I would say that abandoning the idea that reason is something that all men can grasp is a kind of nihilism; if different groups have different kinds of reason...Voegelin is not saying that different groups have different kinds of reason. He is presenting an argument in which what he calls a "Second Reality," an outgrowth of scientific materialism, has, in effect, substituted reductionism for a "noetic" apperception of reality. You may disagree with the argument if you like, but you cannot claim that it is nihilism, i.e., the viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless.
Sophistical argumentation, i.e., the clever manipulation, for ultimately deceitful purposes, of the facts contained in the subject under discussion, couldn't more inaccurately describe Voegelin, a man who is ernest to a fault.
BB has ably outlined the progression of his thought in post #163, which, I believe, was addressed to you.
Voegelin is a very difficult philosopher. You won't get any argument from me on that score. But to dismiss out-of-hand so serious a thinker, on the basis of a brief encounter, is itself an act of sophistry.
Excerpts from V. that began this thread:
"The universe of rational discourse collapses, we may say, when the common ground of existence in reality has disappeared."
"'Debate' in this form is hardly a matter of reasoning (though it remains one of the Intellect), but rather of the analysis of existence preceding rational constructions; it is medical in character in that it has to diagnose the syndromes of untrue existence and by their noetic structure to initiate, if possible, a healing process."
I don't think my accusations contra V. are unfounded. You want to water down what he is saying so that it is palatable. But the man appears to be saying something stronger. If he is not, he is only saying the obvious--that people who have radically different assumptions from me will tend to reach very different conclusions. As for BB's excellent and useful summary, see my reply at post 170. I have no difficulty struggling with difficult philosophers--I have been trying for years to make sense of Hegel. But when someone appears to be a fraud, I won't be shy to say so. I could be wrong; I haven't read anything by V. but what BB has brought to attention and what I read on a website. If I am, show me what deep thoughts this allegedly great philosopher had. (Unless you take the position that all the good stuff is secret, because of the esoteric/exoteric distinction that the Straussians like to go off on; I've always been suspicious of that position.)