Talk:Doctrines of Meister Eckhart

Eckhart and phenomenology
Toward the end of the current discussion of Eckhart's psychology, Eckhart's distinction between "the agent of the soul which enables one to see" and "the agent by which one knows that he sees" is likened to the distinction between the natural attitude and reflective understanding. This is a mistake. The agent of the soul which enables one to see is like Heidegger's authenticity, which is disclosed after quite a path of thinking that brings one to the heart of oneself, so to speak---a late stage in spiritual growth, Eckhart might say. It's analogous to a sense of deep self, whereas, to the contrary, the natural attitude is like proximal self, before any thoughtful growth. (Indeed, Heidegger's distinction in Being and Time between proximal concern and primordial care is the kind of distinction that Eckhart has in mind.) Deep self or authenticity is not anything like the beginning point that the pre-reflective natural attitude is in taking up phenomenological inquiry. The Husserlian analogue--well, there really isn't one, since existential issues came very late to Husserl's life, in the Crisis lectures, but---the Husserlian analogue would be the transcendental ego of The Formal and Transcendental Logic. I don't expect a reader here to accept this view, but rather to look further into the matter. You'll come to recognize that the enabling, though given, can't be known as such (as the enabling) except in light of a great deal of reflective learning. The writer of the "Doctrines" article presently has the point exactly backwards: It's only after a long path into reflective thinking that the distinction between the enabling as such and representation of it ("...one knows that...") can be appreciated. The best modern sense of this is indeed Heidegger's. After all, Heidegger was influenced by Eckhart early in his career, before writing Being and Time. Gedavis (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Eckhardt and the Gnostics
What a genius Eckhardt was. Has anyone ever written a comparative study of Eckhardt, Boehme and some the doctrines of the Christian Gnostics? Would be fascinating.


 * Eckhart's Christian heresy differed from the Christian Gnostics who believed in a good god and a bad god. Eckhart was a pantheist who equated everything with the Christian God including a flea.--71.108.27.247 (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

that is a user's *opinion* right above this comment.Makeswell (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be major conflicts in meaning under the 'sin and redemption' section, first saying that sin is the infinite then that sin is the finite. please edit this as i doubt this reflects Eckhart's intention.Makeswell (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material
This article was as a WP:SPLIT from  of Meister Eckhart. That article had content added, for example, without attribution. The text clearly has references copied from somewhere but does not attribute the source. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC), modified 17:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Doctrines of Meister Eckhart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517201543/http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/CH310/CH310_T_34.html to http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/CH310/CH310_T_34.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/eckhart/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)