Mono
a note on monotheism with reference to Frithjof Schuon and Algis Uzdavinys
The great Swiss traditionalist metaphysician Frithjof Schuon, spoke of the ‘unavoidable drawback of the Semitic or monotheistic religions’ as being the one-sided overemphasis on ‘faith’ and hence devaluation of the other human faculties. He further pointed to the tendency of these religions to emphasise statements of doctrine to the extent that they could become absurdities and sources of immoderate contention, even violence. However, Semitic monotheism is far from the sole manifestation of that theology, nor is Semitic monotheism a monolith with regards to it’s interpretations. To quote another traditionalist on Schuon’s critique, Algis Uzdavinys-
“For Frithjof Schuon, there are two fundamental errors of the voluntaristic theologians. The first is the attribution to a single and mythologically humanised divine Subject of cosmic effects that in fact are linked to different universal sources, designated as ‘gods’ (or henads, intellects, souls) both in the ‘pagan’ religion of antiquity and in Hellenic philosophy; the second is the use of the inadequately understood word ‘will’ for causations of which only some would justify such an anthropomorphic analogy. Consequently ‘an anthropomorphic Paramatma is something monstrous, and all speculations based on it are bad metaphysics”1
His wording (speaking of ‘errors’) is , I think, overly harsh and perhaps not sufficiently humble, certainly in this present cultural context wherein giving offence is perversely regarded as a sign of strength and a virtue, and where the rulers maintain their rule in great part through the stirring of vicious antagonisms among the ruled. However, the philosophy itself is sound (though of course, not absolute nor the only valid approach by any means).
A great tragedy of ‘western’ history can be seen to have come from the victory of political expediency over cultural (that is, educational, philosophical, spiritual) development. From Egyptian, through Hellenic, through Roman civilization, Europe and the Mediterranean world had all the intellectual resources to develop without the adoption of extreme religious paradigms which would for centuries (and still) act as totems for the spilling of oceans of blood in pursuit of very worldly, vulgar aims- merely cloaked in religious aesthetics.
But as soon as the empire, as soon as the caesars and the imperial elite, found it useful to wrap themselves up in an exclusivist version (as opposed to what had long been available as a philosophically inclusive version) of a monotheistic paradigm (that it happened to be a Semitic version is merely an accident, it could well have been another as was the case for instance during pharaoh Akhenaten’s reign or the intolerant Sasanian Persian version of Zoroastrianism) then the board was set for conflicts which would eventually cripple ‘western’ civilization, the results of which are all too evident today.
Algis Uzdavinys, “Sufism and Ancient Wisdom”
There is a long and interesting story behind the development of monotheism, which begins with Greeks. One can examine the political elements, and the development of the concept through the evolution of Jehovah, which calls into question whether or not the bulk of this change in consciousness even is Semitic.
Certainly, the Jews inherited the driver's seat when it comes to Abrahamic ideologies-yes, ideologies because that's how they function-still, when viewing the big picture its not at all a given that Semites were anybody when it came to the development of monotheism.
This topic is a deep one that involves numerous peoples, centuries of development and numerous civilizations.
However we got here, there are fundamental errors to monotheism that cannot be solved. The significant issue regarding evil becomes cartoonish and stupid, because the monogod who created everything by necessity also creates evil. There is no escape from this doom cartoon, because as the airtight investigation of John Calvin reveals, there is no rationality in the dispossession of souls. The result is twofold. Evil, like God cannot be understood. Evil, like God performs no obvious role in the world.
If one is satisfied with the situation that nothing of any significance is knowable, then monotheism is definitely the jam, just keep in mind this runs in complete defiance to every internal striving of mankind, which involves an insatiable need to know. How pertinent then, is monotheism to the human condition?
The second irrevocable error of monotheism is the very notion of God. This again is a huge topic, one to be covered in a different exploration. Excellent essay, Mr C.