Talk:Western esotericism

Reference-intellectual ideas-lead paragraph

Arnlodg (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, but unfortunately you can't wholesale paste in text from an academic paper, as that is a non-transformative copyright violation. Best thing to do is link to it as a reference then any interested readers can know where to go to find it. Crow^Caw 18:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Changed content tittle: Esotericism as "rejected knowledge"

Changed content tittle to: Western esotericism as "rejected knowledge"; please read the short paragraphs and see if you agree; thanks,Arnlodg (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"Mason word" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mason word. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

SHWEP

I believe the podcast to be a useful and solid resource that matched the guidelines on external links. Epinoia, have you actually looked at it? All the original episodes list relevant academic publications, and the interview episodes are even more resolute. What exactly would be questionable?--MASHAUNIX 19:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Esoteric

Esoteric, which now redirects here, is broader than Western esotericism. Editor2020 (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Editor2020.

The issue is that it's not necessarily clear what an article on "Esotericism", as distinct from the very particular academic construct of "Western Esotericism", would consist of.

It sort of goes with the territory with this kind of stuff that a lot of the general terms used have historically been very vague. For example, "hermeticism" has often been used historically in a very general way to meaning something roughly equivalent to "esotericism", rather than the much narrower sense of belief systems based on texts attributed to Hermes Trismagistus, the latter term being to sole focus of the article Hermeticism. Hence too why this article focuses so squarely on "Western Esotericism" as defined by the pretty recent academic field of the Academic study of Western esotericism rather than simply on things that have been called "esoteric" at one point or another. The reason why the construct is names "Western Esotericism" is less to distinguish it from posited non-Western esotericisms and more to flag that it names a specific set of historically and geographically contingent phenomenon.

Another reason for this is that there isn't really a consensus as to whether "esotericism" as the term is used in reference to certain European and Middle Eastern traditions has clear equivalents in other religious contexts: hence, as far as I am aware there wouldn't be a whole lot of reliable scholarly sources explicitly discussing, say, certain strains of thought in India or China or the pre-colonial Americas as "esoteric" traditions. Some religious or philosophical traditions simply having initiatory or secretive elements wouldn't automatically warrant inclusion in such a category, and such details are better left to the articles on those particular traditions. One might reasonably consider certain non-Western traditions to be sufficiently analogous to Western "esoteric" traditions to warrant also being considered as such, but without evidence of academic work clearly putting forth such an argument, there would be little basis upon which to write such an article.

It's perfectly possible, of course, that there is such a body of scholarly work explicitly considering "esotericisms" which are outside of the remit of "Western Esotericism", and if that's the case, then I'd strongly suggest drafting an article on the topic. However, in the absence of such evidence, it's wise to err on the side of conservatism as regards what we include in what categories for the purpose of articles such as these. As I said, the way people popularly tend to use language around esotericism/hermeticism/magic/occultism/alternative spiritualities/New Age/new religious movements/etc. can all get very mushy - too mushy to write about in a precise and encyclopedic way - and for that reason the academic study of such topics can sometimes seem unduly strict and narrow with how it defines them, and it seems to me appropriate that we would mirror that approach here. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I learned a lot from reading this article. Thanks to everyone who worked on it. It seems to me that most people have some "esoteric" beliefs: Luck, Karma, my lucky stars, ghosts, etc. Probably only a minority are either strict believers in an established religion or strict rationalist materialists. I also know lots of Chinese people and pretty much all believe in their traditional things, except Communist Party members... who pretend not to. Anyway it seems to me that the article focuses a little too much on intellectuals and leaders of movements, when these folks are only a small part of what's going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.154.61 (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's Judeo-Christian for a long time, no "appropriation"

To the IP editor who recently tried to mangle the article:

Rabbi Johannan Alemanno, of his own free will, taught Kabbalah to Giovanni Pico della Mirandola in the 15th century. Pico taught it to Johann Reuchlin. Both of them Christianized it. Since that time, Kabbalah has been Judeo-Christian. It was not "appropriated" but was received from a Rabbi who chose to teach it to Christians. So please take your non-neutral POV elsewhere. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Reorg Proposal: Multiple Articles

It wouldn't be an immediate thing, but after stumbling across this article, I'd like to suggest reorganizing it along with several other articles.

My starting point is that this article (beyond sort of hinting at it via Neoplatonism and emic/etic) doesn't actually mention one of the earliest meanings of exoteric vs. esoteric. Don't remember where I first learned it, but IIUC, they were just scholarly terms for works by Plato and Aristotle, based on the theory that some (exoterica) were written for a general audience and others (esoterica) were written for advanced students in the Academy or Lyceum.

Besides being only tangentially related to what we now think of as occultism, that distinction may also better approximate concepts in other cultures (like batin vs. zahir in Islam). So I'd like to suggest the following:

• Move the Exoteric article to a new combined name like Esoteric and exoteric
• Merge the the less occult & spiritual parts of this article (such as the mention of emic and etic) into that one
• Merge the more occult and general parts of this article into Occult
• Possibly rename this article, with the remaining, Western-specific parts, to Western occultism
• Merge the Academic study of Western esotericism article back into this one

If applicable, a similar set of changes could be applied to the Eastern esotericism article: distinguish general from culturally-specific, and merely inner teachings from the genuinely occult. Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Zar2gar1! I have added a section regarding the philosophical usage of the concepts of exoteric/esoteric, which I had originally written in the Portuguese version of the article. I agree that a new article could be created for "Exoteric and esoteric" for their general meaning, focusing on their global cultural usage, historical development and variations, summarizing major clusters categorized by scholars (Eastern, Western etc.). For such a new article, I'd suggest also the use of this recent academic research: [1] (unfortunately, I do not have access to it). Now, about the "less occult" and "more occult" division, that would be too subjective and I think it would be edging original research (WP:NOR). "Occultism" mainly refers to the 19th century development of Western esoteric trends, particularly after the influence of French esotericists. Therefore, I would also  Disagree on renaming this article to "Western occultism", since the conventional usage by scholars is "Western esotericism", and esotericism is more general and common than occultism. Western esotericism is a historiographical category that inextricably includes cultural phenomena, otherwise it would be vacuous. Therefore, this article should focus on both its content (historical practices and theories, what you call "occultism" and "general" parts etc.) and its academic research. Thus, I  Disagree on merging "more occult and general parts of this article into Occult" and  Disagree on "distinguish general from culturally-specific, and merely inner teachings from the genuinely occult" - such division is unpractical and inexistent in reality. I Agree on merging Academic study of Western esotericism on this article. Best regards! Bafuncius (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, and first off, thanks for adding the bit about the early philosophy to the article. That was really quick! Ask and ye shall receive, I guess, haha.

As for the different parts of the proposal, everything you said makes sense, especially since it sounds like you're more tapped into the scholarship on these things. Besides the missing philosophical discussion, at least as a layman, I just found it a little hard to follow the article at points. I can't form a clear idea of how it relates to the Occult and Eastern esotericism articles at first glance either.

I'll let this proposal hang out a bit longer, but for now, it sounds like fleshing out a general Exoteric and esoteric article is plenty. That should still help clarify the different sides of this topic too. Zar2gar1 (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

Theosophic seal (English)

Hello, I think that the current lead image may be too indistinct or obscure to properly sum up the article at a glance and I instead propose the Seal of Theosophy (right) as the new lead image.

The main elements are an Ouroboros, a Star of David and an Ankh, which I think will both demonstrate the diversity of ideas grouped together under the umbrella of "western esoteric", and will also make for an all-around more evocative and memorable image to associate the article with. No matter how relevant the Kabbalah diagram may or may not be to the wider tradition it is entirely dependent on the text to establish that relevance, it does not have any independent aesthetic value the way a seal like this one does.

The motto would also be really nice to put way at the beginning here, as on a more subjective note I find "There Is No Higher Religion Than Truth" to be very evocative in its own right in addition to being a good summation of one of the only shared themes of the wider esoteric movement I can identify. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"Unscientific claims"

So, anyone editing pages like this one is "promoting unscientific claims"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's see: the IP has added category "Deception" - the word is not even present in the article. The word "superstition" occurs only once in the article, saying it was a view in the 18th century. They add "fringe theory", but the word "fringe" does not occur in the article, etc. Per WP:CATV, any category added to an article must be discussed in the article and supported with citations. IP cannot just category bomb the article based on their personal beliefs. Every category must be directly proven in the article with citations. Skyerise (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)