhrad11: /* External links */

'''Thelema''' is the English transliteration of the [[Ancient Greek]] noun {{unicode|θέλημα}}: "will", from the verb ''θέλω'': to will, wish, purpose. Early Christian writings use the word to refer to the will of God,<ref name="de sales">''Rabelais, Francis de Sales and the Abbaye de Thélème'' by Alexander T. Pocetto, O.S. F.S., Allentown College of St. Francis de Sales, citing other writers. [http://www4.desales.edu/~salesian/resources/articles/english/rabelais.html Online version here], retrieved from July 20, 2006.</ref> the human will,<ref>e.g. John 1:12-13</ref> and even the will of God's opponent, the [[Devil]].<ref>e.g. 2 Timothy 2:26</ref>

'''Thelema''' is also an initially fictional philosophy of life first described by [[François Rabelais]] ([[16th century]]) in his famous books, [[Gargantua and Pantagruel]].<ref>Chappell, Vere. ''[http://www.thelema101.com/intro.html What is Thelema?]''. Retrieved July 7, 2006.</ref> The essence of this philosophy was summarized in the phrase
"fay çe que vouldras" 
("''Fais ce que tu veux''," or, "''Do what thou wilt''"), and this philosophy was later put into practice in the mid [[18th century]] by [[Francis Dashwood, 15th Baron Le Despencer|Sir Francis Dashwood]] at [[Medmenham]].<ref name="scrolls">Mahendranath (1990).</ref>

This Thelemic Law of Rabelais was revived by [[Aleister Crowley]]<ref name="scrolls" /> in [[1904]] when Crowley wrote ''[[The Book of the Law]]'', which contains both the word ''Thelema'' in Greek as well as the phrase "Do what thou wilt." From this, Crowley took Thelema as the name of the philosophical, mystical and religious system which he subsequently developed, which includes ideas from [[Occult|occultism]], [[Yoga]], and both Eastern and Western [[mysticism]] (especially the [[Qabalah]]).<ref>''Liber XIII vel Graduum Montis Abiegni: A Syllabus of the Steps Upon the Path'' by Aleister Crowley. [http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib13.html Online version here], retrieved July 7, 2006. For confirmation that the order in question took the Book of the Law as an official document of the order that "may be changed not so much as the style of a letter," ''A syllabus of the official instructions of the A∴A∴'' by Aleister Crowley. "This book is the foundation of the New Aeon, and thus of the whole of our Work." First section, list of Class "A" Publications. [http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib207.html Online version here], retrieved July 7, 2006. And finally, for the part calling Thelema the word of the Law, Liber AL I:39-40</ref> Thus [[Shri Gurudev Mahendranath]], in speaking of [[svecchachara]], a Sanskrit term which he considered the eastern equivalent of the term Thelema, wrote that "Rabelais, Dashwood, and Crowley must share the honor of perpetuating what has been such a high ideal in most of Asia."<ref name="scrolls" />
[[Image:Crowley unicursal hexagram.svg|frame|The [[Unicursal Hexagram]] is one of the common symbols of Thelema]]

==Antecedents of Thelema==
Although the modern Thelemic movements trace their origins to the works of François Rabelais and Aleister Crowley, the latter pointed to important antecedents to his use of the term, and other instances are apparent from research. The word is of some consequence in the original [[New Testament|Greek Christian scriptures]], referring to divine and human will. One well-known example is from “The Lord’s Prayer” in Matthew 6:10, “Your kingdom come. Your will (Θελημα) be done, On earth as it is in heaven.” Some other quotes from the Bible are:

:“He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Your will be done.” —Matthew 26:42

:“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” —John 1:12-13

:“And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” —Romans 12:2

:"…and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” —2 Timothy 2:26

:"Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created." —Revelation 4:11

Crowley acknowledged [[Saint Augustine]]'s "Love, and do what thou wilt" as a premonition of the Law of Thelema. In the [[Renaissance]], a character named "Thelemia" represents will or desire in the ''[[Hypnerotomachia Poliphili]]'' of the Dominican monk [[Francesco Colonna]]. Colonna's work was, in turn, a great influence on the [[Franciscan]] monk [[Francois Rabelais]], whose ''[[Gargantua and Pantagruel]]'' includes an "Abbey of Theleme" which Crowley embraced as a direct precursor to his modern Thelema.

==Rabelaisian Thelema==
[[Image:Francois Rabelais - Portrait.jpg|thumb|200px|François Rabelais]]
The word "Thelema" was used by [[Rabelais|François Rabelais]], a [[Franciscan]] and later a [[Benedictine]] monk of the [[16th century]].<ref>Rabelais, François, ''Gargantua and Pantagruel''</ref> Eventually he left the monastery to study medicine, and so moved to [[Lyon]] in [[1532]]. It was there that he wrote ''[[Gargantua and Pantagruel]],'' a connected series of books. They tell the story of two giants—a father (Gargantua) and his son (Pantagruel) and their adventures—written in an amusing, extravagant, and satirical vein.

It is in the first book (ch. 52-57) where Rabelais writes of the Abbey of Theleme, built by the giant Gargantua. It pokes fun at the monastic institutions, since his abbey has a swimming pool, maid service, and no clocks in sight.

One of the verses of the inscription on the gate to the Abbey of Theleme says:

:Grace, honour, praise, delight,
:Here sojourn day and night.
::Sound bodies lined
::With a good mind,
:Do here pursue with might
:Grace, honour, praise, delight.

But below the humour was a very real concept of utopia and the ideal society. Rabelais gives us a description of how the Thelemites of the Abbey lived and the rules they lived by:

:All their life was spent not in laws, statutes, or rules, but according to their own free will and pleasure. They rose out of their beds when they thought good; they did eat, drink, labour, sleep, when they had a mind to it and were disposed for it. None did awake them, none did offer to constrain them to eat, drink, nor to do any other thing; for so had Gargantua established it. In all their rule and strictest tie of their order there was but this one clause to be observed,

::''Do What Thou Wilt;''
:because men that are free, well-born, well-bred, and conversant in honest companies, have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions, and withdraws them from vice, which is called honour. Those same men, when by base subjection and constraint they are brought under and kept down, turn aside from that noble disposition by which they formerly were inclined to virtue, to shake off and break that bond of servitude wherein they are so tyrannously enslaved; for it is agreeable with the nature of man to long after things forbidden and to desire what is denied us.

In 1904, the same phrase would appear in the [[Book of the Law]].

[[Francis Dashwood, 15th Baron Le Despencer|Sir Francis Dashwood]] adopted some of the ideas of Thelema from Rabelais and quoted this same phrase in French when he founded a group called the Monks of [[Medmenham]] (better known as [[The Hellfire Club]]).<ref name="scrolls" /> An abbey was established at Medmenham, described in the [[1911 Britannica]] as follows:
:At Medmenham, on the Thames above Marlow, there are fragments, incorporated into a residence, of a Cistercian abbey founded in 1201; which became notorious in the middle of the 18th century as the meeting-place of a convivial club called the Franciscans after its founder, Sir Francis Dashwood, afterwards Lord le Despencer (1708-1781), and also known as the Hell-Fire Club, of which John Wilkes, Bubb Dodington and other political notorieties were members. The motto of the club, fay Ce que voudras (do what you will), inscribed on a doorway at the abbey, was borrowed from Rabelais description of the abbey of Thelema in Gargantua.<ref>Encyclopedia Britannica (1911). ''Buckingham''.</ref>

We have little direct evidence of what Dashwood's Hellfire Club did or believed.<ref name="knowles">Knowles, George. ''Sir Francis Dashwood''. [http://www.controverscial.com/Sir%20Francis%20Dashwood.htm Online version here], retrieved July 22, 2006</ref><ref name="bcy">''The Hell-fire Clubs'', Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon. [http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/hellfire/hellfire.html Online version here], retrieved July 22, 2006</ref> The one direct testimonial comes from [[John Wilkes]], a member who never got into the chapter-room of the inner circle<ref>Coppens (2006)</ref><ref name="bcy" /> and later fell out with the club.<ref name="knowles" /> He describes their origin as follows:
:A set of worthy, jolly fellows, happy disciples of Venus and Bacchus, got occasionally together to celebrate woman in wine and to give more zest to the festive meeting, they plucked every luxurious idea from the ancients and enriched their own modern pleasures with the tradition of classic luxury.

Their meeting place did contain statues of various gods, including the Egyptian [[Harpocrates]] pictured as a god of silence.<ref name="knowles" /> The [[Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn]] and Crowley would [[Heru-ra-ha|also]] describe Harpocrates in this way. The group derived more from Rabelais than simply the inscription over the door, in the opinion of Lt.-Col. Towers, who wrote "My interpretation of the caves remains as stated, that they were used as a Dionysian oracular temple, based upon Dashwood’s reading of the relevant chapters of Rabelais."<ref>Towers (1987) quoted in Coppens (2006)</ref>

Gossip of the time and the later ''Historical Memoires'' of [[Nathaniel William Wraxall|Sir Nathaniel Wraxall]] (1815) accused the Monks of performing Satanic rituals.<ref name="bcy" /><ref>see Howard and other sources on Black Mass rumors</ref> But few modern sources outside the [[Church of Satan]]<ref>''Satanic Bible'', quoted [http://www.dpjs.co.uk/people.html here], retrieved July 23, 2006.</ref> describe the Monks' activities this way. Gerald Gardner and others such as Mike Howard<ref>Howard, ''The Hellfire Club'', [http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~rebis/ts-artic4.htm Online version here], retrieved July 22, 2006</ref> say the Monks worshipped "the Goddess." Daniel Willens argued that the group likely practiced [[Freemasonry]], but also suggests Dashwood may have held secret Roman Catholic sacraments. He asks if Wilkes would have recognized a genuine Catholic Mass, even if he saw it himself and even if the underground version followed its public model precisely.<ref>"The Hell-fire Club: Sex, Politics, and Religion in Eighteenth-Century England" in ''Gnosis'', Summer 1992. [http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v308/__show_article/_a000308-000275.htm Online versions here], retrieved July 22, 2006</ref> Most sources say that Dashwood held strong anti-Catholic views, citing reports of actions as well as words.<ref name="knowles" /> The Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon also minimizes the connection with Freemasonry.<ref name="bcy" />

Later, Sir [[Walter Besant]] and [[James Rice]] referred to Rabelais' Abbey of Thelema in their novel ''[[The Monks of Thelema]]'' (1878), as did [[C.R. Ashbee]] in his utopian romance ''The Building of Thelema'' (1910).

[[Shri Gurudev Mahendranath]], who discussed meditation and Eastern studies with Aleister Crowley in the 1930s, wrote that Dashwood and Crowley both revived the Thelemic Law from Rabelais.<ref name="scrolls" /> Aleister Crowley acknowledged in ''The Antecedents of Thelema'' (1926) that Rabelais "set forth in essence the Law of Thelema, very much as it is understood by the Master Therion himself," and wrote further that "the masterpiece of Rabelais contains in singular perfection a clear forecast of the Book which was to be revealed by [[Aiwass]] to [[Ankh-f-n-khonsu]] 370 years later."<ref>Crowley, Aleister. ''The Antecedents of Thelema''. October 1926. Retrieved from [http://www.billheidrick.com/tlc1993/tlc1193.htm] on July 4, 2006</ref> But Crowley biographer Lawrence Sutin writes that in his opinion, which clearly differs with Crowley's,

:Questions of prophecy aside, Rabelais was no precursor of Thelema. Joyous and unsystematic, Rabelais blended in his heterodox creed elements of Stoic self-mastery and spontaneous Christian faith and kindness.<ref>Sutin, Lawrence. ''Do What Thou Wilt''. New York, NY: St. Martin's Griffin. 2000. p. 126</ref>

Some other scholars argue that Martin Luther influenced Rabelais, and that the French author wrote from a specifically Christian perspective. In particular, Alexander Pocetto of the Allentown College of St. Francis de Sales draws many parallels between him and the saint.<ref name="de sales" /> [[Erich Auerbach]] (1946) disagrees,<ref>''Mimesis'', 1946, quoted [http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/rabela.htm here], retrieved July 20, 2006.</ref> as does the old ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' entry on the Renaissance.<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12765b.htm Online version here], retrieved July 20, 2006.</ref>

==Crowleyan Thelema==
[[Image:Aleister Crowley.jpg|thumb|right|Aleister Crowley ([[1875]]–[[1947]]), scribe of Liber Legis]]
In [[1904]], [[Aleister Crowley]] ([[1875]]–[[1947]]) — an English occultist, writer, and social provocateur— claimed to have received and written down [[The Book of the Law]], which was to serve as the foundation of the religious and philosophical system he called Thelema,<ref>"De Lege Libellum", in ''The Equinox'' III(1) (Detroit: Universal, 1919).</ref><ref>"Appendix: Notes on the nature of the 'Astral Plane'", in ''Magick in Theory and Practice'', ''Book 4'', purports to tell the reader what Thelema says about distinguishing independent entities on the Astral Plane from phantasms: "These mirror-mirages are therefore not Works of Magick, according to the Law of Thelema: the true Magick of Horus requires the passionate union of opposites... One must therefore insist that any real appearance of the Astral Plane gives the sensation of meeting a stranger." [http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/aba/app3.html Online copy here], retrieved July 19, 2006</ref> so named, according to his friend of the [[1930s]], [[Shri Gurudev Mahendranath]], "in reverence to the Rabelaisian masterpiece."<ref name="scrolls" /> He summed up the Law of Thelema<ref>"Liber II The Message of The Master Therion", in ''The Equinox'' III(1) (Detroit: Universal, 1919). [http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib2.html Online copy here], retrieved July 6, 2006</ref> in these phrases from the Book:

*"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"<ref>Liber AL I:40</ref>
*"Love is the law, love under will"<ref>Liber AL I:57</ref>
*"There is no Law beyond Do what thou wilt"<ref>Liber AL III:60</ref>

Crowley wrote that the Law is not a license to indulge in casual whim or to mindlessly accept cultural mores, but is rather a mandate to discover and manifest one's [[True Will]], which he described as one's inner divine nature, spiritual destiny, or proper course in life.

===''The Book of the Law''===

{{main|The Book of the Law}}
Crowley's system of Thelema begins with ''The Book of the Law'', which bears the official name ''Liber AL vel Legis''. It was written in [[Cairo]], [[Egypt]] while on his honeymoon with his new wife [[Rose Edith Kelly|Rose Crowley]] (née Kelly). This small book contains three chapters, each of which was written down in one hour, beginning at noon, on [[April 8]], [[April 9]], and [[April 10]]. Crowley claims that the author was an entity named [[Aiwass]], whom he later identified as his own [[Holy Guardian Angel]]. Several years later, Crowley added a short section at the end called "[[The Book of the Law#The Comment of Ankh F N Khonsu|The Comment]]", which warns against the "study" of the Book and "discussing" its contents, and states that all "questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings" and is signed [[Ankh-af-na-khonsu|Ankh-f-n-khonsu]]. <ref>Crowley, A., ''The Book of the Law''</ref>

===True Will===
{{main|True Will}}
According to Crowley, the discovery and manifestation of one's unique [[True Will]] is the central task of every Thelemite. True Will is an idea that could be described in its dynamic aspect as the singular path of possible action that encounters no resistance in going because it is supported by the inertia of the whole Universe; theoretically, no two True Wills can contradict each other because each one has its own absolutely unique career in its passage through Infinite Space. Hence, to follow one's True Will means to respect all True Wills, described as "Love is the law, love under will". The apparent pacifism of this doctrine is complicated, however, by the possibility that the majority of beings do not know their True Will.

Crowley referred to the process of discovering the Will as the [[Great Work]], the basis of which is Love or [[Union]] with the All (similar in vein to the mystical aspects of [[Buddhism]] and [[Hinduism]]). The term [[Magick]] is applied to the general set of techniques used to accomplish the Great Work, which usually includes practices based on [[Yoga]], the [[Qabalah]], [[Hermeticism]], and ceremonial ritual. According to Crowley, the two great milestones in this process are attaining the Knowledge and Conversation of one's [[Holy Guardian Angel]] (which Crowley described as a person's "Secret Self") and then crossing the [[Abyss (Thelema)|Abyss]], a mystical process where the individual [[ego]] is "annihilated" (symbolized by the spilling of the blood into the [[Graal]] of [[Babalon]]) and the adept achieves union with the All by entering the [[City of the Pyramids]]. After this, the "Master of the Temple" may either remain there, move on to higher states, or return to every-day life to fulfill some earthly destiny. (See also: [[Thelemic mysticism]])

===Cosmology===
[[Image:Stele_of_revealing.jpg|right|thumb|The Stele of Revealing, depicting Nuit, Hadit as the winged globe, Ra-Hoor-Khuit seated on his throne, and the creator of the Stélé, the scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu]]

''[[The Book of the Law]]'' establishes a triadic cosmology – derived from ancient [[Egyptian mythology]] – each entity “speaking” in one of its three chapters. The first is [[Nuit]], the infinitely-expanded Goddess of the Night Sky, the Queen of Space; [[Hadit]], the infinitely-condensed Point, the hidden Flame in the being of all that lives; and [[Ra-Hoor-Khuit]], a manifestation of [[Horus]], the Hawk-Headed sun god, the Crowned and Conquering Child. Other divinities that exist within Thelema are:
*[[Babalon]]—the Scarlet Woman, the Mother of Abominations, the Holy Whore
*[[Chaos]]—the universal generative drive
*[[Baphomet]]—the Serpent and the Lion, creative energy materialized
*[[Aiwass]]—the being that, according to Crowley, dictated ''Liber AL vel Legis'', and whom Crowley claimed to be his own Holy Guardian Angel
*[[Ankh-af-na-khonsu|Ankh-f-n-khonsu]]—an actual Priest who lived in Thebes during the late XXVIth Dynasty of ancient Egypt, around 725 BCE.

===Magick===
{{main|Magick}}

Crowley saw magick as the essential method for a person to reach true understanding of the self and to act according to one's [[True Will]]. In the broadest sense, magick is any act designed to cause intentional change. It is not capable of producing "miracles" or violating the physical laws of the universe (i.e. it cannot cause a solar eclipse), although "it is theoretically possible to cause in any object any change of which that object is capable by nature" (Book 4). Crowley describes the general process:

:"One must find out for oneself, and make sure beyond doubt, "who" one is, "what" one is, "why" one is...Being thus conscious of the proper course to pursue, the next thing is to understand the conditions necessary to following it out. After that, one must eliminate from oneself every element alien or hostile to success, and develop those parts of oneself which are specially needed to control the aforesaid conditions." <ref>Crowley, Book 4</ref>

For Crowley, the practice of magick—although it equally applies to mundane things, like balancing the checkbook—is essentially to be used for attaining the Knowledge and Conversation of one's [[Holy Guardian Angel]]. Since achieving this state with one's 'Silent Self' can be extremely arduous, magick can be used not only to reach that particular goal, but to clear the way for it as well. For example, if one needed a particular dwelling to perform the operation, one could use magick to obtain a suitable home. Crowley stated that magick that did not have one of these goals as its aim was [[black magic]] and should be avoided.

===Practices and observances===
{{thelema}}
Although there are communal ceremonies informed by Thelema and organizations to support them (see [[#Thelemic organizations|Thelemic organizations]]), Thelemic practice is largely an individual affair. Generally, practices are designed to assist the Thelemite in finding and manifesting True Will, although some include celebratory aspects as well. <ref>DuQuette, Lon Milo. ''The Magick of Thelema''</ref>

Crowley wrote many rituals and discussed numerous spiritual practices that he considered central to the Thelemic experience. These include (but are certainly not limited to):

* Liber Resh—consisting of four daily adorations to the sun
* The purification, consecration and exaltation of one's [[Body of Light]] by the use of rituals of invocation (e.g. the Ritual of the Pentagram)
* Eucharistic celebrations, such as [[The Gnostic Mass]] or the Mass of the Phoenix
* Development in [[Yoga]]
* Keeping a magical record (a sort of diary for recording ritual and mystical experiences)
* "Saying Will" before the main meal of the day (a simple set of statements—sometimes presented as a dialog with others—declaring that it is the individual's will to eat and drink, in order to fortify his body, in order to accomplish the Great Work.)

===Ethics===
Thelema stresses individual liberty balanced by responsibility and discipline, the inherent divinity of every person, regardless of gender <ref>"Every man and every woman is a star" AL I:3</ref>, and the battle against superstition and tyranny. Ultimately, the interpretation of Thelema and ''The Book of the Law'' is left to the individual; for this reason, aggressive attempts at conversion are strongly frowned upon, although using personal example to promulgate the Law is encouraged <ref>"Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not over much!" AL III:42 </ref>.

Crowley wrote two documents to codify his concept of Thelemic ethics: Oz and Duty.

====Liber Oz====

''Liber Oz'' establishes the rights of the individual. For each person, these include the right to: live by one's own law; live in the way that one wills to do; work, play, and rest as one will; die when and how one will; eat and drink what one will; live where one will; move about as one will; think, speak, write, dress, love, paint, carve (etc.) as one will; and kill those who would thwart these rights. The rights established in Oz are often considered to be complemented by the obligations given in Duty.

====Duty====

''Duty'' is described as "A note on the chief rules of practical conduct to be observed by those who accept the Law of Thelema." There are four sections:

#'''Duty to Self:''' essentially describes the self as the center of the universe, with a call to learn about one's inner nature. Further, every Thelemite is to develop every faculty in a balanced way, establish one's autonomy, and to learn and do one's True Will.
#'''Duty to Others:''' A Thelemite is called to eliminate the illusion of separateness between oneself and all others, to fight when necessary, to avoid interfering with the Wills of others, to enlighten others when needed, and to recognize the divine nature of all other beings. Further, it is noble to relieve the suffering of others, but pity (seen as condescending) should be avoided.
#'''Duty to Mankind:''' Thelemites should try to establish the Law of Thelema as the sole basis of conduct. Further, the laws of the land should have the aim of securing the greatest liberty for all individuals. Crime is viewed from the point of view of violating one's True Will ("Thus, murder restricts his right to live; robbery, his right to enjoy the fruits of his labour; coining, his right to the guarantee of the state that he shall barter in security; etc.").
#'''Duty to All Other Beings and Things:''' Quite simply: "It is a violation of the Law of Thelema to abuse the natural qualities of any animal or object by diverting it from its proper function" and "The Law of Thelema is to be applied unflinchingly to decide every question of conduct."

== Contemporary Thelema==
===Diversity of Thelemic thought===

The core of Thelemic thought is "Do what thou wilt." However, beyond this, there exists a very wide range of interpretation of Thelema. For example, some organizations and persons regard Crowley's system to be only one possible manifestation of Thelema, choosing to borrow instead from Rabelais or other original system. Others accept ''The Book of the Law'' in some way, but not the rest of Crowley's "inspired" writings or teachings. Yet others take only specific aspects of his overall system—such as his magical techniques, ethics, mysticism, or religious ideas—while ignoring the rest. Considering the strong emphasis on the unique nature of Will inherent in each individual, it is perhaps inevitable that many Thelemites would tend to avoid strongly dogmatic or "fundamentalist" thinking. Crowley himself (at times) supported this view:

:I admit that my visions can never mean to other men as much as they do to me. I do not regret this. All I ask is that my results should convince seekers after truth that there is beyond doubt something worth while seeking, attainable by methods more or less like mine. I do not want to father a flock, to be the fetish of fools and fanatics, or the founder of a faith whose followers are content to echo my opinions. I want each man to cut his own way through the jungle. <ref>Crowley 1979, ch.66</ref>

Many adherents of Thelema are syncretic and recognize correlations between Thelemic and other systems of spiritual thought; most borrow freely from other traditions. For example, [[Nuit|Nu]] and [[Hadit|Had]] are thought to correspond with the [[Tao]] and [[De (Chinese)|Teh]] of [[Taoism]], [[Shakti]] and [[Shiva]] of the Hindu [[Tantra]]s, [[Shunyata]] and [[Bodhicitta]] of [[Buddhism]], [[Ein Sof (Kabbalah)|Ain Soph]] and [[Keter (Kabbalah)|Kether]] in the Qabalah. Adherents of Thelema, none so more than Crowley, make free use of the methods and practices derived from other traditions, including [[alchemy]], [[astrology]], [[qabalah]], [[tantra]], [[tarot]], and [[yoga]], regarding them all as being subsumed within Thelema.

While some organizations attempt to stay true to Crowley's system (such as [[O.T.O.]] and the [[A∴A∴]]), several organizations deviate from his core teachings, in some cases substantially. For example, the [[Fraternitas Saturni]] (Brotherhood of Saturn), founded in 1928 in Germany, accepts the Law of Thelema, but extends it with the phrase "Mitleidlose Liebe!" ("Compassionless love!"). The Thelema Society, also located in Germany, accepts [[The Book of the Law|Liber Legis]] and much of Crowley's work on [[magick]], while incorporating the ideas of other thinkers, such as [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], [[Charles S. Peirce]], [[Martin Heidegger]], and [[Niklas Luhmann]]. In America, the writings of Maggie Ingalls ([[Nema (occultist)|Nema]]) have inspired a movement called Maat Magick, along with an organization called the [[Horus-Maat Lodge]], founded in 1979. This movement combines Crowley's essential elements of Thelema with Nema's system based on the [[Egyptian pantheon|Egyptian goddess]] [[Ma'at]], as established in her received work, "Liber Pennae Praenumbra." HML aims to combine the current [[Aeon (Thelema)|Aeon of Horus]] with the future Aeon of Ma'at, where the combined mind of humanity will awaken and mankind will achieve balance.

===Contemporary Thelemic literature===

By far, the bulk of Thelemic writing remains that of Aleister Crowley. He was highly prolific and wrote on the subject of Thelema for over 35 years, and many of his books remain in print. During his time, there were a few who wrote on the subject, including [[Charles Stansfeld Jones]] and [[J.F.C. Fuller]]. Since his death in 1947 only a few Thelemic voices have appeared in published books. Perhaps the four most published voices have been:
*[[Israel Regardie]], who not only edited many of Crowley's works, but wrote a biography of him—''The Eye in the Triangle''—and penned many books on ritual and [[Qabalah]], such as ''Garden of Pomegranates'', ''Golden Dawn'', ''Middle Pillar'', and ''Tree of Life''.
*[[Kenneth Grant]], who has written many books on Thelema and the occult, such as ''The Magical Revival, Aleister Crowley and the Hidden God, Outside the Circles of Time,'' and ''Hecate's Fountain''.
*[[Lon Milo DuQuette]], a popular author whose books are mostly dedicated to analyzing and exploring Crowley's system, including such books as ''Understanding Aleister Crowley's Thoth Tarot, The Chicken Qabalah of Rabbi Lamed Ben Clifford, The Magick of Aleister Crowley,'' and ''The Key to Solomon's Key''.
*[[Nema (occultist)|Nema]], whose ''[[Liber Pennae Praenumbra]]'' announces and explains the [[Ma'at]]ian current has influenced Thelemites for over 25 years. She now has several books on Ma'atian Thelema including her book, ''[[Maat Magick]]''.

Other notable contemporary writers who address Thelema include [[Jerry Edward Cornelius]], [[Christopher Hyatt]], and [[Jack Parsons]].

There are also numerous publications that print original Thelemic writing, such as the journals ''Light In Extension'', ''Lion & Serpent'', ''The Scarlet Letter'', and ''Cornelia''. (See [[#External links|External links]]).

===Thelemic organizations===
Several modern organizations of various sizes claim to follow the tenets of Thelema. The two most prominent are both organizations that Crowley headed during his lifetime, the [[A∴A∴]]—a teaching order designed to guide initiates through Crowley's [[Thelemic mysticism|mystical system]] of Thelema—and [[Ordo Templi Orientis]]—a fraternal order that initially developed from [[freemasonry]] and includes the [[Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica|Gnostic Catholic Church]] (which celebrates the [[Gnostic Mass]]).

Since Crowley's death in 1947, other organizations have formed that try to carry on his initial work—for example, [[Phyllis Seckler]]'s [[College of Thelema]], the [[Ordo Templi Orientis (Typhonian)|Ordo Templi Orientis]] of [[Kenneth Grant]], Society O.T.O. of [[Marcelo Ramos Motta]], OTO Foundation, Thelemic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Holy Order Of Ra-Hoor-Khuit, [[The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn]], and The Order of Thelemic Knights. Other groups of widely varying character exist which have drawn inspiration or methods from Thelema, such as the [[Illuminates of Thanateros]] and the [[Temple of Set]]. Groups such as [[Fraternitas Saturni]], Horus-Maat Lodge, The Hawk and Jackal Covens, and The Thelema Society accept the Law of Thelema, but omit certain aspects of Crowley's system while incorporating the works of other mystics, philosophers, and religious systems.

==Thelema in comparative religion==

Thelema has been attracting more attention in recent years from scholars of religion, especially those interested in [[new religious movement]]s, contemporary Gnosticisms and Hermeticisms. References at the end of this article supply a few such sources. Perhaps the most unusual attempt was made by bishop Federico Tolli, in his German book ''Thelema — Im Spannungsfeld zwischen Christentum, Logentradition und New Aeon'' <ref>Leipzig, 2004.</ref> For Tolli, Thelema is to be regarded as the dialectical consequence of Christianity. Christianity for Tolli exists as a community in [[Christ]], whereas Tolli sees Thelema as a necessarily individualistic response to the world.

Taken from a 1938 theological dictionary (to the [[New Testament]]), the concept of 'salvation history' ''(Heilsgeschichte)'' has a great effect on Tolli's thought, and it is in this context that he discusses Crowleyan Thelema. Tolli regards Crowley's ''Heilsgeschichte'' as one in which the whole Universe (ergo the Will of God) is to combine (analogous to the Alchemical formula 'coagula'). "Love", in the form of combinatory attraction ("Love is the law, love under will"), is a universal principle — therefore akin to the concept of [[Natural religion]]. The main difference (for Tolli) is that in Christianity salvation of the entire Universe ("Ganzheit") cannot be made by 'solipsistic' man. The bishop sees Crowley as a failed – however talented – artist or "Mystagogie", but not as a "[[Satanist]]". The merit and contribution of bishop Tolli to Thelemic studies lies in the fact that it was he who first expresses that the genuine meaning and idea of Thelema does not necessarily contradict the teachings of [[Jesus]], as Crowley himself affirms.

== See also ==
{{Portal}}

*[[Svecchachara]]
*[[Wiccan Rede]]
*[[Works of Aleister Crowley]]

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
*Coppens, Philip (2006). ''[http://www.philipcoppens.com/hellfire.html Hell, no damnation]''. Retrieved July 21, 2006.
*Crowley, Aleister. (1997). ''Magick: Book 4.'' 2nd ed. York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser.
*{{Harvard reference|Surname=Crowley|Given=Aleister|Authorlink=Aleister Crowley|Year=1979|Title=The Confessions of Aleister Crowley|Place=London;Boston|Publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul|URL=http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/confess/index.html}}
*Del Campo, Gerald. ''[http://www.thelemicknights.org/ootmc/rabelais/rabelais.html Rabelais: The First Thelemite]''. The Order of Thelemic Knights.
*DuQuette, Lon Milo. (1993). ''The Magick of Thelema.'' York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser.
*Free Encyclopedia of Thelema (2005). [http://www.egnu.org/thelema/index.php/Thelema Thelema]. Retrieved [[March 12]] [[2005]].
**De Lupos, Rey. [http://www.horusmaat.com/silverstar/SILVERSTAR1-PG38.html The Golden Topaz of Radiant Light] in [http://www.horusmaat.com/silverstar/SILVERSTAR1.html Silver Star], No. 1. Retrieved [[April 5]] [[2005]].
**Voxfire, Thomas (2004). "Something from Nothing: the Essence of Creation" in [http://www.thomasvoxfire.com/pdf/Essays-voxfire.pdf Essays for the New Aeon]. Retrieved [[April 5]] [[2005]].
**Webster, Sam. [http://www.hermetic.com/webster/buddhadharma.html Entering the Buddhadharma]. Retrieved [[April 5]] [[2005]].
*Kaczynski, Richard (2002). ''Perdurabo: The Life of Aleister Crowley.'' Tempe, AZ: New Falcon Publications.
*Mahendranath, Shri Gurudev (1991). ''The Scrolls of Mahendranath''. Seattle: International Nath Order.
*Melton, J. Gordon (1983). "Thelemic Magick in America." ''Alternatives to American Mainline Churches'', ed. Joseph H. Fichter. Barrytown, NY: Unification Theological Seminary.
*Starr, Martin P. (2003). ''The Unknown God: W.T. Smith and the Thelemites.'' Bolingbrook, IL: Teitan Press.
*Sutin, Lawrence (2000). ''Do What Thou Wilt''. New York, NY: St. Martin's Griffin.
*Thelemapedia. (2004). ''[http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Thelema Thelema.]'' Retrieved April 15, 2006.
*Towers, Eric (1987). ''Dashwood: The Man and the Myth''. Crucible. ISBN 0-85030-427-X
* van Egmond, Daniel (1998). "Western Esoteric Schools in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries." in van den Broek, Roelof and Hanegraaff, Wouter J. ''Gnosis and Hermeticism From Antiquity To Modern Times.'' Albany: State University of New York Press.
* {{1911}}

==External links==
*[http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/index.htm Thelema at the Internet Sacred Texts Archive] — a collection of texts on the topic of Thelema
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/thelema2.htm The Law of Thelema] — by Alexander Duncan
*[http://www.ashejournal.com/index.php?id=168 ''Ashé Journal''] — Special Thelema Centennial Edition
*[http://www.thelemicknights.org/ootmc/rabelais/rabelais.html Rabelais: The First Thelemite]
*{{dmoz|Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Esoteric_and_Occult/Thelema}}

===Thelemic journals===
*''[http://www.lvx-oto.org/lie.shtml Light In Extension]''
*''[http://www.sekhetmaat.com/www/html/journal/index.html Lion & Serpent]''
*''[http://www.scarletwoman.org/scarletletter/ The Scarlet Letter]''
*''[http://cornelius93.com/CorneliaMagazine1.html Cornelia]''

=== Podcasts ===
*''[http://www.thelemacoasttocoast.com/ Thelema Coast to Coast]''

{{Thelema series}}
{{belief systems}}

[[Category:Thelema| ]]
[[Category:Mysticism]]
[[Category:New religious movements]]
[[Category:Occult]]

[[ar:ثيليما]]
[[de:Thelema]]
[[es:Thelema]]
[[fr:Thelema]]
[[nl:Thelema]]
[[pl:Thelema]]
[[pt:Thelema]]
[[ru:Телема]]
[[ru-sib:Телема]]
[[fi:Thelema]]
[[sv:Thelema]]

2007-04-03T01:06:34Z

Harpakhrad11: moved Marc Stevens to Marc Stevens (porn actor): To differentiate from other Marc Stevens when users are searching

#REDIRECT [[Marc Stevens (porn actor)]]

Marc Stevens (actor)

2007-04-03T01:06:34Z

Harpakhrad11: moved Marc Stevens to Marc Stevens (porn actor): To differentiate from other Marc Stevens when users are searching

'''Marc Stevens''' (born '''Marc Kutner''', [[February 9]] [[1943]] – August [[1989]]) was an [[United States|American]] [[erotic]] performer. He is sometimes credited as '''Mark '10 1/2' Stevens''' or '''Mark Stevens'''.

Stevens was a pioneering sex industry figure during the 1970s in [[New York City]]. He appeared in over 80 [[pornographic movies]], and also led an erotic dance troupe and performed in live sex shows. While he predominantly appeared in [[heterosexual]] films and [[loop]]s, he was [[bisexual]] and made a number of [[gay]] movies as well. He was a close associate of leading sex industry figures such as Jason & [[Tina Russell]], [[Annie Sprinkle]], who was also his neighbour for a time, [[Sharon Mitchell]], [[Jamie Gillis]], [[Georgina Spelvin]] and [[Gloria Leonard]].

He had the nickname "10 1/2" because of the supposed size of his [[penis]]. That same penis was famously photographed by [[Robert Mapplethorpe]].

Typical of 1970s porn figures, he developed a serious drug problem. In his later years, he dropped out of the porno industry and became a drug pusher and, according to Sharon Mitchell, a [[pimp]]; Stevens died of [[AIDS]] in 1989, aged 46.

Despite his prominence in the 1970s, and the fact he produced two memoirs (long out of print and allegedly ghost-written by his mother) one of which was named "10 1/2!". Stevens has attracted relatively little attention since. This may change due to the continuing and growing interest in the films made in this period, i.e. the so-called "Golden Age of Porn".

Notable films featuring Marc Stevens include:
''[[The Devil in Miss Jones]]'',
''All about Gloria Leonard'', and
''Michael, Angelo and David''.

==See also==
*[[List of gay porn stars]]

== External links ==

*{{imdb name|id=0828583|name=Marc Stevens}}
*[http://www.adultfilmdatabase.com/index.cfm/Action/DA/ActorID/2411/Marc_Stevens/ Marc Stevens at the Adult Film Database] ''Note: Adult content.''

[[Category:1943 births|Stevens, Marc]]
[[Category:1989 deaths|Stevens, Marc]]
[[Category:Adult models|Stevens, Marc]]
[[Category:AIDS-related deaths|Stevens, Marc]]
[[Category:American porn stars|Stevens, Marc]]
[[Category:Erotic dancers|Stevens, Marc]]
[[Category:Gay porn stars|Stevens, Marc]]
[[Category:Male porn stars|Stevens, Marc]]