Talk:Western esotericism

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)

Website policy (labelling Theosophy and anthroposophy as pseudoscience)

(Regarding the addition of this template diff, after a back-and-forth reverting of the term "pseudo-science," and the request to source that term diff:)

Arbitrary header #1

@AnandaBliss: WP:PSCI is website policy, please do not deviate from it. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure what in my edits constituted deviation, however there is a weight issue. Western Esotericism as a phenomenon, as well as the research of it, does not center around whether Lemuria could be found on a map, though I guess that would be worthy of inclusion. It's not just about finding reliable sources/experts for one feature, it's about balancing the article as a whole, which at present I don't think it is. It's not the actual claims in (most of) the sources that's at issue, it's whether, and to what degree, they belong in the article, as well as their balance with other information.

As to quoting Wiki articles, they aren't considered reliable sources, and neither WP CB, RANDY nor MANDY are Wikipedia policies.

I hope we can work together on the totality of this article :). AnandaBliss (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@AnandaBliss: WP:PSCI says "The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." That's all I'm asking for.

If one would remove pseudoscience from theosophy and anthroposophy, that would literally obliterate them. They cannot immunize their knowledge against falsification by merely claiming it is a religious belief.

The gist is that Wikipedia has to call a pseudoscience a pseudoscience. The sole remedy against that is removing WP:PSCI from WP:PAGs, which I don't think it's gonna happen.

If people want to believe in a pseudoscience, that's their liberal-democratic right, but we are coerced by website policy to label it a pseudoscience.

It does not mean that your argument would be bad in general, but it does not comply with our WP:RULES. So, it is an invalid argument as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It might be a good argument when doing your own WP:OR, but not here.

In respect to the statement being angry: the statement that they peddle pseudoscience might not be flattering, but it is not "angry". Again, WP:OR and WP:Editorializing stand little chance against WP:BESTSOURCES.

Another issue: we don't label claims as WP:UNDUE through editors' personal opinions. That would require citing mainstream academic sources, reliable enough to show that the mainstream academia is at least divided upon that issue.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, created by the Metaphysics Research Lab, mentions neither Steiner nor Blavatsky. Why? Because in respect to university-level metaphysics they are non-authors, or non-scholars, if you prefer. But, yes, anthroposophy has a dishonorable mention at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ tgeorgescu (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi tgeorgescu, I don't think I have any evidence to clear. We must be talking past each other because you've been responding to thing I haven't said. The weight, not the information itself, is mostly the issue here, and that includes in citations. One or two should suffice. And referring to people within these religious/spiritual movements as "rabid" or "apologists" is not the correct mindset here. We shouldn't treat them any differently than any other movement, religious or not. If their beliefs did not agree with current research, of course the article should mention that. But making it a focus, of either the prose content or a large, large number of citations, risks constituting undue weight. AnandaBliss (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@AnandaBliss: In Wikipedic parlance, "weight" means WP:WEIGHT, which is the same as WP:UNDUE. I mentioned fundamentalists because they are well-known to go after cults and heresies. And I mentioned cult apologists because they generally speaking don't write WP:IS.

WP:CITEKILL is specifically about there should not be more than three references for every line of text. But {{Bulleted list}} solves that problem. It's about the number of superscript numbers, not about the number of WP:RS which are WP:CITED. WP:CITEKILL does not limit the number of WP:RS which may be WP:CITED.

And the Anthroposophists were very pissed off by my edits, as shown by their posts at Facebook, Medium.com, and /r/WikipediaVandalism (discussed at Talk:Anthroposophy#Evidence and Talk:Marie Steiner-von Sivers#Brill book by Staudenmaier). So, this isn't an irenic situation, since they are hell-bent to ban me from Wikipedia. Even somebody at Wikipediocracy commented about their fanciful attempts to whitewash the articles about their religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, by Weight I was referring to avoiding Undue Weight. Regardless of aesthetics, an excessive number of citations does not add to the quality of the article and begins to look like an argument in favor of the cited information, rathe than being informative. After the three highest quality citations for the same information, what do the additional citations do for the article?

It's awful that you've been treated poorly by some adherents. No one should be harassing an editor on or off of Wikipedia, so I'm very sorry that you've been targeted like that. However, that has no baring on that the article ought to look like. I think paring down the number of redundant citations, as well as de-weaseling certain terms like "championing" will be a step in the right direction. Can we try to work together on that? AnandaBliss (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I don't pursue vendettas, I'm just aware of the opposition.

have been accused of makes it look like a subjective claim, while the usual interpretation of WP:PSCI is to assert it in the voice of Wikipedia (WP:YESPOV). tgeorgescu (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What about, "xyz experts contend that..." or "due to beliefs 123, xyz expert has said..." or something to that effect? That way we know which authority this comes from, without terms such as peddle? Again, treating theology/religious beliefs as though they were put through academia is going to miss that point of it, such as assuming a reference to Atlantis is arguing a physical location on Earth, rather than an era or a spiritual, non-physical "plane." And there is still an issue of over-citation. I think it would be better to cite what appears in the article. AnandaBliss (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, occultists are not as sophisticated as you think. For them Lemuria and Atlantis were real places, on the physical Planet Earth. I never met an Anthroposophist who believed that Atlantis was a merely spiritual reality, nor that it were located in the astral plane.

While Catholics and mainline Protestants claim that the Bible verses which have been debunked have to be interpreted as merely moral or merely theological truths, that isn't what Blavatsky and Steiner claimed.

I think it would be better to cite what appears in the article.—I don't understand what you mean.

Also: local consensus is not allowed to trump website policy. So, the answer is no, "experts have claimed that Theosophy and Anthroposophy peddle pseudoscience" violates WP:PSCI, since it makes it look like a subjective claim.

You claim that there is over-citation, but WP:CITEKILL does not claim there is any.

Full disclosure: I think that Steiner succeeded in respect to architecture, and that his ethics is worthy, and it deserves a fair hearing from the academia. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Using a large number of sources is not a guarantee for NPOV and Due Weight.—true, but all (or most of) the sources I have WP:CITED have been written or edited by full professors, who are experts in the problem of demarcation. So, I did not cite WP:RANDY, I have cited the topmost experts who have written on the subject. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hint: passing Atlantis and Lemuria for real is rank pseudoscience and rank pseudohistory. Lachman is not unfriendly to Steiner, but he knows that Steiner's claims about Atlantis are WP:CB. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Verbatim quote from Biodynamic agriculture: Biodynamic agriculture is a form of alternative agriculture based on pseudo-scientific and esoteric concepts initially developed in 1924 by Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925).

Verbatim quote from Anthroposophic medicine: Anthroposophic medicine (or anthroposophical medicine) is a form of alternative medicine based on pseudoscientific and occult notions.

Verbatim quote from The Secret Doctrine: The Secret Doctrine, the Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy, is a pseudoscientific esoteric book as two volumes in 1888 written by Helena Blavatsky.

You have an extraordinarily high standard for evidence to clear. I have cited WP:RS published at Oxford University Press, Princeton University Press, MIT Press, University of Chicago Press, ABC-CLIO, Random House, and Royal Brill Publishers. These are not books written and edited by amateurs. They aren't cult apologetics, nor are they written by rabid fundamentalists. We don't give equal validity to books published by cults at their in-house publishers and the academic publishing houses I have mentioned.

Of course, according to WP:MANDY, those new religious movements would staunchly deny they peddle pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2

Georgescu, I fully agree that Theosophy and Anthroposophy are rubbish, but I also agree with AnandaBliss that it is unbalanced to single out these two, from the many traditions mentioned, to criticise them for being pseudoscience, with such a citebomb. Is there any discussion in general at this page about esotericism being pseudoscience, other than the short treatment of esotericism as "rejected knowledge"? There isn't, so why single out these two and give them such an extensive treatment? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

What I meant by "cite what appears in the article" is that we should obviously keep the citations used in the article directly, but the rest of the citations might be worth reconsidering. And I understand that that citation essay (not a rule) does not technically give a hard number regarding citations, however, following the spirit of the essay, a very long list of citations that are not being used in the article itself can be redundant, at least.

Regarding the "sophistication" of some beliefs, painting with such a broad brush as though they are inherently different from religious beliefs isn't going to achieve accuracy. Esotericism or any one tradition isn't done in bad faith. AnandaBliss (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reduced the number of references and quotes; I think this suffices. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not acting in bad faith, and I welcome tweaks by others. Again: how the story started? AnandaBliss put a tag of citation needed to "pseudoscience" in the lead section. I obliged with citations to two esoteric movements I know. I cannot and do not exclude other esoteric movements from being pseudoscientific, but these two are the ones I know for sure.

E.g. Paracelsus had the idea of using man-made chemicals for treating diseases. And, for centuries, those chemicals were worse than the disease they purported to treat. But now, as modern science found proper use of man-made chemicals for treating diseases, it is too late to label iatrochemistry as a pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see diff; after back-and-forth reverting of the term, in the sentence

It has influenced various forms of Western philosophy, mysticism, religion, pseudoscience, art, literature, and music.

The tag was removed diff per WP:CITELEAD, but the statement ("influenced") is still unsourced, as it is not stated, or clearly explained, in the body of the article... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)