Ken Wilber, philosopher or fraud?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I’ve just been handed, as a gift, Ken Wilber’s THE HISTORY OF EVERYTHING, and told (by a friend of a friend very into spirituality) that this man is the greatest philosopher on earth and that I will love him. I read the first two chapter (or tried to–a lot of skimming) and I don’t really feel like slogging through it much further, but if anyone has a different take on this stuff, I’ll slog a bit more.

What do you think, philosopher or fraud? I googled him, and everyone who came up in the first 10 pages loves his ass. That could be admiration and it could be sycophancy.

2

I have the exact same gift, from my groovy Burning-Man attending sister-- this is the same sister who is really into Terrence McKenna, so I have no idea re: philosopher or fraud (could be both, of course. . .). I think I also slogged through a few pages and lost interest/ time and it’s been sitting unread on my shelf for, oh, 5 years now? Should probably have a look at it sometime.

3

Ken Wilber who also wrote Grace and Grit? That’s a good book about dying with grace and cancer. He wrote it with his wife.

The other book I’ve briefly glanced at, and ummm, nah, not my cup of tea.

4

The title I’m discussing is “a brief history of everything”–the part where he loses me (beginning of chapter 5) is where he says that rationality has reached its limits, as if it were merely a phase of development, these last few thousand years, and now we’re ready to move past that stuff and onto a truly spiritual mindset. Uh, how SHOWING me that we have moved past rationality? I didn’t get that memo.

ANyway, thius is all by way of saying that I don’t really enjoy philosophy much, though I’ve struggled with it in thenpast, mainly because I was assured by college teachers and various authors that Kant and Hegel and Socrates and that bunch were really talking about meaningful stuff, even in the parts I couldn’t understand too well. With this guy, all I’ve got is blurbs by people I haven’t heard of for that reassurance, so I have to make up my own mind. Or ask you folks.

I mean, I’d probably ask the same question, philosopher or fraud?, honestly, about Hegel, because he makes my head hurt just as much. More even. That doesn’t make me right.

5

Admittedly, I haven’t actually read any of Wilber’s works (heh–alliteration is fun!), but from glancing at his web page, it looks/sounds like he spews the same pseudo-intellectual/make-anything-up-just-as-long-as-it’s-vague-enough-to-sound-like-I-have-this-unique-connection-to-a-mystical-wonderland crap that Gary Zukav churns out in his “The Seat of the Soul” and “The Dancing Wu Li Masters” tragedies.

Maybe, instead of writing like astrologists and fortune cookies blather on about the future, these guys could actually define what they talk about. For example, when Wilber mentions “spiritual mindset” (as you said), does he actually give a concrete definition as to what he’s writing? Or does he use the Deepak Chopra-style of bull and just take it on assumption that you’ll agree with him simply because he made something up and then expounded on it? (Thereby effectively hinting that, hey, you’re confused and I’m not, so I must be right. And the expert.)

And if rationality has reached its limits (and the next stage is a true spiritual mindset–whatever that is), how could one even hope to write a book rationally explaining that next phenomenal stage of development? How could one even begin to understand it?

…or am I missing the boat here and being too critical? :stuck_out_tongue:

6

[First, let me me fix a couple of typos that are annoying me:

Uh, how about SHOWING me that we have moved past rationality? I didn’t get that memo.

Anyway, this is all by way of saying that I don’t really enjoy philosophy much, though I’ve struggled with it in the past,…]

How can we judge when someone is trying to intimidate people with fearsome-sounding bullshit, and when their profound thought is simply inexpressible in simple language? This is very hard for me to determine.

I’ve got several advanced degrees in English, have written several books (published by mainstream publishers), and usually have the confidence to judge this stuff. “If I can’t understand it,” I reason, “then by definition it’s incomprehensible”–but I recognize that as narcissistic, self-serving thinking, and there have been times when I pushed past that initial reaction (usually because I had to, for one reason or another) and learned something. But, as I noted above, I usually had the wisdom of the ages telling me, “Go on, this dense shit is good for you, and better minds than yours have gotten through it.”

There ARE frauds out there, though, seeking to take advantage of gullibility, and people’s willingness to seek out wisdom. Zukav is also popular with this crowd, and Chopra too. Are there rational people who find some genuine wisdom in the dross, or is this whole outlook simply an earmark of the gullible and easily intimidated?

Is there a scientist, for example, who finds enlightenment in Wilber’s “discovery” that patterns in certain artifical hierarchies parallel each other? This wisdom seems to me merely taking advantage of the “ontology recapitulates phylogeny” maxim. Where he discusses Derrida, a bit closer to my field, I notice he is careful to note the limits of deconstruction, with which Derrida would not agree, yet uses the parts that seem to bolster his thought. Where he discusses Hamlet, a lot closer to my field, he’s not saying much of anything remotely new to me. Now this could be that the further he gets from his own area of interest (and the closer he comes to mine), the less he knows and the more I know, but I’m wondering what people more interested in philosophy make of him, and those like him.

7

When it comes to persusaive–or just merely instructional–texts, I tend to ask myself whether:
[list=1]
[li]An author knows his audience;[/li][li]The writing is lucid;[/li][li]He uses an economy of words;[/li][li]He supports his claims with facts and cites[/li][/list=1]

My personal feeling is that, since you have a rather thorough background in English (which usually includes many, many hours of literature dissection), you’re experienced enough to understand Wilber’s concrete writings. My guess is that, if he’s anything like Zukav, it’s his vague, off-handed writings that confuse you. You’re looking for intellectual meaning and he’s churning out non-specifics that’d have Nostradamus saluting in awe.

There’s a difference between “dense shit” (:)) and disinegenious; I feel Zukav, James Redfield, and others of their ilk fall into the latter category. They seem to eschew facts in favor of unsupported conjecture. It’s easy for them to respond to criticism of their vague ramblings with “Sure, it can mean that. And this, this, this, that and that, too.”

For better understanding, though, I say if one is really interested in gleaming the intentions of a writer, one should look to the writer’s critics. I think the critics (whether they be wrong or right) may provide a different view that could help you better understand the original text.

As for: “Where he discusses Derrida, a bit closer to my field, I notice he is careful to note the limits of deconstruction, with which Derrida would not agree, yet uses the parts that seem to bolster his thought.”

I do think you point out a common practice of these charlatans, which is to pick and choose from science (or other disciplines), buffet-style, to give their silliness some level of credence. They’re wrong to do so, but their supporters either don’t notice or don’t care about that intellectual fraud and dishonesty, and the writers sell enough books to make a profit, so why should they stop?

Personally, philosophy-wise, I think they’re wannabes (or, worse, pretenders in the game just for the money). I’m happier with Aquinas, Russell, Hobbes, Socrates, Kant and Nietzsche (and, of course, others). I’m not saying I agree with them, but they do prove to be a better class of thinkers. YMMV. :wink: