19 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauder1. From the 19th century on, yes.
To recap, according to LH:
1) Enlightenment figures who read Bruno and regarded him as a kindred thinker were wrong;
2) Those modern historians who believe that Bruno was a forerunner of the Enlightenment are also wrong.
2. I didn't say that. Those modern historians (Yates, Kristeller) who believe that Bruno was a "forerunner" of the Enlightenment believe that the Enlightenment itself was born of (pardon the expression) un-enlightened movements like Hermeticism. Surely you've heard of how modern experimental science originated from the efforts of mediaeval alchemists to find the mythical Philosopher's Stone? Well, this is the academic version of the same theory.
19 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's why I suggested you read Yates's book yourself. She spends four chapters explaining the various features and origins of Hermeticism (including all the magic and astrology) and then another four chapters explaining how Bruno saw himself as a Magus in this tradition. Since you like to have things presented to you on a platter, I chose the one instance where astrology was mentioned explicitly and cannot be mistaken for anything else.
That's it?????? I see no reason to read into such an obscure reference such a meaning in light of Singer's express statement to the contrary.
As you like to say, TRY AGAIN.
If you want me to reproduce every detailed argument from a 400-page book in this thread, then I'm sorry - just get the book yourself. I've provided sufficient evidence to show that this is considered a seminal work in the field that is widely accepted even today.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour whole argument against Bruno's over-hyping due to his execution could also be said about Christ. I'm sure there you would agree that those executions have symbolic values that magnify the importance of both men and their impact.
what do you think would've happened if, like Nicholas of Cusa, Digges and others, Bruno was not executed?)
Why shouldn't it be so?
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerMagic? Maybe the magic of cognizant thought :
No - I mean 'mysticism' in the traditional sense (meditation, awareness, spirituality etc.). In Bruno's case, you can throw in a healthy dose of magic as well.
Since you bring it up, your point about Singer writing after Yates's views were expressed can be countered simply - according to the bio you posted, Singer herself was going around lecturing ...[text shortened]... to Digges. Do you think these philosophers are as well-known as Bruno? Why or why not?
"Behold in the candle borne by this Chandler, to whom I give birth, that which shall clarify certain shadows of ideas ... I need not instruct you of my belief. Time gives all and takes all away; everything changes but nothing perishes. One only is immutable, eternal and ever endures, one and the same with itself. With this philosophy my spirit grows, my mind expands. Whereof, however obscure the night may be, I await the daybreak, and they who dwell in day look for night ... Rejoice therefore, and keep whole, if you can, and return love for love." Bruno
"Everything, however men may deem it assured and evident, proves, when it is brought under discussion to be no less doubtful than are extravagant and absurd beliefs." Bruno
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by PalynkaFirst, as a general rule why it shouldn't be so: Let's suppose that, instead of Bruno and Christ, we were talking about a scientist who was put to death (say, Galileo - although Galileo wasn't put to death). Do you think the personal circumstances of a scientist's life should be a factor in evaluating his science (in Galileo's case, say, his work on SHM and g)?
Your whole argument against Bruno's over-hyping due to his execution could also be said about Christ. I'm sure there you would agree that those executions have symbolic values that magnify the importance of both men and their impact.
Why shouldn't it be so?
Second, the difference between Christ and Bruno is that, in Christ's case, His death was His message (broadly speaking). The Christ of the Gospels was a person who came into the world to die. As Bp. Fulton Sheen once put it, Christ lived His entire life backwards - everything He did leading to the events of the Triduum.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThank you, thank you.
LH has rather clearly won the "pitiful theist" contest. Congratulations.
I'd like to thank the Academy, my parents, all my family and friends, all the people on this forum (theist and atheist) and, above all, God.
Fortunately for you, starting a "pitiful atheist" thread is antithetical to my principles.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerOf course. If he was put to death due to defending his work, it gives it a symbolic value that overpasses its scientific value. Both him and his work would be symbols against obscurantism and that has also a (perhaps even greater) merit in itself.
First, as a general rule why it shouldn't be so: Let's suppose that, instead of Bruno and Christ, we were talking about a scientist who was put to death (say, Galileo - although Galileo wasn't put to death). Do you think the personal circumstances of a scientist's life should be a factor in evaluating his science (in Galileo's case, say, his wo ...[text shortened]... lived His entire life backwards - everything He did leading to the events of the Triduum.
The fact that he became a reference for the Enlightment is no surprise. After all, he was killed by obscurantists.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by HalitoseI have nothing against the concept of a God in general. Don't particulary care for the one created by the ancient Hebrews, however.
[b]I am not an atheist and thus would be ineligible.
More's the pity, as you have all the makings of a great one – er.. anti-theist, that is. 😲[/b]