This is a thread for discussing philosophers that weren't occultists but had a lot of the same ideas.
I've been reading some of Ralph Waldo Emerson's writings (they're really short) and so far I have found that all of them had elements of esoteric knowledge in them just using more mundane vocabulary. Specifically his book called Compensation had a lot of the same laws from the Kybalion just under slightly different terms. I might list the specific quotes later but basically he describes the laws of polarity, gender, and rhythm in it. He describes the universe that the whole is represented in its parts, just like the holographic theory.
The point of his book on compensation is that every deed is compensated, so people should strive to do the most good. In my notes on it I also wrote down that he describes the soul as the thing that IS, just like Atkinson's description of the ego. Not everything he talks about relates to esoteric knowledge, but there is a lot of good advice in there anyway. In his Spiritual Laws book he briefly talks about The All as well. After reading this stuff it feels a lot like Atkinson might have been influenced by Emerson or they were both influenced by the same things.
When I bought my book of Emerson writing I didn't really know much about him. As soon as I opened it I saw that the same company also published the Kybalion and a couple other books, so maybe they saw the similarity as well.
Some people might consider this armchair occultism or something, but knowing the mental laws gives you the ability to put them into practice if you have any creativity.
Yeah he is good. One author that I feel gets overlooked here is Henry Miller. His Rosy Crucifixion series is really unbeatable.
Read Sexus. He is literally the Aryan Superman we all strive to become.
I would like to bump this thread with another esoteric philosophy find from a book of Thomas Aquinas' writings.
I'm not a christian, but most of his ideas are pretty good.
From Book 2 of his "Summa Contra Gentiles", he has a section about how the intellectual substance can be the formative principle of the body.
This section outlines a very similar idea to the one that WWAtkinson describes that all physical matter comes from mental power.In the actual book it's on page 68 of book 2.
He says the proof for this intellectual substance is the fact that everything acts toward an end. For example a plant acts towards the goal of growing and reproducing. Aquinas says the reason the plant acts towards that goal is because of the intellectual substance (God). Atkinson would say that it was mind power that caused the plant to grow and he would take the theory beyond just organisms as well.
>"[6] Thus are we able to contemplate the marvelous connection of things. For it is always found that the lowest in the higher genus touches the highest of the lower species. Some of the lowest members of the animal kingdom, for instance, enjoy a form of life scarcely superior to that of plants; oysters, which are motionless, have only the sense of touch and are fixed to the earth like plants. That is why Blessed Dionysius says in his work On the Divine Names that “divine wisdom has united the ends of higher things with the beginnings of the lower.” We have, therefore, to consider the existence of something supreme in the genus of bodies, namely, the human body harmoniously tempered, which is in contact with the lowest of the higher genus, namely, the human soul, which holds the lowest rank in the genus of intellectual substances, as can be seen from its mode of understanding; so that the intellectual soul is said to be on the horizon and confines of things corporeal and incorporeal, in that it is an incorporeal substance and yet the form of a body. Nor is a thing composed of an intellectual substance and corporeal matter less one than a thing made up of the form of fire and its matter, but perhaps it is more one; because the greater the mastery of form over matter, the greater is the unity of that which is made from it and matter. "
Any opinions on Aristotle's ethics and metaphysics? I was reading Eliphas Levi and he claims that all illness, physical and spiritual, has its origin in either deficiency or excess of some kind, which reminded me of Aristotle's Golden Mean. He also mentions some of Aristotle's metaphysical concepts. Anyone want to weigh in on this?
Also, obviously Plato and Plotinus are "mystics" as much as they are philosophers, and anyone interested in "Western occultism" should read them both. I haven't read Plotinus yet, so if anyone knows any good introductions to him I would greatly appreciate it. And of course, you also have all the Presocratics which would be equally worth looking into.
I'm also personally very partial to Nietzsche.
>>11249
>I'm also personally very partial to Nietzsche.
Nietzsche wasn't esoteric. He hid nothing and put on no "my knowledge is too deep for you" airs… His writings were too strong to be scared and secretive like esoterics who hide because they're philosophy is weak
>>11267
>Nietzsche wasn't esoteric
"I've never actually read Nietzsche or the works of any philosopher for that matter but if I think talking like this will make me sound like an intellectual and smart and mature for my age psh these fuckin normies don't understand that just because I'm 12 doesn't mean my opinions are less than theirs these fucking bullshit occultists are retarded they wish they were as smart as I am even though I'm only a kid, *tips fedora*, fuckin bullshiters magic aren't real and nietzsche knew it, nevermind that if I had actually read any of his works I'd know that the opposite is true and I'm a braindead autistic middle school retard, time to eat some hotpockets MOM WHERE ARE MY HOTPOCKETS MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM"
>>11267
>they're
It's funny how the guy who constantly calls people niggers is instantly recognizable by his nigger-tier writing skills.
>>1076
>philosophers that weren't occultists
wait…. there is such a thing?
>emerson
are you sure?
>>11458
Epicurus wasn't an occultist
in fact, anyone who is anti-occult/spirituality can probably trace their ideaology back to him if they are atheists
>>11267
>my knowledge is too deep for you
that could be a literal explicit quote from Nietzsche. he literally says that on several occasions, in slightly different wording.
>>11473
Epicurus believed in the concept of a soul/self even though such a thing is self-evident in its lack of existence.
>>11474
Epicurus was an atomist, so even the soul was something physical for him.
>>11476
Well that's pretty much true.
Everything is physical from a certain perspective, there is no difference in the composition of ether and the composition of matter, they are all the same at a basic level. The only thing is that what scientists today call atoms are not atoms as an atom is by definition indivisible.
>>11249
If I were to 'start with the Greeks', what should be the very first thing I read? Something by Aristotle?
>>11279
Were you baiting us? If so, well done.
>>11474
>such a thing is self-evident in its lack of existence.
Because of its impermanence, you mean?
>>11558
I'm afraid that was my first post in the thread, I can't tell if that person was baiting. I just found the outcome funny.
>>11558
it depends on where your interests lie. i personally enjoy biographies and anecdotes so i might recommend starting with a few of diogenes' laertius lives of the philosophers. read about the stoics and the pre-socratics.
then i would read plato and the presocratics. but there isnt really an order. if you feel drawn to aristotle's way of thinking then pick up one of his books.
>>11570
>if you feel drawn to aristotle's way of thinking then pick up one of his books.
I thought of Aristotle because I know he was historically THE philosopher, although that was partly because the works of other ancient philosophers were hard to find. Starting with secondary literature is probably a good idea, I'll take a look at that Diogenes Laertius book.
