Talk:Ecstasy (philosophy)

Philosophy: Aesthetics / Metaphysics Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics
	Metaphysics

Thanks for this article and the new link from disambiguation page! I continued separating the different meanings, replacing material about other meanings with wiki-references to them. Hele 7 19:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if the near-to-usual meaning should remain also here, I changed order of paragraphs to mention more widely known meanings first. Also removed the words "of our comportment in the world" as unclear. Hele 7 11:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've instead put a disambiguation link at the top. It didn't sound good starting with the word "concomitant," when there was not already a usage explained. The widely known meanings (ie, dictionary usage, etc.) I leave to the "emotion" article. Being in a trance and "out of touch" with ordinary life is very far from how it is used nowadays in philosophy. --Lucaas 14:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "In contrast to this philosophic usage there is also a form of religious ecstasy of plotinus"... Plotinus does not use this term in contrast to philosophic usage [1]. On the contrary, his use of the term has influenced its use in philosophy. And also please fix this time yourself your typo in the word "ecstasy" ("In fact this form of ecastasy,...") as you reverted my fix. Hele 7 16:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this: "In fact thow we are in being-in-the-the world," - it is unclear and the link is pointing to non-existing article, most probably there are just typos to fix. I do not agree with labelling ecstasy of Plotinus as "religious" (given the polytheistic religion of his time, applied to which the term "religious ecstasy" would mean being possessed by e.g. Apollo or Dionysos) and contrasting this to philosophy. His Enneads are certainly more philosophy than religion, and his rational-to-contemplative-to-ecstatic way of soul towards One does not need gods. The identification of his panentheistic One with God of the Bible was introduced after his death by Christian neoplatonists. His texts suggest that knowledge about existence of the One is rationally deduced from phenomenal world and subsequent succesful practice of contemplation and ecstasy confirms the theory. Of cource we cannot be sure that the theory is not written backwards, i.e. to explain his ecstatic experiences, but even this would introduce no other religion than his personal beliefs. His ecstatic experiences could well be "in deep level" similar to those of e.g. Christian saints; what differs is the "envelope" of local setting, techniques and especially interpretation - which is precisely the thing that makes difference between religious and non-religious ecstasy. Hele 7 09:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup requests

If you tag an article for cleanup, please use its talk page to explain the problem. Hele 7 15:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-work This Section

This is quite a messy block of text:

"This understanding of enstasis giving way to the example of the use of the "ecstasy" as that one can be "outside of oneself" with time; In temporalizing, each of the following: the past (the 'having-been'), the future (the 'not-yet') and the present (the 'making-present') are the "outside of itself" of each other."

Perhaps replace with:

The understanding of ecstasis as "being outside oneself" can be demonstrated by discussing time. The past ('having-been'), the future ('not-yet') and the present ('making-present') are the "outside of itself" of each other." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.25.213 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]