For the first time in ages, I’m mainly reading fiction (Modern Hebrew novels).
Don’t forget to spread the wealth! I don’t have a clue and the realization that there’s certainly stuff out there about which I am completely unaware rankles. Can’t get to everything of course but dang it I can try.
I remember thinking when I first encountered Chinese T’ang dynasty poetry, This stuff is only a thousand years old. Jeepers! Somebody tell a guy, why dontcha!
p.s. The classic introductory text remains A C Graham’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Never has such a cheap paperback held such wonders. Hint: See the work of Li Ho (792-817), my own favorite.
Don’t forget to spread the wealth! I don’t have a clue and the realization that there’s certainly stuff out there about which I am completely unaware rankles. Can’t get to everything of course but dang it I can try.
I’m not all that well-versed but thought that since I’m learning Modern Hebrew, I ought to do some exploring.
The only author I’ve read a lot of is ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Presently, I’m reading ** you do not have permission to see this link ** It’s long, but I’ve always enjoyed long novels. I’m about a quarter of the way in. I like it but am still not really sure what to make of it.
p.s. The classic introductory text remains A C Graham’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Never has such a cheap paperback held such wonders. Hint: See the work of Li Ho (792-817), my own favorite.
I shall make a note. Thanks.
While most of the world was enthralled by what was happening in space in the 1960s, for Flat-Earthers it prompted something of an existential crisis.
After a photo was sent back of Earth in 1966, ** you do not have permission to see this link **claimed it was probably “one of the non-luminous bodies between us and the moon.”
When further photos were sent back on subsequent space missions, he alleged a cover-up:
“That’s where those Americans and Russians are so damned cunning. For some reason or other they obviously want us to think the world is round. Some of the pictures have been blatantly doctored. Studio shots, probably.”
A UPI ** you do not have permission to see this link ** from 1969 suggested Apollo 11 could mean the death knell for Flat-Earthers. Of ye of little faith.
Toward the end of her book, Weill talks about someone who managed to make his way out:
“Gonzales did not immediately abandon Flat Earth, even after he saw proof of the curve through his telephoto lens. ‘I wanted to believe so hard,’ he said. He imagined a future in which Flat Earth was revealed to be reality. He would be vindicated, championed as one of a select few truth tellers who’d been right all along. He was going to be big. Those dreams clashed with the evidence of his own eyes. The dissonance between the two became so extreme that he couldn’t bring himself to look at a sunset, for fear it would remind him of his doubts. ‘I didn’t want to look up at the sky because the sunrise and sunset are impossible on the flat plane,’ he said.”
Those dreams clashed with the evidence of his own eyes. The dissonance between the two became so extreme that he couldn’t bring himself to look at a sunset, for fear it would remind him of his doubts. ‘I didn’t want to look up at the sky…
How Lovecraftian! When the familiar universe suddenly reveals itself strange and oddly transformed. It’s easy to laugh at these folks I guess but I am by no means unsympathetic. How would I respond to finding out that my whole sense of reality was wrong?
Such paradigm shifts have happened before. What a shock to find out that the sun was the center of the solar system! Or to first contemplate fossils and what they implied? And evolution! We still live with the aftershocks of that revelation. It is the nature of science that at any moment we could make a discovery that would radically transform our way of thinking about the universe. In the meantime, want to experience a little cosmic vertigo? Watch this-
How Lovecraftian! When the familiar universe suddenly reveals itself strange and oddly transformed. It’s easy to laugh at these folks I guess but I am by no means unsympathetic. How would I respond to finding out that my whole sense of reality was wrong?
Just an amazing line of his, that was.
I’m sympathetic as well. It can be a hard way out.
For the most part, I’m fine with people believing what they want as long as they don’t try to push it on me. In the end, I don’t think that what you believe is as important as what you do.
In the meantime, want to experience a little cosmic vertigo? Watch this-
Indeed.
Really fascinating. I wish I were better read on the subject.
I was skimming through the comments section of the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** that tells us Human History Makes NO sense and that WE NEED TO OPEN OUR EYES AND FACE REALITY and was struck by this:
“This was all great until you went on to promoting the Italian guys’ scans of under the pyramids. Please do more research on them. They are highly publicized, but total frauds. They present no proof of testing their so-called free technology anywhere else that can be verified. Nearly all of it is supposition. There’s an Italian man called Metatron on YT that listened to their entire 4-Hour presentation in Italian, translated it and did a video summary.”
I’ve been giving a little thought to the deplorable YouTube channel, Spinoza Forever, which I only recently became aware of and thought I’d pose a question and see what everyone thought.
Of all philosophers, why would you choose Spinoza to post video after video of things he obviously did not believe in?
I don’t know all that much about philosophy but did minor in it, and the only philosopher I remember having more difficulty with was Alfred North Whitehead.
Did they pick him because he’s so hard to comprehend? Because he’s considered an atheist? Thoughts?
Of all philosophers, why would you choose Spinoza to post video after video of things he obviously did not believe in?
That’s an interesting question. Spinoza would not be my first choice for a philosopher to namecheck about Jesus but maybe that’s because I have read his work and have an idea of the ambiguities and complexities. I suppose the next question is, who is the audience for this sort of thing? Not people familiar with Spinoza. And maybe not even people totally unfamiliar with Spinoza. There’s probably a history and an ongoing agenda at work here. One I am not really interested in pursuing. Any point of view predicated on Jesus not really being Jew is best avoided. Even debunking it seems a waste of time. These folks are already too far gone.
That they are.
These videos must be terribly easy to make.
I did a brief experiment and got for a start:
NARRATOR (calm, suspenseful):
Even Baruch Spinoza, the great 17th-century philosopher, once admitted—at least according to some interpretations—that the Bible records things most people refuse to see.
Among them: the Nephilim.
“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward.”
Spinoza didn’t just think they were a story. He believed they were real.
Giants.
Terrifying.
Formidable.
And, according to both him and the oldest texts, somehow still leaving their mark on history.
[Visual cues/B-roll suggestion:]
- Candlelight over a weathered Bible
- Shadows of massive, indistinct figures moving through mist
- Ruins, carvings, or statues hinting at enormous beings
The philosopher of science Karl Popper had an idea which is very relevant to discussion of conspiracy.
Popper’s idea is called falsifiability, and you can look up more info about it on wiki.
Without getting into too much detail, the basic idea is this: a claim or statement that cannot be shown, in principle, to be false, is worthless.
The classic example is “all geese are white”. This claim can be falsified by finding a non-white goose. (As it happens, there are lots in Australia.)
Most of the claims found in religion are non-falsifiable: how do you falsify the idea of soul, afterlife, god, etc?
Popper’s idea is called falsifiability…
And as a corollary to a skeptical viewpoint I would say that any system of thought that does not contain an internal self-critique is invalid. Basically, How will I know if I am wrong? What will indicate to me that I am mistaken? A system of thought that cannot or will not subject its own premises to critique or account for contradictory evidence (other than simply denial) is dogma.
And it follows from this approach that we should be willing to change our minds when presented with contradictory evidence.
This is not a natural way of thinking. And it’s dang hard. We struggle to find The Truth, and when we find it, hold onto it no matter what. Everyone hates being wrong or any intimation that we might be wrong.
People don’t stumble into critical thinking. It has to be taught. As early as possible. (Good luck with that!) Unfortunately what most politicians and religious leaders (and yes, parents) mean by education is indoctrination.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)