The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Ancient Genetics"
 All Comments / On "Ancient Genetics"
    I have always assumed that the Ancients were wiser than us, but I admit that my evaluation is subject to survivor bias: the best of their thinking has been passed on to us, the mediocre rest forgotten. The Ancients were not all at the level of Socrates, they also included the dullards that killed him....
  • 6.371 The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.
    6.372 Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in ages past. And in fact, both are right and both are wrong: though the view of the ancients is clearer in so far as they have a clear and acknowledged terminus, while the modern system tries to make it look as if everything were explained.

    Wittgenstein. More intelligent, less intelligent. Human is defined by access to reason – no matter how slow the Turing machine, it can still do the job of the Turing machine. We have just as much and little potential as those poor sods in the old times.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • J says:

    I always wondered how the Ancients managed to teach and learn in Plato’s academy without books or written notes. Everything was based on the spoken word and phenomenal memories. Presumably there are contemporaries who can repeat a lecture word by word, although I never met any, but reading the Greeks one gets the impression that the skill was common among them and they rejected those unable to follow and remember their long arguments. They must have been very intelligent, but not super-human.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It should be noted that that Cro-Magnon fellow had a brain which was 20% larger than modern Caucasians, so maybe the first thing agriculture did was shrink it down.

    On a different note, Archimedes may have been Newtons equal or superior. His Method, recently reclaimed from an ancient restored copy, shows a man who was phenomenally creative and the first to demonstrate calculus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Rurik says: • Website
    @Anon
    Ignoring the relative truth or untruth of your description of Israel, which this is not the place to argue, your argument basically comes down to something like: "President Trump is a spineless SOB and President Lincoln was willing to accept the death of millions; therefore President Washington was both, as was Sun Yat-sen". I advise you to carefully read through your own posts and apply them to a careful logical scrutiny, so as to make your mentor St. Thomas proud of them, which at present I can assure you he is not.

    Unlike "LauraMR", I am sure you have read a fair number of books over your lifetime and are fairly intelligent, but I can see how one could get the impression from your broken and rambling style of writing that this was not the case, and I advise you when criticizing the style (or irreverence!) of others to keep in mind an old maxim about glass houses.

    Here, yet again, is my argument:

    1. It is posited that some group of people throughout the length of the Middle Ages would destroy any fossils when these were found.

    I deny this assertion, because we have plain evidence that fossils were found and not destroyed.

    2. It is posited that Bronze-Age or previous prehistoric artifacts were destroyed by the same group of people over the same length of time, for the reason that the knowledge of the existence of these artifacts would be prejudicial to the Christian faith.

    I do not categorically deny this as I did the last, as it is not prima facie impossible. However, I regard it as extremely implausible, for the reasons given in posts #115 and #119, to which I will add that nobody, not even the fundamentalists of the past two centuries who objected to the fossil record, has ever regarded the existence of Bronze-Age artifacts or megaliths of any age --which have of course survived the Middle Ages quite unharmed, unlike the Pyramids which were quarried for stone-- as prejudicial to the Christian faith.

    Thanks for reasonably and (comparatively) briefly answering my question about medieval Islam, which I'll admit was something of a digression on my part.

    your argument basically comes down to something like: “President Trump is a spineless SOB and President Lincoln was willing to accept the death of millions; therefore President Washington was both, as was Sun Yat-sen”.

    I tend to use an apostrophe when “quoting” someone, especially when it’s outrageous and preposterous hyperbole.

    *for the record*, my arguments basically come down to ~ Many people (especially those who seek power over others) will lie and cheat and murder and commit unspeakable atrocities (and, well- do any evil imaginable) – to get and retain that power.

    That’s what I consider to be the record of history, it’s what I consider to be an honest assessment of human nature, and more to the point, it’s what I see all over the planet unfolding today right in front of my (and your) eyes. But there are none so blind…

    I advise you to carefully read through your own posts and apply them to a careful logical scrutiny, so as to make your mentor St. Thomas proud of them, which at present I can assure you he is not.

    I stand by every word I have written on Unz Review since I started posting here a year or two ago. Every ~ single ~ word.

    and I can promise you that St. Thomas would be more than proud of my consistency, honesty, and most of all integrity. Aquinas valued integrity, and even if we wouldn’t agree on many other issues, the issue of integrity is one I’m certain we could share a nice goblet of wine over.

    your broken and rambling style of writing

    mea maxima culpa

    glass houses.

    I have infinite patience for stupidity, (well, lots anyways). What I don’t have patience for is crass rudeness towards one’s betters.

    1. It is posited that some group of people throughout the length of the Middle Ages would destroy any fossils when these were found.

    I deny this assertion, because we have plain evidence that fossils were found and not destroyed.

    as for point number 1. please see my ‘for the record’ statement. I believe it covers this issue fulsomely.

    some fossils were found and not destroyed. But how many were found and summarily destroyed, we’ll never know. But I posit to you sir/or ma’am/madam, that if we think logically, and consider the length and breath of the centuries long Medieval Ages, with people no doubt going into caves all over Europe and finding Neanderthal and dinosaurs and other bones and fossils, and no doubt glorious archeological burials of advanced civilizations and other artifacts, that there seems to me a dearth of these things that were puzzled over and survived those days. No?

    Where are the canons of the Church that dealt with these things? Where are the ecclesiastical edicts pointing out that there were many of the Lord’s working in heaven and earth that there are no biblical explanations for?

    Or, would it simply have suited the PTB to destroy all evidence of the Lord’s mysterious ways that didn’t comport to their narrow world view?

    that is for the reader to decide, since we can’t prove a negative, or show evidence or records that were specifically destroyed so that they could not be shown.

    2. It is posited that Bronze-Age or previous prehistoric artifacts were destroyed by the same group of people over the same length of time, for the reason that the knowledge of the existence of these artifacts would be prejudicial to the Christian faith.

    I do not categorically deny this …

    we’re getting somewhere!

    not even the fundamentalists of the past two centuries who objected to the fossil record, has ever regarded the existence of Bronze-Age artifacts or megaliths of any age –which have of course survived the Middle Ages quite unharmed, unlike the Pyramids which were quarried for stone– as prejudicial to the Christian faith.

    when George Bush (and his deepstate henchmen) specifically allowed the Museum of Baghdad to be looted and destroyed, (even as the oil wells were all easily defended), do you suppose that the motivations in destroying that history were all benign, vis-a-vis modern Judeo/Christianity?

    That’s just what popped into my mind when I think of modern power-crazed assholes destroying ancient, potentially inconvenient artifacts to bolster their own mendacious and tyrannical narrative.

    prejudicial to the Christian faith.

    or consider the treatment of Galileo, or more recently, the ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’, and the modern day adherents of William Jennings Bryan who would teach only creationism in the local schools.

    Are they so different than a 12th century hypothetical Pope, who would order a magnificent buried city- with evidence of far advanced civilizations- utterly destroyed, as a threat to his earthy power?

    (somehow I just thought of that scene from the Planet of the Apes where the science ape orders the cave in the ‘forbidden lands’ destroyed.)

    to end this, I’m going to quote my own words about earthy power:

    *for the record*, my arguments basically come down to ~ many people (especially those who seek power over others) will lie and cheat and murder and commit unspeakable atrocities (and, well- do any evil imaginable) – to get and retain that power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Personally I think we are dumber based on the population size of great civilizations. How many people were in Ancient Egypt or Greece or Maya or China. How many were in the Italian city states during the renaissance. You always get numbers less than a million for most of these great civilizations. And yet today we have 320 million Americans, most of them building nothing, creating nothing, achieving nothing. The percentage of creators is far less. It’s the same with almost every other country on earth no matter how advanced. Really disturbing

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @reiner Tor
    If you can learn quantum mechanics but not Aristotle, then the former must be simpler. But it seems to be the other way around.

    So, all you need to show is that what the ancient Greeks discovered is just as difficult to grasp (or, better, more so) for a person of a given IQ (say, 115 IQ), than it is to grasp what modern European scientists have discovered, like quantum mechanics. I think it's easy to show that the latter is more difficult, though I'm not sure anyone has ever done anything to prove it. It'd need a few well-designed studies to do so, but I think it could be done.

    “quantum mechanics…. it’s easy to show that…is more difficult, though I’m not sure anyone has ever done anything to prove it.”

    That’s because they can’t. If you can grok statistics, you get quantum mechanics. It got started in reflection on applying insurance statistics to atomic behavior, for crying out loud.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rurik

    We think with language, which Neanderthals didn’t have
     
    this long-held belief has recently been challenged by some "ground-breaking research" which suggests otherwise.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140302185241.htm


    The first parts of Genesis are a very reasonable description of evolution
     
    I agree. The parts about humans having eaten from the tree of the fruit of knowledge, and therefor expelled from the garden of Eden, is as poetically true as anything I've read.

    we humans are simultaneously animals and, also removed from the animal kingdom. We are a paradox, and are doomed to the perpetual struggle between both the earthly and mortal world, and the divine world of our dreams (and nightmares) and aspirations.

    otherwise, I very much agree with the gist of your thoughtful post

    we've lost a lot as we've become civilized (domesticated)

    As I understand it, Neanderthals might have been able to say “That is a young female” but not “my daughter is like a rose”. Symbolic thinking was the Homo S S speciality. But on a one to one problem solving level I wouldn’t rule out the Neanderthals as I understand it. They invented things like barbed spears but did not diffuse them to other groups.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    Ptolemaic. Geocentric, stationary Earth.
    ...
    At this point in our story, Ptolemy is still ahead.
     
    I feel somehow sullied for having participated in this farce

    The rest of your post is about the Vatican and Israel (???),
     
    the point is that if the leaders of the Christian church are today as venal and rotten as can be, and willing to coddle Satanic child rapists and war pigs to maintain their exalted positions in (earthly) society, then why (other than the few giants among the Christian community like Aquinas), should we believe that Dark Age Christian leaders were any better?

    Like I said, if they were willing to burn the young Joan of Arc alive at the stake for reasons of raw earthly power, then what reason do we have for supposing they didn't also burn or destroy all archeological evidence found during those centuries that didn't comport to the very strict narrative upon which all their perks and wealth and power emanated from?

    Based on the character of the Christian leadership today, I don't see one iniquity or sin that they don't condone or even sanctify so long as it will augment their position with the (murderous, war mongering, Western civilization destroying) PTB.

    Trust me, I wish I was wrong about that.

    medieval Muslims were less or more power-hungry than their Christian neighbors,
     
    more

    I was raised to believe that the Crusades and Saint Isabella's strident means of removing Spain's enemies, were stains upon the fabric of Christendom / Western civilization. But I've since learned that- as with everything else I've been told that all turned out to be agenda-driven lies; so too were those blood libels heaped upon our ancestors, for simply defending their lands and their culture and their iconic spiritual sacred places from Jewish/Muslim treachery and aggression [respectively]

    indeed, most of what we read about vis-a-vis the folly of the leaders and religions of the Middle Ages, are glaringly true of their modern day posers right now. Deceit, treachery, wars, insatiable self-interest are all there. Along with the flocks of working and middle class believers too busy trying to survive or raise families to unravel the snake behind the masquerade.

    Rurik ~ the irreverent

    Ignoring the relative truth or untruth of your description of Israel, which this is not the place to argue, your argument basically comes down to something like: “President Trump is a spineless SOB and President Lincoln was willing to accept the death of millions; therefore President Washington was both, as was Sun Yat-sen”. I advise you to carefully read through your own posts and apply them to a careful logical scrutiny, so as to make your mentor St. Thomas proud of them, which at present I can assure you he is not.

    Unlike “LauraMR”, I am sure you have read a fair number of books over your lifetime and are fairly intelligent, but I can see how one could get the impression from your broken and rambling style of writing that this was not the case, and I advise you when criticizing the style (or irreverence!) of others to keep in mind an old maxim about glass houses.

    Here, yet again, is my argument:

    1. It is posited that some group of people throughout the length of the Middle Ages would destroy any fossils when these were found.

    I deny this assertion, because we have plain evidence that fossils were found and not destroyed.

    2. It is posited that Bronze-Age or previous prehistoric artifacts were destroyed by the same group of people over the same length of time, for the reason that the knowledge of the existence of these artifacts would be prejudicial to the Christian faith.

    I do not categorically deny this as I did the last, as it is not prima facie impossible. However, I regard it as extremely implausible, for the reasons given in posts #115 and #119, to which I will add that nobody, not even the fundamentalists of the past two centuries who objected to the fossil record, has ever regarded the existence of Bronze-Age artifacts or megaliths of any age –which have of course survived the Middle Ages quite unharmed, unlike the Pyramids which were quarried for stone– as prejudicial to the Christian faith.

    Thanks for reasonably and (comparatively) briefly answering my question about medieval Islam, which I’ll admit was something of a digression on my part.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    your argument basically comes down to something like: “President Trump is a spineless SOB and President Lincoln was willing to accept the death of millions; therefore President Washington was both, as was Sun Yat-sen”.
     
    I tend to use an apostrophe when "quoting" someone, especially when it's outrageous and preposterous hyperbole.

    *for the record*, my arguments basically come down to ~ Many people (especially those who seek power over others) will lie and cheat and murder and commit unspeakable atrocities (and, well- do any evil imaginable) - to get and retain that power.

    That's what I consider to be the record of history, it's what I consider to be an honest assessment of human nature, and more to the point, it's what I see all over the planet unfolding today right in front of my (and your) eyes. But there are none so blind...


    I advise you to carefully read through your own posts and apply them to a careful logical scrutiny, so as to make your mentor St. Thomas proud of them, which at present I can assure you he is not.
     
    I stand by every word I have written on Unz Review since I started posting here a year or two ago. Every ~ single ~ word.

    and I can promise you that St. Thomas would be more than proud of my consistency, honesty, and most of all integrity. Aquinas valued integrity, and even if we wouldn't agree on many other issues, the issue of integrity is one I'm certain we could share a nice goblet of wine over.


    your broken and rambling style of writing
     
    mea maxima culpa

    glass houses.

     

    I have infinite patience for stupidity, (well, lots anyways). What I don't have patience for is crass rudeness towards one's betters.

    1. It is posited that some group of people throughout the length of the Middle Ages would destroy any fossils when these were found.

    I deny this assertion, because we have plain evidence that fossils were found and not destroyed.
     

    as for point number 1. please see my 'for the record' statement. I believe it covers this issue fulsomely.

    some fossils were found and not destroyed. But how many were found and summarily destroyed, we'll never know. But I posit to you sir/or ma'am/madam, that if we think logically, and consider the length and breath of the centuries long Medieval Ages, with people no doubt going into caves all over Europe and finding Neanderthal and dinosaurs and other bones and fossils, and no doubt glorious archeological burials of advanced civilizations and other artifacts, that there seems to me a dearth of these things that were puzzled over and survived those days. No?

    Where are the canons of the Church that dealt with these things? Where are the ecclesiastical edicts pointing out that there were many of the Lord's working in heaven and earth that there are no biblical explanations for?

    Or, would it simply have suited the PTB to destroy all evidence of the Lord's mysterious ways that didn't comport to their narrow world view?

    that is for the reader to decide, since we can't prove a negative, or show evidence or records that were specifically destroyed so that they could not be shown.


    2. It is posited that Bronze-Age or previous prehistoric artifacts were destroyed by the same group of people over the same length of time, for the reason that the knowledge of the existence of these artifacts would be prejudicial to the Christian faith.

    I do not categorically deny this ...
     

    we're getting somewhere!

    not even the fundamentalists of the past two centuries who objected to the fossil record, has ever regarded the existence of Bronze-Age artifacts or megaliths of any age –which have of course survived the Middle Ages quite unharmed, unlike the Pyramids which were quarried for stone– as prejudicial to the Christian faith.
     
    when George Bush (and his deepstate henchmen) specifically allowed the Museum of Baghdad to be looted and destroyed, (even as the oil wells were all easily defended), do you suppose that the motivations in destroying that history were all benign, vis-a-vis modern Judeo/Christianity?

    That's just what popped into my mind when I think of modern power-crazed assholes destroying ancient, potentially inconvenient artifacts to bolster their own mendacious and tyrannical narrative.


    prejudicial to the Christian faith.
     
    or consider the treatment of Galileo, or more recently, the 'Scopes Monkey Trial', and the modern day adherents of William Jennings Bryan who would teach only creationism in the local schools.

    Are they so different than a 12th century hypothetical Pope, who would order a magnificent buried city- with evidence of far advanced civilizations- utterly destroyed, as a threat to his earthy power?

    (somehow I just thought of that scene from the Planet of the Apes where the science ape orders the cave in the 'forbidden lands' destroyed.)

    to end this, I'm going to quote my own words about earthy power:


    *for the record*, my arguments basically come down to ~ many people (especially those who seek power over others) will lie and cheat and murder and commit unspeakable atrocities (and, well- do any evil imaginable) - to get and retain that power.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @LauraMR
    Links? Absurd beyond belief. Have you ever read a book?

    Anyway. Google it if that's the best you can do. You can start with Alfred Russel Wallace or just use Wikipedia. Even they know better.

    Have you ever read a book?

    have you always been an ugly cow?

    of course I don’t mean physically, but personality-wise, have you always been an ugly, insufferable hag?

    with all due respect

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Rurik says: • Website
    @Anon

    The article has appeared on-line as part of the reading for a course in science education, taught by Leonard Bliss at Florida International University in Miami. This non-commercial use was with permission.
     
    Anyway... You seem to be in the habit of cherry-picking for passages you find objectionable, which does not speak particularly well of your devotion to St. Thomas.

    Now, in case you’re keeping tabs, there were by this time no less than seven models in play in the early 1600s:

    Heraclidean. Geo-heliocentric. Mercury and Venus circle the Sun; everything else circles the Earth.
    Ptolemaic. Geocentric, stationary Earth.
    Copernican. Heliocentric, pure circles with lots of epicycles.
    Gilbertian. Geocentric, rotating Earth. (proposed by William Gilbert in De magnete)
    Tychonic. Geo-heliocentric. Sun and Moon circle the Earth; everything else circles the Sun.
    Ursine. Tychonic, with rotating Earth.
    Keplerian. Heliocentric, with elliptical orbits.

    Physics deals with the abstracted properties
    of physical bodies; mathematics, with the
    abstracted properties of ideal bodies.
    (Moderns treat Kepler like a minor amendment to Copernicus. But the astronomers of the time regarded Kepler’s elliptical astronomy as separate from and a competitor to Copernicus’ model.)

    Standing against all of these was Aristotelian physics, which saw no justification for the epicycles and other foo-foo in Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomy, for the spinning Earth of the Gilbertian and Ursine models, the sun-centeredness of the Copernican and Keplerian models, or for the gimcrackery of the Heraclidean, Tychonic, or Ursine models. Lofty physicists, who were, you know, scientists, looked down on mere astronomers, who were simply mathematicians.

    At this point in our story, Ptolemy is still ahead. Tycho has few adherents. Copernicus has even fewer adherents (mainly humanists, not astronomers) and most of those who adopt it, do so on instrumentalist grounds. No one can make sense out of Kepler's math. Ursus and Gilbert seem stuck in the starting gate, since their spinning earths are a major stumbling block.
     
    Yup. Pure snark. No substance there.

    I admit I was somewhat excessive, and will probably continue to be, as I am constitutionally impatient, but if you don't call your own posts excessive you must be crazier than I am, and that is saying a lot.

    Again, if you find Mr. Flynn's style objectionable, you should do as I suggested and read his references, which are all given. Here's some more: http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/copernicus.html .

    The rest of your post is about the Vatican and Israel (???), so I don't really have anything to say to it.

    I'll repeat my invocation, as it doesn't seem to be working:
    "Medieval Muslims were evil!"
    "Medieval Muslims were evil!"
    "Medieval Muslims were evil!"

    Seriously, all joking aside, if you think medieval Muslims were less or more power-hungry than their Christian neighbors, I'd like to hear about it.

    Ptolemaic. Geocentric, stationary Earth.

    At this point in our story, Ptolemy is still ahead.

    I feel somehow sullied for having participated in this farce

    The rest of your post is about the Vatican and Israel (???),

    the point is that if the leaders of the Christian church are today as venal and rotten as can be, and willing to coddle Satanic child rapists and war pigs to maintain their exalted positions in (earthly) society, then why (other than the few giants among the Christian community like Aquinas), should we believe that Dark Age Christian leaders were any better?

    Like I said, if they were willing to burn the young Joan of Arc alive at the stake for reasons of raw earthly power, then what reason do we have for supposing they didn’t also burn or destroy all archeological evidence found during those centuries that didn’t comport to the very strict narrative upon which all their perks and wealth and power emanated from?

    Based on the character of the Christian leadership today, I don’t see one iniquity or sin that they don’t condone or even sanctify so long as it will augment their position with the (murderous, war mongering, Western civilization destroying) PTB.

    Trust me, I wish I was wrong about that.

    medieval Muslims were less or more power-hungry than their Christian neighbors,

    more

    I was raised to believe that the Crusades and Saint Isabella’s strident means of removing Spain’s enemies, were stains upon the fabric of Christendom / Western civilization. But I’ve since learned that- as with everything else I’ve been told that all turned out to be agenda-driven lies; so too were those blood libels heaped upon our ancestors, for simply defending their lands and their culture and their iconic spiritual sacred places from Jewish/Muslim treachery and aggression [respectively]

    indeed, most of what we read about vis-a-vis the folly of the leaders and religions of the Middle Ages, are glaringly true of their modern day posers right now. Deceit, treachery, wars, insatiable self-interest are all there. Along with the flocks of working and middle class believers too busy trying to survive or raise families to unravel the snake behind the masquerade.

    Rurik ~ the irreverent

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Ignoring the relative truth or untruth of your description of Israel, which this is not the place to argue, your argument basically comes down to something like: "President Trump is a spineless SOB and President Lincoln was willing to accept the death of millions; therefore President Washington was both, as was Sun Yat-sen". I advise you to carefully read through your own posts and apply them to a careful logical scrutiny, so as to make your mentor St. Thomas proud of them, which at present I can assure you he is not.

    Unlike "LauraMR", I am sure you have read a fair number of books over your lifetime and are fairly intelligent, but I can see how one could get the impression from your broken and rambling style of writing that this was not the case, and I advise you when criticizing the style (or irreverence!) of others to keep in mind an old maxim about glass houses.

    Here, yet again, is my argument:

    1. It is posited that some group of people throughout the length of the Middle Ages would destroy any fossils when these were found.

    I deny this assertion, because we have plain evidence that fossils were found and not destroyed.

    2. It is posited that Bronze-Age or previous prehistoric artifacts were destroyed by the same group of people over the same length of time, for the reason that the knowledge of the existence of these artifacts would be prejudicial to the Christian faith.

    I do not categorically deny this as I did the last, as it is not prima facie impossible. However, I regard it as extremely implausible, for the reasons given in posts #115 and #119, to which I will add that nobody, not even the fundamentalists of the past two centuries who objected to the fossil record, has ever regarded the existence of Bronze-Age artifacts or megaliths of any age --which have of course survived the Middle Ages quite unharmed, unlike the Pyramids which were quarried for stone-- as prejudicial to the Christian faith.

    Thanks for reasonably and (comparatively) briefly answering my question about medieval Islam, which I'll admit was something of a digression on my part.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rurik

    we know the medievals found fossils because they discussed them,
     

    In what way would, say, a Bronze-Age tomb pose any problem to medieval theologians?
     
    for the same reason a hundred million year old dinosaur bone is. It doesn't fit into the narrative.

    For a Medieval theologian, all things great and small were explained by the scripture. Man's beginnings, and his earthy dramas and foibles and the meaning of his life. His origins were laid out from Adam right on down the line to Abraham and all the rest. If you read the Bible, it seems like half of the OT is documenting the lineages of the first humans created. 'And Terah lived 70 years, and bore Abram, Nahor and Haran..'., etc..

    Now if it turned out there were magnificent civilizations and living wonders that all predated the humans from the Bible (indeed, that preceded the very existence of the creation itself), then you don't see how that might prove inconvenient to the biblical narrative, and therefor to the power of the priests, who were the exalted earthly intermediaries between hell and salvation for all living humans..

    why do you suppose Copernicus' book was banned by the Church?

    Even today there are many schools that favor the creation version of how humans arrived on earth over the Darwinian version. They want to keep the narrative going in the face of all evidence to the contrary, even today.

    we know the medievals found fossils because they discussed them,

    Why do you bother to quote me if you are not going either to argue or rebut the quote?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rurik

    The ideas were there before his time.
     
    please provide some links...

    Links? Absurd beyond belief. Have you ever read a book?

    Anyway. Google it if that’s the best you can do. You can start with Alfred Russel Wallace or just use Wikipedia. Even they know better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Have you ever read a book?
     
    have you always been an ugly cow?

    of course I don't mean physically, but personality-wise, have you always been an ugly, insufferable hag?

    with all due respect
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    but I’m not in the business of providing a college education over the internet.

     

    OK, this is from your source

    The great dishonesty of Galileo’s Dialogue was to present a contest between the Copernican and Ptolemaic models. By that time, both had been smacked down and the real contest was between the Tychonic/Ursine models and Kepler’s model, with the Ursine model being “ahead on points.” Galileo did not mention either one. He regarded the Tychonic/Ursine models as unaesthetic and klunky. He seems to have regarded Kepler's model, which came annexed to a physics in which the Sun put out a mysterious force that chivvied the planets about, as occultism. Besides, he was committed to perfect Platonic circles, and Kepler had ellipticated them. Boo.
     
    this reads like sheer idiocy

    Patient Reader will blink in astonishment at some of the objections and a little thought-balloon reading WTF? will form over his or her noggin. For example, heavy bodies will in the common course of nature fall toward the center of the world. If the Sun were in the center of the world, cannon balls dropped from the tower of Pisa would fly off toward the Sun; but we see that they do not, therefore etc.
     
    if that's what they're teaching in the colleges these days, then I thank my Gods I never wasted the money.

    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/9-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-from.html


    Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, no saints nor scholars, were really vicious emperors keeping hordes of slaves, much like our Founding Fathers.
     
    you even write in the style that website. Snarky, smarmy, sanctimonious and supercilious smug.

    But since you mentioned Aquinas, and because he's always been one of my personal heroes, I'll happily grant that not all Christians from that era were power-crazed assholes. And that most were men and women of honor and character and noble piety.

    Indeed, I suspect that it's much the same today as it was then, with the flocks of everyday Christians being as good and as decent and intelligent and honorable as any people you'll find anywhere. Perhaps even more so, in many cases.

    But the leadership. That's something different! Just take the leadership of the Catholic Church for example, to numb your soul at the sheer evil of a group of men who would coddle some of the most sinister monsters on God's green earth.

    Or the Evangelicals, that would watch every single living relative of Jesus Christ be genocided in the holy land to make way for Christ-hating murderers and war pig$

    There doesn't seem to be one outrage against reason or truth or simple human decency that the Christian leadership today doesn't preach from the pulpits as consecrated and venerable.

    when's the last time you heard a Christian leader excoriate the eternal wars based on lies as evil, wrong and immoral, not to mention anti-Christian?

    When's the last time you heard a Christian leader condemn the genocide in the holy land?

    From the Vatican to the TV preachers, it's all Israel all day long, even as that regime is as demonic and Satanic as a regime can be.

    But not to worry! As long as those shekels keep flowing into the coffers, their craven abasement to Zionism and politically correct pop culture spiritual sewage will all be quite sanctified.

    Looking at the nature of today's Christian church, I don't know who'd be vomiting more, Thomas Aquinas or Jesus Christ Himself.

    The article has appeared on-line as part of the reading for a course in science education, taught by Leonard Bliss at Florida International University in Miami. This non-commercial use was with permission.

    Anyway… You seem to be in the habit of cherry-picking for passages you find objectionable, which does not speak particularly well of your devotion to St. Thomas.

    Now, in case you’re keeping tabs, there were by this time no less than seven models in play in the early 1600s:

    Heraclidean. Geo-heliocentric. Mercury and Venus circle the Sun; everything else circles the Earth.
    Ptolemaic. Geocentric, stationary Earth.
    Copernican. Heliocentric, pure circles with lots of epicycles.
    Gilbertian. Geocentric, rotating Earth. (proposed by William Gilbert in De magnete)
    Tychonic. Geo-heliocentric. Sun and Moon circle the Earth; everything else circles the Sun.
    Ursine. Tychonic, with rotating Earth.
    Keplerian. Heliocentric, with elliptical orbits.

    Physics deals with the abstracted properties
    of physical bodies; mathematics, with the
    abstracted properties of ideal bodies.
    (Moderns treat Kepler like a minor amendment to Copernicus. But the astronomers of the time regarded Kepler’s elliptical astronomy as separate from and a competitor to Copernicus’ model.)

    Standing against all of these was Aristotelian physics, which saw no justification for the epicycles and other foo-foo in Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomy, for the spinning Earth of the Gilbertian and Ursine models, the sun-centeredness of the Copernican and Keplerian models, or for the gimcrackery of the Heraclidean, Tychonic, or Ursine models. Lofty physicists, who were, you know, scientists, looked down on mere astronomers, who were simply mathematicians.

    At this point in our story, Ptolemy is still ahead. Tycho has few adherents. Copernicus has even fewer adherents (mainly humanists, not astronomers) and most of those who adopt it, do so on instrumentalist grounds. No one can make sense out of Kepler’s math. Ursus and Gilbert seem stuck in the starting gate, since their spinning earths are a major stumbling block.

    Yup. Pure snark. No substance there.

    I admit I was somewhat excessive, and will probably continue to be, as I am constitutionally impatient, but if you don’t call your own posts excessive you must be crazier than I am, and that is saying a lot.

    Again, if you find Mr. Flynn’s style objectionable, you should do as I suggested and read his references, which are all given. Here’s some more: http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/copernicus.html .

    The rest of your post is about the Vatican and Israel (???), so I don’t really have anything to say to it.

    I’ll repeat my invocation, as it doesn’t seem to be working:
    “Medieval Muslims were evil!”
    “Medieval Muslims were evil!”
    “Medieval Muslims were evil!”

    Seriously, all joking aside, if you think medieval Muslims were less or more power-hungry than their Christian neighbors, I’d like to hear about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Ptolemaic. Geocentric, stationary Earth.
    ...
    At this point in our story, Ptolemy is still ahead.
     
    I feel somehow sullied for having participated in this farce

    The rest of your post is about the Vatican and Israel (???),
     
    the point is that if the leaders of the Christian church are today as venal and rotten as can be, and willing to coddle Satanic child rapists and war pigs to maintain their exalted positions in (earthly) society, then why (other than the few giants among the Christian community like Aquinas), should we believe that Dark Age Christian leaders were any better?

    Like I said, if they were willing to burn the young Joan of Arc alive at the stake for reasons of raw earthly power, then what reason do we have for supposing they didn't also burn or destroy all archeological evidence found during those centuries that didn't comport to the very strict narrative upon which all their perks and wealth and power emanated from?

    Based on the character of the Christian leadership today, I don't see one iniquity or sin that they don't condone or even sanctify so long as it will augment their position with the (murderous, war mongering, Western civilization destroying) PTB.

    Trust me, I wish I was wrong about that.

    medieval Muslims were less or more power-hungry than their Christian neighbors,
     
    more

    I was raised to believe that the Crusades and Saint Isabella's strident means of removing Spain's enemies, were stains upon the fabric of Christendom / Western civilization. But I've since learned that- as with everything else I've been told that all turned out to be agenda-driven lies; so too were those blood libels heaped upon our ancestors, for simply defending their lands and their culture and their iconic spiritual sacred places from Jewish/Muslim treachery and aggression [respectively]

    indeed, most of what we read about vis-a-vis the folly of the leaders and religions of the Middle Ages, are glaringly true of their modern day posers right now. Deceit, treachery, wars, insatiable self-interest are all there. Along with the flocks of working and middle class believers too busy trying to survive or raise families to unravel the snake behind the masquerade.

    Rurik ~ the irreverent
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Rurik says: • Website
    @Anon
    what’s the point, that the earth is still the center of the universe?
    No. If you can't read him, read his sources. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm not in the business of providing a college education over the internet.

    Yes, you finally got me. Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, no saints nor scholars, were really vicious emperors keeping hordes of slaves, much like our Founding Fathers. The same is true of medieval Islamic clerics. I'm going to say it three times:
    "Medieval Islam was evil!"
    "Medieval Islam was evil!"
    "Medieval Islam was evil!" in the hope that this mystical formula will summon Talha to complete the debate for me.

    I'm truly sorry for the foregoing, but one does get tired. If you will permit me to recommend you a course of reading, try Regine Pernoud. All of her books are excellent; my personal favourite is the one about the Crusades, which actually consists entirely of period sources, with brief introductions.

    I'll just tackle one of your points: wrt millions of years, how would this even be known without the dating of strata, etc.?

    but I’m not in the business of providing a college education over the internet.

    OK, this is from your source

    The great dishonesty of Galileo’s Dialogue was to present a contest between the Copernican and Ptolemaic models. By that time, both had been smacked down and the real contest was between the Tychonic/Ursine models and Kepler’s model, with the Ursine model being “ahead on points.” Galileo did not mention either one. He regarded the Tychonic/Ursine models as unaesthetic and klunky. He seems to have regarded Kepler’s model, which came annexed to a physics in which the Sun put out a mysterious force that chivvied the planets about, as occultism. Besides, he was committed to perfect Platonic circles, and Kepler had ellipticated them. Boo.

    this reads like sheer idiocy

    Patient Reader will blink in astonishment at some of the objections and a little thought-balloon reading WTF? will form over his or her noggin. For example, heavy bodies will in the common course of nature fall toward the center of the world. If the Sun were in the center of the world, cannon balls dropped from the tower of Pisa would fly off toward the Sun; but we see that they do not, therefore etc.

    if that’s what they’re teaching in the colleges these days, then I thank my Gods I never wasted the money.

    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/9-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-from.html

    Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, no saints nor scholars, were really vicious emperors keeping hordes of slaves, much like our Founding Fathers.

    you even write in the style that website. Snarky, smarmy, sanctimonious and supercilious smug.

    But since you mentioned Aquinas, and because he’s always been one of my personal heroes, I’ll happily grant that not all Christians from that era were power-crazed assholes. And that most were men and women of honor and character and noble piety.

    Indeed, I suspect that it’s much the same today as it was then, with the flocks of everyday Christians being as good and as decent and intelligent and honorable as any people you’ll find anywhere. Perhaps even more so, in many cases.

    But the leadership. That’s something different! Just take the leadership of the Catholic Church for example, to numb your soul at the sheer evil of a group of men who would coddle some of the most sinister monsters on God’s green earth.

    Or the Evangelicals, that would watch every single living relative of Jesus Christ be genocided in the holy land to make way for Christ-hating murderers and war pig$

    There doesn’t seem to be one outrage against reason or truth or simple human decency that the Christian leadership today doesn’t preach from the pulpits as consecrated and venerable.

    when’s the last time you heard a Christian leader excoriate the eternal wars based on lies as evil, wrong and immoral, not to mention anti-Christian?

    When’s the last time you heard a Christian leader condemn the genocide in the holy land?

    From the Vatican to the TV preachers, it’s all Israel all day long, even as that regime is as demonic and Satanic as a regime can be.

    But not to worry! As long as those shekels keep flowing into the coffers, their craven abasement to Zionism and politically correct pop culture spiritual sewage will all be quite sanctified.

    Looking at the nature of today’s Christian church, I don’t know who’d be vomiting more, Thomas Aquinas or Jesus Christ Himself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    The article has appeared on-line as part of the reading for a course in science education, taught by Leonard Bliss at Florida International University in Miami. This non-commercial use was with permission.
     
    Anyway... You seem to be in the habit of cherry-picking for passages you find objectionable, which does not speak particularly well of your devotion to St. Thomas.

    Now, in case you’re keeping tabs, there were by this time no less than seven models in play in the early 1600s:

    Heraclidean. Geo-heliocentric. Mercury and Venus circle the Sun; everything else circles the Earth.
    Ptolemaic. Geocentric, stationary Earth.
    Copernican. Heliocentric, pure circles with lots of epicycles.
    Gilbertian. Geocentric, rotating Earth. (proposed by William Gilbert in De magnete)
    Tychonic. Geo-heliocentric. Sun and Moon circle the Earth; everything else circles the Sun.
    Ursine. Tychonic, with rotating Earth.
    Keplerian. Heliocentric, with elliptical orbits.

    Physics deals with the abstracted properties
    of physical bodies; mathematics, with the
    abstracted properties of ideal bodies.
    (Moderns treat Kepler like a minor amendment to Copernicus. But the astronomers of the time regarded Kepler’s elliptical astronomy as separate from and a competitor to Copernicus’ model.)

    Standing against all of these was Aristotelian physics, which saw no justification for the epicycles and other foo-foo in Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomy, for the spinning Earth of the Gilbertian and Ursine models, the sun-centeredness of the Copernican and Keplerian models, or for the gimcrackery of the Heraclidean, Tychonic, or Ursine models. Lofty physicists, who were, you know, scientists, looked down on mere astronomers, who were simply mathematicians.

    At this point in our story, Ptolemy is still ahead. Tycho has few adherents. Copernicus has even fewer adherents (mainly humanists, not astronomers) and most of those who adopt it, do so on instrumentalist grounds. No one can make sense out of Kepler's math. Ursus and Gilbert seem stuck in the starting gate, since their spinning earths are a major stumbling block.
     
    Yup. Pure snark. No substance there.

    I admit I was somewhat excessive, and will probably continue to be, as I am constitutionally impatient, but if you don't call your own posts excessive you must be crazier than I am, and that is saying a lot.

    Again, if you find Mr. Flynn's style objectionable, you should do as I suggested and read his references, which are all given. Here's some more: http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/copernicus.html .

    The rest of your post is about the Vatican and Israel (???), so I don't really have anything to say to it.

    I'll repeat my invocation, as it doesn't seem to be working:
    "Medieval Muslims were evil!"
    "Medieval Muslims were evil!"
    "Medieval Muslims were evil!"

    Seriously, all joking aside, if you think medieval Muslims were less or more power-hungry than their Christian neighbors, I'd like to hear about it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    Here is a good if somewhat irreverent treatment of the whole issue of heliocentrism.
     
    it's too irreverent (I never thought I'd ever say such a thing ; ), for me to delve into.

    what's the point, that the earth is still the center of the universe?

    what’s the point, that the earth is still the center of the universe?
    No. If you can’t read him, read his sources. I never thought I’d say this, but I’m not in the business of providing a college education over the internet.

    Yes, you finally got me. Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, no saints nor scholars, were really vicious emperors keeping hordes of slaves, much like our Founding Fathers. The same is true of medieval Islamic clerics. I’m going to say it three times:
    “Medieval Islam was evil!”
    “Medieval Islam was evil!”
    “Medieval Islam was evil!” in the hope that this mystical formula will summon Talha to complete the debate for me.

    I’m truly sorry for the foregoing, but one does get tired. If you will permit me to recommend you a course of reading, try Regine Pernoud. All of her books are excellent; my personal favourite is the one about the Crusades, which actually consists entirely of period sources, with brief introductions.

    I’ll just tackle one of your points: wrt millions of years, how would this even be known without the dating of strata, etc.?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    but I’m not in the business of providing a college education over the internet.

     

    OK, this is from your source

    The great dishonesty of Galileo’s Dialogue was to present a contest between the Copernican and Ptolemaic models. By that time, both had been smacked down and the real contest was between the Tychonic/Ursine models and Kepler’s model, with the Ursine model being “ahead on points.” Galileo did not mention either one. He regarded the Tychonic/Ursine models as unaesthetic and klunky. He seems to have regarded Kepler's model, which came annexed to a physics in which the Sun put out a mysterious force that chivvied the planets about, as occultism. Besides, he was committed to perfect Platonic circles, and Kepler had ellipticated them. Boo.
     
    this reads like sheer idiocy

    Patient Reader will blink in astonishment at some of the objections and a little thought-balloon reading WTF? will form over his or her noggin. For example, heavy bodies will in the common course of nature fall toward the center of the world. If the Sun were in the center of the world, cannon balls dropped from the tower of Pisa would fly off toward the Sun; but we see that they do not, therefore etc.
     
    if that's what they're teaching in the colleges these days, then I thank my Gods I never wasted the money.

    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/9-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-from.html


    Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, no saints nor scholars, were really vicious emperors keeping hordes of slaves, much like our Founding Fathers.
     
    you even write in the style that website. Snarky, smarmy, sanctimonious and supercilious smug.

    But since you mentioned Aquinas, and because he's always been one of my personal heroes, I'll happily grant that not all Christians from that era were power-crazed assholes. And that most were men and women of honor and character and noble piety.

    Indeed, I suspect that it's much the same today as it was then, with the flocks of everyday Christians being as good and as decent and intelligent and honorable as any people you'll find anywhere. Perhaps even more so, in many cases.

    But the leadership. That's something different! Just take the leadership of the Catholic Church for example, to numb your soul at the sheer evil of a group of men who would coddle some of the most sinister monsters on God's green earth.

    Or the Evangelicals, that would watch every single living relative of Jesus Christ be genocided in the holy land to make way for Christ-hating murderers and war pig$

    There doesn't seem to be one outrage against reason or truth or simple human decency that the Christian leadership today doesn't preach from the pulpits as consecrated and venerable.

    when's the last time you heard a Christian leader excoriate the eternal wars based on lies as evil, wrong and immoral, not to mention anti-Christian?

    When's the last time you heard a Christian leader condemn the genocide in the holy land?

    From the Vatican to the TV preachers, it's all Israel all day long, even as that regime is as demonic and Satanic as a regime can be.

    But not to worry! As long as those shekels keep flowing into the coffers, their craven abasement to Zionism and politically correct pop culture spiritual sewage will all be quite sanctified.

    Looking at the nature of today's Christian church, I don't know who'd be vomiting more, Thomas Aquinas or Jesus Christ Himself.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    Please don't go into Canon Copernicus.

    Here is a good if somewhat irreverent treatment of the whole issue of heliocentrism.

    Here is a good if somewhat irreverent treatment of the whole issue of heliocentrism.

    it’s too irreverent (I never thought I’d ever say such a thing ; ), for me to delve into.

    what’s the point, that the earth is still the center of the universe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    what’s the point, that the earth is still the center of the universe?
    No. If you can't read him, read his sources. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm not in the business of providing a college education over the internet.

    Yes, you finally got me. Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, no saints nor scholars, were really vicious emperors keeping hordes of slaves, much like our Founding Fathers. The same is true of medieval Islamic clerics. I'm going to say it three times:
    "Medieval Islam was evil!"
    "Medieval Islam was evil!"
    "Medieval Islam was evil!" in the hope that this mystical formula will summon Talha to complete the debate for me.

    I'm truly sorry for the foregoing, but one does get tired. If you will permit me to recommend you a course of reading, try Regine Pernoud. All of her books are excellent; my personal favourite is the one about the Crusades, which actually consists entirely of period sources, with brief introductions.

    I'll just tackle one of your points: wrt millions of years, how would this even be known without the dating of strata, etc.?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Rurik says: • Website
    @Anon

    Now if it turned out there were magnificent civilizations and living wonders that all predated the humans from the Bible
     
    No, because there are magnificent civilizations in the Bible. Persia, anyone? Assyria?

    No, because there are magnificent civilizations in the Bible. Persia, anyone? Assyria?

    so the Church has always been open to all knowledge and evidence of all truths reaching back to millions of years before even the beginning of creation itself?

    their dogmas would never lead them to suppress knowledge or destroy artifacts that contradict the scriptures?

    they were open minded and sought naught but the truth, even to the detriment of their faith?

    when they did things like condemn Joan of Arc to burn at the stake..

    were they interested in the biddings of scripture and the search for truth, *or* earthly power?

    if earthly power, and they were willing to burn a devout teenage girl alive to augment their respective reign over others, then how less willing do you suppose they’d be to burn archeological artifacts if they considered them inconvenient?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rurik

    we know the medievals found fossils because they discussed them,
     

    In what way would, say, a Bronze-Age tomb pose any problem to medieval theologians?
     
    for the same reason a hundred million year old dinosaur bone is. It doesn't fit into the narrative.

    For a Medieval theologian, all things great and small were explained by the scripture. Man's beginnings, and his earthy dramas and foibles and the meaning of his life. His origins were laid out from Adam right on down the line to Abraham and all the rest. If you read the Bible, it seems like half of the OT is documenting the lineages of the first humans created. 'And Terah lived 70 years, and bore Abram, Nahor and Haran..'., etc..

    Now if it turned out there were magnificent civilizations and living wonders that all predated the humans from the Bible (indeed, that preceded the very existence of the creation itself), then you don't see how that might prove inconvenient to the biblical narrative, and therefor to the power of the priests, who were the exalted earthly intermediaries between hell and salvation for all living humans..

    why do you suppose Copernicus' book was banned by the Church?

    Even today there are many schools that favor the creation version of how humans arrived on earth over the Darwinian version. They want to keep the narrative going in the face of all evidence to the contrary, even today.

    Please don’t go into Canon Copernicus.

    Here is a good if somewhat irreverent treatment of the whole issue of heliocentrism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Here is a good if somewhat irreverent treatment of the whole issue of heliocentrism.
     
    it's too irreverent (I never thought I'd ever say such a thing ; ), for me to delve into.

    what's the point, that the earth is still the center of the universe?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rurik

    we know the medievals found fossils because they discussed them,
     

    In what way would, say, a Bronze-Age tomb pose any problem to medieval theologians?
     
    for the same reason a hundred million year old dinosaur bone is. It doesn't fit into the narrative.

    For a Medieval theologian, all things great and small were explained by the scripture. Man's beginnings, and his earthy dramas and foibles and the meaning of his life. His origins were laid out from Adam right on down the line to Abraham and all the rest. If you read the Bible, it seems like half of the OT is documenting the lineages of the first humans created. 'And Terah lived 70 years, and bore Abram, Nahor and Haran..'., etc..

    Now if it turned out there were magnificent civilizations and living wonders that all predated the humans from the Bible (indeed, that preceded the very existence of the creation itself), then you don't see how that might prove inconvenient to the biblical narrative, and therefor to the power of the priests, who were the exalted earthly intermediaries between hell and salvation for all living humans..

    why do you suppose Copernicus' book was banned by the Church?

    Even today there are many schools that favor the creation version of how humans arrived on earth over the Darwinian version. They want to keep the narrative going in the face of all evidence to the contrary, even today.

    Now if it turned out there were magnificent civilizations and living wonders that all predated the humans from the Bible

    No, because there are magnificent civilizations in the Bible. Persia, anyone? Assyria?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    No, because there are magnificent civilizations in the Bible. Persia, anyone? Assyria?
     
    so the Church has always been open to all knowledge and evidence of all truths reaching back to millions of years before even the beginning of creation itself?

    their dogmas would never lead them to suppress knowledge or destroy artifacts that contradict the scriptures?

    they were open minded and sought naught but the truth, even to the detriment of their faith?

    when they did things like condemn Joan of Arc to burn at the stake..

    were they interested in the biddings of scripture and the search for truth, *or* earthly power?

    if earthly power, and they were willing to burn a devout teenage girl alive to augment their respective reign over others, then how less willing do you suppose they'd be to burn archeological artifacts if they considered them inconvenient?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @LauraMR
    At least take the time to read on Darwin before bringing him up. The ideas were there before his time. He produced the scientific evidence. A great achievement but not one that serves your "argument".

    The ideas were there before his time.

    please provide some links…

    Read More
    • Replies: @LauraMR
    Links? Absurd beyond belief. Have you ever read a book?

    Anyway. Google it if that's the best you can do. You can start with Alfred Russel Wallace or just use Wikipedia. Even they know better.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Rurik says: • Website
    @Anon
    Well, you evidently read the previous reply (#119), because you mentioned it, so I saw no need to clarify. See also #115.

    And since you've moved on to fossils, #177.

    You're welcome, and thanks for engaging in a reasonable manner.

    we know the medievals found fossils because they discussed them,

    In what way would, say, a Bronze-Age tomb pose any problem to medieval theologians?

    for the same reason a hundred million year old dinosaur bone is. It doesn’t fit into the narrative.

    For a Medieval theologian, all things great and small were explained by the scripture. Man’s beginnings, and his earthy dramas and foibles and the meaning of his life. His origins were laid out from Adam right on down the line to Abraham and all the rest. If you read the Bible, it seems like half of the OT is documenting the lineages of the first humans created. ‘And Terah lived 70 years, and bore Abram, Nahor and Haran..’., etc..

    Now if it turned out there were magnificent civilizations and living wonders that all predated the humans from the Bible (indeed, that preceded the very existence of the creation itself), then you don’t see how that might prove inconvenient to the biblical narrative, and therefor to the power of the priests, who were the exalted earthly intermediaries between hell and salvation for all living humans..

    why do you suppose Copernicus’ book was banned by the Church?

    Even today there are many schools that favor the creation version of how humans arrived on earth over the Darwinian version. They want to keep the narrative going in the face of all evidence to the contrary, even today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Now if it turned out there were magnificent civilizations and living wonders that all predated the humans from the Bible
     
    No, because there are magnificent civilizations in the Bible. Persia, anyone? Assyria?
    , @Anon
    Please don't go into Canon Copernicus.

    Here is a good if somewhat irreverent treatment of the whole issue of heliocentrism.

    , @Anon

    we know the medievals found fossils because they discussed them,
     
    Why do you bother to quote me if you are not going either to argue or rebut the quote?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rurik

    There is much knowledge that was lost with the collapse of the various civilizations.
     
    not just lost, but often deliberately destroyed, like the Library of Alexandria

    during the entire Middle Ages, the church must have burned or otherwise destroyed all archeological artifacts or other records of ancient man's genius and creations, unless they comported with the priest's narrative of the day.

    they were no better than the Taliban destroying ancient statues carved into mountain sides, or their ideological brothers today destroying the Baghdad museum and re-writing ancient history to comport with their own tribal narratives.

    So much has been lost, that it's impossible to really know just how magnificent our ancestors really were, when there's so many with their assorted agendas trying to make hay with some trite fable to enthrall the masses with and enslave their collective minds.

    The key issue is that progress gets harder over time, concepts build on each other, you need to tie more and more things together in increasingly complex ways.
     
    that's the easy part. The hard part is thinking up unique insights in the first place. For Copernicus to be told his entire life that the earth was the center of the universe, and that to question that was wrong and sinful, but not only did he question it, he revolutionized our understanding of the very skies and stars and our place in the universe.

    That's the kind of genius that's remarkable. The kind that pops up from out of nowhere and sees what's right in front of all our faces, but we lack the courage and intelligence to see it.

    Like Darwin, who singlehandedly saw what was really quite obvious.. now that he pointed it out. But for his mind to burst free of the mental chains of the day, and soar beyond the shackles his fellow scientists could not break, is the kind of genius we seem to be lacking today.

    we can build on the work of the giants who've come before us, but we seem woefully unable to innovate and create out of thin air, what men like Copernicus or Newton or Darwin were able to do.

    At least take the time to read on Darwin before bringing him up. The ideas were there before his time. He produced the scientific evidence. A great achievement but not one that serves your “argument”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    The ideas were there before his time.
     
    please provide some links...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Philip Owen
    Moving from the Greeks to the biology, the answer is likely to be "No".

    Since agriculture our brains have become smaller, a characteristic of domestication.

    Amongst Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Cro Magnons had the largest brains (& eye sockets). Neanderthals had even larger brains and eye sockets. So in terms of sheer processing power, we are unlikely to be more intelligent. Wild carnivores have to be sharper than their prey. We don't. But there is no Neanderthal philosophy available to us. We think with language, which Neanderthals didn't have. OK - I'm an engineer, I also do a lot of visio-spatial thinking but only in idling or problem solving modes. My stream of consciousness is largely verbal.

    So, I suspect that we are a lot dumber visio-spatially than our ancestors. They would have a intuitive grasp of physics beyond ours. However, we have the vocabulary to describe things and share things. So, we have Babylonian maths and the Bible stretching back to the beginning of agriculture on which we have built and built. (I defend the Bible. In the Beginning was the Word is about as good as modern Astro-Physics as a piece of philosophy explaining origin. The first parts of Genesis are a very reasonable description of evolution, stripped of the figurative language of "creation". It is not obvious that we have moved all that far).

    So, I suspect that we are a lot dumber visio-spatially than our ancestors.

    But increased analytical skills*

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Rurik says: • Website
    @Philip Owen
    Moving from the Greeks to the biology, the answer is likely to be "No".

    Since agriculture our brains have become smaller, a characteristic of domestication.

    Amongst Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Cro Magnons had the largest brains (& eye sockets). Neanderthals had even larger brains and eye sockets. So in terms of sheer processing power, we are unlikely to be more intelligent. Wild carnivores have to be sharper than their prey. We don't. But there is no Neanderthal philosophy available to us. We think with language, which Neanderthals didn't have. OK - I'm an engineer, I also do a lot of visio-spatial thinking but only in idling or problem solving modes. My stream of consciousness is largely verbal.

    So, I suspect that we are a lot dumber visio-spatially than our ancestors. They would have a intuitive grasp of physics beyond ours. However, we have the vocabulary to describe things and share things. So, we have Babylonian maths and the Bible stretching back to the beginning of agriculture on which we have built and built. (I defend the Bible. In the Beginning was the Word is about as good as modern Astro-Physics as a piece of philosophy explaining origin. The first parts of Genesis are a very reasonable description of evolution, stripped of the figurative language of "creation". It is not obvious that we have moved all that far).

    We think with language, which Neanderthals didn’t have

    this long-held belief has recently been challenged by some “ground-breaking research” which suggests otherwise.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140302185241.htm

    The first parts of Genesis are a very reasonable description of evolution

    I agree. The parts about humans having eaten from the tree of the fruit of knowledge, and therefor expelled from the garden of Eden, is as poetically true as anything I’ve read.

    we humans are simultaneously animals and, also removed from the animal kingdom. We are a paradox, and are doomed to the perpetual struggle between both the earthly and mortal world, and the divine world of our dreams (and nightmares) and aspirations.

    otherwise, I very much agree with the gist of your thoughtful post

    we’ve lost a lot as we’ve become civilized (domesticated)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    As I understand it, Neanderthals might have been able to say "That is a young female" but not "my daughter is like a rose". Symbolic thinking was the Homo S S speciality. But on a one to one problem solving level I wouldn't rule out the Neanderthals as I understand it. They invented things like barbed spears but did not diffuse them to other groups.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rurik

    were particularly more power-hungry than people in other places and times
     
    well, that wasn't my main point, although I do suspect that such a statement is true if you subject it to the crucible of comparisons between some places and times; like post-revolution America, where there certainly was less power-hungry rulers than what existed during the Middle Ages, no? When anointed monarchies were entrenched and the Church in Europe was unassailable.

    is quite far-fetched.
     
    I think what you're suggesting that was far-fetched was my theory that there have been many, untold archeological findings that were discovered during the Middle Ages (and undoubtedly many other eras), that were considered inconvenient to the narrative of the day, and subsequently destroyed as a danger to the PTB, whose power was dependent in some part upon that narrative.

    I watch even today as the devout and pious struggle to explain hundreds of millions of years old dinosaur bones in a world that is only a few thousand years old, according to scripture.

    It isn't my agenda to belittle the scriptures or the people of good faith who hold them sacred, except insofar as those beliefs are anathema to greater truths about our ancestors and our understanding of our collective history.

    It's no different than the efforts to suppress the truth about the existence of the Kennewick Man, and what his presence on this continent so long ago means.

    I just wonder how many archeological findings over the eons have been destroyed or otherwise suppressed to comport to a sanctioned version of the narrative of the day.

    the points I raised in my previous reply
     
    why don't you select a user name so that the continuity of the conversations can be followed more easily?

    It's not like it's hard to do. You just type something in and use it.

    I don't understand why people use Anon unless they're just writing a one-off to make some point without ever engaging in a conversation.

    Oh well.

    Thanks anyways for the reply.

    Well, you evidently read the previous reply (#119), because you mentioned it, so I saw no need to clarify. See also #115.

    And since you’ve moved on to fossils, #177.

    You’re welcome, and thanks for engaging in a reasonable manner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    we know the medievals found fossils because they discussed them,
     

    In what way would, say, a Bronze-Age tomb pose any problem to medieval theologians?
     
    for the same reason a hundred million year old dinosaur bone is. It doesn't fit into the narrative.

    For a Medieval theologian, all things great and small were explained by the scripture. Man's beginnings, and his earthy dramas and foibles and the meaning of his life. His origins were laid out from Adam right on down the line to Abraham and all the rest. If you read the Bible, it seems like half of the OT is documenting the lineages of the first humans created. 'And Terah lived 70 years, and bore Abram, Nahor and Haran..'., etc..

    Now if it turned out there were magnificent civilizations and living wonders that all predated the humans from the Bible (indeed, that preceded the very existence of the creation itself), then you don't see how that might prove inconvenient to the biblical narrative, and therefor to the power of the priests, who were the exalted earthly intermediaries between hell and salvation for all living humans..

    why do you suppose Copernicus' book was banned by the Church?

    Even today there are many schools that favor the creation version of how humans arrived on earth over the Darwinian version. They want to keep the narrative going in the face of all evidence to the contrary, even today.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Moving from the Greeks to the biology, the answer is likely to be “No”.

    Since agriculture our brains have become smaller, a characteristic of domestication.

    Amongst Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Cro Magnons had the largest brains (& eye sockets). Neanderthals had even larger brains and eye sockets. So in terms of sheer processing power, we are unlikely to be more intelligent. Wild carnivores have to be sharper than their prey. We don’t. But there is no Neanderthal philosophy available to us. We think with language, which Neanderthals didn’t have. OK – I’m an engineer, I also do a lot of visio-spatial thinking but only in idling or problem solving modes. My stream of consciousness is largely verbal.

    So, I suspect that we are a lot dumber visio-spatially than our ancestors. They would have a intuitive grasp of physics beyond ours. However, we have the vocabulary to describe things and share things. So, we have Babylonian maths and the Bible stretching back to the beginning of agriculture on which we have built and built. (I defend the Bible. In the Beginning was the Word is about as good as modern Astro-Physics as a piece of philosophy explaining origin. The first parts of Genesis are a very reasonable description of evolution, stripped of the figurative language of “creation”. It is not obvious that we have moved all that far).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    We think with language, which Neanderthals didn’t have
     
    this long-held belief has recently been challenged by some "ground-breaking research" which suggests otherwise.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140302185241.htm


    The first parts of Genesis are a very reasonable description of evolution
     
    I agree. The parts about humans having eaten from the tree of the fruit of knowledge, and therefor expelled from the garden of Eden, is as poetically true as anything I've read.

    we humans are simultaneously animals and, also removed from the animal kingdom. We are a paradox, and are doomed to the perpetual struggle between both the earthly and mortal world, and the divine world of our dreams (and nightmares) and aspirations.

    otherwise, I very much agree with the gist of your thoughtful post

    we've lost a lot as we've become civilized (domesticated)

    , @Santoculto

    So, I suspect that we are a lot dumber visio-spatially than our ancestors.
     
    But increased analytical skills*
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Rurik says: • Website
    @Anon
    Well, since I'm the one who said you weren't an expert on the medieval period, let me qualify that by saying I never suggested you were afraid or otherwise unable to think. It's just that this particular story of yours (and the allegation that medieval rulers- who, by the way, weren't really the Church in most places-- were particularly more power-hungry than people in other places and times) is quite far-fetched. I think the points I raised in my previous reply are at least worth considering.

    May I point out in what era our "rights going back to the Magna Carta" --and a thousand other charters-- were established?

    were particularly more power-hungry than people in other places and times

    well, that wasn’t my main point, although I do suspect that such a statement is true if you subject it to the crucible of comparisons between some places and times; like post-revolution America, where there certainly was less power-hungry rulers than what existed during the Middle Ages, no? When anointed monarchies were entrenched and the Church in Europe was unassailable.

    is quite far-fetched.

    I think what you’re suggesting that was far-fetched was my theory that there have been many, untold archeological findings that were discovered during the Middle Ages (and undoubtedly many other eras), that were considered inconvenient to the narrative of the day, and subsequently destroyed as a danger to the PTB, whose power was dependent in some part upon that narrative.

    I watch even today as the devout and pious struggle to explain hundreds of millions of years old dinosaur bones in a world that is only a few thousand years old, according to scripture.

    It isn’t my agenda to belittle the scriptures or the people of good faith who hold them sacred, except insofar as those beliefs are anathema to greater truths about our ancestors and our understanding of our collective history.

    It’s no different than the efforts to suppress the truth about the existence of the Kennewick Man, and what his presence on this continent so long ago means.

    I just wonder how many archeological findings over the eons have been destroyed or otherwise suppressed to comport to a sanctioned version of the narrative of the day.

    the points I raised in my previous reply

    why don’t you select a user name so that the continuity of the conversations can be followed more easily?

    It’s not like it’s hard to do. You just type something in and use it.

    I don’t understand why people use Anon unless they’re just writing a one-off to make some point without ever engaging in a conversation.

    Oh well.

    Thanks anyways for the reply.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Well, you evidently read the previous reply (#119), because you mentioned it, so I saw no need to clarify. See also #115.

    And since you've moved on to fossils, #177.

    You're welcome, and thanks for engaging in a reasonable manner.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    The Church was suppressing inconvenient findings (lots of evidence of that) and we do have a gaping archaeological hole in the European Middle Ages.

    Listen to reason first and data second. History in particular is filled with wrong or insufficient data so you should rely on reason to sort it out – to the best of your ability.
     

    well said

    and the Church (and the PTB) wasn't just suppressing inconvenient findings back then, but are doing it today- in earnest.

    as I've mentioned, there is a reason our culture is so dumbed down, and the universities kick out ideological zombies unable to think. Thinking is dangerous to the regime, and they would like it banned on principle. Better to have the graduates regurgitating trite platitudes than questioning the canonical mantras du jour.

    in a thinking West, would Hillary Clinton have ascended to the heights of power that she did?

    indeed, you can extrapolate Hillary to the entire political and media power structures of the Western world, and see the rot is all pervasive.

    But to the Church, all is hunky-dory!

    9/11 was the seminal event of our lifetimes. A crime of such epic import, that it has caused the subversion of our ancient and hard won rights going back to the Magna Carta, and the loss and destruction of millions of lives and entire countries bombed into smoking ashes and sent reeling back into the stone age, no doubt, for generations to come.

    But you won't find one in a thousand academics or politicians or media personalities (let alone the clergy!) with the moral courage or intellectual integrity to doubt or question one scintilla of the avalanche of patently ludicrous absurdities that masquerade as the "truth" of what happened on that fateful and potentially civilization-ending day.

    Such is the widespread moral and intellectual cowardice of our institutions, (including of course the Church)

    someone on this thread mentioned that "Rurik" is no expert, and they could not be more correct. I'm a million miles away from being an expert of any kind vis-a-vis academia or history or philosophy. I'm a student of these things, and expect to spend the rest of my life being one.

    But one thing I will say about my humble perspective on these things is that I'm not afraid to think, (however mundanely) and to see things that are right in front of my face, with the moral courage to say the emperor wears no cloths, if that's the best (if trite) analogy available.

    it isn't intelligence or, God help us, expertise that our leaders and/or society lack. Rather it's the moral courage to simply see and then say things that are inconvenient.

    if our leaders today will suppress all knowledge or questions about 9/11 to protect the status quo, (and their respective emoluments), then do I hold the leaders of the Church to a higher standard during the Medieval period?

    it isn't just individual men that are so often false, but it seems to me that entire civilizations can be also, when the spiritual rot has metastasized in a society from the top down, and the collective moral cowardice is not just ascendant, but ubiquitous, all pervasive and seemingly endemic.

    Well, since I’m the one who said you weren’t an expert on the medieval period, let me qualify that by saying I never suggested you were afraid or otherwise unable to think. It’s just that this particular story of yours (and the allegation that medieval rulers- who, by the way, weren’t really the Church in most places– were particularly more power-hungry than people in other places and times) is quite far-fetched. I think the points I raised in my previous reply are at least worth considering.

    May I point out in what era our “rights going back to the Magna Carta” –and a thousand other charters– were established?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    were particularly more power-hungry than people in other places and times
     
    well, that wasn't my main point, although I do suspect that such a statement is true if you subject it to the crucible of comparisons between some places and times; like post-revolution America, where there certainly was less power-hungry rulers than what existed during the Middle Ages, no? When anointed monarchies were entrenched and the Church in Europe was unassailable.

    is quite far-fetched.
     
    I think what you're suggesting that was far-fetched was my theory that there have been many, untold archeological findings that were discovered during the Middle Ages (and undoubtedly many other eras), that were considered inconvenient to the narrative of the day, and subsequently destroyed as a danger to the PTB, whose power was dependent in some part upon that narrative.

    I watch even today as the devout and pious struggle to explain hundreds of millions of years old dinosaur bones in a world that is only a few thousand years old, according to scripture.

    It isn't my agenda to belittle the scriptures or the people of good faith who hold them sacred, except insofar as those beliefs are anathema to greater truths about our ancestors and our understanding of our collective history.

    It's no different than the efforts to suppress the truth about the existence of the Kennewick Man, and what his presence on this continent so long ago means.

    I just wonder how many archeological findings over the eons have been destroyed or otherwise suppressed to comport to a sanctioned version of the narrative of the day.

    the points I raised in my previous reply
     
    why don't you select a user name so that the continuity of the conversations can be followed more easily?

    It's not like it's hard to do. You just type something in and use it.

    I don't understand why people use Anon unless they're just writing a one-off to make some point without ever engaging in a conversation.

    Oh well.

    Thanks anyways for the reply.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Rurik says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    Of course it's a reasonable argument. The Church was suppressing inconvenient findings (lots of evidence of that) and we do have a gaping archaeological hole in the European Middle Ages.

    Listen to reason first and data second. History in particular is filled with wrong or insufficient data so you should rely on reason to sort it out - to the best of your ability.

    The Church was suppressing inconvenient findings (lots of evidence of that) and we do have a gaping archaeological hole in the European Middle Ages.

    Listen to reason first and data second. History in particular is filled with wrong or insufficient data so you should rely on reason to sort it out – to the best of your ability.

    well said

    and the Church (and the PTB) wasn’t just suppressing inconvenient findings back then, but are doing it today- in earnest.

    as I’ve mentioned, there is a reason our culture is so dumbed down, and the universities kick out ideological zombies unable to think. Thinking is dangerous to the regime, and they would like it banned on principle. Better to have the graduates regurgitating trite platitudes than questioning the canonical mantras du jour.

    in a thinking West, would Hillary Clinton have ascended to the heights of power that she did?

    indeed, you can extrapolate Hillary to the entire political and media power structures of the Western world, and see the rot is all pervasive.

    But to the Church, all is hunky-dory!

    9/11 was the seminal event of our lifetimes. A crime of such epic import, that it has caused the subversion of our ancient and hard won rights going back to the Magna Carta, and the loss and destruction of millions of lives and entire countries bombed into smoking ashes and sent reeling back into the stone age, no doubt, for generations to come.

    But you won’t find one in a thousand academics or politicians or media personalities (let alone the clergy!) with the moral courage or intellectual integrity to doubt or question one scintilla of the avalanche of patently ludicrous absurdities that masquerade as the “truth” of what happened on that fateful and potentially civilization-ending day.

    Such is the widespread moral and intellectual cowardice of our institutions, (including of course the Church)

    someone on this thread mentioned that “Rurik” is no expert, and they could not be more correct. I’m a million miles away from being an expert of any kind vis-a-vis academia or history or philosophy. I’m a student of these things, and expect to spend the rest of my life being one.

    But one thing I will say about my humble perspective on these things is that I’m not afraid to think, (however mundanely) and to see things that are right in front of my face, with the moral courage to say the emperor wears no cloths, if that’s the best (if trite) analogy available.

    it isn’t intelligence or, God help us, expertise that our leaders and/or society lack. Rather it’s the moral courage to simply see and then say things that are inconvenient.

    if our leaders today will suppress all knowledge or questions about 9/11 to protect the status quo, (and their respective emoluments), then do I hold the leaders of the Church to a higher standard during the Medieval period?

    it isn’t just individual men that are so often false, but it seems to me that entire civilizations can be also, when the spiritual rot has metastasized in a society from the top down, and the collective moral cowardice is not just ascendant, but ubiquitous, all pervasive and seemingly endemic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Well, since I'm the one who said you weren't an expert on the medieval period, let me qualify that by saying I never suggested you were afraid or otherwise unable to think. It's just that this particular story of yours (and the allegation that medieval rulers- who, by the way, weren't really the Church in most places-- were particularly more power-hungry than people in other places and times) is quite far-fetched. I think the points I raised in my previous reply are at least worth considering.

    May I point out in what era our "rights going back to the Magna Carta" --and a thousand other charters-- were established?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Pericles
    What's so inconvenient about finding some big bones? "There were giants in the earth in those days", the remains of antediluvian monsters, etc. Seems like a comfortable position for The Authorities.

    Actually we know the medievals found fossils because they discussed them, following the Arabs in positing some kind of “petrifying fluid” that caused fossilization.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @annamaria
    Try to do without white race. Nobody forces you to cling to everything white-made. You are welcome.

    Ok,

    so you believe you are superior ’cause white race… i mean…

    Beethoven was a german/white genius, me white, me genius too*

    isn’t*

    Well, based on africanization of Americas white race did, i thought it’s preferable to do things without jewish-mental slaves*

    Merci…

    So you have

    facebook or gmail*

    Do you use google*

    Do you like rock*

    If a politician ”do good things” but he is corrupt, so he is excusable*

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    Rationality

    Adult debates with focus on the matter of post or at least on pertinent subjects;

    Behave in erratic and misunderstood ways (don't understand nothing what other person say and start to attack it based on its own misunderstood) = is not good

    There are moments for jokes and kidding

    Revolt against stupid

    = hypersensitivity; hysteria

    Poor white race.

    Try to do without white race. Nobody forces you to cling to everything white-made. You are welcome.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Ok,

    so you believe you are superior 'cause white race... i mean...

    Beethoven was a german/white genius, me white, me genius too*

    isn't*

    Well, based on africanization of Americas white race did, i thought it's preferable to do things without jewish-mental slaves*

    Merci...

    So you have

    facebook or gmail*

    Do you use google*

    Do you like rock*


    If a politician ''do good things'' but he is corrupt, so he is excusable*
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Of course it's a reasonable argument. The Church was suppressing inconvenient findings (lots of evidence of that) and we do have a gaping archaeological hole in the European Middle Ages.

    Listen to reason first and data second. History in particular is filled with wrong or insufficient data so you should rely on reason to sort it out - to the best of your ability.

    What’s so inconvenient about finding some big bones? “There were giants in the earth in those days”, the remains of antediluvian monsters, etc. Seems like a comfortable position for The Authorities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Actually we know the medievals found fossils because they discussed them, following the Arabs in positing some kind of "petrifying fluid" that caused fossilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @annamaria
    Oversensitive Sanculto has hysterics. Relax and breath deeply.

    Rationality

    Adult debates with focus on the matter of post or at least on pertinent subjects;

    Behave in erratic and misunderstood ways (don’t understand nothing what other person say and start to attack it based on its own misunderstood) = is not good

    There are moments for jokes and kidding

    Revolt against stupid

    = hypersensitivity; hysteria

    Poor white race.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Try to do without white race. Nobody forces you to cling to everything white-made. You are welcome.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @The Alarmist
    There is a lot of survivorship bias at play, not the least of which is the survival of the literature and art that evidences the ancient greats. If the Romans had extirpated Greece in the same way they had Carthage, there wouldn't have been anything worthy of either culture for the Arabs and Middle-Ages monks to bring forward to us. Where is all the evidence of Mayan or ancient Indian or even Khmer civilizational accomplishment? Some survives and is only being pieced together today, so it is a somewhat apples to oranges comparison to a relatively well stewarded Western civilization and culture.

    Are we regressing from the Victorians? Almost certainly! One of the prime reasons is the society-wide emphases on safety and safety equipment as well as advances in medical technology and understanding, which have prevented a lot of the natural selection that would otherwise have helped us to continue to progress. Not to mention the corruption of morals and the replacement of common sense with emotion. We are our the cause of our own downfall in so many ways.

    Not to mention that we now love sophistry above all else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Malcer
    Europe has been ahead of the rest the world since at least the Renaissance. Your pathetic Anti-Western revisionism (while speaking English and using European technology) doesn't change that. Neither does your delusions of grandeur where Russia and China (squalor filled with a far lower GDP per capita) defeat the foul West. It's even sillier that your linking an article by a Creationist who's an apologist for the Axis.

    By the way, all the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. As noted by one Richard Dawkins.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Lol no. Ancient Greek philosophers make Heidegger or Wittgenstein look like child’s play. People who are dilettantes think they can understand Plato or Aristotle after reading a few summaries. Don’t even get me started on the Pre Socratics. University professors have spent their career trying to decode their thought properly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous

    To excel in either science or philosophy, or mixed (as they often were) and related fields, requires both hard work and genius, the degree of each varying by the individual.
     
    A fool is just a mokey for a real magus.

    Tell me what that means.

    Are you Russian?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @German_reader

    my reading of the account of his death is that he encouraged the youth to question everything
     
    I was referring to his trial...iirc (hope I'm not wrong about this, writing this up from memory) he pretty much mocked the court system which was a central element of Athenian democracy. Under the Athenian system of justice accuser and defendant both made pleas for how the case should be judged, and the jurors (chosen randomly by lot) then had to make a choice (that is, they couldn't decide on some other form of punishment). Socrates' accuser argued for the death penalty. Socrates could have chosen exile or some other lesser punishment, or maybe even argued for acquittal in his plea...and would probably have avoided death. Instead he plead for being awarded the highest honours of the Athenian state. He dared the jurors to either sentence him to death or being ridiculed for having to grant him his outrageous demands. Highly provocative behaviour, and unsurprisingly the jurors didn't react well to that.

    Socrates was found guilty first, and then was given the opportunity to weight in on his sentence. He did indeed ask for a pension, which appears to have peeved the jury since more of them voted to have him put to death than had voted for the guilty verdict in the first place.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    Get out retard...

    I'm ''slightly' lower than your verbal ''IQ''... and it's your ''mother-tongue''.

    Please, shut up

    I thought Thompson must avoid this type of USELESS ''debate'' and prefferencially certain types of ''commenters'' as Hannah Montana here.

    inbred white trash,

    sad!

    There is some moderator here or it's only the computer*

    One of the MOST irritating feature of completely retard ''people'' as Hannah Montana and her boyfriend is THAT stubborness above the shit she don't understood and never will.

    We already lost Hannah CRACKER Montana, now it's just its perfid instinct that is talking,

    We need a exorcist

    http://static.spin.com/files/2017/05/Screen-Shot-2017-05-04-at-1.58.17-PM-1493920761-640x372.png

    HELP
    HELP

    Interestingly Hannah and her boyfriend don't argued....

    Oversensitive Sanculto has hysterics. Relax and breath deeply.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Rationality

    Adult debates with focus on the matter of post or at least on pertinent subjects;

    Behave in erratic and misunderstood ways (don't understand nothing what other person say and start to attack it based on its own misunderstood) = is not good

    There are moments for jokes and kidding

    Revolt against stupid

    = hypersensitivity; hysteria

    Poor white race.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @annamaria
    Waiting for expression of white guilt towards your villainous manners and ridiculous pretenses? No-go zone, Santoculto.

    Jeez…

    this explain why whitey look so hopeless…

    this are the white knights [vikings] who will defend ”white race”**

    Poor white race

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @annamaria
    Judging from Santoculto pretentious verbosity (filled with grammatical errors and often illegible) and the gimme ideology, he/she belongs to African migrants dizzy with gov' handouts (something for nothing). Curiously how the "victimized" Santoculto converges with "victimized" Sherman, up to easiness with spewing the pedestrian insults.

    Get out retard…

    I’m ”slightly’ lower than your verbal ”IQ”… and it’s your ”mother-tongue”.

    Please, shut up

    I thought Thompson must avoid this type of USELESS ”debate” and prefferencially certain types of ”commenters” as Hannah Montana here.

    inbred white trash,

    sad!

    There is some moderator here or it’s only the computer*

    One of the MOST irritating feature of completely retard ”people” as Hannah Montana and her boyfriend is THAT stubborness above the shit she don’t understood and never will.

    We already lost Hannah CRACKER Montana, now it’s just its perfid instinct that is talking,

    We need a exorcist

    HELP
    HELP

    Interestingly Hannah and her boyfriend don’t argued….

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Oversensitive Sanculto has hysterics. Relax and breath deeply.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Xerxes
    Had Mr Thompson taken off his Eurocentric blinkers he would have read the below and wept.

    https://www.unz.com/article/bestselling-revisionist-historian-germany-was-just-a-patsy/

    Europe has been ahead of the rest the world since at least the Renaissance. Your pathetic Anti-Western revisionism (while speaking English and using European technology) doesn’t change that. Neither does your delusions of grandeur where Russia and China (squalor filled with a far lower GDP per capita) defeat the foul West. It’s even sillier that your linking an article by a Creationist who’s an apologist for the Axis.

    By the way, all the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. As noted by one Richard Dawkins.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malcer
    Bonus:

    https://archive.org/details/WestVSRest

    https://archive.org/details/Debunking

    http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/9576-an-anti-sjw-history-the-of-world/page__st__20
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    I started ignoring Santoculto's posts a day or two after finding this site. Life is short.

    Judging from Santoculto pretentious verbosity (filled with grammatical errors and often illegible) and the gimme ideology, he/she belongs to African migrants dizzy with gov’ handouts (something for nothing). Curiously how the “victimized” Santoculto converges with “victimized” Sherman, up to easiness with spewing the pedestrian insults.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Get out retard...

    I'm ''slightly' lower than your verbal ''IQ''... and it's your ''mother-tongue''.

    Please, shut up

    I thought Thompson must avoid this type of USELESS ''debate'' and prefferencially certain types of ''commenters'' as Hannah Montana here.

    inbred white trash,

    sad!

    There is some moderator here or it's only the computer*

    One of the MOST irritating feature of completely retard ''people'' as Hannah Montana and her boyfriend is THAT stubborness above the shit she don't understood and never will.

    We already lost Hannah CRACKER Montana, now it's just its perfid instinct that is talking,

    We need a exorcist

    http://static.spin.com/files/2017/05/Screen-Shot-2017-05-04-at-1.58.17-PM-1493920761-640x372.png

    HELP
    HELP

    Interestingly Hannah and her boyfriend don't argued....

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • J says:

    Did Athenian businessmen walking from the port of Piraeus to the city spend the time discussing complex, abstract arguments? Did Athenians remember word-by-word what had been said an hour and half ago and formulate on the spot, while walking, complicated counter-arguments? As for me, I had to read three or four times Plato’s short essays to get his points, always writing down notes to remember and organize the ideas. If Ancient Athenians did it casually al-fresco, they certainly possessed better heads than the bald ball on my neck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    I started ignoring Santoculto's posts a day or two after finding this site. Life is short.

    Anonymous or abonymous?? The same idiot I have the “pleasure” to waste my time??

    “Hanna Maria” misunderstood my entire post. Now “anonymous” or “abomynous” have solidarity with a brother or sister who is a self-troll too. So cute!! Yes life is short, I thought if no have any destination to Mars for two retarded here.

    Because incapacity of “Hanna Montana” here to simply understand my intention on my comments, originally not directed to her or to hxx, this post become a freak show.

    Abomynous, without ANY or minimal DECENT argumentation about anything or directed to me, I carefully advice you to don’t waste your very precious time with me, I hope I’m being very clear, wash your ears and eyebrows because I dislike to be repetitive. Maybe you and your partner in stupidity department will learn already in the first lesson.

    Obrigado, ciao!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wizard of Oz
    While it may have been the Spartans who specially engaged your attention during your days as a classical scholar you may recall Ron that Athens was apparently occupied by more ancient Ancient Greeks than the rest of Greece. Indeed I remember reading somewhere that they were essentially a Mediterranean people with maybe strong links to Egypt and its civilisation. Unfortunately my searches using "Achaean" have't helped enlarge on that thought. But here's a thought for a historical fiction writer. Maybe the glory that was Athens wad the work of exiled eggheads from Egypt (and Crete, why not?). And maybe it became a melting pot and safe haven for intellectual mavericks for the whole region exgending to Persia. Back to reality: isn't there good reason to look for an explanation of Athens's apparent genetic advantsge?

    A search for pre Indo European substrate & Pelasgians may be fruitful. Purportedly the “nth” formulation is not of Indo European origin, and the name of Athens itself is close to this

    It is also telling that all Indo Europeans potentially straight from the homeland are lightly colored, and that Spartans & Macedonians (and the Macedonians’ northern neighbors the Thracians) tended to be fairer relative to other Greeks

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @ANON
    Absolutely right I think Archimedes was Sicilian, but I don't think any geniuses came out of Anatolia or the Balkans .

    Miletus is pretty well represented.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    You're a extremely dumb self-troll, cheers!!

    Waiting for expression of white guilt towards your villainous manners and ridiculous pretenses? No-go zone, Santoculto.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Jeez...

    this explain why whitey look so hopeless...

    this are the white knights [vikings] who will defend ''white race''**

    Poor white race
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @annamaria
    "...with a anger beast..."
    " ...natural environment and fauna..."
    "...Yup leftists over-rate negative western achievements but rightists do wrong to but in other type of illiterate extremism."

    Very clear. At least explains the strange flavor of the attempted philosophizing.

    I started ignoring Santoculto’s posts a day or two after finding this site. Life is short.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Anonymous or abonymous?? The same idiot I have the "pleasure" to waste my time??

    "Hanna Maria" misunderstood my entire post. Now "anonymous" or "abomynous" have solidarity with a brother or sister who is a self-troll too. So cute!! Yes life is short, I thought if no have any destination to Mars for two retarded here.

    Because incapacity of "Hanna Montana" here to simply understand my intention on my comments, originally not directed to her or to hxx, this post become a freak show.

    Abomynous, without ANY or minimal DECENT argumentation about anything or directed to me, I carefully advice you to don't waste your very precious time with me, I hope I'm being very clear, wash your ears and eyebrows because I dislike to be repetitive. Maybe you and your partner in stupidity department will learn already in the first lesson.

    Obrigado, ciao!
    , @annamaria
    Judging from Santoculto pretentious verbosity (filled with grammatical errors and often illegible) and the gimme ideology, he/she belongs to African migrants dizzy with gov' handouts (something for nothing). Curiously how the "victimized" Santoculto converges with "victimized" Sherman, up to easiness with spewing the pedestrian insults.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @annamaria
    "...with a anger beast..."
    " ...natural environment and fauna..."
    "...Yup leftists over-rate negative western achievements but rightists do wrong to but in other type of illiterate extremism."

    Very clear. At least explains the strange flavor of the attempted philosophizing.

    You’re a extremely dumb self-troll, cheers!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Waiting for expression of white guilt towards your villainous manners and ridiculous pretenses? No-go zone, Santoculto.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    Jeez...

    I'm trying to debate with a anger beast, isn't??

    I will try... God is seeing.

    Great
    A conservie who suck their elite/read oppressors- balls. Well well well

    Or you're personally interested... No escape for you.

    First thing. If I'm using poorly I know, """elite language""", or """elite technology""", this doesn't mean I'm wrong about elite historical oppression, doesn't mean WHITE (and jewy) historical elites DID IT: enslave by futile or retarded reason other people's; enslave your own people, aka, industrial revolution and English/european/American working classes; destroy and right now continue to destroy natural environment and fauna; still oppressing white regular people, isn't?? Or do you think only "leftists" who are inducing entire western world to white genocide?? Celebrities & royalties & entrepreneurs & billionaires & political and academic elites????

    Every conservie retard who over-rate "achievement$" AND despise totally NEGATIVE achievements of "their" own "civilization" JUST deserve what is happening now because their revolting condescendence.

    Yup leftists over-rate negative western achievements but rightists do wrong to but in other type of illiterate extremism.

    It's not to be "intelligent", just easy to catch. So give me a better description... I'm expecting...

    “…with a anger beast…”
    ” …natural environment and fauna…”
    “…Yup leftists over-rate negative western achievements but rightists do wrong to but in other type of illiterate extremism.”

    Very clear. At least explains the strange flavor of the attempted philosophizing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    You're a extremely dumb self-troll, cheers!!
    , @Anonymous
    I started ignoring Santoculto's posts a day or two after finding this site. Life is short.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @annamaria
    You have avoided the uncomfortable statements and instead focused on a beauty of your feelings.

    It was your statement that sciences are impersonal; I only added that the impersonal facts of sciences are able to produce certain highly personal/ethical results.

    Madame Bonner' words that "we make breakfast for our children, not for a whole world" are crystal-clear for all decent parents (however altruistic they are), but perhaps not for the theorizing philosophers in their personal ivory towers.
    We have the hierarchy of responsibilities.

    Nobody thinks that your cordial relationships with all black people are bad; but some sane people believe that the overpopulation of the badly underdeveloped sub-Saharan Africa - and the inevitable spilling of huge masses of uneducated and aggressive young black men to Europe - could be detrimental to the lives of local population accustomed to certain norms of behavior. The appearance of no-go zones in important European cities is not a good sign. Would you like to have your hypothetical family with young children to live in one of these zones? If not, are you going to be looked upon as, on average, unfriendly to the Africans living in the no-go zones?

    the inevitable spilling of huge masses of uneducated and aggressive young black men to Europe

    That’s not inevitable – at all. Borders still exist and Japan, for instance, couldn’t care less about the number of African dreamers. European traitors are pretending that this kind of national/racial suicide is normal despite the fact that it’s completely unprecedented historically and still ignored by 90% of the World. People are not buying it anymore. The pendulum is swinging now and when the dust settles they’ll be either dead or imprisoned. Jews in particular will be in trouble when this project fails.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @annamaria
    "But the group and civilization you’re belonging, collectively speaking, were responsible for that, NAMELY your historical ELITES."

    Does it bother you that you use the language of the "civilization of historical ELITES" and the technology of the "civilization of historical ELITES" (right now) and even attempt to exhibit (not quite successfully) the knowledge accumulated by the "civilization of historical ELITES?"
    Would not it be honest of you to join your brothers & sisters who are not spoiled by the "civilization of historical ELITES" and create your own spotless civilization of historical non-ELITES. Look, there are millions sub-Saharan natives who want to join the civilization of the white people. Why don't the sub-Saharans develop their own shiny civilization that would be an envy of the whole world? China, Iran, Greece each created a great civilization, and some of their achievements have become the foundation for our western civilization. Where have you been?

    By the way, this limp sophistry does not strike as particularly intelligent: "Mentalism, at least based on this dichotomous perspective, mean basically ”intrapersonal and interpersonal thought processes” while mechanicism mean ”impersonal thought processes.”

    Jeez…

    I’m trying to debate with a anger beast, isn’t??

    I will try… God is seeing.

    Great
    A conservie who suck their elite/read oppressors- balls. Well well well

    Or you’re personally interested… No escape for you.

    First thing. If I’m using poorly I know, “””elite language”””, or “””elite technology”””, this doesn’t mean I’m wrong about elite historical oppression, doesn’t mean WHITE (and jewy) historical elites DID IT: enslave by futile or retarded reason other people’s; enslave your own people, aka, industrial revolution and English/european/American working classes; destroy and right now continue to destroy natural environment and fauna; still oppressing white regular people, isn’t?? Or do you think only “leftists” who are inducing entire western world to white genocide?? Celebrities & royalties & entrepreneurs & billionaires & political and academic elites????

    Every conservie retard who over-rate “achievement$” AND despise totally NEGATIVE achievements of “their” own “civilization” JUST deserve what is happening now because their revolting condescendence.

    Yup leftists over-rate negative western achievements but rightists do wrong to but in other type of illiterate extremism.

    It’s not to be “intelligent”, just easy to catch. So give me a better description… I’m expecting…

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "...with a anger beast..."
    " ...natural environment and fauna..."
    "...Yup leftists over-rate negative western achievements but rightists do wrong to but in other type of illiterate extremism."

    Very clear. At least explains the strange flavor of the attempted philosophizing.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @FKA Max
    This paper by Dutton and van der Linden (2014) might be interesting to you:

    Who are the “Clever Sillies”? The intelligence, personality, and motives of clever silly originators and those who follow them https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edward_Dutton/publication/263968814_Solving_the_puzzle_of_why_Finns_have_the_highest_IQ_but_one_of_the_lowest_number_of_Nobel_prizes_in_Europe/links/55f7149908aeba1d9ef0449a/Solving-the-puzzle-of-why-Finns-have-the-highest-IQ-but-one-of-the-lowest-number-of-Nobel-prizes-in-Europe.pdf

    Charlton's (2009) Clever Sillies model argues that high IQ people lack common sense and advocate foolish ideas due to the personality disposition that is associated with high IQ. We argue that the “Clever Silly”model proposed by Charlton has several shortcomings and needs to be nuanced. We suggest that it is useful to distinguish between scholars who advocate clever silly ideas in a context in which they are popular (followers) and those who originate them. The originators are close to the artistic genius type while the followers are the more average academics, especially in non-science subjects. The former has highly original and controversial ideas and take considerable risk for the potential high socioeconomic status pay off involved. The latter is less inclined to take risks and thus strikes the optimum balance, in terms of conformity and non-conformity, in order to showcase their intelligence but gain the benefits of conforming.
     

    Moreover, it may be argued that, even if the clever silly originators do not directly gain material wealth or children, in some cases, they may be acting at the level of evolutionary group selection, something congruous with evidence that true geniuses often do not breed (Simonton, 1988). Boas may be a possible illustration of this. Some scholars (e.g.
    MacDonald, 1998 ) have argued that in his case, his non-conformism could be understood least controversially in terms of group selection. The effect of cultural relativism in anthropology was the marginalizing of scientific racism and thus an improvement in the status of ethnic minorities, including Jews, in the USA. Boas was a Jew in the USA and, as such, his ideology makes sense at the level of group selection. Marx was ethnically Jewish (though his family were Lutheran) and his philosophy, which was anti-nationalistic, would also have made sense in terms of Jewish group selection as European Romantic nationalism could be seen as problematic from a Jewish perspective. Both thinkers may have been motivated by the good of their group.
     
    You might remember this excerpt from a reply of mine to a comment by you, from a while back. I think the same motivation applies to these two following thinkers:

    One of the most destructive Jewish manipulations/seductions of the last century for Western civilization, in my opinion, was probably the promotion of neo-liberal “Chicago School”-style economics, also known as “Freshwater” economics, promoted by Milton Friedman (5 feet short; his fellow Eastern Ashkenazi Jewish Western mind seducer and manipulator, “Objectivist” Ayn Rand, was actually taller than him at 5 feet and 2 inches), which attacked and to a large degree replaced Keynesian economics aka “Saltwater” economics, promoted/founded by John Maynard Keynes (6 feet 6 inches tall)
     
    - https://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1852886


    The Refutation of Libertarianism
    [...]
    But the competition for global domination is rarely honest. Thus when Western individualist societies conquered and absorbed collectivist ones, it was only a matter of time before the more intelligent tribes learned how to cheat.
    [...]
    – http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10/the-refutation-of-libertarianism/
     
    - https://www.unz.com/isteve/reforming-stuyvesant-hs-admissions-should-blacks-whites-team-up-against-asian-grinds/#comment-1812643

    Capitalism, Socialism, and the Jews
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulqBb4JePuQ
    Why have the Jewish people, who seem to have benefited greatly from capitalism, contributed disproportionately to socialist literature? Although the question remains unanswered, Dr. Milton Friedman, a secular Jew himself, offers some fascinating observations.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/mhudson/bloombergs-hit-job-on-venezuela-and-me/#comment-1824152

    Thank you, I already read this paper. I think when someone create a category it must need self-analyze to see if it can be classified in that way. When someone talk about rationality for example it must self-analyze to see if it know how to apply rational approach and even if it is or really try to be what it is describing or analyzing.

    This intrapersonal analysis seems rare among scientists AND philosophers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto

    Finally we came down to your main point. And why should I feel “white guilt?” Does this “white quilt extend” to Condi Rice, for example?
     
    aaan, no*

    You're a individual who is not directly nor indirectly responsible for, for example, black slave trade. But the group and civilization you're belonging, collectively speaking, were responsible for that, NAMELY your historical ELITES.

    How about the hierarchy of responsibilities? And the no-go zones? And the sub-Saharan overpopulation?
     
    I'm not understanding your points probably because you don't understood my own, firstly.

    This micro-debate is not make sense at least to me.

    Here is a difference: I am giving you concrete examples and you prefer to shield yourself with generalities like “I’m trying to describe how a predominantly mentalist (and instinctive) mind works.”
     
    Do you REALLY understood my argumentative intentionalities* I thought you don't understood.

    By the way, do you really believe in non-instinctive brains? (when neurologically intact brains). And how do you square predominant mentalism with predominant instinctive behavior? – see your above statement that equates them.
     
    Absolutely not, because everything that IS behavior have its origin on instinct, when it's not instinct itself expressing.

    How relevant or pertinent your question is to explain or whatever this subject*

    If you also don't believe in ''non-instinctive brains'' why you are saying ''predominant mentalism'' versus ''predominant INSTINCTIVE behavior'', if empathy is also instinctive or instinct-derived*

    1. “In psychology, mentalism is an umbrella term that refers to those branches of study that concentrate on perception and thought processes”
    2. “Instinctive: relating to or prompted by instinct; apparently unconscious or automatic“
     
    aarr, yes, i know what mentalism and instinct are.

    Mentalism, at least based on this dichotomous perspective, mean basically ''intrapersonal and interpersonal thought processes'' while mechanicism mean ''impersonal thought processes''.

    “But the group and civilization you’re belonging, collectively speaking, were responsible for that, NAMELY your historical ELITES.”

    Does it bother you that you use the language of the “civilization of historical ELITES” and the technology of the “civilization of historical ELITES” (right now) and even attempt to exhibit (not quite successfully) the knowledge accumulated by the “civilization of historical ELITES?”
    Would not it be honest of you to join your brothers & sisters who are not spoiled by the “civilization of historical ELITES” and create your own spotless civilization of historical non-ELITES. Look, there are millions sub-Saharan natives who want to join the civilization of the white people. Why don’t the sub-Saharans develop their own shiny civilization that would be an envy of the whole world? China, Iran, Greece each created a great civilization, and some of their achievements have become the foundation for our western civilization. Where have you been?

    By the way, this limp sophistry does not strike as particularly intelligent: “Mentalism, at least based on this dichotomous perspective, mean basically ”intrapersonal and interpersonal thought processes” while mechanicism mean ”impersonal thought processes.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Jeez...

    I'm trying to debate with a anger beast, isn't??

    I will try... God is seeing.

    Great
    A conservie who suck their elite/read oppressors- balls. Well well well

    Or you're personally interested... No escape for you.

    First thing. If I'm using poorly I know, """elite language""", or """elite technology""", this doesn't mean I'm wrong about elite historical oppression, doesn't mean WHITE (and jewy) historical elites DID IT: enslave by futile or retarded reason other people's; enslave your own people, aka, industrial revolution and English/european/American working classes; destroy and right now continue to destroy natural environment and fauna; still oppressing white regular people, isn't?? Or do you think only "leftists" who are inducing entire western world to white genocide?? Celebrities & royalties & entrepreneurs & billionaires & political and academic elites????

    Every conservie retard who over-rate "achievement$" AND despise totally NEGATIVE achievements of "their" own "civilization" JUST deserve what is happening now because their revolting condescendence.

    Yup leftists over-rate negative western achievements but rightists do wrong to but in other type of illiterate extremism.

    It's not to be "intelligent", just easy to catch. So give me a better description... I'm expecting...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    Do you believe you are a clever silly at least in some things??

    Remember: eat fish increase IQ.

    Everyone is more or less

    Clever silly

    Useful idiot

    Conscious or not, intentionally or not, voluntarily or not.

    Bruce Charlton is one of those who coined this term...but he's a fanatical religious...maybe he's like silly too isn't?

    Charlton believe religion and ideology or tradition or culture are completely different things. Little silly to believe or to think like that isn't? ;)

    This paper by Dutton and van der Linden (2014) might be interesting to you:

    Who are the “Clever Sillies”? The intelligence, personality, and motives of clever silly originators and those who follow them https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edward_Dutton/publication/263968814_Solving_the_puzzle_of_why_Finns_have_the_highest_IQ_but_one_of_the_lowest_number_of_Nobel_prizes_in_Europe/links/55f7149908aeba1d9ef0449a/Solving-the-puzzle-of-why-Finns-have-the-highest-IQ-but-one-of-the-lowest-number-of-Nobel-prizes-in-Europe.pdf

    Charlton’s (2009) Clever Sillies model argues that high IQ people lack common sense and advocate foolish ideas due to the personality disposition that is associated with high IQ. We argue that the “Clever Silly”model proposed by Charlton has several shortcomings and needs to be nuanced. We suggest that it is useful to distinguish between scholars who advocate clever silly ideas in a context in which they are popular (followers) and those who originate them. The originators are close to the artistic genius type while the followers are the more average academics, especially in non-science subjects. The former has highly original and controversial ideas and take considerable risk for the potential high socioeconomic status pay off involved. The latter is less inclined to take risks and thus strikes the optimum balance, in terms of conformity and non-conformity, in order to showcase their intelligence but gain the benefits of conforming.

    Moreover, it may be argued that, even if the clever silly originators do not directly gain material wealth or children, in some cases, they may be acting at the level of evolutionary group selection, something congruous with evidence that true geniuses often do not breed (Simonton, 1988). Boas may be a possible illustration of this. Some scholars (e.g.
    MacDonald, 1998 ) have argued that in his case, his non-conformism could be understood least controversially in terms of group selection. The effect of cultural relativism in anthropology was the marginalizing of scientific racism and thus an improvement in the status of ethnic minorities, including Jews, in the USA. Boas was a Jew in the USA and, as such, his ideology makes sense at the level of group selection. Marx was ethnically Jewish (though his family were Lutheran) and his philosophy, which was anti-nationalistic, would also have made sense in terms of Jewish group selection as European Romantic nationalism could be seen as problematic from a Jewish perspective. Both thinkers may have been motivated by the good of their group.

    You might remember this excerpt from a reply of mine to a comment by you, from a while back. I think the same motivation applies to these two following thinkers:

    One of the most destructive Jewish manipulations/seductions of the last century for Western civilization, in my opinion, was probably the promotion of neo-liberal “Chicago School”-style economics, also known as “Freshwater” economics, promoted by Milton Friedman (5 feet short; his fellow Eastern Ashkenazi Jewish Western mind seducer and manipulator, “Objectivist” Ayn Rand, was actually taller than him at 5 feet and 2 inches), which attacked and to a large degree replaced Keynesian economics aka “Saltwater” economics, promoted/founded by John Maynard Keynes (6 feet 6 inches tall)

    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1852886

    The Refutation of Libertarianism
    [...]
    But the competition for global domination is rarely honest. Thus when Western individualist societies conquered and absorbed collectivist ones, it was only a matter of time before the more intelligent tribes learned how to cheat.
    [...]
    http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10/the-refutation-of-libertarianism/

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/reforming-stuyvesant-hs-admissions-should-blacks-whites-team-up-against-asian-grinds/#comment-1812643

    Capitalism, Socialism, and the Jews

    Why have the Jewish people, who seem to have benefited greatly from capitalism, contributed disproportionately to socialist literature? Although the question remains unanswered, Dr. Milton Friedman, a secular Jew himself, offers some fascinating observations.

    http://www.unz.com/mhudson/bloombergs-hit-job-on-venezuela-and-me/#comment-1824152

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Thank you, I already read this paper. I think when someone create a category it must need self-analyze to see if it can be classified in that way. When someone talk about rationality for example it must self-analyze to see if it know how to apply rational approach and even if it is or really try to be what it is describing or analyzing.

    This intrapersonal analysis seems rare among scientists AND philosophers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @annamaria
    "Because I believe I have both styles more developed/and more challenged for me, so seems I can understand better a empathetic/emotional mind than a mechanicistic mind."

    As a widow of academician Sakharov (a famous Russian dissident and prominent physicist) explained, "you make breakfast for your own children, not for the whole humanity."

    It is politically correct to be silent about sub-Saharan overpopulation and about the lack of discipline among black kids in the US inner city schools. Is it unethical to suggest some simple ideas like obligatory boot camps for unruly black teens and the enforced use of contraceptives in the famine-suffering African states (for example, food delivery is contingent on the use of contraceptives)?

    "The empathetic mind associate people’s expression and experiences and start to take it into account." -- Sure. This is what is taught to children by good, loving parents in the stable, hard working families.

    "It’s easy accept non-ethical issues of natural sciences because it’s not direct nor indirectly personal." - Because natural sciences are dealing with facts and these facts -- like the knowledge of human physiology by a surgeon or the knowledge of physics by a designer of a gear for construction workers -- are not personal. But they do serve mightily to the ethical issues of human society.

    Rewinding…

    “Because I believe I have both styles more developed/and more challenged for me, so seems I can understand better a empathetic/emotional mind than a mechanicistic mind.”

    As a widow of academician Sakharov (a famous Russian dissident and prominent physicist) explained, “you make breakfast for your own children, not for the whole humanity.”

    Your answer here no make sense, to my quote, or you’re was sarcastic and i don’t understood your sarcasm, or you got the wrong quote.

    It is politically correct to be silent about sub-Saharan overpopulation and about the lack of discipline among black kids in the US inner city schools. Is it unethical to suggest some simple ideas like obligatory boot camps for unruly black teens and the enforced use of contraceptives in the famine-suffering African states (for example, food delivery is contingent on the use of contraceptives)?

    A question, evidently not, you’re right here, but, you’re thinking i’m a ”mentalistic/emotional person” that in fact i tried to describe.

    Yes, your last sentence here i refuted and i hope you have understood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @annamaria
    "White guilt is a example of many of this uncomfortable statements you dislike to hear."

    Finally we came down to your main point. And why should I feel "white guilt?" Does this "white quilt extend" to Condi Rice, for example?
    How about the hierarchy of responsibilities? And the no-go zones? And the sub-Saharan overpopulation?
    Here is a difference: I am giving you concrete examples and you prefer to shield yourself with generalities like "I’m trying to describe how a predominantly mentalist (and instinctive) mind works."
    By the way, do you really believe in non-instinctive brains? (when neurologically intact brains). And how do you square predominant mentalism with predominant instinctive behavior? - see your above statement that equates them.
    1. "In psychology, mentalism is an umbrella term that refers to those branches of study that concentrate on perception and thought processes"
    2. "Instinctive: relating to or prompted by instinct; apparently unconscious or automatic"

    Finally we came down to your main point. And why should I feel “white guilt?” Does this “white quilt extend” to Condi Rice, for example?

    aaan, no*

    You’re a individual who is not directly nor indirectly responsible for, for example, black slave trade. But the group and civilization you’re belonging, collectively speaking, were responsible for that, NAMELY your historical ELITES.

    How about the hierarchy of responsibilities? And the no-go zones? And the sub-Saharan overpopulation?

    I’m not understanding your points probably because you don’t understood my own, firstly.

    This micro-debate is not make sense at least to me.

    Here is a difference: I am giving you concrete examples and you prefer to shield yourself with generalities like “I’m trying to describe how a predominantly mentalist (and instinctive) mind works.”

    Do you REALLY understood my argumentative intentionalities* I thought you don’t understood.

    By the way, do you really believe in non-instinctive brains? (when neurologically intact brains). And how do you square predominant mentalism with predominant instinctive behavior? – see your above statement that equates them.

    Absolutely not, because everything that IS behavior have its origin on instinct, when it’s not instinct itself expressing.

    How relevant or pertinent your question is to explain or whatever this subject*

    If you also don’t believe in ”non-instinctive brains” why you are saying ”predominant mentalism” versus ”predominant INSTINCTIVE behavior”, if empathy is also instinctive or instinct-derived*

    1. “In psychology, mentalism is an umbrella term that refers to those branches of study that concentrate on perception and thought processes”
    2. “Instinctive: relating to or prompted by instinct; apparently unconscious or automatic“

    aarr, yes, i know what mentalism and instinct are.

    Mentalism, at least based on this dichotomous perspective, mean basically ”intrapersonal and interpersonal thought processes” while mechanicism mean ”impersonal thought processes”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "But the group and civilization you’re belonging, collectively speaking, were responsible for that, NAMELY your historical ELITES."

    Does it bother you that you use the language of the "civilization of historical ELITES" and the technology of the "civilization of historical ELITES" (right now) and even attempt to exhibit (not quite successfully) the knowledge accumulated by the "civilization of historical ELITES?"
    Would not it be honest of you to join your brothers & sisters who are not spoiled by the "civilization of historical ELITES" and create your own spotless civilization of historical non-ELITES. Look, there are millions sub-Saharan natives who want to join the civilization of the white people. Why don't the sub-Saharans develop their own shiny civilization that would be an envy of the whole world? China, Iran, Greece each created a great civilization, and some of their achievements have become the foundation for our western civilization. Where have you been?

    By the way, this limp sophistry does not strike as particularly intelligent: "Mentalism, at least based on this dichotomous perspective, mean basically ”intrapersonal and interpersonal thought processes” while mechanicism mean ”impersonal thought processes.”

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    Wait
    I don't understand your replies. Maybe you are not understand me.

    First sentence. Where you saw I wrote this?

    Science is predominantly impersonal, where is wrong? Yes and I agreed with you. Feedbacks between mechanicist and mentalist modes. (second sentence)

    Third sentence: Please next time quote my "statements" to know from where you are replying or refuting.

    Fourth sentence: ALL black people??

    Look I'm trying to describe how a predominantly mentalist (and instinctive) mind works. I don't think exactly like that. One of my sentences was bad-constructed.

    "I believe I'm good to understand a mentalist people than a mechanicist mind-people because I'm in the 'half-path'... I can translate one each other or believe I can".

    They are not TOTALLY wrong as you are thinking and indeed, in some aspects they are DEADLY right. You are talking about uncomfortable statements... Well.... White guilt is a example of many of this uncomfortable statements you dislike to hear.

    “White guilt is a example of many of this uncomfortable statements you dislike to hear.”

    Finally we came down to your main point. And why should I feel “white guilt?” Does this “white quilt extend” to Condi Rice, for example?
    How about the hierarchy of responsibilities? And the no-go zones? And the sub-Saharan overpopulation?
    Here is a difference: I am giving you concrete examples and you prefer to shield yourself with generalities like “I’m trying to describe how a predominantly mentalist (and instinctive) mind works.”
    By the way, do you really believe in non-instinctive brains? (when neurologically intact brains). And how do you square predominant mentalism with predominant instinctive behavior? – see your above statement that equates them.
    1. “In psychology, mentalism is an umbrella term that refers to those branches of study that concentrate on perception and thought processes
    2. “Instinctive: relating to or prompted by instinct; apparently unconscious or automatic

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    Finally we came down to your main point. And why should I feel “white guilt?” Does this “white quilt extend” to Condi Rice, for example?
     
    aaan, no*

    You're a individual who is not directly nor indirectly responsible for, for example, black slave trade. But the group and civilization you're belonging, collectively speaking, were responsible for that, NAMELY your historical ELITES.

    How about the hierarchy of responsibilities? And the no-go zones? And the sub-Saharan overpopulation?
     
    I'm not understanding your points probably because you don't understood my own, firstly.

    This micro-debate is not make sense at least to me.

    Here is a difference: I am giving you concrete examples and you prefer to shield yourself with generalities like “I’m trying to describe how a predominantly mentalist (and instinctive) mind works.”
     
    Do you REALLY understood my argumentative intentionalities* I thought you don't understood.

    By the way, do you really believe in non-instinctive brains? (when neurologically intact brains). And how do you square predominant mentalism with predominant instinctive behavior? – see your above statement that equates them.
     
    Absolutely not, because everything that IS behavior have its origin on instinct, when it's not instinct itself expressing.

    How relevant or pertinent your question is to explain or whatever this subject*

    If you also don't believe in ''non-instinctive brains'' why you are saying ''predominant mentalism'' versus ''predominant INSTINCTIVE behavior'', if empathy is also instinctive or instinct-derived*

    1. “In psychology, mentalism is an umbrella term that refers to those branches of study that concentrate on perception and thought processes”
    2. “Instinctive: relating to or prompted by instinct; apparently unconscious or automatic“
     
    aarr, yes, i know what mentalism and instinct are.

    Mentalism, at least based on this dichotomous perspective, mean basically ''intrapersonal and interpersonal thought processes'' while mechanicism mean ''impersonal thought processes''.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @FKA Max
    In another recent Unz Review article/comment thread a prime example of a ``clever silly'' came up:

    Wow, that Dylan Matthews guy is definitely a “Clever Silly”
     
    - https://www.unz.com/article/trump-turns-the-corner-and-goes-on-the-attack-will-he-make-the-gop-follow/#comment-1925922

    What I like about Mr. Woodley's talk, is that he points out that ``clever sillies'' can be found on the left side of the political spectrum, as well as on the right side of the political spectrum. He points specifically to certain libertarians displaying high levels of ``clever silliness.''

    I always felt this way about the infamous, multi-billionaire, libertarian Koch Brothers, for example, who I think are highly intelligent, but whom I consider to be a menace to society (see video titled ``Bernie Sanders: “Open borders? That’s a Koch brothers proposal” '' in the comment about Dylan Matthews, I linked to above).

    This is the other comment I left in that comment thread on the probable/possible genetic origin of ``clever silliness.''

    This is some additional interesting research:

    Another, surprising, trend in the data may also warrant further investigation. While the trend seen in the atheist/agnostic/no reli- gion groups not only offers tangential support to the primary hypothesis (i.e., GFP differences are not simply an artifact of differ- ences in intelligence), it is also interesting in and of itself. The athe- ist/agnostic/no religion groups exhibited high levels of intelligence, but low GFP scores. Thus, it appears that while atheists and agnos- tics are intelligent, they are less socially effective. Is this social inef- fectiveness born out of being intellectually incongruent with others? What form does the social ineffectiveness take; abrasive- ness, passivity? The GFP and GFP-intelligence relationship in athe- ists and agnostics could be a fruitful topic for future research.

    – A comparative study of the general factor of personality in Jewish and non-Jewish populations Dunkel et al. (2015) http://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1488.pdf

    This topic of racial differences in inherited personality traits is gonna be the next big frontier in LoveFacts, and it will cause even more hysteria from the equalist crowd than does the topic of IQ when it becomes common knowledge that characteristics like propensity to violence, sociopathy, conscientiousness, trustworthiness, and kindness are NOT equally and randomly distributed among the world’s races of people. [...] This gene combination appears to be stunningly effective at boosting IQ test scores and presumably the material success (and possibly sexual success, at least for the males — any reader have a study I could cite here?) of the people possessing it, but it comes at a great cost to the society in which this kind of person is numerically and socially significant.

    The personality trait combination of high anxiety with high aggression/psychopathy is rare among human groups, and really deserves its own categorization

    – https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/06/19/ashkepathy/
     
    - https://www.unz.com/article/trump-turns-the-corner-and-goes-on-the-attack-will-he-make-the-gop-follow/#comment-1927849

    Do you believe you are a clever silly at least in some things??

    Remember: eat fish increase IQ.

    Everyone is more or less

    Clever silly

    Useful idiot

    Conscious or not, intentionally or not, voluntarily or not.

    Bruce Charlton is one of those who coined this term…but he’s a fanatical religious…maybe he’s like silly too isn’t?

    Charlton believe religion and ideology or tradition or culture are completely different things. Little silly to believe or to think like that isn’t? ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    This paper by Dutton and van der Linden (2014) might be interesting to you:

    Who are the “Clever Sillies”? The intelligence, personality, and motives of clever silly originators and those who follow them https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edward_Dutton/publication/263968814_Solving_the_puzzle_of_why_Finns_have_the_highest_IQ_but_one_of_the_lowest_number_of_Nobel_prizes_in_Europe/links/55f7149908aeba1d9ef0449a/Solving-the-puzzle-of-why-Finns-have-the-highest-IQ-but-one-of-the-lowest-number-of-Nobel-prizes-in-Europe.pdf

    Charlton's (2009) Clever Sillies model argues that high IQ people lack common sense and advocate foolish ideas due to the personality disposition that is associated with high IQ. We argue that the “Clever Silly”model proposed by Charlton has several shortcomings and needs to be nuanced. We suggest that it is useful to distinguish between scholars who advocate clever silly ideas in a context in which they are popular (followers) and those who originate them. The originators are close to the artistic genius type while the followers are the more average academics, especially in non-science subjects. The former has highly original and controversial ideas and take considerable risk for the potential high socioeconomic status pay off involved. The latter is less inclined to take risks and thus strikes the optimum balance, in terms of conformity and non-conformity, in order to showcase their intelligence but gain the benefits of conforming.
     

    Moreover, it may be argued that, even if the clever silly originators do not directly gain material wealth or children, in some cases, they may be acting at the level of evolutionary group selection, something congruous with evidence that true geniuses often do not breed (Simonton, 1988). Boas may be a possible illustration of this. Some scholars (e.g.
    MacDonald, 1998 ) have argued that in his case, his non-conformism could be understood least controversially in terms of group selection. The effect of cultural relativism in anthropology was the marginalizing of scientific racism and thus an improvement in the status of ethnic minorities, including Jews, in the USA. Boas was a Jew in the USA and, as such, his ideology makes sense at the level of group selection. Marx was ethnically Jewish (though his family were Lutheran) and his philosophy, which was anti-nationalistic, would also have made sense in terms of Jewish group selection as European Romantic nationalism could be seen as problematic from a Jewish perspective. Both thinkers may have been motivated by the good of their group.
     
    You might remember this excerpt from a reply of mine to a comment by you, from a while back. I think the same motivation applies to these two following thinkers:

    One of the most destructive Jewish manipulations/seductions of the last century for Western civilization, in my opinion, was probably the promotion of neo-liberal “Chicago School”-style economics, also known as “Freshwater” economics, promoted by Milton Friedman (5 feet short; his fellow Eastern Ashkenazi Jewish Western mind seducer and manipulator, “Objectivist” Ayn Rand, was actually taller than him at 5 feet and 2 inches), which attacked and to a large degree replaced Keynesian economics aka “Saltwater” economics, promoted/founded by John Maynard Keynes (6 feet 6 inches tall)
     
    - https://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1852886


    The Refutation of Libertarianism
    [...]
    But the competition for global domination is rarely honest. Thus when Western individualist societies conquered and absorbed collectivist ones, it was only a matter of time before the more intelligent tribes learned how to cheat.
    [...]
    – http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10/the-refutation-of-libertarianism/
     
    - https://www.unz.com/isteve/reforming-stuyvesant-hs-admissions-should-blacks-whites-team-up-against-asian-grinds/#comment-1812643

    Capitalism, Socialism, and the Jews
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulqBb4JePuQ
    Why have the Jewish people, who seem to have benefited greatly from capitalism, contributed disproportionately to socialist literature? Although the question remains unanswered, Dr. Milton Friedman, a secular Jew himself, offers some fascinating observations.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/mhudson/bloombergs-hit-job-on-venezuela-and-me/#comment-1824152
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @annamaria
    You have avoided the uncomfortable statements and instead focused on a beauty of your feelings.

    It was your statement that sciences are impersonal; I only added that the impersonal facts of sciences are able to produce certain highly personal/ethical results.

    Madame Bonner' words that "we make breakfast for our children, not for a whole world" are crystal-clear for all decent parents (however altruistic they are), but perhaps not for the theorizing philosophers in their personal ivory towers.
    We have the hierarchy of responsibilities.

    Nobody thinks that your cordial relationships with all black people are bad; but some sane people believe that the overpopulation of the badly underdeveloped sub-Saharan Africa - and the inevitable spilling of huge masses of uneducated and aggressive young black men to Europe - could be detrimental to the lives of local population accustomed to certain norms of behavior. The appearance of no-go zones in important European cities is not a good sign. Would you like to have your hypothetical family with young children to live in one of these zones? If not, are you going to be looked upon as, on average, unfriendly to the Africans living in the no-go zones?

    Wait
    I don’t understand your replies. Maybe you are not understand me.

    First sentence. Where you saw I wrote this?

    Science is predominantly impersonal, where is wrong? Yes and I agreed with you. Feedbacks between mechanicist and mentalist modes. (second sentence)

    Third sentence: Please next time quote my “statements” to know from where you are replying or refuting.

    Fourth sentence: ALL black people??

    Look I’m trying to describe how a predominantly mentalist (and instinctive) mind works. I don’t think exactly like that. One of my sentences was bad-constructed.

    “I believe I’m good to understand a mentalist people than a mechanicist mind-people because I’m in the ‘half-path’… I can translate one each other or believe I can”.

    They are not TOTALLY wrong as you are thinking and indeed, in some aspects they are DEADLY right. You are talking about uncomfortable statements… Well…. White guilt is a example of many of this uncomfortable statements you dislike to hear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "White guilt is a example of many of this uncomfortable statements you dislike to hear."

    Finally we came down to your main point. And why should I feel "white guilt?" Does this "white quilt extend" to Condi Rice, for example?
    How about the hierarchy of responsibilities? And the no-go zones? And the sub-Saharan overpopulation?
    Here is a difference: I am giving you concrete examples and you prefer to shield yourself with generalities like "I’m trying to describe how a predominantly mentalist (and instinctive) mind works."
    By the way, do you really believe in non-instinctive brains? (when neurologically intact brains). And how do you square predominant mentalism with predominant instinctive behavior? - see your above statement that equates them.
    1. "In psychology, mentalism is an umbrella term that refers to those branches of study that concentrate on perception and thought processes"
    2. "Instinctive: relating to or prompted by instinct; apparently unconscious or automatic"

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @FKA Max
    I believe we are on average more intelligent than the ancients and even the Victorians, but we are likely also more neurotic, narcissistic and less rational/realistic on average than they were. Very interesting lecture by Mr. Woodley:

    How Clever-sillies Might Thwart the Singularity - Michael Woodley [UKH+] (1/2)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQboYg1B2jI

    How Clever-sillies Might Thwart the Singularity - Michael Woodley [UKH+] (2/2)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uxMeaREGNQ&spfreload=10

    Published on Feb 2, 2011

    Michael A. Woodley holds a Bachelors of Science degree from Columbia University and is currently finishing a PhD in ecology at Royal Holloway, University of London. His interests include evolutionary psychology, personality and individual differences, and behavioral ecology.

    This talk will address the issue of human rationality: do we have enough of it to make the singularity happen?

    The environments in which modern humans exist are highly evolutionarily novel, in that they contain features to which our minds are not adapted. In this talk a new class of existential risk from evolutionary novelty shall be described. This existential risk stems from the ability for evolutionarily novel circumstances to affect human behavior in such a way that has the potential to mitigate technological progress and even compromise humanities long term prospects for survival.

    Modernity will be examined as a potential source of evolutionarily novel risk. It will be argued that as Western societies have become wealthier, the focus on material concerns (e.g. wealth, security) has given way to a fundamentally different post-materialist value set characterized by self-expression, autonomy and equality. Values emphasizing equality are evolutionarily ancient and have their origins in our shared hunter gatherer past, where equality translated into inclusive fitness gains for closely related individuals, so was desirable. The expression of these values in the context of modernity is 'reactive' in that communications networks and the media have made inequalities exponentially more conspicuous, thus potentiating the demand for a return to more evolutionarily familiar levels of equality. This is an example of evolutionary 'dysphoria' -- unhappiness stemming human nature being mismatched to a set of cultural conditions.

    This evolutionarily novel state of affairs has affected the way in which people go about competing over social status; for example to gain status in modern Western societies it is necessary to espouse post-materialist values. As the human brain has evolved to favor perceptions of kindness over raw manifestations of intelligence. This has meant that there is a tendency for individuals to be dishonest when it comes to dealing with things like the human sciences, where objective inquiry into subjects such as evolutionary and individual differences psychology is often attacked on the basis that the findings of these fields do not accord with post-materialist preconceptions concerning human nature.

    The existential risk from evolutionary novelty comes from the potential for these reactive values systems to compromise human rationality in such a way that leads to the enactment of policies aimed at mitigating dysphoria, but which ultimately go too strongly against the grain of human nature in such a way that massively potentiates the dysphoria -- which happened in the case of Communism. It will be argued that 'dysrationalia' (an incapacity for rational thought despite having the necessary intelligence) is currently widespread amongst Western nations in particular and may pose a serious risk to the singularity in as much as its early stages are likely to be characterized by massive inequality between those who will be able to afford 'upgrades' (cognitive boosts, mind-brain interface, immortality etc) and those who cannot. The resulting dysphoria in turn is likely to invite populist legal suppression of these technologies. In the concluding part of this talk, strategies for mitigating the risk from evolutionary novelty will be discussed.

    This lecture was recorded on 29th January 2011 at the UKH+ meeting.
     

    In another recent Unz Review article/comment thread a prime example of a “clever silly” came up:

    Wow, that Dylan Matthews guy is definitely a “Clever Silly”

    https://www.unz.com/article/trump-turns-the-corner-and-goes-on-the-attack-will-he-make-the-gop-follow/#comment-1925922

    What I like about Mr. Woodley’s talk, is that he points out that “clever sillies” can be found on the left side of the political spectrum, as well as on the right side of the political spectrum. He points specifically to certain libertarians displaying high levels of “clever silliness.”

    I always felt this way about the infamous, multi-billionaire, libertarian Koch Brothers, for example, who I think are highly intelligent, but whom I consider to be a menace to society (see video titled “Bernie Sanders: “Open borders? That’s a Koch brothers proposal” ” in the comment about Dylan Matthews, I linked to above).

    This is the other comment I left in that comment thread on the probable/possible genetic origin of “clever silliness.”

    This is some additional interesting research:

    Another, surprising, trend in the data may also warrant further investigation. While the trend seen in the atheist/agnostic/no reli- gion groups not only offers tangential support to the primary hypothesis (i.e., GFP differences are not simply an artifact of differ- ences in intelligence), it is also interesting in and of itself. The athe- ist/agnostic/no religion groups exhibited high levels of intelligence, but low GFP scores. Thus, it appears that while atheists and agnos- tics are intelligent, they are less socially effective. Is this social inef- fectiveness born out of being intellectually incongruent with others? What form does the social ineffectiveness take; abrasive- ness, passivity? The GFP and GFP-intelligence relationship in athe- ists and agnostics could be a fruitful topic for future research.

    – A comparative study of the general factor of personality in Jewish and non-Jewish populations Dunkel et al. (2015) http://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1488.pdf

    This topic of racial differences in inherited personality traits is gonna be the next big frontier in LoveFacts, and it will cause even more hysteria from the equalist crowd than does the topic of IQ when it becomes common knowledge that characteristics like propensity to violence, sociopathy, conscientiousness, trustworthiness, and kindness are NOT equally and randomly distributed among the world’s races of people. [...] This gene combination appears to be stunningly effective at boosting IQ test scores and presumably the material success (and possibly sexual success, at least for the males — any reader have a study I could cite here?) of the people possessing it, but it comes at a great cost to the society in which this kind of person is numerically and socially significant.

    The personality trait combination of high anxiety with high aggression/psychopathy is rare among human groups, and really deserves its own categorization

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/06/19/ashkepathy/

    https://www.unz.com/article/trump-turns-the-corner-and-goes-on-the-attack-will-he-make-the-gop-follow/#comment-1927849

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Do you believe you are a clever silly at least in some things??

    Remember: eat fish increase IQ.

    Everyone is more or less

    Clever silly

    Useful idiot

    Conscious or not, intentionally or not, voluntarily or not.

    Bruce Charlton is one of those who coined this term...but he's a fanatical religious...maybe he's like silly too isn't?

    Charlton believe religion and ideology or tradition or culture are completely different things. Little silly to believe or to think like that isn't? ;)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    Facts are not impersonal. I'm a fact. My feelings are facts, autobiographical facts. Sorry, facts are not ONLY impersonal. The first and fundamental bias of mechanicist minds.

    Yes always have feedbacks between both styles and their respective products, to the good and to the bad.

    Empathetic people tend to approach in first person in their social interactions and have their autobiographical facts as primary reference. So the question is not just "the fact over populations in Africa is very bad because...Africans" but "what my black friends will think about myself if I say for them that Africans are on avg undesirable".

    You have avoided the uncomfortable statements and instead focused on a beauty of your feelings.

    It was your statement that sciences are impersonal; I only added that the impersonal facts of sciences are able to produce certain highly personal/ethical results.

    Madame Bonner’ words that “we make breakfast for our children, not for a whole world” are crystal-clear for all decent parents (however altruistic they are), but perhaps not for the theorizing philosophers in their personal ivory towers.
    We have the hierarchy of responsibilities.

    Nobody thinks that your cordial relationships with all black people are bad; but some sane people believe that the overpopulation of the badly underdeveloped sub-Saharan Africa – and the inevitable spilling of huge masses of uneducated and aggressive young black men to Europe – could be detrimental to the lives of local population accustomed to certain norms of behavior. The appearance of no-go zones in important European cities is not a good sign. Would you like to have your hypothetical family with young children to live in one of these zones? If not, are you going to be looked upon as, on average, unfriendly to the Africans living in the no-go zones?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Wait
    I don't understand your replies. Maybe you are not understand me.

    First sentence. Where you saw I wrote this?

    Science is predominantly impersonal, where is wrong? Yes and I agreed with you. Feedbacks between mechanicist and mentalist modes. (second sentence)

    Third sentence: Please next time quote my "statements" to know from where you are replying or refuting.

    Fourth sentence: ALL black people??

    Look I'm trying to describe how a predominantly mentalist (and instinctive) mind works. I don't think exactly like that. One of my sentences was bad-constructed.

    "I believe I'm good to understand a mentalist people than a mechanicist mind-people because I'm in the 'half-path'... I can translate one each other or believe I can".

    They are not TOTALLY wrong as you are thinking and indeed, in some aspects they are DEADLY right. You are talking about uncomfortable statements... Well.... White guilt is a example of many of this uncomfortable statements you dislike to hear.

    , @Anonymous

    the inevitable spilling of huge masses of uneducated and aggressive young black men to Europe
     
    That's not inevitable - at all. Borders still exist and Japan, for instance, couldn't care less about the number of African dreamers. European traitors are pretending that this kind of national/racial suicide is normal despite the fact that it's completely unprecedented historically and still ignored by 90% of the World. People are not buying it anymore. The pendulum is swinging now and when the dust settles they'll be either dead or imprisoned. Jews in particular will be in trouble when this project fails.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @MarkinLA
    Read a good dictionary of the classical languages and you will realize that not a single one of them is recorded as having bothered to clearly distinguish a swallowtail from an anglewing or a warbler from a catbird or even a gorilla from a monkey. That is fairly easy stuff – most people reading this website could do it.

    Is there a reason to do this in the ancient world? What purpose would it serve? They did pretty well with architecture given the limitations of their materials. They did pretty well with mathematics given the limitations of their numbering systems.

    One of the problems was there was no intellectual property laws and advances tended to die along with the families that developed them. There was little in the way of carrying these advances forward.

    Archimedes was calculating areas with infinitesimals and may well have developed Calculus a full 2000 years before Newton and Leibniz if he hadn't been murdered by some stupid Roman? How big was that loss to the world?

    Good points, particularly about all the disappeared knowledge that had been inherited in (local) families. I should also add that I did not mean to treat dictionaries of any ancient language as authoritative; even the dictionaries compiled by the best scholars are by necessity, due to the lack of source material, very imperfect. I think the entire surviving corpus of classical Greek and Latin, up to say the Hellenistic age, contains fewer words that ten or so long Victorian novels. There is no way of knowing for sure whether, using rare words, some ancient writer meant to say “the shed’s fritillated woodwork” or the “anglewing on the shed’s roof” – if the first is apparently corroborated by another text in its context, the second, though potentially correct, will not make it into the dictionary absent some other independent evidence. So we may have lost the names of more than a thousand insects and birds and animals that way, and maybe the ancients were much more interested in being disinterested naturalists than at first appears. Not to mention all those nymphs and minor gods and goddesses whose names could mean some very specific creature which we are unable to recapture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anatoly Karlin
    I have long expected the ancients to have been duller than us.

    The key issue is that progress gets harder over time, concepts build on each other, you need to tie more and more things together in increasingly complex ways. So the threshold for discovery keeps going up and up, as does the threshold for understanding those discoveries.

    Any of the ancient Greek philosophers can be fully understood by a committed 110-115 IQ college student. I would not say the same of Heidegger or Wittgenstein.

    Ergo for math, the sciences, and pretty much all other spheres of human accomplishment.

    “Any of the ancient Greek philosophers can be fully understood by a committed 110-115 IQ college student. I would not say the same of Heidegger or Wittgenstein.”

    Yeah, but Heidegger and Wittgenstein were Krauts (German, Austrian). When reading German Philosophers you come to the conclusion that they ranked each other by how much their books weighed. Talk about soporific! Just open any book by a “German” Philosopher. You will be sawing logs very shortly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @annamaria
    "Because I believe I have both styles more developed/and more challenged for me, so seems I can understand better a empathetic/emotional mind than a mechanicistic mind."

    As a widow of academician Sakharov (a famous Russian dissident and prominent physicist) explained, "you make breakfast for your own children, not for the whole humanity."

    It is politically correct to be silent about sub-Saharan overpopulation and about the lack of discipline among black kids in the US inner city schools. Is it unethical to suggest some simple ideas like obligatory boot camps for unruly black teens and the enforced use of contraceptives in the famine-suffering African states (for example, food delivery is contingent on the use of contraceptives)?

    "The empathetic mind associate people’s expression and experiences and start to take it into account." -- Sure. This is what is taught to children by good, loving parents in the stable, hard working families.

    "It’s easy accept non-ethical issues of natural sciences because it’s not direct nor indirectly personal." - Because natural sciences are dealing with facts and these facts -- like the knowledge of human physiology by a surgeon or the knowledge of physics by a designer of a gear for construction workers -- are not personal. But they do serve mightily to the ethical issues of human society.

    Facts are not impersonal. I’m a fact. My feelings are facts, autobiographical facts. Sorry, facts are not ONLY impersonal. The first and fundamental bias of mechanicist minds.

    Yes always have feedbacks between both styles and their respective products, to the good and to the bad.

    Empathetic people tend to approach in first person in their social interactions and have their autobiographical facts as primary reference. So the question is not just “the fact over populations in Africa is very bad because…Africans” but “what my black friends will think about myself if I say for them that Africans are on avg undesirable”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    You have avoided the uncomfortable statements and instead focused on a beauty of your feelings.

    It was your statement that sciences are impersonal; I only added that the impersonal facts of sciences are able to produce certain highly personal/ethical results.

    Madame Bonner' words that "we make breakfast for our children, not for a whole world" are crystal-clear for all decent parents (however altruistic they are), but perhaps not for the theorizing philosophers in their personal ivory towers.
    We have the hierarchy of responsibilities.

    Nobody thinks that your cordial relationships with all black people are bad; but some sane people believe that the overpopulation of the badly underdeveloped sub-Saharan Africa - and the inevitable spilling of huge masses of uneducated and aggressive young black men to Europe - could be detrimental to the lives of local population accustomed to certain norms of behavior. The appearance of no-go zones in important European cities is not a good sign. Would you like to have your hypothetical family with young children to live in one of these zones? If not, are you going to be looked upon as, on average, unfriendly to the Africans living in the no-go zones?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    As I like to say. It's easier to learn human than other sciences. But it's very difficult to accept them namely ethical philosophy. Because people over-emphasize in wrong way the subjective value of human sciences (basically a instinctive self projection) to agree that human races exist OR "animal" rights matter is much more difficult in this aspect. It's easy accept non-ethical issues of natural sciences because it's not direct nor indirectly personal. I little care about a rock but no doubt I care about myself and in direct or indirect ways human sciences is fundamentally about us. Its intrinsic polemical nature make human sciences difficult to accept. But observing STEM-smarter types, many here in UNZ platform, it's easy to perceive they tend to despise completely this ethical/affective/moral side. Completely or at least in significant way. Many them don't understand this issues, why talk about racial differences in intelligence is intrinsically polemical. Because I believe I have both styles more developed/and more challenged for me, so seems I can understand better a empathetic/emotional mind than a mechanicistic mind. The empathetic mind associate people's expression and experiences and start to take it into account. A emotional/ typical empathetic mind interact with a black person who are very kind and sympathetic. So it start to think about this black person before to spread some informations that can hurt that person. I believe kind people tend to attract in higher proportion other kind people and namely from other groups. This reinforce "leftist" beliefs about supposedly congenital kindness of all humanity.

    “Because I believe I have both styles more developed/and more challenged for me, so seems I can understand better a empathetic/emotional mind than a mechanicistic mind.”

    As a widow of academician Sakharov (a famous Russian dissident and prominent physicist) explained, “you make breakfast for your own children, not for the whole humanity.”

    It is politically correct to be silent about sub-Saharan overpopulation and about the lack of discipline among black kids in the US inner city schools. Is it unethical to suggest some simple ideas like obligatory boot camps for unruly black teens and the enforced use of contraceptives in the famine-suffering African states (for example, food delivery is contingent on the use of contraceptives)?

    “The empathetic mind associate people’s expression and experiences and start to take it into account.” — Sure. This is what is taught to children by good, loving parents in the stable, hard working families.

    “It’s easy accept non-ethical issues of natural sciences because it’s not direct nor indirectly personal.” – Because natural sciences are dealing with facts and these facts — like the knowledge of human physiology by a surgeon or the knowledge of physics by a designer of a gear for construction workers — are not personal. But they do serve mightily to the ethical issues of human society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Facts are not impersonal. I'm a fact. My feelings are facts, autobiographical facts. Sorry, facts are not ONLY impersonal. The first and fundamental bias of mechanicist minds.

    Yes always have feedbacks between both styles and their respective products, to the good and to the bad.

    Empathetic people tend to approach in first person in their social interactions and have their autobiographical facts as primary reference. So the question is not just "the fact over populations in Africa is very bad because...Africans" but "what my black friends will think about myself if I say for them that Africans are on avg undesirable".

    , @Santoculto
    Rewinding...

    “Because I believe I have both styles more developed/and more challenged for me, so seems I can understand better a empathetic/emotional mind than a mechanicistic mind.”

    As a widow of academician Sakharov (a famous Russian dissident and prominent physicist) explained, “you make breakfast for your own children, not for the whole humanity.”


    Your answer here no make sense, to my quote, or you're was sarcastic and i don't understood your sarcasm, or you got the wrong quote.

    It is politically correct to be silent about sub-Saharan overpopulation and about the lack of discipline among black kids in the US inner city schools. Is it unethical to suggest some simple ideas like obligatory boot camps for unruly black teens and the enforced use of contraceptives in the famine-suffering African states (for example, food delivery is contingent on the use of contraceptives)?

    A question, evidently not, you're right here, but, you're thinking i'm a ''mentalistic/emotional person'' that in fact i tried to describe.

    Yes, your last sentence here i refuted and i hope you have understood.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @TG
    Reply to Autochthon:

    But science IS philosophy! "Natural" philosophy. In other words, that aspect of philosophy that is grounded in predictive power, falsifiability, and clear logic. The 'other kind' of philosophy is indeed easier, because unlike natural philosophy, where the real universe brutally culls the valid from the invalid, in 'regular' philosophy, there is no clear wrong answer. And thus, no clear right answer. And how easy it is to pontificate, when nobody can prove that you are wrong...

    Vroomfondel and Magicthise, anyone?

    “But science IS philosophy! “Natural” philosophy.”
    Agree.
    A great scientist is always a great philosopher by definition, whereas those modern philosophers that are not trained in the fundamentals of science (whether physics or biology or cognitives sciences) are, as a rule, just vibrating devices producing the volumes of sophisticated words carrying a meager meaning (if any).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @TG
    Reply to Autochthon:

    But science IS philosophy! "Natural" philosophy. In other words, that aspect of philosophy that is grounded in predictive power, falsifiability, and clear logic. The 'other kind' of philosophy is indeed easier, because unlike natural philosophy, where the real universe brutally culls the valid from the invalid, in 'regular' philosophy, there is no clear wrong answer. And thus, no clear right answer. And how easy it is to pontificate, when nobody can prove that you are wrong...

    Vroomfondel and Magicthise, anyone?

    As I like to say. It’s easier to learn human than other sciences. But it’s very difficult to accept them namely ethical philosophy. Because people over-emphasize in wrong way the subjective value of human sciences (basically a instinctive self projection) to agree that human races exist OR “animal” rights matter is much more difficult in this aspect. It’s easy accept non-ethical issues of natural sciences because it’s not direct nor indirectly personal. I little care about a rock but no doubt I care about myself and in direct or indirect ways human sciences is fundamentally about us. Its intrinsic polemical nature make human sciences difficult to accept. But observing STEM-smarter types, many here in UNZ platform, it’s easy to perceive they tend to despise completely this ethical/affective/moral side. Completely or at least in significant way. Many them don’t understand this issues, why talk about racial differences in intelligence is intrinsically polemical. Because I believe I have both styles more developed/and more challenged for me, so seems I can understand better a empathetic/emotional mind than a mechanicistic mind. The empathetic mind associate people’s expression and experiences and start to take it into account. A emotional/ typical empathetic mind interact with a black person who are very kind and sympathetic. So it start to think about this black person before to spread some informations that can hurt that person. I believe kind people tend to attract in higher proportion other kind people and namely from other groups. This reinforce “leftist” beliefs about supposedly congenital kindness of all humanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Because I believe I have both styles more developed/and more challenged for me, so seems I can understand better a empathetic/emotional mind than a mechanicistic mind."

    As a widow of academician Sakharov (a famous Russian dissident and prominent physicist) explained, "you make breakfast for your own children, not for the whole humanity."

    It is politically correct to be silent about sub-Saharan overpopulation and about the lack of discipline among black kids in the US inner city schools. Is it unethical to suggest some simple ideas like obligatory boot camps for unruly black teens and the enforced use of contraceptives in the famine-suffering African states (for example, food delivery is contingent on the use of contraceptives)?

    "The empathetic mind associate people’s expression and experiences and start to take it into account." -- Sure. This is what is taught to children by good, loving parents in the stable, hard working families.

    "It’s easy accept non-ethical issues of natural sciences because it’s not direct nor indirectly personal." - Because natural sciences are dealing with facts and these facts -- like the knowledge of human physiology by a surgeon or the knowledge of physics by a designer of a gear for construction workers -- are not personal. But they do serve mightily to the ethical issues of human society.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @The Alarmist
    There is a lot of survivorship bias at play, not the least of which is the survival of the literature and art that evidences the ancient greats. If the Romans had extirpated Greece in the same way they had Carthage, there wouldn't have been anything worthy of either culture for the Arabs and Middle-Ages monks to bring forward to us. Where is all the evidence of Mayan or ancient Indian or even Khmer civilizational accomplishment? Some survives and is only being pieced together today, so it is a somewhat apples to oranges comparison to a relatively well stewarded Western civilization and culture.

    Are we regressing from the Victorians? Almost certainly! One of the prime reasons is the society-wide emphases on safety and safety equipment as well as advances in medical technology and understanding, which have prevented a lot of the natural selection that would otherwise have helped us to continue to progress. Not to mention the corruption of morals and the replacement of common sense with emotion. We are our the cause of our own downfall in so many ways.

    As far as the fall from the Victorian days, lets not forget dysgenics with smarter people having less children, death of large number of people in high IQ Europe and high IQ East Asia due to the World Wars/communist revolutions, empire building where the smartest and toughest die in foreign lands trying to civilize some native (which was only partially successful and thus a big waste of men and genes ) and of course dumbing down effects of cultural marxism via television, movies, media, fall in education standards etc…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Had Mr Thompson taken off his Eurocentric blinkers he would have read the below and wept.

    https://www.unz.com/article/bestselling-revisionist-historian-germany-was-just-a-patsy/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malcer
    Europe has been ahead of the rest the world since at least the Renaissance. Your pathetic Anti-Western revisionism (while speaking English and using European technology) doesn't change that. Neither does your delusions of grandeur where Russia and China (squalor filled with a far lower GDP per capita) defeat the foul West. It's even sillier that your linking an article by a Creationist who's an apologist for the Axis.

    By the way, all the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. As noted by one Richard Dawkins.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @middle aged vet . . .
    Sophocles and Sappho are better, word for word, than Shakespeare except when he is at his best (well that is what I think with my years of reading Greek, at a rather humble level). Plato is the most interesting European prose writer between the beginning of time and Cervantes. But the Greeks in general? The ancients in general? They had every opportunity to do what even a rather drudge-like scientist like Linnaeus did, and not a single one of them did. Read a good dictionary of the classical languages and you will realize that not a single one of them is recorded as having bothered to clearly distinguish a swallowtail from an anglewing or a warbler from a catbird or even a gorilla from a monkey. That is fairly easy stuff - most people reading this website could do it. It is too much to expect of a Plato to write what he wrote and also to be an elite naturalist - but where were the other Greeks who had time to be elite naturalists? The question answers itself. So: while the Platos of that day would have no problem conversing with profit with the Godels and Machs and Einsteins of our day, there is an ascertainable limit to the number of recorded Plato-level talents in that ancient world. The ancients lived in a world where real estate was exponentially more available than it is today but they did not profit sufficiently from that marginal advantage to establish any level of recognizable overall intellectual superiority. So they were probably pretty much, overall, like us, whether we live in Milwaukee or West Virginia.

    Read a good dictionary of the classical languages and you will realize that not a single one of them is recorded as having bothered to clearly distinguish a swallowtail from an anglewing or a warbler from a catbird or even a gorilla from a monkey. That is fairly easy stuff – most people reading this website could do it.

    Is there a reason to do this in the ancient world? What purpose would it serve? They did pretty well with architecture given the limitations of their materials. They did pretty well with mathematics given the limitations of their numbering systems.

    One of the problems was there was no intellectual property laws and advances tended to die along with the families that developed them. There was little in the way of carrying these advances forward.

    Archimedes was calculating areas with infinitesimals and may well have developed Calculus a full 2000 years before Newton and Leibniz if he hadn’t been murdered by some stupid Roman? How big was that loss to the world?

    Read More
    • Replies: @middle aged vet . . .
    Good points, particularly about all the disappeared knowledge that had been inherited in (local) families. I should also add that I did not mean to treat dictionaries of any ancient language as authoritative; even the dictionaries compiled by the best scholars are by necessity, due to the lack of source material, very imperfect. I think the entire surviving corpus of classical Greek and Latin, up to say the Hellenistic age, contains fewer words that ten or so long Victorian novels. There is no way of knowing for sure whether, using rare words, some ancient writer meant to say "the shed's fritillated woodwork" or the "anglewing on the shed's roof" - if the first is apparently corroborated by another text in its context, the second, though potentially correct, will not make it into the dictionary absent some other independent evidence. So we may have lost the names of more than a thousand insects and birds and animals that way, and maybe the ancients were much more interested in being disinterested naturalists than at first appears. Not to mention all those nymphs and minor gods and goddesses whose names could mean some very specific creature which we are unable to recapture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • TG says:
    @Autochthon
    If you think philosophy is easier than science you do not understand either.

    Reply to Autochthon:

    But science IS philosophy! “Natural” philosophy. In other words, that aspect of philosophy that is grounded in predictive power, falsifiability, and clear logic. The ‘other kind’ of philosophy is indeed easier, because unlike natural philosophy, where the real universe brutally culls the valid from the invalid, in ‘regular’ philosophy, there is no clear wrong answer. And thus, no clear right answer. And how easy it is to pontificate, when nobody can prove that you are wrong…

    Vroomfondel and Magicthise, anyone?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    As I like to say. It's easier to learn human than other sciences. But it's very difficult to accept them namely ethical philosophy. Because people over-emphasize in wrong way the subjective value of human sciences (basically a instinctive self projection) to agree that human races exist OR "animal" rights matter is much more difficult in this aspect. It's easy accept non-ethical issues of natural sciences because it's not direct nor indirectly personal. I little care about a rock but no doubt I care about myself and in direct or indirect ways human sciences is fundamentally about us. Its intrinsic polemical nature make human sciences difficult to accept. But observing STEM-smarter types, many here in UNZ platform, it's easy to perceive they tend to despise completely this ethical/affective/moral side. Completely or at least in significant way. Many them don't understand this issues, why talk about racial differences in intelligence is intrinsically polemical. Because I believe I have both styles more developed/and more challenged for me, so seems I can understand better a empathetic/emotional mind than a mechanicistic mind. The empathetic mind associate people's expression and experiences and start to take it into account. A emotional/ typical empathetic mind interact with a black person who are very kind and sympathetic. So it start to think about this black person before to spread some informations that can hurt that person. I believe kind people tend to attract in higher proportion other kind people and namely from other groups. This reinforce "leftist" beliefs about supposedly congenital kindness of all humanity.
    , @annamaria
    "But science IS philosophy! “Natural” philosophy."
    Agree.
    A great scientist is always a great philosopher by definition, whereas those modern philosophers that are not trained in the fundamentals of science (whether physics or biology or cognitives sciences) are, as a rule, just vibrating devices producing the volumes of sophisticated words carrying a meager meaning (if any).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • TG says:

    Interesting as always. Some random thoughts.

    1. Even if our hardware (brains) are the same as 10,000 years ago, we have better ‘software.’ A simple example, the development of arabic numerals will give someone a significant advantage over a person of the same native intelligence using roman (or other ancient) numbering systems. I suspect that this sort of thing, though often subtle, may have a larger impact than popularly imagined: possibly embedded in our modern grammars and concepts.

    2. Natural selection is not dead. In India alone half a billion people are chronically malnourished, their fertility rate greatly restricted by lack of calories, while more prosperous – and, possibly, more intelligent – people can have more children. Witness the culling of populations in Syria, and Yemen, etc.etc., and yes Virginia, natural selection is still working. And as the flood of third world refugees into the West continues to accelerate, get ready for natural selection for the smartest and most ruthless to survive to come back with a vengeance. Coming soon to a country near you!

    3. We have more advantages and tools than the ancients had. But don’t forget that it was the ancients that developed these advantages and tools! Not us. We didn’t invent the wheel. Our ancestors that didn’t have any idea of what a wheel was, they INVENTED the wheel. So give credit where credit is due.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sophocles and Sappho are better, word for word, than Shakespeare except when he is at his best (well that is what I think with my years of reading Greek, at a rather humble level). Plato is the most interesting European prose writer between the beginning of time and Cervantes. But the Greeks in general? The ancients in general? They had every opportunity to do what even a rather drudge-like scientist like Linnaeus did, and not a single one of them did. Read a good dictionary of the classical languages and you will realize that not a single one of them is recorded as having bothered to clearly distinguish a swallowtail from an anglewing or a warbler from a catbird or even a gorilla from a monkey. That is fairly easy stuff – most people reading this website could do it. It is too much to expect of a Plato to write what he wrote and also to be an elite naturalist – but where were the other Greeks who had time to be elite naturalists? The question answers itself. So: while the Platos of that day would have no problem conversing with profit with the Godels and Machs and Einsteins of our day, there is an ascertainable limit to the number of recorded Plato-level talents in that ancient world. The ancients lived in a world where real estate was exponentially more available than it is today but they did not profit sufficiently from that marginal advantage to establish any level of recognizable overall intellectual superiority. So they were probably pretty much, overall, like us, whether we live in Milwaukee or West Virginia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Read a good dictionary of the classical languages and you will realize that not a single one of them is recorded as having bothered to clearly distinguish a swallowtail from an anglewing or a warbler from a catbird or even a gorilla from a monkey. That is fairly easy stuff – most people reading this website could do it.

    Is there a reason to do this in the ancient world? What purpose would it serve? They did pretty well with architecture given the limitations of their materials. They did pretty well with mathematics given the limitations of their numbering systems.

    One of the problems was there was no intellectual property laws and advances tended to die along with the families that developed them. There was little in the way of carrying these advances forward.

    Archimedes was calculating areas with infinitesimals and may well have developed Calculus a full 2000 years before Newton and Leibniz if he hadn't been murdered by some stupid Roman? How big was that loss to the world?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anatoly Karlin
    I have long expected the ancients to have been duller than us.

    The key issue is that progress gets harder over time, concepts build on each other, you need to tie more and more things together in increasingly complex ways. So the threshold for discovery keeps going up and up, as does the threshold for understanding those discoveries.

    Any of the ancient Greek philosophers can be fully understood by a committed 110-115 IQ college student. I would not say the same of Heidegger or Wittgenstein.

    Ergo for math, the sciences, and pretty much all other spheres of human accomplishment.

    So the threshold for discovery keeps going up and up, as does the threshold for understanding those discoveries.

    And the tools we have for discovery keep allowing us to see things the ancients never could have dreamed of. So are we just smarter or are we just dealing with the ability to see things for the first time in history?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Autochthon
    If you think philosophy is easier than science you do not understand either.

    Good philosophy is easy and no more imprescindible than science. Difficulty value here seems excessively over scored. My main criticism here about this issue.

    What matter for philosophy is not be difficult, otherwise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @MarkF
    A naive outlook is often attributed to everyone who lived in the past. There is no simpler way of exalting oneself, and it is all the easier and more tempting because it is founded on accurate though fragmentary assessments which can be made the most of, with the help of false generalizations and arbitrary interpretations, by being related to an assumed all-embracing evolutionary progress. But the word “naïve” can be understood in more than one way, and so can other words that can be used in a more or less comparable sense. It would be better if people who use such words would first agree on what they are talking about. If to be naive is to be direct and spontaneous, to know nothing of dissimulation and subterfuge and also no doubt nothing of certain experiences, then un­- modernized peoples certainly posses—or possessed—that kind of naïvety; but if it is merely to be without intelligence or critical sense and to be open to all kinds of deception, then there is certainly no reason to suppose that our contemporaries are any less naive than their forbears.

    However that may be, there are few things that the “in­sulated” being who calls himself “modem man” endures less readily than the risk of appearing naïve; everything else can go by the board so long as the feeling of not being duped by anything is safeguarded. In reality the acme of naïvety is to believe that man can escape from naïvety on every plane, and that it is possible for him to be integrally intelligent by his own efforts; he who seeks to gain all things by cleverness ends by losing all in blindness and ineffectuality. People who reproach our ancestors for having been stupidly credulous forget in the first place that one can also be stupidly incredulous, and in the second place that the self-styled destroyers of illusion live on illusions that exemplify a credulity second to none. A simple credulity can be replaced by a complicated one, adorned with the arabesques of a studied doubt that forms part of the style, but it is still credulity; complication does not make error less false, nor stupidity less stupid.

    One must get rid of the notion of hopelessly naive Middle Ages versus a breath-takingly intelligent twentieth century; against that view must be set the fact that history does not abolish simplicity of outlook, but merely displaces it, together with the fact that the most flagrant of naiveties is to fail to see naïvety where it exists. Moreover there is nothing more simplistic than a pretension to “start again from scratch” on every plane, nor than the systematic and unbelievably insolent self-uprooting characteristic of certain tendencies in the con­temporary world. It is fashionable to regard, not only the people of the Middle Ages, but even those of fairly recent generations, as having been duped in every possible way, so that to resemble them would be a matter for shame; in this respect the nineteenth century seems almost as remote as the Merovingian age. Opinions now current prove that people think themselves incomparably more “realistic” than anyone has ever been, even in the recent past; what we call “our own times” or “the twentieth century” or “the atomic age” seems to hover, like an uprooted island or a fabulously “clear­headed” monad, above millennia of childishness and feckless­ness. The contemporary world is like a man ashamed of hav­ing had parents and wanting to create himself, and to re-create space, time and all physical laws as well, and seeking to extract from nothingness a world objectively perfect and sub­jectively comfortable, and all this by means of a creative activity independent of God or opposed to God. The unfort­unate thing is that attempts to create a new order of Being can only end in self-destruction.
    ...
    There is clearly an important distinction between a naivety that is intrinsic and one that is extrinsic. The latter exists only accidentally and in relation to a world that is the product of certain experiences, but is also full of hypocrisy, of useless cleverness and of dissimulation. How could a man who is unaware of the existence of falsehood, or who knows it only as a deadly and exceptional sin, appear as otherwise than ingenuous to a mean-spirited and artful society? To a patho­logically crafty person every normal person seems “simple”; in the eyes of a sharper it is the honest fellows who are artless. Even where a certain critical sense exists, it is far from con­stituting a superiority in itself, and is only an excrescence pro­duced by an environment in which everything is falsified; it is an example of how nature produces self-defensive reflexes and adaptations that can only be explained in terms of the environment or of prevailing circumstances; there is no diffi­culty in admitting that the physical peculiarities of an Eskimo or a Bushman do not in themselves constitute a superiority. If the men of old sometimes appear ingenuous it is often because they are considered from the distorted point of view that is inseparable from a more or less generalized corruption; to accuse them of being childish amounts to applying a law to them retrospectively in the juridical sense. Similarly, an ancient writer may give an impression of simplicity of out­look, but if he does so, it is largely because he had not got to take account of a thousand errors still unknown nor of a thousand possibilities of misinterpretation, and also because there was no need for his dialectic to be like the Scottish dance in which the performer has to avoid breaking the eggs arranged to test his skill, seeing that the writer in question could in a large measure dispense with fine shades of mean­ing; words still possessed a freshness and a fulness, or a magic, which it is difficult for us to imagine, living as we do in a climate of verbal inflation.
    -----
    “In our day everyone wants to appear intelligent, one would prefer to be accused of crime than of naiveté if the accompanying risks could be avoided. But since intelligence cannot be drawn from the void, subterfuge are resorted to, one of the most prevalent being the mania for "demystification", which allows an air of intelligence to be conveyed at small cost, for all one need do is assert that the normal response to a particular phenomenon is "prejudiced" and that it is high time it was cleared of the "legends" surrounding it; if the ocean could be made out to be a pond or the Himalayas a hill, it would be done. Certain writers find it impossible to be content with taking note of the fact that a particular thing or person has a particular character or destiny, as everyone had done before them; they must always begin by remarking that "it has too often been said", and go on to declare that the reality is something quite different and has at last been discovered, and that up till now all the world has been "living a lie". This strategy is applied above all to things that are evident and universally known, it would doubtless be too naive to acknowledge in so many words that a lion is a carnivore and that he is not quite safe to meet.”
    -------

    “Tacitus laughed at the Germanic tribes who tried to stop a torrent with their shields, but it is no less naive to believe in planetary migration or to believe in the establishment by purely human means of a society fully satisfied and perfectly inoffensive and continuing to progress indefinitely. All this proves that man ,though he has inevitably become less naive in some things, has nonetheless learned nothing as far as essentials are concerned; the only thing that man is capable of when left to himself is to "commit the oldest sins the newest kind of ways," as Shakespeare would say. And the world being what it is, one is doubtless not guilty of a truism in adding that it is better to go to Heaven naively than to go intelligently to hell.”

    ― Frithjof Schuon, Light on the Ancient Worlds

    Lack of mental cleverness does not exclude sharpness of understanding... experience proves only too cruelly that mental cleverness may not go hand in hand with intelligence, which amounts to saying that it has not in itself any relationship with true intellectuality.

    -- Frithjof Schuon, Stations of Wisdom

    Lack of mental cleverness does not exclude sharpness of understanding… experience proves only too cruelly that mental cleverness may not go hand in hand with intelligence, which amounts to saying that it has not in itself any relationship with true intellectuality.

    Thanks for citing Fritjof Schuon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    And you understand both?

    Just kidding; it depends, surely, on the scientist or philosopher involved. Academic philosophy and everyday science both require a fair degree of native intelligence, some facility for critical thinking, a modest work ethic, and some capacities of various kinds, depending on the discipline and the work.

    To excel in either science or philosophy, or mixed (as they often were) and related fields, requires both hard work and genius, the degree of each varying by the individual.

    To excel in either science or philosophy, or mixed (as they often were) and related fields, requires both hard work and genius, the degree of each varying by the individual.

    A fool is just a mokey for a real magus.

    Tell me what that means.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Are you Russian?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The authors point out that selection for intelligence increases when humans move from familiar to novel environments, in which new thinking is required.

    Increased population density is also a novel environment. In East Asia and Europe individuals now potentially have to deal with several orders of magnitude people than hunter gatherers and even those in sub-Saharan Africa have to deal with.

    There is a great deal of novelty that arises in those cases.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Autochthon
    If you think philosophy is easier than science you do not understand either.

    And you understand both?

    Just kidding; it depends, surely, on the scientist or philosopher involved. Academic philosophy and everyday science both require a fair degree of native intelligence, some facility for critical thinking, a modest work ethic, and some capacities of various kinds, depending on the discipline and the work.

    To excel in either science or philosophy, or mixed (as they often were) and related fields, requires both hard work and genius, the degree of each varying by the individual.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    To excel in either science or philosophy, or mixed (as they often were) and related fields, requires both hard work and genius, the degree of each varying by the individual.
     
    A fool is just a mokey for a real magus.

    Tell me what that means.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    Exactly.

    And the question on this post was very vague as usual... Cleverer about what??

    The avg Athenian was cleverer than avg American? Because seems difficult to compare achievements for example recent achievements in STEM if compared with that ancient time, because today science is more accumulative than in the Aristotle times. It's not all achievements that seems improbable to be fairly compared. For example, how socially harmonic ancient Greece was if compared with today? How superstitious or religious they were if compared with today?

    My opinion is that great civilizations undoubtedly require at least a brighter upper classes to work.

    Philosophy require a different type of intelligence-use than science so also compare philosophers with scientists will be always arbitrary. The problem of philosophy is that great part of itself is so obvious that appear to be less important. Also because indeed is easier than science it's appear to be less important. It's like compare intellectual gymnastics of all wrong ideologies and religions require with "look for the quasi-obvious truth". It's more difficult to deceive the truth than to look for her but it's not more important.

    If you think philosophy is easier than science you do not understand either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    And you understand both?

    Just kidding; it depends, surely, on the scientist or philosopher involved. Academic philosophy and everyday science both require a fair degree of native intelligence, some facility for critical thinking, a modest work ethic, and some capacities of various kinds, depending on the discipline and the work.

    To excel in either science or philosophy, or mixed (as they often were) and related fields, requires both hard work and genius, the degree of each varying by the individual.
    , @Santoculto
    Good philosophy is easy and no more imprescindible than science. Difficulty value here seems excessively over scored. My main criticism here about this issue.


    What matter for philosophy is not be difficult, otherwise.
    , @TG
    Reply to Autochthon:

    But science IS philosophy! "Natural" philosophy. In other words, that aspect of philosophy that is grounded in predictive power, falsifiability, and clear logic. The 'other kind' of philosophy is indeed easier, because unlike natural philosophy, where the real universe brutally culls the valid from the invalid, in 'regular' philosophy, there is no clear wrong answer. And thus, no clear right answer. And how easy it is to pontificate, when nobody can prove that you are wrong...

    Vroomfondel and Magicthise, anyone?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    Exactly.

    And the question on this post was very vague as usual... Cleverer about what??

    The avg Athenian was cleverer than avg American? Because seems difficult to compare achievements for example recent achievements in STEM if compared with that ancient time, because today science is more accumulative than in the Aristotle times. It's not all achievements that seems improbable to be fairly compared. For example, how socially harmonic ancient Greece was if compared with today? How superstitious or religious they were if compared with today?

    My opinion is that great civilizations undoubtedly require at least a brighter upper classes to work.

    Philosophy require a different type of intelligence-use than science so also compare philosophers with scientists will be always arbitrary. The problem of philosophy is that great part of itself is so obvious that appear to be less important. Also because indeed is easier than science it's appear to be less important. It's like compare intellectual gymnastics of all wrong ideologies and religions require with "look for the quasi-obvious truth". It's more difficult to deceive the truth than to look for her but it's not more important.

    And the question on this post was very vague as usual… Cleverer about what?

    I’ve noticed a trend in Steve’s writing. He no longer often writes as often to develop his own theses as he does to facilitate discussion amongst us in the peanut-gallery by providing us food for thought. (Not unlike a skilled practitioner of the Socratic method.) He has become (I suspect by design) more like the Marquise du Deffand or Ezra Pound than Voltaire or Ernest Hemingway. It’s perhaps less work for him and often facilitates future observations.

    I don’t think the change is necessarily a bad thing, by the way; it is quite clever and worthy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @ANON
    You're right about Socrates. He was basically preaching revolution to his students. They of course were upper class who would be the next generation of rulers.

    He was similar to professors Marcuse, Apthoker, Lawrence Tribe, Igantious and the rest who preached hatred of America since the 1930's and "exterminate the White race" since the 1980s.

    Shakespeare wrote "first get the lawyers" I'd like to get rid of all the professors, administrators, counselors, advisors and rabble rousers on every campus in America.
    Judging by Socrates execution, I'd say the Athenian dullards were 1,000 percent smarter than American politicians.

    Shakespeare has his charcater (Dick the Butcher!) suggest killing all the lawyers as the means to facilitate violent revolution and the downfall of the existing order.

    Your citation of the work suggests you misunderstand it to imply the opposite. Do you in fact want bloody revolution and anarchy? Your endorsement of the execution of Socrates suggests not.

    I suppose I shall add being bothered by people who insist upon citing Henry VI without going to the trouble of first understanding it to my list of abandoned (because Sisyphean) tasks, along with trying to inculcate an understanding that mestizo and Hispanic are not synonyms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @RSDB
    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

    Oh, how quaint.

    The whole point of this conversation is that you can’t move unless someone can give you a permission to do so…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous

    Still not a syllogism, but I’ll take what I can get. What is the “lots of evidence”? And what is the “gaping archaeological hole”? What archaeologists were excommunicated*? In what way would, say, a Bronze-Age tomb pose any problem to medieval theologians?
     
    Don't be silly.

    I was trying to help you. If you're more comfortable in your box, please go on...

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Oh, how quaint.

    The whole point of this conversation is that you can't move unless someone can give you a permission to do so...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Autochthon
    Oh, I don't know; he makes some sound points about how odd it is that no significant archaeological discoveries seem to've been made (or, at any rate, recorded) until relatively recently. It's no area of expertise to me, nor even of especial interest, but I expect there are genuine questions worth exploring. Are you an expert on the matter? So far as I have read of the debate you had with him, your refutations to his prima facie reasonable arguments seem to be "but you've not cited any written works!" I emphasise I am largely disinterested in the entire affair; I was inspired to support the point that too many people in modern scholarship and public debate improperly overemphasise citations as such, as though another person's having previously managed to have an idea published (rather than that idea's being reasonable and supported by empirical evidence) were the sine qua non of that idea's merit.

    I agree that archaeology as a developed discipline is a fairly recent thing; it seems to develop slowly from the late Middle Ages, as part of the general fascination of that time with antiquity. It is quite odd that it doesn’t seem to have developed much earlier, despite the great interest of the medievals in written pagan work and history, and the local traditions about various sites. But when it does develop, it develops in Christian Europe– curious, isn’t it?

    I did not actually make any argument against “Rurik” as far as I know; I simply said he was making up history, which he was. It may be that he is right –”History is a set of lies agreed upon”, said a famous Solar Myth– but it doesn’t square with my impressions of the medievals, from what I’ve read of theirs and about them. I am certainly not an expert (I can, however, claim to be more well-versed in the period than some), though no expert in the field agrees with “Rurik” either, to the extent of my knowledge. And I certainly possess enough expertise to say that “Rurik” is no expert on the matter.

    Care to source your claim about citations? ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @RSDB

    The Church was suppressing inconvenient findings (lots of evidence of that) and we do have a gaping archaeological hole in the European Middle Ages.
     
    Still not a syllogism, but I'll take what I can get. What is the "lots of evidence"? And what is the "gaping archaeological hole"? What archaeologists were excommunicated*? In what way would, say, a Bronze-Age tomb pose any problem to medieval theologians?

    *You'll say, perhaps, that the records were destroyed. But what of the transition period that you must posit, between when archaeological finds were destroyed on sight, and when they were treasured?

    Still not a syllogism, but I’ll take what I can get. What is the “lots of evidence”? And what is the “gaping archaeological hole”? What archaeologists were excommunicated*? In what way would, say, a Bronze-Age tomb pose any problem to medieval theologians?

    Don’t be silly.

    I was trying to help you. If you’re more comfortable in your box, please go on…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RSDB
    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    The city-state of Athens had to import grain. The city-state of Athens included not just the city proper, but the rural areas surrounding it.

    You seem to be conflating a political issue with Malthusian limits. The US government claims all the territory in the USA. Thus anywhere you go in the USA, the land will be already claimed by the government. But anywhere you go in the USA, you would be much further from Malthusian limits than the Greek colonists were. The Greek colonists would go to areas unclaimed by anyone else, but they were still much closer to Malthusian limits than anywhere in the USA.

    A claim by a state on a piece of territory is independent of its Malthusian limits. The US government may claim, say, the moon, but that itself has no bearing on the Malthusian limits of the moon.

    Your clarification that you were referring to not only the city of Athens, but the larger city-state, addresses the nonsense about importing grain to a city. It does not, however, change the point that any limits faced by shortages of resources in the area could be solved by relocating to any of the vast, uninhabited, and unclaimed areas – as, indeed, was in fact exactly what the constrained populations did; my point is an observation of historical fact, not an idle hypothesis of the possible. The present world presents far less opportunity to escape overtaxed lands. Shall I relocate to Yosemite and establish myself there? What shall I tell the rangers who shall doubtless come to visit me with questions and demands? Perhaps I should claim a few acres of some privately owned ranch in Wyoming? Surely the owner will disregard me entirely. There simply is no place not already controlled by some person or government that would exclude an enterprising colonist, in the way that there were vast swaths of such areas in antient times.

    A claim by a state on a piece of territory is independent of its Malthusian limits.

    Nonsense. Establish a homestead here and let me know how things work out for you. If you are defining “Mathusian limits” as relating only to what is purely possible from an ecological perspective, that is fair enough, but in that case the idea is useless outside the circles of debaters in smoking jackets. Resources’ limitations also involve their availability from opposing and competing exploiters, such as the residents of Marin County and the thugs in uniforms they employ to enforce their interests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    All right. If you take "Rurik's" disquisitions on the Middle Ages in the same manner, then I have no further problems.

    Oh, I don’t know; he makes some sound points about how odd it is that no significant archaeological discoveries seem to’ve been made (or, at any rate, recorded) until relatively recently. It’s no area of expertise to me, nor even of especial interest, but I expect there are genuine questions worth exploring. Are you an expert on the matter? So far as I have read of the debate you had with him, your refutations to his prima facie reasonable arguments seem to be “but you’ve not cited any written works!” I emphasise I am largely disinterested in the entire affair; I was inspired to support the point that too many people in modern scholarship and public debate improperly overemphasise citations as such, as though another person’s having previously managed to have an idea published (rather than that idea’s being reasonable and supported by empirical evidence) were the sine qua non of that idea’s merit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I agree that archaeology as a developed discipline is a fairly recent thing; it seems to develop slowly from the late Middle Ages, as part of the general fascination of that time with antiquity. It is quite odd that it doesn't seem to have developed much earlier, despite the great interest of the medievals in written pagan work and history, and the local traditions about various sites. But when it does develop, it develops in Christian Europe-- curious, isn't it?

    I did not actually make any argument against "Rurik" as far as I know; I simply said he was making up history, which he was. It may be that he is right --"History is a set of lies agreed upon", said a famous Solar Myth-- but it doesn't square with my impressions of the medievals, from what I've read of theirs and about them. I am certainly not an expert (I can, however, claim to be more well-versed in the period than some), though no expert in the field agrees with "Rurik" either, to the extent of my knowledge. And I certainly possess enough expertise to say that "Rurik" is no expert on the matter.

    Care to source your claim about citations? ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • RSDB says:
    @Anonymous
    Of course it's a reasonable argument. The Church was suppressing inconvenient findings (lots of evidence of that) and we do have a gaping archaeological hole in the European Middle Ages.

    Listen to reason first and data second. History in particular is filled with wrong or insufficient data so you should rely on reason to sort it out - to the best of your ability.

    The Church was suppressing inconvenient findings (lots of evidence of that) and we do have a gaping archaeological hole in the European Middle Ages.

    Still not a syllogism, but I’ll take what I can get. What is the “lots of evidence”? And what is the “gaping archaeological hole”? What archaeologists were excommunicated*? In what way would, say, a Bronze-Age tomb pose any problem to medieval theologians?

    *You’ll say, perhaps, that the records were destroyed. But what of the transition period that you must posit, between when archaeological finds were destroyed on sight, and when they were treasured?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Still not a syllogism, but I’ll take what I can get. What is the “lots of evidence”? And what is the “gaping archaeological hole”? What archaeologists were excommunicated*? In what way would, say, a Bronze-Age tomb pose any problem to medieval theologians?
     
    Don't be silly.

    I was trying to help you. If you're more comfortable in your box, please go on...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    But is it a reasonable argument? Put it in syllogistic form and get back to me, and we'll take it from there.

    Better yet, write it into two Wikipedia articles. Then I'll have to accept it, no?

    Of course it’s a reasonable argument. The Church was suppressing inconvenient findings (lots of evidence of that) and we do have a gaping archaeological hole in the European Middle Ages.

    Listen to reason first and data second. History in particular is filled with wrong or insufficient data so you should rely on reason to sort it out – to the best of your ability.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RSDB

    The Church was suppressing inconvenient findings (lots of evidence of that) and we do have a gaping archaeological hole in the European Middle Ages.
     
    Still not a syllogism, but I'll take what I can get. What is the "lots of evidence"? And what is the "gaping archaeological hole"? What archaeologists were excommunicated*? In what way would, say, a Bronze-Age tomb pose any problem to medieval theologians?

    *You'll say, perhaps, that the records were destroyed. But what of the transition period that you must posit, between when archaeological finds were destroyed on sight, and when they were treasured?
    , @Pericles
    What's so inconvenient about finding some big bones? "There were giants in the earth in those days", the remains of antediluvian monsters, etc. Seems like a comfortable position for The Authorities.
    , @Rurik

    The Church was suppressing inconvenient findings (lots of evidence of that) and we do have a gaping archaeological hole in the European Middle Ages.

    Listen to reason first and data second. History in particular is filled with wrong or insufficient data so you should rely on reason to sort it out – to the best of your ability.
     

    well said

    and the Church (and the PTB) wasn't just suppressing inconvenient findings back then, but are doing it today- in earnest.

    as I've mentioned, there is a reason our culture is so dumbed down, and the universities kick out ideological zombies unable to think. Thinking is dangerous to the regime, and they would like it banned on principle. Better to have the graduates regurgitating trite platitudes than questioning the canonical mantras du jour.

    in a thinking West, would Hillary Clinton have ascended to the heights of power that she did?

    indeed, you can extrapolate Hillary to the entire political and media power structures of the Western world, and see the rot is all pervasive.

    But to the Church, all is hunky-dory!

    9/11 was the seminal event of our lifetimes. A crime of such epic import, that it has caused the subversion of our ancient and hard won rights going back to the Magna Carta, and the loss and destruction of millions of lives and entire countries bombed into smoking ashes and sent reeling back into the stone age, no doubt, for generations to come.

    But you won't find one in a thousand academics or politicians or media personalities (let alone the clergy!) with the moral courage or intellectual integrity to doubt or question one scintilla of the avalanche of patently ludicrous absurdities that masquerade as the "truth" of what happened on that fateful and potentially civilization-ending day.

    Such is the widespread moral and intellectual cowardice of our institutions, (including of course the Church)

    someone on this thread mentioned that "Rurik" is no expert, and they could not be more correct. I'm a million miles away from being an expert of any kind vis-a-vis academia or history or philosophy. I'm a student of these things, and expect to spend the rest of my life being one.

    But one thing I will say about my humble perspective on these things is that I'm not afraid to think, (however mundanely) and to see things that are right in front of my face, with the moral courage to say the emperor wears no cloths, if that's the best (if trite) analogy available.

    it isn't intelligence or, God help us, expertise that our leaders and/or society lack. Rather it's the moral courage to simply see and then say things that are inconvenient.

    if our leaders today will suppress all knowledge or questions about 9/11 to protect the status quo, (and their respective emoluments), then do I hold the leaders of the Church to a higher standard during the Medieval period?

    it isn't just individual men that are so often false, but it seems to me that entire civilizations can be also, when the spiritual rot has metastasized in a society from the top down, and the collective moral cowardice is not just ascendant, but ubiquitous, all pervasive and seemingly endemic.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Art
    Tesla understood the principles of “resonance” and the wireless transmission of energy. In fact, Tesla was the true inventor of radio…

    I agree with you - as a human being, Tesla is my man. His A/C electric system is what the world uses to transfer electric power.

    With that said, Edison invented the recording of sound and the first moving pictures.

    Today, where would we be without those things - they dominate our lives - they made for huge advances in intellectual human living.

    I have no problem adding Tesla to the list of the greats. Why not both?

    God bless America for creating the environment that fostered their work.

    Peace --- Art

    Edison took the work of others and ramrodded patent enforcement in order to claim ownership. Yes, this includes motion pictures and sound recording…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Autochthon
    Sure Athens imported grain; all cities that ever were import grain, by definition – a city is not a farm. Do you know of some city with an agricultural surplus, or even an equilibrium? What kind of ridiculous point are you making? Are you being facetious?

    The fundamental motivation for Greek colonies was overpopulation; as such, a Greek facing problems from overpopulation had the option to initiate or join a colony.

    Now then, do please point to the colonies I may join to escape from the pressing masses of stinking Hindoos swarming what used to be the U.S.A., since I've got so many less problems escaping overpopulation than the anyient Athenians in the days when all of the Mediterranean was bursting with humanity and nary a wilderness existed unclaimed and unsettled?

    The city-state of Athens had to import grain. The city-state of Athens included not just the city proper, but the rural areas surrounding it.

    You seem to be conflating a political issue with Malthusian limits. The US government claims all the territory in the USA. Thus anywhere you go in the USA, the land will be already claimed by the government. But anywhere you go in the USA, you would be much further from Malthusian limits than the Greek colonists were. The Greek colonists would go to areas unclaimed by anyone else, but they were still much closer to Malthusian limits than anywhere in the USA.

    A claim by a state on a piece of territory is independent of its Malthusian limits. The US government may claim, say, the moon, but that itself has no bearing on the Malthusian limits of the moon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Your clarification that you were referring to not only the city of Athens, but the larger city-state, addresses the nonsense about importing grain to a city. It does not, however, change the point that any limits faced by shortages of resources in the area could be solved by relocating to any of the vast, uninhabited, and unclaimed areas – as, indeed, was in fact exactly what the constrained populations did; my point is an observation of historical fact, not an idle hypothesis of the possible. The present world presents far less opportunity to escape overtaxed lands. Shall I relocate to Yosemite and establish myself there? What shall I tell the rangers who shall doubtless come to visit me with questions and demands? Perhaps I should claim a few acres of some privately owned ranch in Wyoming? Surely the owner will disregard me entirely. There simply is no place not already controlled by some person or government that would exclude an enterprising colonist, in the way that there were vast swaths of such areas in antient times.

    A claim by a state on a piece of territory is independent of its Malthusian limits.
     
    Nonsense. Establish a homestead here and let me know how things work out for you. If you are defining "Mathusian limits" as relating only to what is purely possible from an ecological perspective, that is fair enough, but in that case the idea is useless outside the circles of debaters in smoking jackets. Resources' limitations also involve their availability from opposing and competing exploiters, such as the residents of Marin County and the thugs in uniforms they employ to enforce their interests.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Your problems run deeper than that. It seem like you've locked yourself in a box where a reasonable argument can't enter unless it's attached to at at least two "official" Wikipedia articles.

    You demand to see the bones he claims were destroyed or at least a detailed, written, admission from the perpetrators. Nothing less will suffice, before you can unclench.

    But is it a reasonable argument? Put it in syllogistic form and get back to me, and we’ll take it from there.

    Better yet, write it into two Wikipedia articles. Then I’ll have to accept it, no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Of course it's a reasonable argument. The Church was suppressing inconvenient findings (lots of evidence of that) and we do have a gaping archaeological hole in the European Middle Ages.

    Listen to reason first and data second. History in particular is filled with wrong or insufficient data so you should rely on reason to sort it out - to the best of your ability.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Art says:
    @anarchyst
    I must respectfully disagree with you choice of Edison as one of the "greats". Edison was an excellent promoter, sometimes huckster, and borderline fraud who took the inventions of others as his own. His greatest achievement was NOT the incandescent lamp, but was the creation and establishment of the first modern-day research laboratory. THAT is his greatest contribution to modern society and the world.
    Look up "war of the currents" to see Edison in action...as a huckster.
    Nikola Tesla was a far greater TRUE thinker and creator, giving us our present-day polyphase electrical system. It turns out that Edison promised Tesla a large amount of money after one year of employment. When Tesla demanded his money, Edison remarked that "he was just joking". Hence, the split between Edison and Tesla started.
    Tesla understood the principles of "resonance" and the wireless transmission of energy. In fact, Tesla was the true inventor of radio...
    Tesla had many inventions "in the works". His scientific papers were confiscated by the U S government after his death...
    Edison was a "good talker" while Tesla was "a little weird". Hence, Edison got the glory, Tesla got the shaft...

    Tesla understood the principles of “resonance” and the wireless transmission of energy. In fact, Tesla was the true inventor of radio…

    I agree with you – as a human being, Tesla is my man. His A/C electric system is what the world uses to transfer electric power.

    With that said, Edison invented the recording of sound and the first moving pictures.

    Today, where would we be without those things – they dominate our lives – they made for huge advances in intellectual human living.

    I have no problem adding Tesla to the list of the greats. Why not both?

    God bless America for creating the environment that fostered their work.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Edison took the work of others and ramrodded patent enforcement in order to claim ownership. Yes, this includes motion pictures and sound recording...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    All right. If you take "Rurik's" disquisitions on the Middle Ages in the same manner, then I have no further problems.

    Your problems run deeper than that. It seem like you’ve locked yourself in a box where a reasonable argument can’t enter unless it’s attached to at at least two “official” Wikipedia articles.

    You demand to see the bones he claims were destroyed or at least a detailed, written, admission from the perpetrators. Nothing less will suffice, before you can unclench.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    But is it a reasonable argument? Put it in syllogistic form and get back to me, and we'll take it from there.

    Better yet, write it into two Wikipedia articles. Then I'll have to accept it, no?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Autochthon
    I defend the account as a perfectly sound allegory about hubris, as he intended it to be. Plato never intended that it be historically accurate, so my defending it as such would baffle him as much as a defense of the historical accuracy of the War of Wrath or the Fall of Gondolin would Tolkien.

    All right. If you take “Rurik’s” disquisitions on the Middle Ages in the same manner, then I have no further problems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Your problems run deeper than that. It seem like you've locked yourself in a box where a reasonable argument can't enter unless it's attached to at at least two "official" Wikipedia articles.

    You demand to see the bones he claims were destroyed or at least a detailed, written, admission from the perpetrators. Nothing less will suffice, before you can unclench.

    , @Autochthon
    Oh, I don't know; he makes some sound points about how odd it is that no significant archaeological discoveries seem to've been made (or, at any rate, recorded) until relatively recently. It's no area of expertise to me, nor even of especial interest, but I expect there are genuine questions worth exploring. Are you an expert on the matter? So far as I have read of the debate you had with him, your refutations to his prima facie reasonable arguments seem to be "but you've not cited any written works!" I emphasise I am largely disinterested in the entire affair; I was inspired to support the point that too many people in modern scholarship and public debate improperly overemphasise citations as such, as though another person's having previously managed to have an idea published (rather than that idea's being reasonable and supported by empirical evidence) were the sine qua non of that idea's merit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Ron Unz

    Why should we take the population of the largest Greek city and compare it to all of core Western Europe?
     
    But probably about half or more of the great Ancient Greek thinkers and writers from the period under discussion *were* Athenian, so the population of Argos or Thebes or Magna Graecia really don't enter into the equation.

    Take Thucydides, not only the founder of serious history, but author of one of the greatest historical works ever written. If Victorian Britain was not only substantially smarter but also had hundreds of times the citizen population, why wouldn't they have produced hundreds of his equals?

    Admittedly, some very prominent Greeks such as Aristotle were born elsewhere and drawn to Athens (much like American thinkers may be drawn to Cambridge or Palo Alto), but most were Athenian.

    While it may have been the Spartans who specially engaged your attention during your days as a classical scholar you may recall Ron that Athens was apparently occupied by more ancient Ancient Greeks than the rest of Greece. Indeed I remember reading somewhere that they were essentially a Mediterranean people with maybe strong links to Egypt and its civilisation. Unfortunately my searches using “Achaean” have’t helped enlarge on that thought. But here’s a thought for a historical fiction writer. Maybe the glory that was Athens wad the work of exiled eggheads from Egypt (and Crete, why not?). And maybe it became a melting pot and safe haven for intellectual mavericks for the whole region exgending to Persia. Back to reality: isn’t there good reason to look for an explanation of Athens’s apparent genetic advantsge?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Difference Maker
    A search for pre Indo European substrate & Pelasgians may be fruitful. Purportedly the "nth" formulation is not of Indo European origin, and the name of Athens itself is close to this

    It is also telling that all Indo Europeans potentially straight from the homeland are lightly colored, and that Spartans & Macedonians (and the Macedonians' northern neighbors the Thracians) tended to be fairer relative to other Greeks

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.