Gnosticism and Nihilism
I always perk up when I see a reference to what I study in something in the news. I just came across this in the New York Times Book Review section:
Mr. Guterson’s hero is a decidedly more troubled character. He’s a proselytizer who is obsessed with Gnosticism and the evils of the material world, an outsider who talks about suicide and chants: “No escape from the unhappiness machine ... No escape from the unhappiness machine. ...”
(from Michiko Kakutani's review at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/books/24kaku.html?em&ex=1214452800&en=b689e399d0f0a8e6&ei=5087)
This reminds me a bit of Detective Walenski in the film Dark City: a madman who thinks he sees the whole truth of things. Both characters have the wrong end of Gnosticism.
Most religions don't knock on one's door to proclaim the Bad News. (Or if they do, it's to tell you how to avoid the ghastly plight they depict.) Gnosticism was a religion about the way out of the problems and traps in envisioned; so are most religions. An ancient Gnostic might have withdraw from society, the way Mr. Guterson's character does, or have gone around wild-eyed proclaiming the Truth, as Det. Walensi does, but there the similarities end.
(I don't blame Ms. Kakutani for drawing the comparison, the idea that Gnosticism was despairing or nihilistic is part of our literary culture and one has to read a long, careful way in ancient texts to dispel that idea. Since these texts are not full of joyful paeans to the created world one has to live with them a while to sort out how Gnostics felt about being alive.)
It was popular fifty years ago to link Gnosticism to Existentialism. Modern scholars have stopped looking for any philosophical parallels past the 4th century C.E.: ancient Gnosticism was highly dependent on the supernatural and it did not elevate the individual as the focus of meaning. The point of Gnosticism was that the each person needed to be taught esoteric knowledge, often about the geography of the heavens and the beings inhabiting, it along with elaborate cosmological histories, so the soul would know its way back to God. Some ancient Gnostics did think they were a better class of human being: but ancient texts show they thought of themselves not as supermen but as people with a rigorous, dangerous and individual spiritual path before them.
Perhaps one of the most enjoyable things about studying religion is finding out how a lived religion works. Many religions with joyful theologies turn out dour adherents and many dour theologies turn out joyful adherents. Religions may ignore imposed obligations in daily life or treat what look to outsiders like limitations as reasons to celebrate. A religion's sacred texts and a précis of their method of worship must be sat with, carefully before developing a set idea of what a religion is (or was) like in the world.
-Kushana
Mr. Guterson’s hero is a decidedly more troubled character. He’s a proselytizer who is obsessed with Gnosticism and the evils of the material world, an outsider who talks about suicide and chants: “No escape from the unhappiness machine ... No escape from the unhappiness machine. ...”
(from Michiko Kakutani's review at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/books/24kaku.html?em&ex=1214452800&en=b689e399d0f0a8e6&ei=5087)This reminds me a bit of Detective Walenski in the film Dark City: a madman who thinks he sees the whole truth of things. Both characters have the wrong end of Gnosticism.
Most religions don't knock on one's door to proclaim the Bad News. (Or if they do, it's to tell you how to avoid the ghastly plight they depict.) Gnosticism was a religion about the way out of the problems and traps in envisioned; so are most religions. An ancient Gnostic might have withdraw from society, the way Mr. Guterson's character does, or have gone around wild-eyed proclaiming the Truth, as Det. Walensi does, but there the similarities end.
(I don't blame Ms. Kakutani for drawing the comparison, the idea that Gnosticism was despairing or nihilistic is part of our literary culture and one has to read a long, careful way in ancient texts to dispel that idea. Since these texts are not full of joyful paeans to the created world one has to live with them a while to sort out how Gnostics felt about being alive.)
It was popular fifty years ago to link Gnosticism to Existentialism. Modern scholars have stopped looking for any philosophical parallels past the 4th century C.E.: ancient Gnosticism was highly dependent on the supernatural and it did not elevate the individual as the focus of meaning. The point of Gnosticism was that the each person needed to be taught esoteric knowledge, often about the geography of the heavens and the beings inhabiting, it along with elaborate cosmological histories, so the soul would know its way back to God. Some ancient Gnostics did think they were a better class of human being: but ancient texts show they thought of themselves not as supermen but as people with a rigorous, dangerous and individual spiritual path before them.
Perhaps one of the most enjoyable things about studying religion is finding out how a lived religion works. Many religions with joyful theologies turn out dour adherents and many dour theologies turn out joyful adherents. Religions may ignore imposed obligations in daily life or treat what look to outsiders like limitations as reasons to celebrate. A religion's sacred texts and a précis of their method of worship must be sat with, carefully before developing a set idea of what a religion is (or was) like in the world.
-Kushana
Comments