Is there a real historical basis in any form of European mysticism for "arcane magic" that isn't connected to religion...

Is there a real historical basis in any form of European mysticism for "arcane magic" that isn't connected to religion in some way?

Nope. All came from the idea that wizards wore pointy hats. No particular reason given as to why.

None at all.

My guess is that it came from the fact that magic was often considered something of a scholarly pursuit, even a "science" of sorts, and since our culture likes to set up science and religion as a dichotomy, it seemed to historically-illiterate 20th century folks as though this scholarly magic must be entirely distinct from religion.

In reality, it was religious as all get out, with loads of shit to do with angels, demons, and sundry other spirits. Maybe not orthodox, but certainly religious.

The arcane/divine split was an arbitrary creation of OD&D.

Basically, magic was originally split between "good" (healing and blessing) and "bad" (cursing and harming) magic, and was largely based on pagan superstition and folk knowledge.

After considering the matter, the idea became clear that both good and bad magic did not originate from God, so that meant that they must come from the only other source (the Devil), and so both were considered evil. All magic was condemned, regardless of whether it was "good" or "bad".

From there, we have an interesting mix, where the split between Religious power and Magical power took on the differences between "good" and "bad" magic, with Divine power taking on the attributes of "good" and Arcane power taking on the attributes of "bad", to a certain degree.

Go read up on Hermeticism and alchemy, user. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Here's your fedora, faggot.

>Is there a real historical basis in any form of European mysticism for "arcane magic" that isn't connected to religion in some way?
Historically, there wasn't a difference between "arcane magic" and religious magic, all magic was religious. And this isn't just Europe, but all human cultures.

It took the enlightenment to even make "secular magic" a concept.

>Go read up on Hermeticism and alchemy, user. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Hermeticism and alchemy were both super religious. What are you talking about, user?

And arcane magic comes from the God/Goddess of Magic.

Go read yourself some Anthropology, son.
The Golden Bough is a great starting point.

It is pretty much debunked 50 years ago.

No real-world mysticism isn't connected to religion unless it was created with the intent of being considered to be fictional (D&D and stuff).

What did it say that got debunked?

Google tells me that disagreeing with the author is practically an established sub-field of Anthropology.

Odin and Väinamöinen wore pointy hats and both are likely the basis for the modern interpretation of wizards.

Only Protestants believe magic is a thing though.

Im fairly sure the Orthodox believe magic is a thing and condemn it and necromancy.

>What is Kabbalah...
>What are the yogic powers

Although to be fair, yogis don't consider what they can do to be magic if I understand correctly. That shit still is though.

No.

>2016
>Suggesting The Golden Bough
user, don't want to break it for you, but that book was outdated since fucking 30s. And that was 80 years ago. Anthropology made a massive move forward since late 19th century even till WW2. And then it made another jump in late 60s. And another in early 80s.
In short, you are suggesting a book that is roughtly three "generations" of anthropology behind.
Want a comparison? You just suggested a coal-fired steamer as the fastest way of travel.

>Even mentioning any book about Anthropology written before WW1
What are you? British or some other barely educated moron? Next thing you will say James Mill was a great scholar and researcher.

>British or some other barely educated moron?
>my sides
Well, they did just vote for Brexit at the behest of fucking Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson who is most certainly an orangutan.

Not exactly my point, but Brits has this nasty tendency to still consider as valid and serious things written by their "most esteemed authors and scholars" of the Victorian period, without any critique whatsoever, usually in line of "b-but those are classic on the subject!"

>without any critique whatsoever
well so far there hasn't been any critique in here, only futile attempts at giving modern anthropologists some modicum of usefulness

...

Why there should be any critique in here, if the book is widely acclaimed by fucking academic circles as outdated, racist piece of scholastic bullshit with zero grounding outside the cabinet in which Frazer wrote it?
Seriously, why this book was even brought to this thread at all, aside actively going for a shitstorm?

Okay, everybody shitting on this book and not saying why. From what I can read up on it, it seems like a neat book.

It pretty much paints everything with Christian references in really extreme way and shoehornes a LOT of completely different religions and believes into the same mold based on arbitrary decisions by Frazer, who constantly proves he barely understands any religion at all, including his own.

Let's put it like this:
As academic book it's fucking horrible and it was written as such, still remember the torture of reading it.
As a fanfiction about religions and non-scientific inspirational material it's indeed a neat, if you don't mind having everything being hilariously inaccurate.

Well, since that's Veeky Forums's opinion on it, it must be a great academic resource in reality. I must read it.

Nope, Odin's hat is only mentioned to be wide brimmed. The "pointy" part came from the alchemists and wisemen of Southern Europe, who themselves based them on the regalia of members of Greco-Roman mystery cults, who based them on the hats of Persian magi, who may have based them on the hats of Mesopotamian priests.

ITT: Yes, the idea of magic came from religious philosophy, spiritual exploration and the misinterpretation of the above by lay and religious peoples who really had no business doing so. also The Golden Bough a shit apparently

>Anthropology book written in 1890
If you are /pol/tard, you are going to love it. Because nobody normal nor sane can take it since about 50s.

>Veeky Forums's opinion

Oh. Oh no. I'll be on guard.

Eh. We're all assholes here anyway, and I've had too many experiences of liking a thing everyone here hates to take too many references seriously.

It has nothing to do with liking and hating. It's a really, really outdated book that can't be simply treated as academic discourse at this point. You can read it, I'm not saying no to that, but not as a textbook. If you need a comparison, it's like you were reading Ptolemy's treaties about crystal spheres and geocentric theory as a textbook - that's how outdated it is.
But if you treat is only as a piece of literature, with zero academic value - pretty decent read, aside wooden language

Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification. I gots some readin to do.

It is in the same boat as Freudian psychology, a relatively interesting starting point for the discipline that has since become so outdated and unscientific as to be completely useless in modern discourse and the subject of mockery in film and literature.

It is also painfully boring.

If you want a better and many times more readable introduction to Anthropology containing many ideas and methods that still hold up today and are foundational to many anthropological practices Argonauts of the Western Pacific will serve you well.

Freudian psychology, or at least modernised version of it, at least still has some field. Frazer is simply a footnote in history.