LOA and Shifting In Philosophy
My last post about what I found when researching the philosophies present in shifting did pretty well by my standards, so I'm back with some more of my findings, wrapped up in a bow as neatly as I can make it for your consumption.
I have a proposition that if you explain what shifting is to a stranger, but you only use philosophical terms like the ones below and never call it shifting, you'll be met with so much more tolerance. Wild.
What is shifting in philosophy?
My last post was studying specifically philosophers and writers like Neville Goddard, the father of the Law of Assumption (everyone say thank you Neville!), and his specific kind of philosophy is called New Thought philosophy. So, if you ever want to talk about shifting to your friends without outing yourself, call yourself a 'New Thought' philosopher and you'll be in the clear.
New Thought philosophy is a religious ideology that seeks to assert that God is not one omnipotent, external and separate entity. Instead, 'God' as we know it is a force present in all people (thus making all people capable of the divine, making religion less imbalanced), and we can use our divinity to create our own reality through our mind, or our imagination. Because this was the philosophy of Neville Goddard, it was the first place I looked, and there are plenty of New Thought writers out there whose ideas, surprise surprise, are almost verbatim the exact same as those held by shifters.
More on that in my other post.
However, what I found after looking a little deeper was that there are plenty of philosophies that share the same premise as shifting, and if you explain them to other people, they'd probably think them interesting and coherent instead of delusional and insane.
Idealism
New Thought philosophy and Idealism have a lot in common, and some people consider New Thought to be a branch, or a subsection of, Idealism itself. However, this isn't entirely true. Idealism is the opposite of Materialism, which is the belief that everything that exists must exist physically or as 'matter'. Materialism is compatible with science, and it rejects the existence of anything that cannot be measured by 'matter', such as a soul, or God, or the metaphysical.
Idealism is the opposite belief: the belief that everything that exists is not physical, or external to the mind, but because of the mind, and that reality is mental.
Still with me?
Idealism and New Thought are near identical: they both propose that the world as we know it is not some physical entity outside of our control, but within our control and existing because of our thoughts and our minds, but with one key difference: Idealism rejects materialism in any sense, meaning that nothing exists unless we perceive it, ergo if we stop perceiving it, it must not exist. No thing that exists exists so physically, only mentally, and of our own perceptions.
New Thought writing instead allows for things to exist physically as well as mentally: our thoughts will things into existence in the physical world; the same physical world that does not exist according to idealism.
Shifters can be idealists or New Thought philosophers, though New Thought philosophy is inherently religious, as both are reduced down to the same key fact: your reality can be anything you want it to be so long as you can think it up.
The more specific term for idealists who see reality as a product of the mind are Ontological Idealists, from Ontological, meaning 'relating to the nature of existence or being'. Thus, ontological idealism is the belief that the nature of existence is formed from ideas, from our minds.
That's truly all shifting is: shaping our reality to something more preferred via thoughts or imagination.
Esotericism
Finally, shifting can also be defined as esoteric philosophy. Esotericism, while itself elusive in definition, refers to knowledge only suited for a small circle of the world, usually because it defies the cultural norms (or hegemony) of the time. Esoteric knowledge is hidden and unusual, and is often rejected by the masses for being too radical or not relying on empiricism (scientific proofs, that which can be proven to be certain using evidence). Examples of esotericism are the New Age movement, spirituality, astrology, witchcraft, etc.
I don't think I need to explain how this applies to shifting. You're smart, you'll get it.
Final word
So, there are plenty of ways for shifters to define themselves according to philosophy.
Are you a shifter, or are you an esoteric-Ontological-idealist-New-Thought philosopher?
All this to say, the ideas in this community aren't new or revolutionary by any means: they've been said before, in hundreds of ways, by hundreds of people.
And there's beauty in that!
It means that you're not alone, for one, but it also means that if you change a few of the words to sound fancy, then people start to take you a lot more seriously. Are idealists and New Thought writers also criticised for their beliefs? Of course they are, but they aren't being harrassed online and called delusional, because their opinions are a philosophy, whereas ours are apparently a collective neurosis.
Sorry for this super long ramble-y post, but this is a huge topic and you seemed to get a kick out of the last one, so I went all out lolz.
This is so messy and cringe in that unique Tumblr way but it's late and this is a lot of words so I hope it was someone sensical to someone. Thank you for reading and goodnight <33