The Edicts of the Illuminati: Proofs of a Conspiracy...pp. 49

We are backtracking a bit in this post because of artistic decisions. Last post I had to conclude with the dissolution of the Illuminati by the Bavarian government (not the Vatican as Dan Brown would have it). The post skipped over why that happened. As we stated the Illuminati and all other secret societies had been banned by the monarch because of pamphlets that had been passed around questioning the need for a monarchy. The edict was never really enforced and the Lodge Theodore, the Masonic lodge passing out the documents, continued to operate. Then, in 1783 four professors of the Marianen Academy confessed to being members of the Illuminati and exposed some of the secrets of the group.

A couple of things right now. The first is that the group of professors making the confession worked for the widow of the previous Elector of Bavaria. The Elector had been trying to snuff out the secret societies for a bit but was unable to find legal justification to do so. Then four professors working at the academy that was founded by the widow of the previous one suddenly have the evidence needed? My Spidey-sense tingles at the possibility that they may be lying. 

However, I cannot prove any of this which means I have a suspicion without evidence. The reason I have no evidence is that researching the historical Illuminati is very difficult. It is not because the group existed 250 years ago, but because there is so much bullshit surrounding them that to sift through it is nearly impossible. This means that I am going to have to proceed by trusting that these four professors actually were members and that what follows is accurate. 

The first confession I covered last post: that the order denied the truth of Christianity (abjured in Robison's writing). I cannot speak to the truth of it, however, knowing what I know, it would be difficult to be a faithful Christian and a member of the Illuminati. Weishaupt himself was a fan of the Greek Epicurean philosophy and they promote Deism more than anything else. The official doctrine of the Illuminati would probably be that Christianity is not the true religion. I'm sure that this confession turned some heads and clucked some tongues back in 18th-century Bavarian social circles. 

Sensual pleasures were restored to the rank they held in the Epicurean philosophy.

This is the sentence that made me want to wait. Epicureanism as a philosophy has been so divorced from the philosophy of Epicurus that it is now something that I would call "an ironic eponym." Epicureanism is literally the opposite that Epicurus preached. For the Epicureans, "pleasure" meant the absence of pain. So a sensual pleasure would be the physical state of not being in pain. Epicurus in his letter to Menoeceus discusses that the pleasures of the table, sex, and fancy goods were not to be sought after. However, because Epicurus put the state of "Ataraxia" as the highest good--a state defined as calmness of mind and body; even beyond that of the gods Christian philosophers in the 3rd and 4th centuries who either didn't understand or willfully ignored the Epicurean "pleasure" called them hedonists. The hedonism accusation stuck until, ironically, the 18th century when the enlightenment rediscovered the doctrines. However, it didn't last, and because the word "pleasure" has such a common use it is very difficult to follow Epicurean philosophy without having to say, "but what they meant was..." 

Self-murder was justified on Stoical principles. In the Lodges death was declared an eternal sleep;...

The Stoic school is weird. On the one hand, they are hard determinists, e.g. no free will. What happens in the physical world is determined by the natural circumstances that came before it. On the other hand, the mind is still kind of free because souls are immaterial. What this means, philosophically, is that the moral responsibility for actions depends on whether or not you can accept the hand that fate has dealt you. The two most famous adherents of the Stoic school of thought are the Emperor of Rome, Marcus Aurelius, and the slave Epictetus. We have to consider the appeal of a philosophy that can attract both the very top of society and the very bottom equally. It's easy to understand how Marcus Aurelius could accept the hand of fate-he's the Emperor of Rome but to understand how a Roman slave would also accept it is a bit more difficult. 

What the Stoic school taught was that if the person could not reconcile their mind with their situation, they have the moral permission to end their life. In fact, it may be a moral duty, but that would be a matter of philosophical dispute. Both Aurelius and Epictetus use the metaphor of smoke claiming that if the room gets too smokey, then you should leave the room. If your mind is clouded by regret, rage, or any other irrational thoughts of the world, then leave it lest it becomes more poisoned by irrationality.

While the Stoic and Epicurean schools disagree on much, they do agree that death is just the absence of life. The only difference is that the Stoic school had a reincarnation and eternal rebirth of the universe. So death was temporary but your life was going to be exactly the same when the eternal cycle repeated itself. Stoicism had a heavy influence on early Christian theology. We have to remember that Christianity is a Jewish heresy that had very little in the way of doctrine and they had to borrow. They adapted much of Stoicism because it taught powerlessness in the face of destiny. The early Christians just changed it to "god" and then removed the suicide part. 

Patriotism and loyalty were called narrow-minded prejudices, and incompatible with universal benevolence

We've moved past my expertise, and are now just declaring the alleged doctrines of the Illuminati. I agree with this one. Patriotism is basically a vice in our modern world. I love my country, but that love is conditional. I also recognize that this is an accident of birth as well. Robison is using "loyalty" in a specific sense here. He doesn't mean a general loyalty but loyalty to the monarch. And yes, this does influence how one views people from other political boundaries in a bad way. 

Continual declamations were made on liberty and equality as the unalienable rights of man.

I've basically covered this part. The Illuminated didn't believe that, by birth, anyone was better than anyone else. This is enlightenment thinking.

The baneful influence of accumulated property was declared an insurmountable obstacle to the happiness of any nation whose chief laws were framed for its protection and increase.

This means, I assume, that the Illuminati read Adam Smith. They are railing against, not capitalism, but the economic system of mercantilism--which is kind of indiscernible from the kind of capitalism that is practiced now with a few notable exceptions that concern political systems and is a bit outside of my purpose here. 

The "confessions" end with a strange condemnation of the consequentialist practices that the Illuminati adopted because it worked for their opponents. I have no idea what this means because Robison is very vague with this report. There is a brief claim that the Illuminati members all spied on each other but this is quickly dismissed (which I then question why it was added at all). 

Here is my issue: if you look at the italicized sentences above, where is the evil? Where is the dark motive that modern conspiracists are so afraid of? The suicide claim is a debatable position but there is nothing more here than a position that perhaps people are equal and we should help each other. That's the confession that so offended the Elector that officially disbanded all secret societies while directly abolishing the Illuminati. 

The Illuminati are much scarier in myth than in reality, but the dangerous idea of democracy it seemed, couldn't be tolerated. This led to the discovery, by the public that Adam Weishaupt was the leader of the group. We will discuss this revelation next week.