Béla Hamvas has 50 books on Goodreads with ratings. Béla Hamvas’s most popular book is The Philosophy Of Wine. Béla Hamvas was born in 23 March in Eperjes (Prešov). His father, József Hamvas was an evangelical pastor, teacher of German and Hungarian, journali. The Philosophy Of Wine has ratings and 17 reviews. John said: An absolutely charming little book by Hamvas, who was a student of René Guénon and Juli.
|Published (Last):||21 January 2008|
|PDF File Size:||14.53 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.10 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. The Philosophy of Wine. I decided to write a prayer book for the atheists. In the distress of our time, I felt sympathy for the sufferers and wanted to help them in this way. I chose wine as the most important name. Hence the title of the book, The Philosophy of Wine, and hence its motto: Circumstances lead me to resort to trickery. Atheists, it is well known, are lamentably haughty people.
When one touches their obsession, they get belz a fury. I think that if I speak of food, drink, tobacco, and love, if I use enigmatic names, then they can be duped. For, besides being conceited, they are, to the same extent, stupid. For example, they altogether ignore this kind of prayer.
They think that one can pray only in a church or by murmuring priestly words. Atheists are our poor in spirit. They are the most needy children of our time. They are poor in spirit but the difference is that they have hardly any hope for the kingdom of heaven. I consider this method completely unacceptable.
Since they are crippled, they must be approached with beal will. Not only should persuasion be avoided but they should not even notice what is happening to them.
They should be regarded as retarded children, even as mentally weak, although they hold their mental faculties in high esteem and think that atheism is a sort of perfect knowledge.
Béla Hamvas: The Philosophy of Wine | Gabor Csepregi –
Why were they fought against in the past? What is this compensation? It is excessive activity. Thus, atheism necessarily led to violence and, since it led to it, atheists had to secure supremacy over the world. Indeed, they secured it. Actually, those who fought against them were envious of them.
In my opinion, that was a mis- take. When the atheists saw themselves being envied, they became presumptuous.
I have changed tactics. I only needed to reinstate the truth. The truth is that there is nothing to envy in them. What can I envy in the cripple even if he is so po- werful? What can I envy in those who are lame, deaf, idiotic, and half-witted?
If I was envious of them, this would mean that I ad- mit that they are right; I would create the impression that I desire what they possess.
And this is not merely a trick. I do not want to take anything away from them. I would like to offer something else whose absence would render them quite weak, poor, and — why to deny bla Incidentally, there were other reasons behind those numerous disputes.
Indeed, most people thought that atheists were irreligious.
Of course, this is out of the question. There are no irreligious people. In fact, they do not only believe in it.
They are all bigots. So I say that all of them are, since I have never met an atheist who is not more bigoted than that bad smelling old lady who, on Sundays, in front of the church, sells cheap booklets published on the subject of the miracle-making urine of Saint Homunculus. Of course, the patron- saint of atheistic religion is not Saint Homunculus, but Einstein, and the miracle-making power is not urine, but antiseptics.
The name of atheistic bigotry is materialism. This religion contains three dogmas: All three can be summed up by simply saying that atheists are terribly afraid of God. They know only the angry God: They hamvqs that by saying that God does not exist, they will cease to be afraid.
Instead, of course, they are even more afraid. He prefers to remain in his fear, which he denies. Bels trembles and hides himself and tells lies and becomes increasingly haughty.
From such a disconsolate hotchpotch, in which denial, fear, lying, hamvsa, haughtiness, and bigotry are boiling together, emerges the religious surrogate of materialism. From this it clearly follows that atheists not only cannot, but also must not, be persuaded by force. They are wayward people, full of worries and self-delusions, and one must handle them with considerable care. Fortunately, the soul is not like the body. If someone is born maimed, deaf, or, during his life becomes crippled, no human power belq change that.
The realm of the soul is different.
Béla Hamvas – Julia and Peter Sherwood
Everyone is born with a wholesome soul and no one can ever lose this health. This does not even need a miracle. A prayer book for the atheists? Namely one that does not even allow them to notice that it teaches them to pray.
It is a great thing. Therefore, as Nietzsche says, one must speak only in this manner: One must speak wickedly and cunningly, almost with malicious cleverness and, at the same time, with pure heart, serenity, and simplicity, like a songbird.
Pietism is nothing else but atheism in disguise. Actually, the pietist is just as godless as the materialist; but, beyond that, he also has a bad consciousness that prompts him to adopt the externals of true religion. The pietist would demand that one live on bran and water; he would like to see the most beautiful women wearing badly cut dresses, he would forbid laughter, and cover the sun with a black veil. The pietist is an abstainer.
Well, he should calm down. He will hear something even more daring. I promise that I will have special consideration for him and miss no occasion to scandalize him to the most serious extent. One should spare the atheist because he is stupid and ignorant and nar- row and simple-minded. The pietist cannot expect any indulgence.
He should know that I will be watching him from the corner of my eye and the more that he puts on a solemn face, the more I will laugh at him. The more he will express his indignation, the more I will enjoy myself and I will not even tell him why.
It is not only my goal, but also my ambition, in this part, to lay down the foundation of all future philosophy of wine. Just as Kant sets forth the pivotal thoughts of all subsequent philosophies, which we may accept or counter but never evade and consider as unsaid.
In the same manner, I wish, in this part, to expound the universally valid and timeless ideas of the metaphysics of wine. However, the word remains hidden. It is no- where in the title. It is a constraint that I cannot avoid since atheists are even mistrustful of philosophy, although this is the highest term that they are still able to accept.
Metaphysics offends their bigotry to such an extent that, for example, they would never have dared to open a book that I had titled The Metaphysics of Wine. The sec- ond one speaks of wine as nature.
As to its character, this part is descriptive. The third part deals with the art of wine ceremony. This part inquires about when we should drink and when we should not drink. How should we drink? Where should we drink? With a man or a woman? It speaks of the relation- ship between wine and work, wine and walk, wine and bath, wine and sleep, wine and love.
It contains some rules indicating what kind of wine is appropriate for certain hamavs, how much is needed, with what kind of food, where to drink it and in what sort of com- bination. This part does not pretend at all to be exhaustive.
It merely wishes to point out the boundless richness hamvss drinking possibilities and calls upon everyone, even now, to keep adding to the teachings of wine ceremony with ever new chapters. Such a triple division is in complete harmony with belx three main ages of the world history of wine.
The meaning corresponding to the metaphysical part is the antediluvian age, during which humanity did not yet know wine, only dreamt about it. The third era begins with the transformation of water into wine, and presently we live in this era.