Swedhuismos philosophy

**Swedhuismos philosophy** is the body of *ontis* (philosophy, world view, teaching) within the Swedhuismos religion.

## Overview

Swedhuismos philosophy is largely based on our relationship with the Gods. With the Ártus, which is the metaphysical predictable order. The Ártus is is the pattern of the cosmos, but not one that’s imposed from without. Instead it grows from the cosmos itself. The Etmṇ (Soul) is the source of Gnōtis (knowledge). Through Gnōtis, comes the Swā́rtus (morality, personal law, and the conscience). The next principle after the Swā́rtus, comes Swédhwos (logic, in the plural swédhwōs, ethics).

## Order, Chaos, and the Ártus

Order and disorder operate in a reciprocal manner. The world tree, it's branches form a pattern which is the Ártus. The tree rose up through a flaming well to feed it. The tree is the cosmos itself, establishing the natural order of things, while the water surrounding the tree is disorder.

Notice a number of things. First, the pattern forms itself out of the growth of the tree itself – as the cosmos grows, and actions and things arise and are added to the cosmos, the pattern of the branches changes. The Ártus therefore arises from the cosmos, rather than from outside it.

Note as well that although the cosmos grows the Ártus, the Ártus has an affect on the cosmos. The growth of the tree is not completely free; branches can’t grow from anywhere, and they can’t grow in any way they wish. It may be said that the Ártus impels but does not compel.

We form our lives within the organizing Ártus, and then our lives, like all things that happen in the cosmos, are fed into the Ártus. The things we do, as they pass away, and eventually we ourselves, also fall into the waters of chaos. Eventually, however, like the water from the well, all that we have given to chaos returns to cosmos, transformed first in the waters, and then by the tree. Like the tree, we have been fed by chaos, and we then feed chaos in turn.

In both the ghosti-principle and the functioning of the Ártus, we see the working of the central ideology of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, that of reciprocity. This is at the root of our relationship with other people
 and with the gods, and at the nature of the cosmos. It is impossible to understand PIE religion without understanding reciprocity.

Contemplation of the nature of Ártus and it's union with the cosmos is done through *kintētis* "meditation." It involves repetitive, and rhythmic chants. An example is this chant by Ceisiwr Serith:

*“Here I am. Here I stand. Here, with the Ártus about me. The Ártus pours itself into me. The Ártus fills me. The Ártus feeds me. I live through the Ártus. I live the Ártus. May I truly live the Ártus. So be it.”*

### Act of gift-giving

In Proto-Indo-European philosophy, gift-giving is a sacred act, called *didōtis* "act of giving." If you give a gift, you are expected to give a gift back. This symbolizes our reciprocal relationship the the gods, and the virtue or hospitality.

## Characteristics

admənismós (ritualism)
peludhēismós (polytheistic theology),
weidesālismós (idealism)
analytic philosophy
metaphysics
epistemology
linguistics,
philosophy of language
philology
philosophy of religion
theurgy
 Concepts
sṃdhetis, Swā́rtus (conscience, personal law),
Yewesā́ (ritual laws),
ghóstis (hospitality, guest),
áros (host), Étmṇ (soul),

## Imperishable Fame

Imperishable fame (Indo-European: *ḱléwos ṇdhchitóm*) is the concept of achieving a memorable reputation after one's death, the medium of which conveys glory. In Proto-Indo-European times, this was achieved by kings, warriors, and especially the poets (*cṛdhōs* "ones who praise"). The only hope of an Indo-European individual after death was to achieve imperishable fame, and ultimately become a legend through the mouths of the living. This is the most important thing an Indo-European can do, as it is more important than life itself.

As Bruce Lincoln notes, "In a universe where impersonal matter endured forever but the personal self was extinguished at death, the most which could survive of that self was a rumor, a reputation. For this, the person craving immortality—a condition proper only to the gods and antithetical to human existence—was totally reliant on poets and poetry."

"Peḱu mṛiyontoi, aryōs mṛiyontoi, tewom iwe mṛísyesoi: Mō oinām weqtis neqom mṛíyetoi gnōskō. Ḱlewóm mṛtós məgnosyo."

"Cattle die, kinsmen die, you too shall also die: But I know one thing that never dies. The glory of the great dead."

## On the Gods

The different gods and goddesses are representations of forces of nature. Swedhuismos is materialistic, for example: to call the earth Dhéǵhōm Mātḗr, sky Dyēus Pətḗr, or wind Wentós.The Gods typically conceptualize as a supernatural or divine concept manifesting in various ideas and knowledge, in a form that combines excellence in some aspects, wrestling with weakness and questions in other aspects, heroic in their outlook and actions, yet tied up with emotions and desires. The Gods are not almighty, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent nor eternal.

The gods are not omnipotent, because if a god curses someone for impiety, another god cannot undo such curse. The gods also abide by *sortis* (fate), no one escapes fate. As such they are also not omniscient, for even Sāwḷ Herself does not posses infinite wisdom. A god that is omnibenevolent contradicts the evil and suffering that exists in the world, and a god cannot be evil since it contradicts the good in the world. Therefore, gods are neither good nor evil. Evil as well as good, along with suffering is caused by human free will.

The Gods exist as independent individual beings. They have Their own thoughts, needs and desires, personalities, likes and dislikes, priorities and interests. Their interests may conflict with our interests at times, as Their interests are not always going to be aligned with our interests. What is best for Them may not always be the best for us.

### Arguments for polytheism

Polytheism is more functional as a different deity means a different approach on life, and thus you may not have a guarantee of favor with all of the Gods. You might be brilliant in economic ventures under Mercury but you might find yourself poor at martial skills due to not having the blessings of Mars.

Polytheism best accounts for religious experience by abductive reasoning, as the polytheist explanation is less ad hoc and has more explanatory and predictability power. Monotheism has no weight due to it claiming other Gods do not exist or are merely demons and thus needs special bargaining due to its atheistic tendencies. A polytheist using the theory of pragmatic truth can see all religious experience as true, since proper polytheists believe in an infinite amount of Gods and do not deny divinity, and are thus able to accept all religious experience.

You don't need to expect any kind of consistency from the supernatural if you have a pantheon of gods. The Problem of Evil is not a problem for monotheism if you have a bad god, or a capricious god. But if the god is an agency, and a god cannot be anything else by definition. You'd expect it to have some kind of goal or guiding principle with respect to its behavior and therefore some kind of consistency in its behavior even if its hard to discern. But with multiple gods there is no such requirement. Looking at how reality operates, polytheism better fits the natural world that we live in than it being the work of a singular deity.

## On the Elements

*Main article: The Elements*

In classical thought, the four elements earth, water, air, and fire as proposed by Empedocles frequently occur; Aristotle added a fifth element, aether; it has been called akasha in India and quintessence in Europe.

The concept of the five elements formed a basis of analysis in both Hinduism and Buddhism. In Hinduism, particularly in an esoteric
 context, the four states-of-matter describe matter, and a fifth element
 describes that which was beyond the material world. Similar lists
existed in ancient China, Korea and Japan.
 In Buddhism the four great elements, to which two others are sometimes
added, are not viewed as substances, but as categories of sensory experience.

In Indo-European thought, the elements (skólōs, plural of skōlos) are *āps* (water), *dhéǵhōm* (earth), *egnis* (fire), *ausḗr* (air), and *ǵhā́nos* (akasha, space, quintessence). They are seen as the substances of all existence.

## References

http://ceisiwrserith.com/pier/whatwasreligion.htm

https://heliosthedemiurge.tumblr.com/post/160830902695/against-the-monotheist-occams-razor