18 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderROFLMAO!
Talk about moving the goalposts! You originally cited a book supposedly written by Trapp and Yates regarding Bruno; I cannot find one. I did find a series of articles written by Yates in 1939 regarding Bruno in the Journal of the Warburg & Courtauld Institutes including the Religious Policy of Giordano Bruno in Vol III, no 3/4 October 1939 pp. 181-207. ( d that historians always completely agree with whatever point of view you are espousing).
How is your inability to do a simple Google search my fault?
Here, let me talk you through it:-
Google "trapp yates bruno".
The first link is:
http://www.bookrags.com/biography-yates-frances-amelia-eorl-14/index.html
Scroll down and you will see the title of the book I mentioned (I gave the full title of the book the very first time I mentioned it!):
Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, published in 1964 when she was in her mid-sixties, is—along with The Art of Memory of 1966—the book for which she is best known.
Hit "Back". Go to the second link:
http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=search&subjects=%22Bruno,%20Giordano--1548-1600%22&subjectsSearchType=1000
It has the Internet version of said book.
Although Trapp is listed as co-author for the book, he only wrote the Introduction, so some citation searches may not bring up his name.
EDIT: For a guy who seems to know my history grades, you don't really seem to know the basics of a literature survey.
And I'm "moving the goalposts"?! LOL!
I don't doubt some of the finer points of her conclusions (especially on the importance of Hermeticism in the origins of science) would have been questioned by many historians - but I have yet to encounter broad criticism of her view of Bruno's mysticism. In fact, modern historians tend to assert that magic and Kabbalah had a greater influence on Bruno than even Yates herself asserted!
EDIT: As to her theory being "1930s thought", so what? Last I checked, Relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty and Quantum Mechanics were all products of "1930s thought" (and before!)
18 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerGFY. When in this thread did you mention the title of the book? I didn't do a google I did a search from my MSN homepage. Quoting someone as a co-author when they merely wrote an Intro is absolutely incorrect; anyone who's done any scholarly writing would know that. You're a complete moron.
ROFLMAO!
How is your inability to do a simple Google search my fault?
Here, let me talk you through it:-
Google "trapp yates bruno".
The first link is:
http://www.bookrags.com/biography-yates-frances-amelia-eorl-14/index.html
Scroll down and you will see the title of the book I mentioned (I gave the full title of the book the very firs and Kabbalah had a greater influence on Bruno than even Yates herself asserted!
EDIT: I stand corrected; you mentioned the title with Trapp as co-author and a date of 2002. Nice work.
EDIT2: Here's the first link you get with "Trapp Yates Bruno" on MSN: http://ngsp.osu.edu/3416.cfm
18 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderQuoting someone as a co-author when they merely wrote an Intro is absolutely incorrect; anyone who's done any scholarly writing would know that.
GFY. When in this thread did you mention the title of the book? I didn't do a google I did a search from my MSN homepage. Quoting someone as a co-author when they merely wrote an Intro is absolutely incorrect; anyone who's done any scholarly writing would know that. You're a complete moron.
EDIT: I stand corrected; you mentioned the title with Trapp as co-author and a date of 2002. Nice work.
Actually, anyone who's done any scholarly writing would know that the MLA referencing system (the most commonly used standard) allows you to list such writers as co-authors.
But you're right - for clarity I should have just listed Yates as the author.
EDIT: Do you want a framed certificate for that as well?
18 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, a simple retraction of your claims that I engaged in some sloppy research because I couldn't find a book supposedly written by Trapp and Yates on an internet search is sufficient.
[b]Quoting someone as a co-author when they merely wrote an Intro is absolutely incorrect; anyone who's done any scholarly writing would know that.
Actually, anyone who's done any scholarly writing would know that the MLA referencing system (the most commonly used standard) allows you to list such writers as co-authors.
But you're right - fo ...[text shortened]... just listed Yates as the author.
EDIT: Do you want a framed certificate for that as well?[/b]
Your claim, BTW, is not merely that Bruno had some mystical and magical beliefs (as you do also) but that Bruno's entire philosophical contribution equals zero i.e. "Bruno is only a stick to beat the RCC with". How do you reconcile that view with Cassirer's comment or with the fact that Bruno was read and admired by Spinoza and Hegel? Or that Bruno's cosmology is now recognized as correct (and his comment about the observer being the center is practically Einsteinian)?
18 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNo - just trying to put them in their proper context.
Obviously to try to discredit the significance of Bruno's philosophical ideas.
Calling it "discrediting" his philosophy is rich coming from a guy who rejects Aquinas's philosophy for similar (and, IMO, less justified) reasons.
18 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou're just lying now. You've said Bruno's ideas have no significance at all. And I don't even know what ideas of Acquinas you're talking about; suffice to say I've never claimed that he made no contributions to philosophy like you've claimed of Bruno "Only a stick to beat the RCC with"đ.
No - just trying to put them in their proper context.
Calling it "discrediting" his philosophy is rich coming from a guy who rejects Aquinas's philosophy for similar (and, IMO, less justified) reasons.
18 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderHere's the second link:
EDIT2: Here's the first link you get with "Trapp Yates Bruno" on MSN: http://ngsp.osu.edu/3416.cfm
http://www.shoppaz.com/1975.php
The MSN Search Page actually lists the entire title of the book along with the publishing information as I originally cited. Your 1939 article comes later in the page.
Please don't accuse me of nitpicking ever again.
18 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerSince this entire tangent is nitpicking AGAIN (does it REALLY matter?) why wouldn't I?
Here's the second link:
http://www.shoppaz.com/1975.php
The MSN Search Page actually lists the entire title of the book along with the publishing information as I originally cited. Your 1939 article comes later in the page.
Please don't accuse me of nitpicking ever again.
I get this as a second link: www.yates.montana.com/catalogue.html. In fact on the first page there is only a blogspot mentioning Giordano Bruno. On the second page, second link is the Journal Article I already cited.
18 Apr 06
Giordano Bruno
a courageous, complex and admirable pioneer of free human thought!
A legacy a daring and profound thinker, who presented an inspiring vision which still remains relevant and significant for our modern scientific and philosophical framework.
http://www.dimaggio.org/Heroes/giordano_bruno_-_courageous_and_complex_person.htm
gil
18 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou want to talk about moving goalposts, no1? How about this:
Your claim, BTW, is not merely that Bruno had some mystical and magical beliefs (as you do also) but that Bruno's entire philosophical contribution equals zero i.e. "Bruno is only a stick to beat the RCC with". How do you reconcile that view with Cassirer's comment or with the fact that Bruno was read and admired by Spinoza and Hegel? Or that Bruno's cos ...[text shortened]... s correct (and his comment about the observer being the center is practically Einsteinian)?
Your claim, BTW, is not merely that Bruno had some mystical and magical beliefs (as you do also) but that Bruno's entire philosophical contribution equals zero
There's your MO again - putting your words into my writing. This is just the old strawman fallacy.
I never said his entire philosophical contribution equals "zero". It's certainly not up there with Plato and Aristotle. Nor even Spinoza and Hegel. For that matter, more philosophers (including Bruno himself) have been influenced by Nicholas of Cusa, or Paracelsus - but how many people who are not graduate students of philosophy or history hear about them?
Regarding, Cassirer's comment - I've already cited how Cassirer is applying a modern rationalistic reading to what was essentially an esoteric, mystical passage.
As for Hegel and Jacobi - it's not surprising that two Enlightenment philosophers would admire Bruno for being a prophet considering they're thinking of the same martyr-of-science-and-progress hagiography that you're thinking about. Spinoza is the only philosopher who actually employs philosophical concepts by Bruno in his work (his Shorter Treatise, to be precise) - but even then it's debatable how much influence Bruno had on his actual philosophical ideas. For instance, Spinoza was involved with monistic schools of thought in Judaism from a relatively young age - it's exceedingly unlikely a reading of Bruno caused him to convert.
Or that Bruno's cosmology is now recognized as correct (and his comment about the observer being the center is practically Einsteinian)?
So what? Augustine was practically Einsteinian with his "What is Time?" comment.
Bruno's cosmology was similar to the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic model in one key respect - the structure of physical reality reflected the spiritual and metaphysical order of things.
18 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI quoted your words, nitwit and I'll do it again:
You want to talk about moving goalposts, no1? How about this:
[b]Your claim, BTW, is not merely that Bruno had some mystical and magical beliefs (as you do also) but that Bruno's entire philosophical contribution equals zero
There's your MO again - putting your words into my writing. This is just the old strawman fallacy.
I never said hi re of physical reality reflected the spiritual and metaphysical order of things.[/b]
Bruno's just a stick to beat the RCC with.
So you were wrong as usual and now you're trying to deny the logical import of your statement. Typical and laughable.
BTW, Bruno's cosmology was pretty much the polar opposite of Aristotle's "imperfect terrestial" realm and "perfect heavenly" realm. In fact, Aristotle's conception mirrors Gnostic thought while Bruno, who you claim derived his though from Gnostics (or some such rot), says that the universe is made of the same "stuff" throughout. Yet another shallow, ignorant reading from a shallow, ignorant man.
18 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderDon't you think it takes some mental gymnastics to conclude that he had no philosophical impact/capability whatsoever from the above statement? Aren't you dealing a little too much in absolutes here (yeah, I know, self contradictory)?
Bruno's just a stick to beat the RCC with.