There is a virus infecting the Polytheistic Reconstructionist world, and that virus’ name is Pseudo-intellectualism. The goal of any reconstruction of a polytheistic religion is to create a modern but authentic practice with, as its foundation, the accurate and genuine representation of cultural and historical examples of ancient religiosity. Reconstructionism makes use of the work being done in the fields of historical literary research, anthropology, religious history, archeology, forensic anthropology, and many other sciences, while pseudo-intellectualism makes use of rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive and support misleading reasoning. The pseudo-intellectual is not concerned with truth, but instead seeks power.
The word pseudo-intellectual is often used to describe one who regularly is critical of the work of professionals, challenging well-established fact, while they lack the background, knowledge, and experience to have an informed opinion and support such challenges. They will at times represent themselves as a champion of ordinary people and egalitarianism against elitism, and will represent those taking a scholarly approach to Reconstruction as ‘not one of us,’ fostering mistrust and representing true Reconstructionists as a danger, insisting that they are outsiders with little empathy for normal people. It is all smoke and mirrors.
For a practice to be Reconstructionist there are four clear identifiers: (1) there is no attempt to create a combined or universal religion; (2) there is an attempt to stay within academic research guidelines when handling material; (3) the evidence from multiple scientific fields are used and embraced, while pseudo-sciences are avoided; (4) a serious attempt is made to understand the complete historical system (culture, politics, science, and art of the period) to better understand the mindset of religious beliefs practiced. The Pseudo-intellectual often rejects each of these four points. They will many times go out of their way to create combined or universal systems. They will represent the work of academic researchers as less enlightened then their personal opinions, or that those in academic fields of study, who have spent their professional lives revealing ancient civilizations, are biased or don’t know what they are talking about. Finally, the Pseudo-intellectual will often take an al la cart approach to research, selectively incorporating and ignoring evidence to conform to their preconceived notions, rather than allowing fact to shape their opinions.
Do not for a minute think this is an issue exclusive to Hellenismos. This virus infects, at some level, every Reconstructionist religion. Why? We can only speculate, but I firmly believe that many of these Pseudo-intellectuals find Reconstructionism more stimulating or validating in their mind than Popular Neopagan Culture, which has its own virus called Anti-intellectualism. Neopagans do, generally, not tolerate intellectual masturbation and attempts to place one opinion above those of others. Yet, Pseudo-intellectualism and Anti-intellectualism are the flip sides of the same coin. Each seems to promote the idea that intellectuals or academics are arrogant outsiders to common thinking. Moreover, they will indorse personal religions and practices with no boundaries, allowing for the creation of teachings and practices from various traditions, or formulating of practices based primarily on personal experiences and feeling over the creation of a viable religion. Their goal is not an authentic modern revival and reconstruction.
The Pseudo-intellectual should be easy to stop, but too often, the novice is sucked in by the misrepresentation. The Pseudo-intellectual will often make use of convoluted or difficult to understand terms and words, making use of “twenty dollar” words when simpler words would suffice. They will opt for difficult to understand literal translations of ancient texts, rather than descriptive translations that speak to the true meaning of words. They may reference obscure or difficult to validate works, or even make use of fakelore. They seek to impress, rather than educate. Simply put, they attempt to pass off articulate claptrap as truth, fact, and reality. It does not matter how many primary and secondary sources, articles, discussions, books, websites, lectures, or documentaries the Pseudo-intellectual can cite in an over-blown, long-winded response to a question if the conclusion is nothing but rubbish. Keeping information simple as possible, and to the point, works against the manipulative tactics of the Pseudo-intellectual.
The Pseudo-intellectual promotes themselves as open-minded and a freethinker, but freethought is a philosophy that holds beliefs should be formed based on science and logic, not influenced by emotion. Open-mindedness requires being unprejudiced, unbigoted, impartial, and being open to and allowing the facts to shape one’s opinion. The Pseudo-intellectual is anything but, and selectively makes use of or distorts fact to conform to their personal opinions. They attempt to show themselves as being tolerant of other beliefs and opinions, but are stubbornly unreceptive to information that disproves their unfounded theories.
The main goal of Pseudo-intellectuals, despite claims to the contrary, is not to cause into existence a viable living religion from a fledgling movement, but it is to have the opportunity to show off their opinions, demonstrate how ‘enlightened’ they are and, most importantly, how pathetic and ignorant those who do not agree with them are. They often employ complex and paradoxical statements, use circular logic, and use tactics to out-talk rather than out-debate. They will also, at times, make use of rhetorical slight-of-hand to imply an unsupportable statement of fact they can then deny if later challenged. Finally, if their authority on a subject is challenged, or opinions are proven false and deceptive, they will cry they have been personally attacked for their progressive views.
The Pseudo-intellectual puts forth an image of being a person with encyclopedic, broad, or varied knowledge, but truly possesses little understanding of the information. Their only effort is to convince you they are a person of great learning. They wish to be seen as a lover of Wisdom, but lack all the judgment of what is true, right, or lasting. They want the image of being enlightened, but lack the substance of spiritual and intellectual insight. They are charlatans, players, and pretenders whose true face is marked by wickedness, depravity, and unrighteousness. Neither Hellenismos, Religio Romana, Kemeticism, nor any other Reconstructionist religion will ever become fully realized until we find a way to disavow and lessen the impact of those who make elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims of knowledge in our name. The motive of the Pseudo-intellectual is corrupt and unjust. Their character is weak and lacking, and their false intellectualism and intellectual dishonesty invalidates us all.
anikha
on Jul 14th, 2008
@ 12:56 am:
. . . okay, some questions and comments:
1) I am a student at a college with a really good library. With all of the stuff we subscribe to — most of which I can access off-campus — I can actually get stuff that includes a full, fragmented, and literal-translation texts (if I dig deeply enough and know the name of what I’m looking for) of all sorts of things that very few in the greater community have access to. Does this make me a pseudo-intellectual, or does my school library just own (as in, pwn, Tim)?
2) Ancient Hellas was a patriarchal system, and it had slavery. Don’t you think that we should embrace modern concepts like true feminism (the idea that men and women are equal, not the idea that women should treat men like lesser animals) and the right of each individual to act within his or her own will providing s/he does not break the social contract made between society, the state, and the individual? There is room to interpret your arguments against your intention. Be careful with your wording.
3) I agree with some of the stuff you have said. However, I do allow for historically sound fusions of things like Greco-Indian, Greco-Egyptian, and Greco-Roman belief systems. I just choose not to practice any of them myself (while still allowing for Roman literature that may have a Hellenic source). As in any evaluation of an academic text, even scholars will come up with new material that is informed, but not bound by, previous interpretations of primary texts (and the primary texts themselves, which are always better to work from than secondary sources if you have the choice). That is how scholarship works, and why academic journals can stay in business: they publish new material. Some of the behavior you have criticized really sounds like innovative scholarship to me, which academics will accept provided everything is cited and documented carefully.
4) Frequently, scholars disagree about ancient texts. My academic adviser is a Beowulf scholar. He has said that Beowulf conference attendees are frequently on the verge of violence because interpretations of that text differ so widely. Yet, most will not suggest that their opponent is a pseudo-scholar, even though they accuse the opponent of misinterpreting the text. What are you using as your criteria for defining a pseudo-intellectual (versus an intellectual that you just happen to disagree with because you interpret your source materials differently)?
Timothy Alexander
on Jul 14th, 2008
@ 2:53 am:
anikha,
1) I do not know. Are you a pseudo-intellectual? I do not think I personally ever had or expressed that opinion of you. Is there a reason you believe this post applies to you?
2) I have two responses. (1) I think you would be hard-pressed to find any Reconstructionist advocating a return to the socio-political system of Ancient Greece, at least to the point of emulating those things that socially and morally we have all moved on from. Reconstruction works to reconstruct specifically the religion and this tends to be a straw-man argument. I do not believe you can find anyone campaigning for the Hellenic styled Amish. (2) The patriarchal system argument does not have much influence on me when we all know the Greeks were generally much more progressive toward women than most other ancient civilizations of the time. There were respected female philosophers for goodness sake. Slavery also, in Ancient Greece, was not what we understand to be slavery today. Slaves were not property in the same sense. They were not dehumanized as African slaves where in the United States. Their children where not born into slavery. Again, not that I would even consider advocating such a thing today. Hellenic ethics dictates that we made the best choices based on a reasoned analysis of current conditions and knowledge.
3) The Greco-Egyptian religion is the Greco-Egyptian religion, and Greco-Egyptian reconstruction is Greco-Egyptian reconstruction. Don’t you agree?
4) Scholars disagreeing about the translation and interpretation of ancient texts is very different than selectively incorporating and ignoring evidence to conform to preconceived notions and intellectual masturbation. You can look at our forum for an example. We had one individual (a few months back) insisting Plato advocated complete nonviolence. When presented with evidence to the contrary, he insisted the quotes were from lesser works, and insisted The Republic was the image of Plato’s spiritual ideal. When presented with evidence that Plato advocated the use of violence under certain conditions even in The Republic, he stormed off and left the forum. This was not a situation of two individuals disagreeing on interpretation, it was a situation where a person was selective extracting from Plato’s work what he thought supported his preconceived notions, and ignoring the rest.
anikha
on Jul 14th, 2008
@ 11:25 am:
1) I’m an overachiever. I can have, like, six sources for a college paper and still hyperventilate over whether it’s enough, or whether I need three more for balance.
2) It is agreed that ancient and modern slavery aren’t the same. But with women’s empowerment, some of our ideas of the Gods need to shift from commonly accepted mores so we can grow beyond the ancients. (Like the omg totally radical idea that Hera and Zeus are equals, which I like a lot.)
3) Yeah, Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism and Greco-Egyptian Reconstructionism aren’t the same thing. That’s why I don’t practice the latter. They both suffer from being incredibly long words that I really don’t want to type all the time, though.
4) Okay. It’s nice to know where you’re coming from. However, I don’t think that the pseudo-intellectualism is as widespread in the Hellenic movement as you do; most people will do source checks if you press them hard enough.
Timothy Alexander
on Jul 14th, 2008
@ 1:45 pm:
1) I think you are being a little self-conscious. Reread how I describe a pseudo-intellectual, and tell me if that fits you. Being a pseudo-intellectual is a little like being crazy. If you are worried you are, then you are probably not.
2) I actually tend to subscribe to a more philosophical (than mythological) idea that the Gods exist beyond gender. Myth is not the literal reality of the Gods, and what I believe we need to move beyond it the Christian method of looking at myth.
3) No. What I meant by saying “Greco-Egyptian religion is the Greco-Egyptian religion” is that it is a specific cultural religion… just as Santeria is an Afro-Caribbean religious tradition developed from traditional beliefs of the Yoruba people and Catholicism. It is a specific religion that is neither the Yoruba tradition or Catholicism, but a unique practice that is a syncritism of the two. Santeria is not the practice of every religion that exists in the Caribbean Islands, Latin America, the southern United States, and West and Central Africa, just as the Greco-Egyptian religion is not all-inclusive of Hellenic, Egyptian, Roman, Jewish, Babylonian, Celtic, et al.
4) Citing a source is meaningless if (1) a person selectively extracts only what they believe supports a preconceived notion and ignores evidence to the contrary, and (2) the source does not actually state what the person reports. As another example, I have had more than one person try to claim that Hellenismos is inclusive of the Roman Religion based solely on the argument that Julian was a Roman Emperor, but ignoring everything written about Julian’s Hellenismos and his life, including the catechism Sallustius created for that end.
beth
on Jul 14th, 2008
@ 11:11 pm:
I have to say, that I disagree with you saying that Neo-Pagans do not tolerate peusdeo intellectuals or have anti intellectuals.
The truth is that we have lots of people who rant and ramble and are pretentious…we ignore them.
It’s the best way to deal with people like this. A lot are teenagers and are going through a natural “I know everything” phase. They are harmless and aren’t any sort of threat.
Also, you seem to think that people who say personal experiance in regards to their religion is more meaningful for them then research is completely valueless.
But it’s not. Religon and spirituality are deeply personal and while you should discuss and take facts on board as well personal experiance is what builds your faith and is what makes it a religion. Christianity has the bible as a foundation, but people have had religious experiances within the Christian framework all the time that expand the knowledge of the faith.
Not every personal experiance should be taken seriously or necessarily imposed on a wider group but you can learn from peoples personal experiances.
Knowledge from books and sources is good, but knowledge from the heart is the core of spirituality. They both have their place.
Not a Hellanic, a Neo-Pagan here.
Timothy Alexander
on Jul 15th, 2008
@ 1:19 am:
Frankly, there is an issue, and Popular Pagan Culture is representative of that. Neopaganism is overflowing with New Ageism and fluff. Today, Wicca is much more an image of Cunningham, Ravenwolf, and Starhawk than of Gardner, Cochran, and Sanders. Wicca (true Wicca) has been reclassified as BTW, and a subset rather than the gold standard. Neopaganism has turned into an anything goes free for all.
Within the Reconstruction movement, if it was teenagers going through the “I know everything” phase I could really look the other way, but what it is mostly are thirty and forty-something year old adults seducing teens and young adults into followers. It is completely image over substance, and (as I said in my opening paragraph) it is to seek power.
Finally, I did not say personal experience was completely valueless, but in regard to Reconstruction it cannot be used as a base above authentically reconstructed practices. I would also disagree religion and spirituality are deeply personal. Spirituality is deeply personal. Religion is communal with shared beliefs, practices, code of ethics, mythology, et al.
Dax
on Aug 1st, 2008
@ 5:22 pm:
I am an academic who teaches philosophy and the philosophy of religion in the San Francisco Bay area. My specific focus is on ancient philosophical and mythological belief systems. Though ethnically, I am mostly from Celtic stock, my personal sympathies have mostly been towards the Greek deities. I am not an anthropologist or an archaeologist, so I do not claim to know all the social and ritualistic aspects of Hellenismos. I do, however, know the modern archaeological perspectives on the development of the ancient religion . . . the combining of Achaean religion with that of the native Mycaneaen and Cretan belief systems, as well as the introduction of foreign gods, etc. Be that as it may, my focus is on the literature and how the people themselves felt towards their deities.
So, to the point right?
Yesterday, I was researching images of various deities and came across one of Artemis holding her bow in such a way that it looks like a crescent moon. I decided to click the link and read some bogus information about the goddess . . . goddess of the moon, goddess of witchcraft, etc. The website was obviously written by a pagan of sorts, which is not problematic. Yet, I thought that she/he would want to know that Selene is the proper moon goddess and that Artemis was never worshipped as such. I’d assume that if you TRULY believe in a deity, you would want to adore that deity properly. Is it not an insult to both Artemis and Selene?
I wrote a very polite email to the website owner explaining that Artemis was not worshipped as a moon goddess by the ancients and that the constant referring to her as such is a modern misconception.
She wrote back an absurdity, though not rude. She stated that she had spoken with Bastet (no less) and Bastet told her that Artemis was an aspect of herself and that she was indeed a moon goddess. I decided to delete the email and not get into a flame war, as this irritated me. It irritates me as an academic because Artemis (whose name probably comes from the root for Bear) is most likely descended from ancient mother goddess types, she being a virgin due to the Greek idea of how an unwed daughter should behave. Bastet is not related to Artemis, as far as I can tell. And the statue of Ephesus is probably a misnamed Kybele.
Yet, it also upset me because it’s obvious that Bastet “told” her this because she read it in a misinformed book somewhere. How can one profess to actually believe in a thing, but not accept what that deity is actually about? It’s insulting to both Bastet and Artemis, as well as Selene of course.
It’s not her belief that bothers me as much as her trying to use an anecdotal argument to ignore the anthropological facts. The Greeks often referred to foreign gods by the Greek names. This was a way to try to understand gods with whom they were unfamiliar. It does not mean that the two deities are actually the same. Judeo-Christians do this too, as when they decidedly ignore the fact that the god of Abraham (El) is not the same as the god of Moses (YHWH).
I’ve decided to not respond to this person, as it could be a child. How would you react? Do you think it’s best to just not ever try to correct these people? I really wish the internet was not so full of bogus information.
I honestly wanted to reply and say, “Really, that’s strange because I was sipping tea with Artemis and Selene the other day and they got into a cat fight about the fact that Selene feels betrayed by Artemis usurping her lunar powers.” But, of course, I did not.
Timothy Alexander
on Aug 1st, 2008
@ 7:07 pm:
I can sympathize Dax. The way I would address this depends on the situation. If it was stated on a forum I was member, and I noticed it, I would provide the correct information. How aggressive I was would depend on whether this person was speaking as a seeker or as an elder. Also, what specifically they were writing. Neopagans often do place feeling, intuition, and personal revelation above anthropological facts.
In the case of Artemis being a moon goddess, this seems to have formed in late antiquity, associating her with Selene, and is because of her relationship with Apollo. If you check out the list of her epithets on the “Theoi Greek Mythology” website, a number of titles do identify her as a moon goddess.
Hellenic Polytheism Digest (July 2008) | Tim's Blog
on Aug 2nd, 2008
@ 8:40 pm:
[...] On Pseudo-intellectualism [...]
Dax
on Aug 4th, 2008
@ 2:49 pm:
Tim,
Thank you for so quickly responding. I’m sorry that my post was so long. Yes, I know that Artemis had become associated with the moon due to Apollon’s association with the sun in late antiquity. However, neither were originally and such associations contradict the stories. Of course, no religion is static, so it’s okay. I think I find the association with Bast(et) and Artemis even stranger, as there is no association other than a Greek misnomer. The Roman’s called the Celtic god’s by the Latin names, that did not make is so. The same is true for the Greek’s and Egyptians. Once a person who wants to believe a thing reads it, it is hard to shake it from their head. I do not believe this is from personal revelation however, at least not in this case.
Unfortunately, too often it seems, personal revelation is used as an excuse for bad scholarship.
Thanks again,
Dax
Timothy Alexander
on Aug 5th, 2008
@ 2:30 am:
Dax,
Your statement that too often personal revelation is used as an excuse for bad scholarship is something I completely agree with. The strong association with Bast and Artemis is something that I would probably address if it were someone claiming to practice Hellenismos. This was the claim of Herodotus, but these theories had little to do with actual practice. Even if Bast is the Egyptian Artemis, Artemis is the best, most perfect representation of Artemis, and that is who we honor.
In the Gods,
Tim
Hellenic Polytheism Digest (August 2008) | Timothy Jay Alexander
on Sep 3rd, 2008
@ 12:03 pm:
[...] On Pseudo-intellectualism [...]