19 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, it's not. Bruno was rational and the superstitious louts who killed him were not. And he derived a cosmology that was correct from his understanding of reality, not from "mysticim". Your claims to the contrary are BS.
Go back and read the "superstitious lout" post again. Here's the relevant part:The real question is - why does it bother you so much? So Bruno was a superstitious philosopher whose so-called "visionary ideas" derived more from his mysticism and belief in magic than they did from actual astronomy (if at all). Does it make the crime of the Inquis ...[text shortened]... exactly a martyr for science and progress, is he?
Well? It's true, isn't it?
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerDidn't Singer SPECIFICALLY state that Bruno didn't believe in astrology??? Explain that since you expressly stated the opposite.
Because no1 keeps trying to brush them under the carpet.
I see that, of the two participants in this debate, you're asking just me. Why don't you ask no1 the same question - what's it to him?
What's it to you?
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou seem to have a hard time reading. Here's a quote from Kristeller:
Yates (p.174): [quote]The analyses which I shall make in later chapters will show that Bruno was an intense religious Hermetist, a believer in the magical religion of the Egyptians as described in the Asclepius, the imminent return of which he prophesied in England, taking the Copernican sun as a portent in the sky of this imminent return. He patronis ...[text shortened]... n Renaissance science and philosophy*.
---
*EDIT: Does anyone else see the irony here?
More than the other Italian philosophers who were his contemporaries, Bruno deserves to be called a forerunner, if not a founder, of modern science and philosophy.
Do you think that quote SUPPORTS your claim that Bruno has a forerunner of the Enlightement is nonsense?
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNo - I mean 'mysticism' in the traditional sense (meditation, awareness, spirituality etc.). In Bruno's case, you can throw in a healthy dose of magic as well.
Is there a point lurking somewhere, anywhere?? All three historians seem to disagree with your assessment of the inconsequential nature of Bruno's impact. Since you're big on Appeals to Authority, you're batting zero. Singer wrote after Yates' views on Bruno had already been expressed in the 1930's and Singer cites Yates' prior work favorably. There does ...[text shortened]... embracing explanation of the universe. If you want to call that "mysticism", so be it.
Since you bring it up, your point about Singer writing after Yates's views were expressed can be countered simply - according to the bio you posted, Singer herself was going around lecturing in the 1930s. So I could just as easily argue that Yates formed her views after Singer expressed hers. And, if you're going to argue that Yates didn't change her views for 25 years, why shouldn't I argue that Singer didn't change her views for 15? In any case, you can read for yourself the impact Yates's book had on the subsequent state of Bruno-studies.
Bruno essentially took his idea of infinite worlds from Lucretius and his idea of living beings on other worlds from Nicholas of Cusa. His cosmology (in its physical aspects) was similar to Digges. Do you think these philosophers are as well-known as Bruno? Why or why not?
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThey're not my claims - they're the most commonly accepted view of Bruno among historians today. I've cited extensively from Yates because, as Gati's survey shows, Yatesian views of Bruno haven't significantly been challenged since.
No, it's not. Bruno was rational and the superstitious louts who killed him were not. And he derived a cosmology that was correct from his understanding of reality, not from "mysticim". Your claims to the contrary are BS.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSinger was just plain wrong. She didn't have the benefit of Yates's analysis (and don't bring up that whole 1930s nonsense again - people aren't sitting on their hands for a quarter of a century).
Didn't Singer SPECIFICALLY state that Bruno didn't believe in astrology??? Explain that since you expressly stated the opposite.
19 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're trying to put words in my writing again. Where did I claim that Bruno was not a "forerunner" (whatever that is) of the Enlightenment?
You seem to have a hard time reading. Here's a quote from Kristeller:
More than the other Italian philosophers who were his contemporaries, Bruno deserves to be called a forerunner, if not a founder, of modern science and philosophy.
Do you think that quote SUPPORTS your claim that Bruno has a forerunner of the Enlightement is nonsense?
EDIT: In case you missed the irony, Kristeller, Yates and others argue that the Enlightenment itself grew from the Hermetic movement. Both of them see the rise of modern science and philosophy as struggles against established modes of thought and, in that sense, Bruno could certainly be seen as a forerunner. But, if you're going to talk basics, there is very little of modern science (with its emphasis on verifiability and experimentation) and philosophy (with its emphasis on deduction) in Bruno.
19 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou've scoffed at the idea of Bruno as an Enlightenment "poster boy" about 6 times; now you seem to concede that his ideas were in tune with the Enlightenment!!!!! But you've also said he was an insignificent and trivial philosopher!! Which is is it, LH?? How can someone who's ideas were in line with the revolution in human thought that took place in the Enlightenment a few hundred years after his death be sooooooooooooooo unimportant?????????
You're trying to put words in my writing again. Where did I claim that Bruno was not a "forerunner" (whatever that is) of the Enlightenment?
EDIT: In case you missed the irony, Kristeller, Yates and others argue that the Enlightenment itself grew from the Hermetic movement.
Your edit isn't ironic, it shows how completely boneheaded and contradictory your assertions have been.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerProve it; cite some evidence that Bruno believed in astrology i.e. that the stars and planets affect human affairs directly by their positions.
Singer was just plain wrong. She didn't have the benefit of Yates's analysis (and don't bring up that whole 1930s nonsense again - people aren't sitting on their hands for a quarter of a century).
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, I'm still not saying his ideas were in tune with the Enlightenment. A mis-reading of his ideas may be in tune with the Enlightenment, but Bruno himself wasn't.
You've scoffed at the idea of Bruno as an Enlightenment "poster boy" about 6 times; now you seem to concede that his ideas were in tune with the Enlightenment!!!!! But you've also said he was an insignificent and trivial philosopher!! Which is is it, LH?? How can someone who's ideas were in line with the revolution in human thought that took place in the ...[text shortened]... 't ironic, it shows how completely boneheaded and contradictory your assertions have been.
Nevertheless, Bruno (the historical one) is still considered a forerunner of the Enlightenment (by historians like Yates & Kristeller). And therein lies the irony.
19 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo YOU misread his ideas and replace your interpretations for the Enlightenment figures who read him and were influenced by him. Then you basically claim that the historians you are citing are all wrong; Bruno really wasn't a forerunner of the Enlightenment like they say because he was really just a minor, inconsequential figure even though the Enlightenment figures and modern historians say differently.
No, I'm still not saying his ideas were in tune with the Enlightenment. A mis-reading of his ideas may be in tune with the Enlightenment, but Bruno himself wasn't.
Nevertheless, Bruno (the historical one) is still considered a forerunner of the Enlightenment (by historians like Yates & Kristeller). And therein lies the irony.
I must admit that it's a tour de force in BS.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI've already provided textual evidence earlier in the thread. More direct evidence is provided in Yates, pp.323-325. While passing through Paris for the second time, Bruno goes all ga-ga over the invention of a compass by Fabrizio Mordente. Why? Basically, Bruno thought the invention had to do with "wandering stars" and is a "divine mathesis". The word "mathesis" is used repeatedly in his dialogues on the Mordente invention to refer to it.
Prove it; cite some evidence that Bruno believed in astrology i.e. that the stars and planets affect human affairs directly by their positions.
"Mathesis" basically means "astrology" or "magic".
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat's it?????? I see no reason to read into such an obscure reference such a meaning in light of Singer's express statement to the contrary.
I've already provided textual evidence earlier in the thread. More direct evidence is provided in Yates, pp.323-325. While passing through Paris for the second time, Bruno goes all ga-ga over the invention of a compass by Fabrizio Mordente. Why? Basically, Bruno thought the invention had to do with "wandering stars" and is a "divine mathesis". The wor ...[text shortened]... nte invention to refer to it.
"Mathesis" basically means "astrology" or "magic".
As you like to say, TRY AGAIN.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm afraid, as far as tour-de-forces in BS go, I've still got a long way to go to catch up with you.
So YOU misread his ideas and replace your interpretations for the Enlightenment figures who read him and were influenced by him. Then you basically claim that the historians you are citing are all wrong; Bruno really wasn't a forerunner of the Enlightenment like they say because he was really just a minor, inconsequential figure even though the Enlighte ...[text shortened]... nd modern historians say differently.
I must admit that it's a tour de force in BS.
I mean that his ideas have generally been misread since roughly the late 18th century on, with the general notion that he was some visionary astronomer suppressed by the Church. The early Enlightenment "Fathers" were not too impressed with him - Francis Bacon, for instance, disparages him (Singer, ch.8) among others. I've never heard of Descartes, Locke, Hume, Voltaire etc. even mentioning him. The only major philosopher of the period with a somewhat clear (if disputed - as your quote shows) indication of Bruno influence is Spinoza. The German Idealists (Kant excluded) are supposed to have resurrected Bruno - but even here Hegel was "revolted" by Bruno (Singer, ibid. - although other sources say Hegel "admired" Bruno as well). By the 19th century, as Singer herself chronicles, Bruno was revived as a hero because of his execution (which brings me back to my original point - what do you think would've happened if, like Nicholas of Cusa, Digges and others, Bruno was not executed?)