 | This is an archive of past discussions about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Help needed
I'm going on the biographical notice for P. Teilhard de Chardin. But, I'm trying to translate few quotations from Teilhard's letters to include them in the biographical notice.
And it's too difficult for me alone.
Somebody to help ? Many thanks in advance 143.126.201.200
What is paludism disease? What is souffrance? -- Zoe
- paludisme = malaria, souffrance = suffering, pain, torment. I'll translate them in the article, but if there's another established translation for the book in which Souffrance is used, please correct it. -- Someone else 07:54 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
- This may be the book that was translated into English as "On Suffering" but I'm not sure. Also, does anyone know if Steven J. Gould's suggestion that Teilhard de Chardin was the "Piltdown man" hoaxer has been proven or dismissed? (I suspect the latter), and if so, is it important enough to mention? -- Someone else 08:02 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
The words "where his scientific and philosophical thought was revealed just as his mystical life" do not make sense. Was this sentence translated from French or something? I can't correct it because I can't even guess what it means.
Will the original author please fix "just as his mystical life"? Does it mean "just as his mystical life ended"? or "just as his mystical life began"? or something else? Readers should not have to play guessing games.
Patrick0Moran 04:41, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Your comment is not very practical. This article was written quite a while ago, and mostly by IP. So, there is very little chance that he will ever correct his sentence.
Second, it is obvious to me, he is not english, most likely french. French people are allowed to write in this encyclopedia. If what they write is unclear, you may try to find yourself what was meant and rephrase it, or if don't, just remove it.
Now, I looked in google for just a couple of french words "la vie cosmique vie mystique" and I found this page first hand http://www.mnhn.fr/teilhard/Vie1.htm
The article clearly was a translation of that web page.
Here is the original passage
Tout au long de ces années de guerre il développe ses réflexions dans son Journal et ses lettres à sa cousine, Marguerite Teillard-Chambon, qui les réunira dans un livre : Genèse d'une pensée. Il confiera plus tard : "la guerre a été une rencontre...avec l'Absolu". En 1916, il écrit son premier essai : La vie cosmique où se dévoile sa pensée scientifique et philosophique de même que sa vie mystique. Il prononce ses voeux solennels de jésuite à Sainte Foy-les-Lyon, le 26 mai 1918, pendant une permission. En août 1919, à Jersey, il écrira la Puissance spirituelle de la Matière. L'ensemble de ses essais écrits entre 1916 et 1919 sont publiés sous les titres suivants :
- "Ecrits du temps de la Guerre" (TXII des Oeuvres complètes) - Editions du Seuil
- "Genèse d'une pensée" (lettres de 1914 à 1918) - Editions Grasset - Les Cahiers rouges
This web page is from a public site. MNHN is Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle of Jussieu University.
"La vie cosmique" où se dévoile sa pensée scientifique et philosophique de même que sa vie mystique.
- the sentence means this book was written has God was revealed itself to him (or at least when he realised God was very important); 2 years later, he will become a jesuite. At the same time, de Chardin explains his philosophical position, scientific research and religious beliefs.
is that clearer ?
Anthère 06:28, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)~ (PS : I am not the original author)
Teilhard's philosophy
This page doesn't detail much about Teilhard de Chardin's philosophy and important arguments about the role of consciousness in evolution. If nobody minds, I will add it to the article some time. Brianshapiro
It is obvious and clear from his own writings that Teilhard de Chardin was either a pantheist or that he believed in a form of cosmotheism.
(cur) (last) . . 20:26, 29 Mar 2004 . . David Gerard (- Vogelspam (I really doubt Teilhard de Chardin was a white separatist))
That is your own POV opinion. However, Cosmotheism is related to Teilhard de Chardin's ideas and ideals, and whether he was a white separatist or not.
Maybe everyone here should be calling your ignorant POV edits and biased POV reverts "Gerardspam"?
- To place a link to "Cosmotheism" wherever their might be some tenuous association TRULY is SPAM.
I agree, whenever the association is actually "tenuous", which it isn't in this specific case with cosmotheism, whatsoever.
- The Cosmotheism sites seem to promote particular forms of pantheistic attitudes and ideas, yet to declare all people who might have ideas that could be described as Pantheistic as "Cosmotheists" is likely declaring all Christians as ultimately "Roman Catholic".
That is a false analogy, as the terms "pantheistic" and "cosmotheistic" are synomonous, whereas, the two terms "Christian" and "Roman Catholic" are not.
A correct analogy would be to declare that those that held "Roman Catholic" attitudes and ideas are "Christians", which is both accurate and proper.
- Though some Roman Catholics might have the arrogance to declare that is the case, treating a sectarian faction as if it were the ultimate manifestation of a particular set of ideas, is definitely a skewed POV. - MOBY 16:56, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That is not the case with "Cosmotheism", whatsoever. Cosmotheism is Pantheism, and either/or terms are closely related to Chardin's own beliefs, hence the link to cosmotheism, and thus, this is NOT SPAM, David Gerard! PV
- Cosmotheism, as it is being advocated, is NOT synonymous with pantheism. "Cosmotheism is a religion which positively asserts that there is a internal purpose in life and in cosmos, and there is an essential unity, or consciousness that binds all living beings and all of the inorganic cosmos, as one." This is a statement which evokes many interesting ideas… but the operative words here are "Cosmotheism is a religion" - Pantheism is NOT.
Cosmotheism is Pantheism, and they BOTH ARE Religious Worldviews, whether you "think so" or not. PV
- Religion in the sense it is usually used is a specific range of ideas, beliefs, and practices by which people form a common community of devotion and purposes.
That is only your own POV "definition", and the essential thing that makes both COSMOTHEISM=PANTHEISM and vice-versa is the specific belief that "GOD" is the WHOLE of COSMOS, itself! PV
- ALL definitions of ANYTHING must involve a POV, and your continually insistence that this particular form of pantheism is synonymous with pantheism, which is a term that can be applied to a wide range of ideas beyond this particular form, is MORE absurd than calling all Christians actually "Roman Catholics"… it is akin to calling all theists necessarily "Christians" it is a very strained and absurd definition. My own ideas tend to be pantheistic in many ways, and I actually think the term Cosmotheism is an interesting term with similar evocations, but the particular use of the term on the sites you are promoting can be equated to a particular sectarian faction of a much broader range of ideas. - Moby 22:04, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Pantheism is a range of ideas, some of which Cosmotheists might embrace, and others they might reject. The words Pantheism and Cosmotheism can perhaps in some respects be used synonymously… but that is NOT the case with the particular site, and many of the ideas you seem continually trying to promote.
Yes, just as in many other religions, there is a range of beliefs. But, the essential belief is that GOD is the WHOLE of COSMOS, itself. Many other ideas are related to this belief, and not the least of which is CONSCIOUS EVOLUTION, and this is related to our true Human purpose and place and meaning, within the COSMOS. PV
- A link on the page for cosmotheism, and perhaps one on Pantheism can be justified… but to put a link on the page of a person whose ideas might be somewhat similar in some respects, but to whom there are no particularly concrete links to this particular form of pantheism is truly straining for associations.
Not really. The essential belief is CONSCIOUS EVOLUTION, which Chardin shares more with COSMOTHEISTS, than with many so-called PANTHEISTS, actually, Social-Marxist Pan-Atheists. PV
- Please do not interlace your comments in other peoples, in further posts, it makes it very difficult for other people to discern who is speaking and who is not. This is a talk page, and no one likes their comments ammended in such a way as to easily seem to say something that they do not. - MOBY 20:47, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It is quite clear who or whom is actually speaking by the context. If you don't like it, don't speak with me. PV
(cur) (last) . . 21:10, 31 Mar 2004 . . David Gerard (rv (paul, why do you keep removing the French and German links?))
Have I removed any links? Not that I am aware of, David? PV
- It CAN be discerned by context, but it CAN be difficult to do so also, especially when you do not use the standard colons ":" at the start of a line to provide indents. And it is especially rude to break up what was a coherent paragraph into pieces that you try to refute, piece by piece, but with very deficient arguments. - Moby 22:04, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have not found it to be "difficult", at all, and it is quite "rude" and quite "hypocritical" for you to falsely allege that my valid "arguements" refuting your own "ignorance" are "very deficient", when in fact, only your own "arguements" here have been actually "very deficient".-PV
You saying TdC's ideas are a form of Cosmotheism, as described in that link, is like saying a devout Muslim's faith is a form of Christianity because both faiths believe in one God. This makes the Cosmotheism link inapplicable to TdC's thought --vfp15 03:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Another "false analogy", because both the devout Muslim's faith, and even the devout Christian's, are actually just later "forms" of Judaism and the Mosaic Distinction of a Personal GOD, YHWH, a GOD that also is totally above and that is totally beyond the rest of CREATION. Both TdC's ideals and Cosmotheism's are quite similar in that they BOTH do advocate Human CONSCIOUS EVOLUTION towards GODHOOD or towards the OMEGA POINT, which are most essentially the same thing.
-PV
Not a false analogy and not the same thing. First, Christianity and Islam might both be descended from Judaism, but all three are now quite different. Second, TdC doesn't claim man is evolving into Godhood; he claims man's evolution towards the Omega Point is God's purpose.
All three may now be quite different, but, all three are very closely related. Also, one man's OMEGA POINT is just another man's GODHOOD, and your prior analogy was indeed a false analogy. -PV
We are still his creation and separate. What we'll become at the Omega Point is an open question, and TdC has not stated it to be Cosmotheism. It's one of those esoteric mysteries like the Holy Trinity. That you think it's Cosmotheism doesn't mean TdC thought that. It's your POV, not a fact.
--vfp15 14:25, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
His creation? A GOD that is separate from Creation is the Mosaic Distinction, and that is what Judaism, Christianity, and is what Islam all do most have in common. TdC's belief in the Omega Point far more closely resembles Cosmotheism than it does any so-called "esoteric mystery" like the Judeo-Christian Holy Trinity.-PV
1) Within the set Catholic beliefs, yes, Man is God's creation. The process of creation is what TdC studied. As a result of his studies, he concluded (wrongly IMHO) that the process led eventually to something he called the Omega Point and that evolution was directed towards it by God's will. Never forget that TdC was a devout Catholic and sought to reconcile Catholicism with evolution, not to overturn it.
TdC obviously went far beyond "Catholic beliefs" and their "blind faith" belief in any "Mosaic Distinction", with the Omega Point being the natural endpoint of the evolution of Humanity towards GODHOOD, ie. it is COSMOTHEISM and CONSCIOUS EVOLUTION. Evolution did overturn both "Catholicism" and also the "Mosaic Distinction" as well. Get over it.-PV
2) The Holy Trinity is not JUDEO-Christian; it's just Christian (hey don't take my word for it, ask any rabbi) and only of subset of Christians at that (Catholic, Orthodox, and some protestant churches). --vfp15 01:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The roots of both Christianity and Islam do come from JUDAISM, and the "Mosaic Distinction" that had thereby falsely divided GOD from CREATION, instead of the prior UNITY of ANCIENT COSMOTHEISM that did recognize GOD and CREATION as only BEING just ONE and the SAME BEING, or thing. That is and was the point, that you missed yet again!-PV
A) Paul, would you please stop that all caps shouting?
B) You obviously have precise and intense beliefs, and please feel free to promote them using your own resources, but wikipedia is not a place to proselytize, it's a neutral venue.
C) The statement "Pierre Teilhard de Chardin believed the Omega Point is the end of universal evolution" may well be factual, but the OP itself is a concept and not a proven fact. Also, since TdC never explicitly stated anywhere that the OP was Cosmotheism, saying that he did is opinion, not fact. This opinion is not generally accepted, so it should not go into the TdC article.
--vfp15 00:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A response by Moby, David Gerard's Sock puppet?
"I try not to waste too much of my time dealing with extremely bigoted and obtuse fanatics of any persuasion, but occasionally there excesses will prompt me to some action, even if it is only to comment."
"Archaic and little known but valid definition: cosmotheism = pantheism. ACCEPTED."
That has already been factually cited as being true.-PV
Absurd and appallingly ill illogic:
cosmotheism + bigoted, "racialist", solipsistic nonsense = Cosmotheism, AND THUS cosmotheism = Cosmotheism, and THUS EQUALS the ultimate representative of all "True" pantheists, and is THUS justified in appropriating all manner of dignified and well heralded names of any philosopher or thinker past, present or future to its "Holy" cause.
"Absurd and appallingly ill illogic:", I could not agree more! LOL! :D That is really only MOBY's own "absurd and appallingly ill illogic", and not mine nor any true Cosmotheists' own reasoning. "Strawman arguement", MOBY.-PV
That it is plainly not the dominant view of all "right-thinking" individuals is only because of nefarious "ZOG" conspiracies, and the like.
LOL! :D There is always some TRUTH in such HUMOR! :D-PV
I AM ENLIGHTENED! My Holy Universe! How could I not see it before! PV has the ultimate POV of GOD! ALL HAIL his stupendous genius! — since I am not deranged I do not ever say such things save with wearied mockery.
Indeed. What could be more ENLIGHTENING than actually realizing that "GOD is the impersonal COSMOS and the COSMOS is a impersonal GOD"?-PV
Some people seem to have far more time to disrupt genuine progress in the world than to make any attempt at actually understanding it.
LOL! :D No arguement there!-PV
The catalog of great thinkers who were NOT "Cosmotheists" in the particular sense is an interesting and yet invalid appeal to claiming that everyone who doesn't embrace "Cosmotheism" is an incompetent moron, and the dupe of "Zionist" conspiracies.
"Absurd and appallingly ill illogic:", yet again! LOL! :D But, many that can't actually understand Cosmotheism are incompetent morons, and many that wouldn't embrace it, even if they weren't morons, are only either lacking in factual knowledge, personal integrity, intellectual honesty, or moral courage, and no more and no less. What else isn't new?-PV
Even with the wide range of nonsense that exists in the world, I don't think too many people are going to get hooked on PV's particular form of it. Thank the KOSMOS!
I do completely agree! True Cosmotheism only banishes the "drug" of those "hooked on SSEE delusions" of only those that have the real strength of character, or the actual personal integrity to uphold it.-PV
By the way PV, I'm not "David Gerard's" "sock-puppet", and to my remembrance I have not as yet had any form of dialog with him anywhere.
Sure, David Gerard, sure. You may as well as be, if not in fact. -PV
As in many other things you seem to be a bit overconfident in your assessments of what is likely, what is real, what is true, and what is rational.
Hardly. I do trust my own judgements. More often than not I am correct.-PV
I assert that despite my irritation at your obstinacy, and your being an insulter of most people's intelligence, and an accuser of anyone who disagrees with you of being pathologically narcissistic (try and see beyond yourself and actually think about that diagnosis a bit), in your being a nuisance to a lot of other people, I have no ill-will towards you, and truly hope you someday come to know the true joy of really understanding that not everyone in the world who is inclined to disagree with you on anything is a total idiot. ~ Moby 22:45, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
More Psychological projection, MOBY, but, I do harbor no real ill will towards anyone, personally, either. Unfortunately, most people that I have found that are "emotionally inclined" to "irrationally" disagree with me are only either quite "rationally-challenged" dogmatists and bigots, if not just total idiots, or they just lack any actual personal integrity. So be it.-PV
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
Cosmotheism
I had never heard of cosmotheism until I read this page. I was shocked to see Pierre Teilhard de Chardin linked to white separatists and decided to investigate further. There is not a single link that I could find when I googled +"Pierre Teilhard de Chardin" cosmotheist that referred to Teilhard being cosmotheist. It seems that the Church founded by Pierce seems to have hijacked that name. I can't see any added value in referring to Teilhard de Chardin as a cosmotheist than is already there when he is referred to as a pantheist. I will await comments but I propose removing the reference to cosmotheist in the article as it does not add any value and creates enormous confusion and controversy. --Peacenik 19:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
POV censors such as "David Gerard", and some few others, always are just pov reverting relevant links. See the article History page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin&action=history -PV