16 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThere's quite a difference between talking about magic, astrology and the Kabbalah and believing in them. The argument that Bruno believed in astrology is just plain weird; Bruno's cosmology was far more advanced than the medieval and pre-medieval ones accepted in the 16th century (spheres of heaven and all that rot).
You're calling me "petty"?? You're the guy who cannot go a single post without a pointless, juvenile insult.
I never denied Bruno was talking about the divine indwelling spirit. However, he was also talking about magic, about astrology and about Kabbalah. In fact, his whole infinite universe-infinite worlds piece was based on that mystical/magical ...[text shortened]... doctrine and Bruno's views "retarded"?
EDIT: By the way, have you read Spinoza?
I say you're speaking in a retarded manner because rather than actually reading and understanding what he wrote, you are childishly trying to label it as something else and then scoff at it. I did not realize that people who believed in all-powerful invisible deities had such a low regard for mystical beliefs. Nor was I aware that those who believe in someone walking on water or making fig trees wither thought that magic was nonsense. Your reaction to someone who's philosophical beliefs differ from the dogma you have been spoon fed is quite revealing.
16 Apr 06
Perhaps (as Bayle thought) Spinoza read Bruno. He accepted Giordano's distinction between natura naturans and natura naturata; he may have taken term and idea from Bruno's conato de conservarsi; (182-Jewish Encyclopedia,XI, 517) he may have found in the Italian the unity of body and mind, of matter and spirit, of world and G-D, and the conception of the highest knowledge as that which sees all things in G-D—though the German mystics must have spread that view even into commercial Amsterdam.
http://www.yesselman.com/Columbia.htm
17 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThrough Quantum Theory and Group Theory with it's advanced mathematics, like Lie algebras , along with high energy physics , we might be able to prove, to a reasonable degree of certainty, Bruno's intuitions about the nature of things.
Perhaps (as Bayle thought) Spinoza read Bruno. He accepted Giordano's distinction between natura naturans and natura naturata; he may have taken term and idea from Bruno's conato de conservarsi; (182-Jewish Encyclopedia,XI, 517) he may have found in the Italian the unity of body and mind, of matter and spirit, of world and G-D, and the conception of the ...[text shortened]... ave spread that view even into commercial Amsterdam.
http://www.yesselman.com/Columbia.htm
The holy Joes might be right about there being a "God", however it won't be anything like what they envision.
18 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderPlease.
Your tiresome whines about anti-Catholic bias every time someone points out the fallacies of your "arguments" are your main MO in this forum.
Every time a historian asserts something that runs contrary to your black & white big-bad-Church vs. poor-little-Enlightenment-martyr theory, you accuse him or her of parotting Church propaganda. Half the time, I need to remind you that the historian in question isn't Catholic (and, in some cases, not even Christian)! You've rejected the views of historians purely on the basis that the article was published in what you call an "RCC rag". In fact, you've rejected historians simply for holding a teaching post at a Catholic university (even if they're highly regarded by their peers at secular universities).
And this is before you come up with any so-called fallacies.
You want to claim that's not bias?
Johnston's off-hand comment was part of his/her character assassination of Galileo, an attack on the victim. No historian or historical record supports his specious claim.
His point about pamphlets was no more off-hand than many of the other factual assertions in that article. You accuse him of "character assassination" - I gave you references of historian after historian who agree with his points about Galileo's character.
As for historical records, as I said before, just because they don't exist on the Internet doesn't mean they don't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I withdrew the claim because I couldn't find direct corroborating evidence that would satisfy your ridiculous standards of demanding primary evidence for each and every assertion (that runs contrary to your position - I see you have no problems citing experts without demanding "historical documents" when it is your position being supported).
Your research techniques leave quite a bit to be desired; you were trying to suggest that Galileo was never threatened with torture when it is directly stated in Church documents that he was.
As I said before, do you want a certificate for my past factual errors? At least I have the guts to admit when I get something wrong. If someone proves me wrong, I don't call them an "insufferable snotnose" for it.
For a guy who points out "fallacies", here's a fallacy for you - that I got a couple of facts wrong in the past does not mean I'm getting them wrong now. That might work with a jury - but it doesn't work in logic.
18 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat makes you think you need "spheres of heaven" to believe in astrology? Read Bruno's works - it's amply clear the man did believe in astrology, magic and various other mystical practices.
There's quite a difference between talking about magic, astrology and the Kabbalah and believing in them. The argument that Bruno believed in astrology is just plain weird; Bruno's cosmology was far more advanced than the medieval and pre-medieval ones accepted in the 16th century (spheres of heaven and all that rot).
The real question is - why does it bother you so much? So Bruno was a superstitious philosopher whose so-called "visionary ideas" derived more from his mysticism and belief in magic than they did from actual astronomy (if at all). Does it make the crime of the Inquisition in executing him any less heinous? Of course not.
I think the reason it bothers you is this - if Bruno was just another superstitious lout (okay - smarter than most) who got burnt by yet another bunch of superstitious louts because his superstitions did not match theirs, then he's not exactly Enlightenment pin-up material, is he? Not exactly the soul of rationality, is he? Not exactly a martyr for science and progress, is he?
I say you're speaking in a retarded manner because rather than actually reading and understanding what he wrote, you are childishly trying to label it as something else and then scoff at it. I did not realize that people who believed in all-powerful invisible deities had such a low regard for mystical beliefs. Nor was I aware that those who believe in someone walking on water or making fig trees wither thought that magic was nonsense. Your reaction to someone who's philosophical beliefs differ from the dogma you have been spoon fed is quite revealing.
You're projecting your own reactions on to me. LOL
I never called Bruno's ideas "nonsense" - I simply pointed out what they were.
I didn't "scoff" at his ideas - I simply pointed out that you were using double-standards when praising Bruno's ideas while scoffing at RCC doctrine.
If anyone here has an a priori problem with Bruno's ideas (the historical Bruno - not the Enlightenment hagiography) - it's you.
EDIT: As I said in an earlier post, froggy and I seem to be the only people here actually willing to accept Bruno for who he really was.
18 Apr 06
From Yates, p.225:
The English ambassador in Paris, Henry Cobham, warned the ever watchful Francis Walsingham, in a despatch dated March, 1583, of Bruno's impending arrival: “Doctor Jordano Bruno Nolano, a professor in philosophy, intends to pass into England, whose religion I cannot commend.” Note that it is Bruno's religion, not his philosophy, which the ambassador feels that he cannot commend-perhaps an understatement.
If the reader feels somewhat aghast at the state of mind of a noted philosopher of the Renaissance as revealed in this chapter, and is inclined to agree rather strongly with the ambassador, I cannot blame him. But if we want the truth about the history of thought, we must omit nothing. Giordano Bruno, Hermetic magician of a most extreme type, is now about to pass into England to expound his “new philosophy”.
18 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe fact that you constantly make factual errors that you then have to admit to means "Your research techniques leave quite a bit to be desired", which is what I claimed. Surely the sloppiness of your prior efforts is relevant to your equally sloppy claims being made now.
Please.
Every time a historian asserts something that runs contrary to your black & white big-bad-Church vs. poor-little-Enlightenment-martyr theory, you accuse him or her of parotting Church propaganda. [b]Half the time, I need to remind you that the historian in question isn't Catholic (and, in some cases, not even Christian)! You've rejecte wrong now. That might work with a jury - but it doesn't work in logic.[/b]
Johnston was not a historian, though you initially claimed he/she was until I corrected you (something that is becoming my second full-time job). You tend to "cherry pick" "historians" based on their references in Catholic magazines. As was pointed out in the Galileo thread, most historians, even the ones you cited, didn't agree with your extreme Catholic apologist position at all; you choose to pour into their words the meaning you so desperately sought. Of course, when that was pointed out you simply "shifted the goalposts". BTW, the more absurd a claim, the more evidence that is required to support it. Johnston's claim that Galileo was having pamphets passed out in Churches "throughout Europe" is manifestly ridiculous. That is why you can't find any support for it even in the vast anti-Galileo literature you have at your disposal. You should simply concede the point rather than pretending you believe that it is true; that is either A) Dishonest or B) Wishful thinking on your part. Neither are hallmarks of critical intellectual thought.
I find your description of Bruno disgusting. You obviously refuse to even bother to try to understand his philosophy at all. You dig up a semi-critical text written in the 1930's as your primary source material and ignore the many major figures who considered Bruno as an important thinker (lightweights like Spinoza and Hegel). You failed to respond to my points about your own mystical and magical beliefs; what a surprise.
In short, my pointing out that you constantly get facts wrong and parrot RCC propaganda is simple truth, not "anti-Catholic bias". And you continue to do so though now you have shifted from one victim of your murdering, medieval saints to another (did Bellermaine deserve to be made a saint? Does having a man burnt to death for disbelieving in your theology merit sainthood?). You have a great future in Holocaust denial.
18 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerMost of your posts regarding Bruno are simply nonsense; "his cosmology is based on Gnostic philosophy"?? Could you please cite to the Gnostic who believed in a infinite universe consisting of infinite worlds?
What makes you think you need "spheres of heaven" to believe in astrology? Read Bruno's works - it's amply clear the man did believe in astrology, magic and various other mystical practices.
The real question is - why does it bother you so much? So Bruno was a superstitious philosopher whose so-called "visionary ideas" derived more from his mystici the only people here actually willing to accept Bruno for who he really was.
You are deliberately refusing to even support any of your claims regarding Bruno with references to his own writings instead relying on vague, general claims. Your one citation of a Bruno work showed only that he thought that "thinkers" of his day who rejected the philosophies of ancient cultures a priori were engaged in sloppy thinking. I believe most reasonably educated people of this day would agree with Bruno on that. You've shown nothing that would label Bruno the things you claim; you are obviously simply parroting RCC propaganda about him. Please actually try to support your claims in some way then by vague paragraphs written by Bruno's detractors in the 1500's, the 1930's or even today in Catholic newspapers.
18 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderCould you please cite to the Gnostic who believed in a infinite universe consisting of infinite worlds?
Most of your posts regarding Bruno are simply nonsense; "his cosmology is based on Gnostic philosophy"?? Could you please cite to the Gnostic who believed in a infinite universe consisting of infinite worlds?
You are deliberately refusing to even support any of your claims regarding Bruno with references to his own writings instead relying on va ...[text shortened]... en by Bruno's detractors in the 1500's, the 1930's or even today in Catholic newspapers.
Far be it from me to ingratiate myself into your guys' love, er, I mean slugfest, but here's a little snippet from an online encyclopedia:
"It would be more accurate to characterise the Gnostic relationship with matter as one taut with ambivalence; their views are an attempt to explain and clarify the divine's relationship with the imperfect universe, and to create a contextual basis for the individual Gnostic's feeling of alienation within that universe."
Given the gnostic drive to explain the perfect's ability to relate to the imperfect and yet remain uncompromised, this cosmological view is completely consistent with the foundational gnostic views, if not resting on direct precedence.
18 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMy understanding is that most Gnostics regarded matter and this universe in particular as imperfect creations of a lesser deity than the perfect God. Bruno's ideas of a vast, infinite and in some sense perfect universe seems completely contradictory to basic Gnostic beliefs.
[b]Could you please cite to the Gnostic who believed in a infinite universe consisting of infinite worlds?
Far be it from me to ingratiate myself into your guys' love, er, I mean slugfest, but here's a little snippet from an online encyclopedia:
"It would be more accurate to characterise the Gnostic relationship with matter as one taut with ambival tely consistent with the foundational gnostic views, if not resting on direct precedence.[/b]
18 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe fact that you constantly make factual errors that you then have to admit to means "Your research techniques leave quite a bit to be desired", which is what I claimed. Surely the sloppiness of your prior efforts is relevant to your equally sloppy claims being made now.
The fact that you constantly make factual errors that you then have to admit to means "Your research techniques leave quite a bit to be desired", which is what I claimed. Surely the sloppiness of your prior efforts is relevant to your equally sloppy claims being made now.
Johnston was not a historian, though you initially claimed he/she was unt in your theology merit sainthood?). You have a great future in Holocaust denial.
I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but you leave me no choice.
You want to talk about "factual errors" and sloppy research, fine. How about the time you claimed Lorini's attack on Galileo was "PUBLIC"? Or the time you said Galileo was "RIGHT" about the Earth revolving the Sun? That's just off the top of my head.
The funniest thing is, after berating me for my "sloppy claims", you write this gem:
You dig up a semi-critical text written in the 1930's as your primary source material
In fact, Yates's book was written in 1964 and is considered seminal in the field. This is what de Santillana (remember him?) wrote in his review in the American Historical Review:
A decisive contribution to the understanding of Giordano Bruno, this book will probably remove a great number of misrepresentations that still plague the tormented figure of the Nolan prophet.
Amazon lists over 200 books that cite Yates:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226950077/ref=sib_rdr_dp/002-7724011-1002437?%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&no=283155&st=books&n=283155
And, if you have the time, I suggest you head down to your local university library and use the citation search function to see exactly how "semi-critical" Yates's book is. You might find, for instance, this review by Hilary Gatti:
Coming finally to the situation in the English-speaking world, ... [Bruno studies] seem to have remained substantially anchored to the hermetic interpretation of Bruno's life and works proposed by Frances Yates in Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul and Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1964), which has often been defined as "an epoch-making book." Indeed, Yates's powerfully argued book, together with her later pages on Bruno's mnemotechnical works in her Art of Memory (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966), conditioned Bruno criticism not only in England and the United States, but also in continental Europe for over two decades; and there is no question of her being ignored by any serious Bruno scholar even today... most Bruno studies are still the domain of declared disciples such as E. A. Gosselin, whose pioneering English translation of The Ash Wednesday Supper (New York: Archon Books, 1977), carried out together with L. Lerner in terms of a yet more radical hermetic approach than that of Yates herself, has recently been re-published in both Canada and the United States. Also the younger generation of Bruno scholars in London, such as Stephen Clucas (who is making a detailed study of Bruno's memory works) and Dilwyn Knox (who is studying Bruno in relation to the Neoplatonic tradition), tend to refer to the prestigious Warburgian scholar, even two decades after her death in 1981, as the inevitable starting-point and to some extent still the dominating influence on their work. The well-documented and well-written book by Karen De Leon Jones on Giordano Bruno and the Kabbalah (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997) also essentially follows in the path indicated by Yates, although transposing her hermetic reading into a kabbalistic key which the Warburg scholar herself had indicated as viable, but had then left largely unexplored.
(Gatti. The State of Giordano Bruno Studies at the End of the Four-Hundredth Centenary of the Philosopher's Death. Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 54, 2001 )
The difference between us is that I have the guts to admit it when I get my facts wrong. You snarl and hurl abuses.
Johnston was not a historian, though you initially claimed he/she was until I corrected you.
You want to talk about slopply claims, no1?
I never claimed Johnston was a historian. Here's the thread to help you out Thread 38047.
You want to talk about MOs? How's this for one of yours - constantly putting claims into the words of your opponents that they didn't actually make (your whole point about my calling Bruno's views "nonsense" and "scoffing" at them is an example from this thread)?
You tend to "cherry pick" "historians" based on their references in Catholic magazines.
Still want to talk about "sloppy claims", no1?
Prof. Madden (who is a historian) and Johnston (who isn't and who I never claimed was) are the only authors whose historical articles I have ever cited from Catholic magazines. Want to show me exactly where Moy, Artigas, Shea, Blackwell, Yates and other historians I've cited were mentioned in Catholic magazines?
EDIT: In fact, when I started an Inquisition thread some time ago, I deliberately took all my citations entirely from non-Catholic sources.
As was pointed out in the Galileo thread, most historians, even the ones you cited, didn't agree with your extreme Catholic apologist position at all; you choose to pour into their words the meaning you so desperately sought.
Still want to talk about "sloppy claims", no1?
Where exactly in the Galileo thread did you point out that "most historians" disagreed with my "extreme Catholic apologist position" (whatever that is)? How did I "pour into their words the meaning [I] so desperately sought"? IIRC, the term 'most historians' occurred in that thread in the Moy article that I cited - as agreeing with my "Catholic apologist position" (or, atleast, as disagreeing with your position).
(Perhaps the Galileo thread is some kind of "living document" that has revealed all this since we last posted there?)
That is why you can't find any support for it even in the vast anti-Galileo literature you have at your disposal.
I wasn't looking for anti-Galileo literature, I was just looking for Galileo literature.
(I find it quite amusing that you think a historian who is not anti-big-bad-RCC must be anti-Galileo. If you're not for us, you must be against us, eh?)
I find your description of Bruno disgusting.
Really? Which one?
and ignore the many major figures who considered Bruno as an important thinker (lightweights like Spinoza and Hegel).
I did? Where?
You failed to respond to my points about your own mystical and magical beliefs; what a surprise.
I responded adequately enough - it's you, no1, who is doing all the scoffing - not me. I'm just the one pointing out that you're being inconsistent in your scofffing at mysticism and magic.
In short, my pointing out that you constantly get facts wrong and parrot RCC propaganda is simple truth, not "anti-Catholic bias".
Another example of your MO. I never claimed your anti-Catholic bias was in your pointing out my errors. I did claim that your anti-Catholic bias was in summarily rejecting all positions that do not fit your neat little big-bad-Church vs. little-Englightenment-martyr theories and labeling them "Church propaganda". Do you want an example? How about this one from this thread:
Now it's Bruno was merely a magician. What will your Church come up with next?
Your anti-Catholic bias is in raising irrelevant points (e.g. whether I, LH, can still read books on the "banned list"; my, LH's, personal religious views; Bellarmine's canonisation) when your nice black & white theories are threatened.
Care to dispute this?
18 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you want support for these claims, I strongly recommend you pick up Yates's book (published in 1964, not the 1930s as you erroneously continue to assert) - she provides detailed citations and comparisons between Bruno's writings and those of Hermetic/Gnostic writers such as Lucretius and Hermes.
Most of your posts regarding Bruno are simply nonsense; "his cosmology is based on Gnostic philosophy"?? Could you please cite to the Gnostic who believed in a infinite universe consisting of infinite worlds?
You are deliberately refusing to even support any of your claims regarding Bruno with references to his own writings instead relying on va en by Bruno's detractors in the 1500's, the 1930's or even today in Catholic newspapers.
Besides, I said Bruno's views were based on Gnostic philosophy - not that he was always necessarily echoing the views of previous Gnostic philosophers. You're following your MO of putting your claims into my words again.
(EDIT: Must be one of them "witness intimidation" tactics)
18 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerTalk 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. (There's others; they're listed here http://www2.sas.ac.uk/warburg/journal/Contents.htm#Volume040102)Since you failed to provide a specific cite to the book and cited a co-author who doesn't exist, it's hardly surprising that I couldn't find it on an internet search. More sloppy research on your part; your grades in history must have sucked.
[b]The fact that you constantly make factual errors that you then have to admit to means "Your research techniques leave quite a bit to be desired", which is what I claimed. Surely the sloppiness of your prior efforts is relevant to your equally sloppy claims being made now.
I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but you leave me no choice.
...[text shortened]...
Care to dispute this?[/b]
Somehow I doubt whether Yates' opinions changed much in 25 years so the book is a product of 1930's thought. Her conclusions have been questioned by other historians (that is quite common though you pretend that historians always completely agree with whatever point of view you are espousing).
18 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThere's so much BS here I don't know where to start so I won't bother. I do hope people read the cited thread; you made a complete fool of yourself in it.
[b]The fact that you constantly make factual errors that you then have to admit to means "Your research techniques leave quite a bit to be desired", which is what I claimed. Surely the sloppiness of your prior efforts is relevant to your equally sloppy claims being made now.
I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but you leave me no choice.
...[text shortened]...
Care to dispute this?[/b]