← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · friedrich braun

Thread 8577

Thread ID: 8577 | Posts: 28 | Started: 2003-07-30

friedrich braun [OP]

2003-07-30 01:25 | User Profile

The Real Ten Commandments By Richard Carrier

I keep hearing this chant, variously phrased: "The Ten Commandments are the foundation of Western morality and the American Constitution and government." In saying this, people are essentially crediting Moses with the invention of ethics, democracy and civil rights, a claim that is of course absurd. But its absurdity is eclipsed by its injustice, for there is another lawmaker who is far more important to us, whose ideas and actions lie far more at the foundation of American government, and whose own Ten Commandments were distributed at large and influencing the greatest civilizations of the West--Greece and Rome--for well over half a millennia before the laws of Moses were anything near a universal social influence. In fact, by the time the Ten Commandments of Moses had any real chance of being the foundation of anything in Western society, democracy and civil rights had all but died out, never to rise again until the ideals of our true hero, the real man to whom we owe all reverence, were rediscovered and implemented in what we now call "modern democratic principles."

The man I am talking about is Solon the Athenian. Solon was born, we believe, around 638 B.C.E., and lived until approximately 558, but the date in his life of greatest importance to us is the year he was elected to create a constitution for Athens, 594 B.C.E. How important is this man? Let's examine what we owe to him, in comparison with the legendary author (or at last, in legend, the transmitter) of the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments. Solon is the founder of Western democracy and the first man in history to articulate ideas of equal rights for all citizens, and though he did not go nearly as far in the latter as we have come today, Moses can claim no connection to either. Solon was the first man in Western history to publicly record a civil constitution in writing. No one in Hebrew history did anything of the kind, least of all Moses. Solon advocated not only the right but even the duty of every citizen to bear arms in the defense of the state--to him we owe the 2nd Amendment. Nothing about that is to be found in the Ten Commandments of Moses. Solon set up laws defending the principles and importance of private property, state encouragement of economic trades and crafts, and a strong middle class--the ideals which lie at the heart of American prosperity, yet which cannot be credited at all to Moses.

[url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/carrier2.html]http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/fea...0/carrier2.html[/url]

friedrich braun

2003-07-30 02:22 | User Profile

Well, I have a profound loathing of the three Abrahamic belief-systems; as a matter of fact, the only public figure that even comes close to my unequivocal hatred of the three Semitic religions is the Anglo-American journalist Christopher Hitchens.

My specific quarrel with Christianity is that it's extremely harmful to the White race (see [url=http://www.amren.com/masterx.htm)]http://www.amren.com/masterx.htm)[/url] and that it has set us (Europeans) back scientifically by hundreds of years. Here's a post that I wrote, in a slightly different context, explaining what I mean:

Since the advent of the Christianity a deep rift has existed between science and religion (a rift that didnÃ¢â¬â¢t exist during Greco-Roman times). Outspoken scientists like Copernicus were persecuted by the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, Christianity has always persecuted science. The Greco-Romans (and their vague, tolerant, sunny polytheism. BTW, Julian the Apostate is my all-time favourite historical figure, see [url=http://www.juliansociety.org)]http://www.juliansociety.org)[/url] never claimed to have a monopoly on Ã¢â¬ÅtruthÃ¢â¬Â; it was the ChurchÃ¢â¬â¢s monopoly on the said Ã¢â¬ÅtruthÃ¢â¬Â that ultimately threatened academic enlightenment around the world. This point is exceedingly well demonstrated by Bertrand RussellÃ¢â¬â¢s masterpiece Ã¢â¬ÅReligion and ScienceÃ¢â¬Â.

Greco-Romans (unlike Christians) werenÃ¢â¬â¢t in the habit of persecuting anyone for their scientific speculations and discoveries; and, most importantly, they didnÃ¢â¬â¢t claim to be in the possession of a Holy Book, that contained the unerring Word of God:

Russell writes: Ã¢â¬ÅThe theory which we call Copernican [Copernicus's De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium was placed by the Catholic Church on the Index of Forbidden Books. F.B.], although it appeared with all the force of novelty in the sixteenth century, had in fact been invented by the Greeks, whose competence in astronomy was very great. It was advocated by the Pythagorean school, who attributed it, probably without historical truth to their founder Pythagoras. The first astronomer who is known definitely to have taught that the earth moves was Aristarchus of Samos, who lived in the third century B.C. Ã¢â¬Â¦He invented a theoretically valid method of discovering the relative distances of the sun and moon, though through errors of observation his result was far from correctÃ¢â¬Â¦

The Greeks had great skill in geometry, which enabled them to arrive at scientific demonstration in certain matters. They knew the cause of the earthÃ¢â¬â¢s shadow on the moon they inferred that the earth is a sphere. Eratosthenes, who was slightly later than Aristarchus, discovered how to estimate the size of the earthÃ¢â¬Â¦.

These lucky men of science lived in an age when Christian bigots had no influence on governments.

The Catholic Inquisition (see

[url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm;]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm;[/url]

[url=http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_23.html)]http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...hapter_23.html)[/url] hounded, and murdered, scientists, until it was finally abolished in 1820.

In the case of Galileo, to take a well-known example, the Catholic Church took up astronomy, and arrived, by deduction from certain texts of Scripture, at two important truths:

Ã¢â¬ÅThe first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy ScriptureÃ¢â¬Â¦The second proposition, that the earth is not the centre, but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the truth faith.Ã¢â¬Â

As to the situation in the US, well, the Catholic Church was never in a dominant position and, consequently, has not been much of a threat to scientific discoveries. Although, the Ã¢â¬ÅcontroversyÃ¢â¬Â surrounding the teaching of Evolution in public schools still rages on in some American states. The debate over genetic engineering, stem cell research, etc., etc., etc., is very much driven by religious (i.e., Christian) concerns. Hence, I would argue that even in the US scientific progress has been, and continues to be, hampered by the Christian abomination.

If you want to read more on how Christianity has impeded (and impedes) scientific progress, please read

[url=http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_watts/christianity_and_civilization.html]http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...vilization.html[/url]

On the incompatibility of science and Christianity, please read [url=http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Incompatibility.html]http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Incompa...patibility.html[/url]

On the warfare between science and Christianity, please read

[url=http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Andrew_White.html]http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...drew_White.html[/url]

friedrich braun

2003-07-30 02:25 | User Profile

Wintermute,

Is Richard Carrier the same guy who writes about Christian Gnosticism?

friedrich braun

2003-07-30 02:49 | User Profile

Winterlude,

That's why I favour the more pagan Catholicism over the more Judaic Protestantism.

My main concern is with the survival of the White race; the reason I focus on Christianity is because it's a belief-system harmful (deadly) to Whites.

I don't care what happens to Arabs, Jews, Africans, etc. They can keep their wretched, primitive Middle Eastern mythologies if they want. With the caveat that they leave our countries, and don't proselytise (at least not in the West).

-FB

friedrich braun

2003-07-30 02:55 | User Profile

Wintermute,

Ooops!

Sorry!

How do you move a thread?

friedrich braun

2003-07-30 03:10 | User Profile

Moved.

But I still don't know how to delete it.

NeoNietzsche

2003-07-30 03:40 | User Profile

Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 29 2003, 19:49 * It is commonly asserted that 'pagans' (hellenes) had no morality, or were given over to vice simply because they had no alternative, which is to say, the Jews hadn't arrived yet, with their wonderful gift of morality. Even PaleoNietzsche makes this mistake.*

This is qualifiedly correct. Nietzsche opposed to ("slavish") morality the notion of "master" morality, about which he wrote unfortunately little:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We see exactly the opposite with the noble man, who conceives the fundamental idea "good" in advance and spontaneously by himself and from there first creates a picture of "bad" for himself. This "bad" originating from the noble man and that "evil" arising out of the stew pot of insatiable hatredÃ¢â¬âof these the first is a later creation, an afterthought, a complementary colour; whereas the second is the original, the beginning, the essential act of conception in slave morality.

Although the two words "bad" and "evil" both seem opposite to the same idea of "good", how different they are. But it is not the same idea of the "good"; it is much rather a question of who the "evil man" really is, in the sense of the morality of resentment. The strict answer to that is this: precisely the "good man" of the other morality, the noble man himself, the powerful, the ruling man, only coloured over, reinterpreted, and seen through the poisonous eyes of resentment.

Here there is one thing we will be the last to deny: the man who knows these "good men" only as enemies, knows them as nothing but evil enemies, and [color=red]the same men who are so strongly held bound by custom, honour, habit, thankfulness, even more by mutual suspicion and jealousy inter pares and who, by contrast, demonstrate in relation to each other such resourceful consideration, self-control, refinement, loyalty, pride, and friendship[/color]Ã¢â¬âthese men, once outside where the strange world, the foreign, begins, are not much better than beasts of prey turned loose. [Emphasis added]

Patrick

2003-07-30 04:00 | User Profile

hehehe...

.....You two should consider getting a room... :D

Okiereddust

2003-07-30 05:02 | User Profile

Originally posted by friedrich braun@Jul 30 2003, 02:22 * *My specific quarrel with Christianity is that it's ..... set us (Europeans) back scientifically by hundreds of years. Here's a post that I wrote, in a slightly different context, explaining what I mean:

Your sources, like you, are naturally extremely biased, also seem rather left-wing (Bertrand Russell). It is so sad to see the European civilization that gave us Goethe, Schiller, and Calvin seem reduced to producing seeming ignoramuses who barely know their own culture, or anything thing else for that matter.

Firstly the Greco-Romans did not invent science, as anybody who paid attention in junior high school should know. They could articulate a few theorems, but never thought it necessary to test them. Thus Aristotles conclusion that an object twice as heavy dropped from a tower should hit the ground twice as fast. It was so "obvious" he didn't see the need to bother.

As to the Christian era, apparently you have never heard of the great Max Weber, who pointed out the Protestant attitude toward investigating nature was key leading to the birth of science. Funny how you blame all of Catholicism on Christianity then lay blame for the whole thing on Protestantism.

But of course that's just the line that all those - often Jewish - media science populizers feed you. And of course you swallow the whole thing.

BTW, I won't get into which is genuinely like Judiasm, Protestantism or Catholicism. Later perhaps, but you need to crawl, before you can walk, not to mention run. Of course, amazingly, you're perfectly happy if someone remains jewish, pagan, or atheist, just as long as they don't become Christian. You know this is exactly what jews have always said. <_<

Another example of the amazing "more kosher than a Bar Mitzvah" heathen thinking on this forum. Where do you all come from? <_< :ph34r:

friedrich braun

2003-07-30 05:49 | User Profile

Okie:

Quick point before I call it a night.

Bertrand Russell: have you ever read his stuff on "race"? NOT p.c....at all...

Texas Dissident

2003-07-30 06:53 | User Profile

*(1) In paganism, and everything pagan, the mark of the God-relationship is happiness, prosperity; being God's loved one is marked by being successful in everything, etc.

(2) In Judaism begins the shift: being God's friend, etc. is expressed by suffering. Yet this suffering is essentially only for a time, a testÃ¢â¬â then come happiness and prosperity, even in this life. But it is to be distinguished essentially from all paganism in that, here, to be loved of God is after all not quite so straightforward as being a Pamphilius of fortune.

(3) In Christianity being loved by God is suffering, continual suffering, the closer to God the more suffering, yet with eternity's consolation and the spirit's testimony that this is God's love, this is what it means to dare to love God.

The gradation in God's majesty corresponds to these three stages.

In paganism God's majesty is simply a superlative of a human majestyÃ¢â¬âand the distinguishing mark is therefore its straightforwardness.

First in Christianity does God's majesty become pure majesty, different in kind from what it is to be human, paradoxical majesty and therefore distinguishable by suffering.*

Soren Kierkegaard

NeoNietzsche

2003-07-30 13:26 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jul 29 2003, 23:02 * Firstly the Greco-Romans did not* invent science, as anybody who paid attention in junior high school should know.ÃÂ They could articulate a few theorems, but never thought it necessary to test them.ÃÂ Thus Aristotles conclusion that an object twice as heavy dropped from a tower should hit the ground twice as fast.ÃÂ It was so "obvious" he didn't see the need to bother.

As to the Christian era, apparently you have never heard of the great Max Weber, who pointed out the Protestant attitude toward investigating nature was key leading to the birth of science.ÃÂ Funny how you blame all of Catholicism on Christianity then lay blame for the whole thing on Protestantism.**

The Greeks elaborately investigated the science of geometry. Geometry is properly a science by virtue of its empirical character based on alternative systems (Riemannian/Lobachevskian/Euclidian) to which to compare against nature. Thus the formulae of geometry such as were known to the Greeks are scientific by virtue of their generality and falsifiability. It is the case, though, that the articulate epistemology and general method of science awaited further developments.

The point here, however, is that the extraordinary discoveries of Aristarchus and Hipparchus as to the Earth/Moon/Sun geometry, for example, aroused no hostility among regnant theologues interested in maintaining what, in modern terms, would be the goyische chunkheadedness of their ignorant cattle.

And it was, rather, the mere unencumbered opportunity to exploit contemporary science, already advancing despite the Church, that accounts for the Protestant attitude. It is obviously only that opportunity that accounts for the otherwise inexplicable 1200-year delay in the very selective emphasis on certain passages in Scripture toward "investigating nature".

Avalanche

2003-07-30 13:31 | User Profile

Tex, (hi Tex! :D )are you saying you support this?

In Christianity being loved by God is suffering What kind of "loving god" is that? What kind of "father" would do this to 'his' children? Why would people decide that the proof of love is suffering? (I hear Carly Simon singing in my ear "suffering it the only thing made me know I was alive.")

Is it not pathological to 'define' love as suffering? Neo often mutters derisively about "all things work for good for those who love the lord." This is recursive. Things that are certifiably 'bad' are redefined as "good' merely on the basis of to whom they have happened (or how and why they are explained away: "god must have a reason, a plan." Sounds like the tortured rationalizations of an abused child: "'Daddy' wouldn't do these bad things, or fail to protect me from them, or allow them to happen, if I were a better child. But anything that daddy does or allows to happen MUST be good, because daddy has done them or allowed them! So I must be bad!")

If YOU are a parent, do you not define suffering as a BAD thing to allow to happen to your child? Why would you make god any less loving that you, faulty human that you are?

pagan: being God's loved one is marked by being successful in everything I'm not sure most pagans go that far (but I've not studied that matter). But I'm pretty sure they don't wait and hope for suffering as "proof" of god's love. (Nor define it away as part of god's plan.)

In Judaism begins the shift: being God's friend, etc. is expressed by suffering. Here begins the pathology that Christianity was infected with. Do you (y'all) recognize it as pathology or a logical 'next step' in the foundation of your religious beliefs?

The gradation in God's majesty God's majesty travels in proportion to the amount/type/belief in suffering? Sounds like the tortured rationalizations of an abused child! "If daddy didn't love me so much, he wouldn't beat me! I must be a bad child (sinner)!"

NeoNietzsche

2003-07-30 13:34 | User Profile

Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jul 30 2003, 00:53 * *In paganism God's majesty is simply a superlative of a human majestyÃ¢â¬âand the distinguishing mark is therefore its straightforwardness.

Very good, S.K.!

And what is the alternative to "straightforwardness" - if not crookedness?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"(Philologists might recall the sense in which oizuros [miserable], anolbos [unblessed], tlemon [wretched], dustychein [unfortunate], xymfora [misfortune] were used). The 'well born' felt that they were 'the happy ones'; they did not have to construct their happiness artificially first by looking at their enemies, or in some circumstance to talk themselves into it, to lie to themselves (the way all men of resentment habitually do). Similarly they knew, as complete men, overloaded with power and thus necessarily active, they must not separate action from happiness. They considered being active necessarily associated with happiness (that's where the phrase eu prattein [do well, succeed] derives its origin)Ã¢â¬âall this very much the opposite of 'happiness' at the level of the powerless, the oppressed, those festering with poisonous and hostile feelings, among whom happiness comes out essentially as a narcotic, an anesthetic, quiet, peace, 'Sabbath', relaxing the soul, stretching one's limbs, in short, as something passive.

"While the noble man lives for himself with trust and candour (gennaios, meaning 'of noble birth' stresses the nuance 'upright' and also probably 'naÃÂ¯ve'), the man of resentment is neither upright nor naÃÂ¯ve, nor honest and direct with himself. His soul squints. His spirit loves hiding places, secret paths, and back doors. Everything furtive attracts him as his world, his security, his refreshment. He understands about remaining silent, not forgetting, waiting, temporarily diminishing himself, humiliating himself. A race of such men will necessarily end up cleverer than any noble race. It will value cleverness to a very different extent, that is, as a condition of existence of the utmost importance; whereas, cleverness among noble men easily acquires a delicate aftertaste of luxury and sophistication about it. Here it is not nearly so important as the complete certainly of the ruling unconscious instincts or even a certain lack of cleverness, something like brave recklessness, whether in the face of danger or of an enemy, or wildly enthusiastic, sudden fits of anger, love, reverence, thankfulness, and vengefulness, by which in all ages noble souls have recognized each other."

NeoNietzsche

2003-07-30 13:39 | User Profile

"You will have already guessed how easily the priestly way of evaluating could split from the knightly-aristocratic and then continue to develop into its opposite. Such a development receives a special stimulus every time the priest caste and the warrior caste confront each other jealously and are not willing to agree about the winner. The knightly-aristocratic judgments of value have as their basic assumption a powerful physicality, a blooming, rich, even overflowing health, together with those things which are required to maintain these qualitiesÃ¢â¬âwar, adventure, hunting, dancing, war games, and in general everything which involves strong, free, happy action. The priestly-noble method of evaluating has, as we saw, other preconditions: these make it difficult enough for them when it comes to war!

"As is well known, priests are the most evil of enemiesÃ¢â¬âbut why? Because they are the most powerless. From their powerlessness, their hate grows into something immense and terrifying, to the most spiritual and most poisonous manifestations. Those who have been the greatest haters in world history and the most spiritually rich haters have always been the priestsÃ¢â¬âin comparison with the spirit of priestly revenge all the remaining spirits are hardly worth considering. Human history would be a really stupid affair without that spirit which entered it from the powerless.

"Let us quickly consider the greatest example. Everything on earth which has been done against 'the nobility,' 'the powerful,' 'the masters,' 'the possessors of power' is not worth mentioning in comparison with what the Jews have done against themÃ¢â¬âthe Jews, that priestly people who knew how to get final satisfaction from their enemies and conquerors through a radical transformation of their values, that is, through an act of the most spiritual revenge. This was appropriate only to a priestly people with the most deeply rooted priestly desire for revenge."

NeoNietzsche

2003-07-30 13:41 | User Profile

"In opposition to the aristocratic value equations (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = fortunate = loved by god), the Jews successfully and with a fearsome consistency dared to reverse it and to hang on to that with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of the powerless), that is, to 'only those who suffer are good; only the poor, the powerless, the low are good; only the suffering, those in need, the sick, the ugly are the pious; only they are blessed by God; for them alone there is salvation. By contrast, you privileged and powerful people, you are for all eternity the evil, the cruel, the lecherous, insatiable, the godlessÃ¢â¬âyou will also be the unblessed, the cursed, and the damned for all eternity!' We know who inherited this Judaic transformation of values . . .

"In connection with this huge and immeasurably disastrous initiative which the Jews launched with this most fundamental of all declarations of war, I recall the sentence I wrote at another time (in Beyond Good and Evil, p. 118)Ã¢â¬ânamely, that with the Jews the slave condition in morality begins: that condition which has a two-thousand-year-old history behind it and which we nowadays no longer notice because, well, because it has triumphed."

NeoNietzsche

2003-07-30 13:44 | User Profile

" 'But what are you doing still talking about more noble ideals! Let's look at the facts: the people have triumphedÃ¢â¬âor "the slaves," or "the rabble,"' or "the herd," or whatever you want to call themÃ¢â¬âif this has taken place because of the Jews, then good for them! No people had a more world-historical mission. "The masters" have been disposed of. The morality of the common man has won. We may take this victory as a blood poisoning (it did mix the races up)Ã¢â¬âI don't deny that. But this intoxication has undoubtedly been successful. The "Salvation" of the human race (namely, from "the masters") is well under way. Everything is turning Jewish or Christian or plebeian (what do the words matter!)."

NeoNietzsche

2003-07-30 14:00 | User Profile

Avalanche is P.O.'ed that I didn't reference these Nietzschean goodies for the Boys and Girls.

Everybody read Genealogy, First Essay, (from the self-described "touchstone" of N.'s philosophy).

edward gibbon

2003-07-30 14:10 | User Profile

friedrich braun (Posted: Jul 30 2003, 02:25)> ...The man I am talking about is Solon the Athenian. Solon was born, we believe, around 638 [color=blue]B.C.E[/color]. I write as one not religious, but I do insist on some standards. BCE means "before common era". This puts Hebraic culture and history equal to that of the West. I contest this despicable claim.

Russell writes: Ã¢â¬ÅThe theory which we call Copernican [Copernicus's De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium was placed by the Catholic Church on the Index of Forbidden Books. F.B.], although it appeared with all the force of novelty in the sixteenth century, had in fact been invented by the Greeks, whose competence in astronomy was very great. It was advocated by the Pythagorean school, who attributed it, probably without historical truth to their founder Pythagoras. Writing more than 200 years ago, Edward Gibbon (I am paraphrasing) vowed the modern rabbi is modestly assured that Pythagoras derived his metaphysics from the rabbi's illustrious ancestor.

friedrich braun (Posted: Jul 30 2003, 03:49)> ** Winterlude(?) Wintermute

That's why I favour the more pagan Catholicism over the more Judaic Protestantism.** H.L. Mencken favored Roman Catholicism over all religions because of its adherence to pagan ritual. You are in good company.

Okiereddust

2003-07-30 16:39 | User Profile

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jul 30 2003, 13:26 * ** (Riemannian/Lobachevskian/Euclidian) to which to compare against nature. Thus the formulae of geometry such as were known to the Greeks are scientific by virtue of their generality and falsifiability. It is the case, though, that the articulate epistemology and general method of science awaited further developments.*

I'm a scientist, and you're basically wrong. Mathematics is, as the Greeks put it, a phikosophy, not a science.

It may seem like a science to any knuckleheaded liberal arts undergrad, who think any discipline requiring real rigor of thought and containing objective standards is "science". Bt it is not. Science is restricted to the empirical. It is though, which you are perceptive enough to point out to Madrussian, dependent on non-emirical philosophies. Mathematics is certainly one of these, and science would be prcticaly of little use or interest without it. Ever considered the possibility that religion could fall into the same category? Nah.

The point here, however, is that the extraordinary discoveries of Aristarchus and Hipparchus as to the Earth/Moon/Sun geometry, for example, aroused no hostility among regnant theologues interested in maintaining what, in modern terms, would be the goyische chunkheadedness of their ignorant cattle.

The point is you seem to miss no opportunit for gratuitus Christian bashing. Its an obvious obession with you. Objective comparisons of the mythological greatnes of the ancient pagan word usually are much different.

And it was, rather, the mere unencumbered opportunity to exploit contemporary science, already advancing despite the Church, that accounts for the Protestant attitude. It is obviously only that opportunity that accounts for the otherwise inexplicable 1200-year delay in the very selective emphasis on certain passages in Scripture toward "investigating nature". **

Who needs Max Weber, we have NeoNietzsche. : :sleep:

NeoNietzsche

2003-07-30 17:29 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust+Jul 30 2003, 10:39 -->
QUOTE (Okiereddust @ Jul 30 2003, 10:39 )

QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Jul 30 2003, 17:29 )
<!--QuoteBegin-Okiereddust@Jul 30 2003, 10:39 * It may seem like a science to any knuckleheaded liberal arts undergrad, who think[s] any discipline requiring real rigor of thought and containing objective standards is "science".ÃÂ B[u]t it is not.ÃÂ Science is restricted to the empirical.*

Though the Greeks did not know that they were exploring it as such, geometry is an empirical discipline, as explained. For example, it is a question of experiment as to the nature of the geometry of a gravitational field. Astrophysicists and cosmologists know geometry as a science, not as "philosophy". It is the case that "experiments" in confirmation of Euclidian geometry are very elementary and obvious, leading one to believe that they are purely mental/rational/a priori. They are nevertheless subject to falsification and require empirical confirmation and application.

**

Au contraire the "elementary" and "obvious" "experiments" that could "confirm" Euclidian geometry are nort elementary and obvious at all. In fact Euclidian geometry is not confirmable at all, and never has been. That is why Euclidian geometry can coexist along side non-Euclidian geometry, and both are equaly valid theoertically, in a mathematical sense.

In an empirical sense of course they are not. But this empiricism is not of a mathematical conception. Thus geometry, as with other mathematics is not an empirical/scientific discipline.

NeoNietzsche

2003-07-30 18:31 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jul 30 2003, 12:10 * *Au contraire the "elementary" and "obvious" "experiments" that could "confirm" Euclidian geometry are no[]t elementary and obvious at all.ÃÂ In fact Euclidian geometry is not confirmable at all, and never has been. That is why Euclidian geometry can coexist alongside non-Euclidian geometry, and both are equal[l]y valid theo[re]tically, in a mathematical sense.

In an empirical sense of course they are not. But this empiricism is not of a mathematical conception.ÃÂ Thus geometry, as with other mathematics is not an empirical/scientificÃÂ discipline.**

Okie, you obviously do not know of the simple experiment/measurement which is used to distinguish between Riemannian "spherical" and Euclidian "flat" space.

Your statements on the point simply betray ignorance of fundamentals and terminological confusion/nonsense.

Please pay a visit to a local astrophysicist.

And get right with the Gods, you impious Christian, you!

edward gibbon

2003-07-30 20:44 | User Profile

I have seen few discussions approach this one as being so wasteful of talent and recuring much too often. Previously on the old Sam Francis forum I wrote an article on the insidious influence of Christianity in American life and political thought. Though I would still stick by what I wrote, I feel that I turned away too many people who otherwise would be inclined to join us. All they needed was their God's whisper in their ear.

Some extremely intelligent men have long promoted the idea of a higher power. Kurt Godel claimed he proved the existence of God. [url=http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/godel/god.html]http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/godel/god.html[/url] > **GÃÂ¶del's proof of the existence of God GÃÂ¶del did indeed produce such a proof, an argument of the type known as ontological. The proof can be found in the Collected Works, vol. III, p.403. General information about ontological arguments for the existence of God is to be found in the on-line Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Christopher Small has an extensive presentation and discussion of GÃÂ¶del's ontological argument. GÃÂ¶del's ontological argument doesn't have anything to do with the incompleteness theorem or its proof. It shouldn't be assumed that the God referred to in the argument has much to do with God as conceived in any theistic religion. GÃÂ¶del was a great admirer of Leibniz (who also had an ontological proof) and believed in the possibility of a "rational theology". **

Likewise John von Neuman converted to Roman Catholicism from an agnostic Jewish background because he could not believe the achievements of man were an "accident".

The real brains behind Principia Mathematica was not Bertrand Russell, but Alfred (?) North Whitehead, who was a mystical Christian. One might ask why the American media have long neglected Whitehead.

[color=blue]About Geometry[/color] [url=http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Non-Euclidean_geometry.html]http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/H...n_geometry.html[/url]

**Klein showed that there are three basically different types of geometry. In the Bolyai - Lobachevsky type of geometry, straight lines have two infinitely distant points. In the Riemann type of spherical geometry, lines have no (or more precisely two imaginary) infinitely distant points. Euclidean geometry is a limiting case between the two where for each line there are two coincident infinitely distant points. **

Avalanche

2003-07-31 02:18 | User Profile

**My lord and master: Avalanche is P.O.'ed that I didn't reference these Nietzschean goodies for the Boys and Girls.

Everybody read Genealogy, First Essay, (from the self-described "touchstone" of N.'s philosophy). **

Was NOT! :P I just didn't think people would know where it came from. I didn't at first. Then I connected "NeoNietzsche" with Wintermute's use (somewhere here) of PaleoNietzsche (about "whom" I immediately asked Neo if someone new had joined :rolleyes: and he'd told me to think about it for a sec...) It suddenly made SENSE to me that when NeoNietzsche quotes unattributed, WHO would he be quoting but his namesake?!

Texas Dissident

2003-07-31 08:01 | User Profile

Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 30 2003, 21:37 * *K's fantasy about those who the Gods favor being always and only being blessed with success is undone by a perusal of the tragedians. Prometheus, a god himself, suffers upon a rock. Antigone acts in accordance with divine command, and comes to a bad end (in this world). What are we to make of Dionysus, taken in chains before the governer of Thebes, Pentheus, and his statements there? **

*The difference between the tragic hero and Abraham is very obvious. The tragic hero is still within the ethical. He allows an expression of the ethical to have its telos [end, goal] in a higher expression of the ethical; he scales down the ethical relation between father and son or daughter and father to a feeling that has its dialectic in its relation to the idea of moral conduct. Here there can be no teleological suspension of the ethical itself.

Abraham's act is different. By his act he transgressed the ethical altogether and had a higher telos outside it, in relation to which he suspended it.... It is not to save a nation, not to uphold the idea of a state that Abraham does it; it is not to appease the angry gods.... Therefore, while the tragic hero is great because of his moral virtue, Abraham is great because of a purely personal virtue.*

S.K. goes into all this in depth in [u]Fear and Trembling[/u].