AIRHEADISM and New Age Philosophy

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » AIRHEADISM and New Age Philosophy

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 11:41 am
Plato and the Platypus wrote:


Airhead philosophy

Airhead philosophy appeared on the scene in the late 1960's, coincidently with Harvard professors Timothy Leary's pronouncement that the way to enlightenment was through ingesting magic mushrooms. Subsequently dubbed "New Age Philosophy," airheadism is an amalgam of ancient eastern philosophies and some medieval beliefs such as astrology, Tarot cards, and the kabbalah. "Affirmation" - statements such as "I am one with my duality" or "As I learn to trust the Process, I no longer need to carry gun" - are also an important part of New Age philosophy. This reminds us of the elderly woman who approached British poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge after a lecture in the early1800's and said, "Mr. Coleridge, I've accepted the universe." Coleridge peered over the top of his glasses and said, "My God, madam, you'd better!"

Happily, we have jokemiesters to illuminate the dimness of New age Thought.

How many New Agers does it take to change a light bulb?
None, they just start a "coping with the darkness" support group.

If there's anything up-to-date about New agers, it may be their belief in extraterrestrial beings that not only visit us, but invite us into their airships for dinner and romance. It takes a satirist to push the limits of such New Age beliefs to their logical extreme.

A Martian makes an emergency landing in Brooklyn and finds that a key part of his saucer has been damaged - the all important troover. He goes into a deli and asks the counter man if he knows where he can find a troover. The man asks, "What's it look like?"
The Martian says, "Its round, kind of hard on the outside, soft on the inside, with a little hole in the middle."
The deli man says, "That sounds like a bagel. Here, does this look like what you need?"
The Martian says, "It's perfect! What do you use it for here?"
The deli man says, "Well, you'll probably find it hard to believe, but we eat them here."
The Martian replies, "Your kidding! You eat troovers?"
The deli guy says, "Yeah, here, try one."
The Martian is pretty skeptical, but he takes a bite. "Hey" the Martian says, "with a little cream cheese, this wouldn't be half bad."

Another element in the new agers kit bag is their fascination with parapsychic phenomena, such as clairvoyance. Many old-agers - aka rational thinkers - continue to believe that there is always a reasonable explanation for such phenomena.

"My grandfather knew the exact time of the exact day of the exact year that he would die."
"Wow, what an evolved soul! How did it come to him?"
"The judge told him."


In many respects, I find this very amusing. This does indeed seem to be a growing trend. But for some reason, I am hesitant to really buy into this type of classification for people that are genuinely interested in subjects like Aliens and supra-philosophical processes. Metaphysics used to be the science of the day some thousand years ago and people like Aristotle placed pre-scientific treatises like Categories in larger more accepted treatises like Metaphysics. Indeed, if you read through Aristotle's Metaphysics, you find that scientific theory, like thoughts on generation, are placed within texts that deal with more abstract notions, like the ontology of being. Science like that in the categories did not really fit in the larger spectrum of Metaphysics (i.e. Zeta 7-9).

So that begs the question, do you think that airheadism (and New Age philosophy) is a dormant form of philosophical or scientific method that has yet to have it's time in the sun? At first glance, I would say no, but then again, modern science was considered pretty far out in Aristotle's time. Airheadism and New Age Philosophy may in fact be the next scientific method.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 01:29 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Airheadism...hmmm...I have mixed feelings on New Age philosophy. While I think the practices and teachings are healthier than modern vacuous religious experience, I have serious issues with the frauds of the movement like Sylvia Browne. Her and others have capitalized on the market, and rake in boatloads of cash promoting their flavors of "metaphysics." But on the flip side, whatever helps people promote happiness and well being I am all for--especially in the world as it is today.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 02:57 pm
@Theaetetus,
 
Khethil
 
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 03:32 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Good post.

I think I'd agree on most accounts. I have this part of me - when I encounter such 'philosophies' - that wants to bust out laughing. Out of respect for the feelings of those involved, I choke it down and instead attribute my outburst to seasonal allergies.

I think part of this stems from my mother; poor woman. Just last week on the phone she declared that she'd traversed the galaxy on 'wings of light' to find the "allness of the universe and love-light" of her son. My god, how embarassing. About a year ago, she described an episode whereby somehow her cat became possessed by "aliens or some other power" then walked into the room, sat down in front of her and stared intently - desperately trying to communicate some truth she should know while all the lights in the house blinked on and off... oh god, I can't stop laughing even now.

If this is at all close to the sentiments to which this thread speaks; I share the general conclusions. To the extent that such 'philosophies' give comfort; for that and that alone, I am happy. Anything past this I can't help but feel a sense of embarassment.

I wonder what the cat was trying to say...
 
Doobah47
 
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 04:46 pm
@Khethil,
Quote:
How many New Agers does it take to change a light bulb?
None, they just start a "coping with the darkness" support group.
That reminds me of alot of not so 'New-Age' stuff, mainly pissy little democratic 'think-tanks' or user-friendly technical support phone-lines.

I would have thought that the main justification for a refutation of the success of democracy is that there is supposedly a logical and thus perhaps 'best' solution to any given problem - provided all evidence is made available. So why the need to let everybody have a say? Is that because logic is flawed by language's ineptitude(?) - perhaps we're all in a conversation like the bagel-alien and bagel-man, never quite achieving the resolution of Descartes or any other truth complexes.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » AIRHEADISM and New Age Philosophy
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 04:19:19