You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Spengler distinguishes between an Apollonian, a Magical, and a Faustian view of the world. For our purposes, a distinction between the magical and the religious period that goes beyond the magical, will suffice. Just what is it that distinguishes the one from the other? I believe that it is the appearance of the transcendent in human thought.
Magical thinking knows nothing of transcendence. In the beginning, primitive man does not sense any difference at all between subject and object. Later, to be sure, he objectifies the external world, but he himself is on the same footing with it. Even in the most highly developed magical cults, the basic principle remains the possibility of coercing the godhead. On the other hand, it is a characteristic of the metaphysical transcendental religions that they give up any thought of compulsion, and the godhead is implicitly looked upon as something different, as something higher, something transcendental. To be sure: Traces of magical compulsion still cling to religions down to our own times. Probably best known is the Old Testament line: “I will not leave you until you give me your blessing.” But, in our times it happens, in periods of drought, that the patron saint who is held responsible is punished by being deprived of his splendid garments, is even set outdoors, exposed to the parching sun, until the desired change in the weather takes place (Golden Bough, 75).
We find a great many other factors in our present-day highly metaphysical religions which clearly point to their magical origin. It would lead us too far to enumerate them. In any case, we see a direct transition from magical fertility cults to metaphysical transcendental religions. That is why we must attempt, beginning with the origins of magic, to gain a clear