16 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderLMAO!
I suggest you actually try to understand it; your reading comprehension sucks. What Bruno is saying makes perfect sense and is a core belief of many philosophical systems.
After calling RCC doctrine "a jumbled mess of incoherency", you're telling me that you find magic, astrology and Kabbalah "makes perfect sense"?
16 Apr 06
Originally posted by frogstompIt's a good time for us to remember Giordano Bruno and the struggle to liberty. We can hope the separation of church and state continues to serve us well.
Unless you are just going to defend the stupid idolaters you ought to try and discern Bruno's meaning and maybe learn something that might free you of your chains.
He was a fiercely courageous man whose depth of visionary genius is only just now beginning to be recognized.
here is another link:http://altreligion.about.com/library/bl_bruno.htm
gil
16 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerReally?? Here's what even NewAdvent has to say about Bruno, though most of the article is predictably unflattering:
You're proving my point - but for his being put to death by the Inquisition, Bruno would've been a footnote in post-graduate textbooks on mediaeval esoteria long ago. A good comparison is Galileo - whose scientific contributions were significant enough that he would've been remembered even if his run-in with the Inquisition hadn't happened.
God and the world are one; matter and spirit, body and soul, are two phases of the same substance; the universe is infinite; beyond the visible world there is an infinity of other worlds, each of which is inhabited; this terrestrial globe has a soul; in fact, each and every part of it, mineral as well as plant and animal, is animated; all matter is made up of the same elements (no distinction between terrestrial and celestial matter); all souls are akin (transmigration is, therefore, not impossible). This unitary point of view is Bruno's justification of "natural magic." No doubt, the attempt to establish a scientific continuity among all the phenomena of nature is an important manifestation of the modern spirit, and interesting, especially on account of its appearance at the moment when the medieval point of view was being abandoned. And one can readily understand how Bruno's effort to establish a unitary concept of nature commanded the admiration of such men as Spinoza, Jacobi, and Hegel.
Doesn't seem like a "minor" figure to me. Your bigotry and ignorance are showing again.
16 Apr 06
Originally posted by frogstompFroggy, the funny thing is - you and I are probably the only two people on this thread who are willing to accept Bruno for what he really was, instead of turning him into some 16th century Stephen Hawkings.
Unless you are just going to defend the stupid idolaters you ought to try and discern Bruno's meaning and maybe learn something that might free you of your chains.
16 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerAre you completely retarded? He's talking about a divine spirit that is part of all existence. Ever hear of the Tao? Ever read Spinoza? You're a petty ignorant piece of dirt.
LMAO!
After calling RCC doctrine "a jumbled mess of incoherency", you're telling me that you find magic, astrology and Kabbalah "makes perfect sense"?
16 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerBruno was murdered by your fanatical church before the birth of Newton, and that means before calculus was applied to science. and believe it or not, way before Gauss and of course, way before Sophus Lie was born too. So to say Bruno wasn't a mathematician is a bit disingenuous.
Wow! Just because I point out (as modern Bruno-historians will, if you ask them) that Bruno wasn't really a scientist or mathematician, and that he was a mystic whose cosmology was based on traditional Gnostic philosophy, that makes it "contempt"?
As for the "man who wrote these words", he writes (in the very same work):
[quote]… they (the Egyptia ...[text shortened]... akes of Bruno calling those who question Egyptian magic "stupid and senseless idolaters".
16 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerTypical. Johnston is a RCC apologist writing an attack piece against Galileo in a RCC rag. No historian makes any mention of Galileo having had pamphlets handed out in Churches throughout Europe, but you're perfectly willing to accept it as true just on such a biased source's off-hand comment. You're sharp as a marble, LH.
I failed to find a source other than Johnston - but I have no reason to believe Johnston got a basic historical fact wrong. In fact, as I pointed out in that thread, an examination of the style of Galileo's letters and an understanding of the conventions of the time strongly suggest that Johnston was indeed right. Withdrawing an argument for the sake
As for your question, IIRC the RCC hasn't had a "banned list" for nearly a century.
16 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammer"Salutation from Philotheus Jordanus Brunus of Nola, Doctor of a more scientific theology, professor of a purer and less harmful learning, known in the chief universities of Europe, a philosopher approved and honourably received, a stranger with none but the uncivilised and ignoble, a wakener of sleeping minds, tamer of presumptuous and obstinate ignorance... Brunus, whom only propagators of folly and hypocrites detest, whom the honourable and studious love, whom noble minds applaud..."
Froggy, the funny thing is - you and I are probably the only two people on this thread who are willing to accept Bruno for what he really was, instead of turning him into some 16th century Stephen Hawkings.
his own words
16 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompGiordano Bruno was the Man Who Saw Through Time--prophet of these new age philosophies and The New Science. Four hundred years ago, he wrote of morphogenic resonances--quantum mechanics, chaos theory and the fractal nature of reality.
Bruno was murdered by your fanatical church before the birth of Newton, and that means before calculus was applied to science. and believe it or not, way before Gauss and of course, way before Sophus Lie was born too. So to say Bruno wasn't a mathematician is a bit disingenuous.
In quantum worlds, where everything is connected to everything else, we see that reality is what we make or create; we sense the interconnectedness of all life as we come at last to experience the truth that what we do unto others, we do to ourselves too.
Divine cause, that everything is connected, the fractal vision that everything is in everything--not just that God is in all, but that ALL is in ALL.
http://www.newpara.com/bruno.htm
He was light years ahead of his time..the father of modern science!
gil
16 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderMore petty insults. Still don't trust your arguments?
Really?? Here's what even NewAdvent has to say about Bruno, though most of the article is predictably unflattering:
God and the world are one; matter and spirit, body and soul, are two phases of the same substance; the universe is infinite; beyond the visible world there is an infinity of other worlds, each of which is inhabited; this terrestri Doesn't seem like a "minor" figure to me. Your bigotry and ignorance are showing again.
Of course Bruno's execution made him a superstar, particularly to the Enlightenment, so it's not suprising philosophers such as Jacobi and Hegel should call him a prophet. In terms of actual direct influence on subsequent philosophy, Paracelsus and Nicholas of Cusa were far more influential from the Philosophy of Nature school. But you never hear of them outside a graduate philosophy class, do you?
Indeed, as Trapp & Yates point out, half the time the 18th and 19th century philosophers were mis-reading Bruno by ascribing to him greater scientific motivation than there actually was.
16 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're calling me "petty"?? You're the guy who cannot go a single post without a pointless, juvenile insult.
Are you completely retarded? He's talking about a divine spirit that is part of all existence. Ever hear of the Tao? Ever read Spinoza? You're a petty ignorant piece of dirt.
I never denied Bruno was talking about the divine indwelling spirit. However, he was also talking about magic, about astrology and about Kabbalah. In fact, his whole infinite universe-infinite worlds piece was based on that mystical/magical conception.
How is pointing out your double standards in dealing with RCC doctrine and Bruno's views "retarded"?
EDIT: By the way, have you read Spinoza?
16 Apr 06
Originally posted by frogstompMathematics wasn't invented by Newton or Gauss (what's with you and Lie anyway?)
Bruno was murdered by your fanatical church before the birth of Newton, and that means before calculus was applied to science. and believe it or not, way before Gauss and of course, way before Sophus Lie was born too. So to say Bruno wasn't a mathematician is a bit disingenuous.
Would it be disingenuous for me to call Descartes a mathematician? Or Fermat? And did Copernicus or Galileo need calculus for astronomy and mechanics respectively? All of them were pre-Newton.
16 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI see no reason why he would make up a fact. Sure, he can ascribe greater weight to certain arguments than others to get to the desired conclusion, but creating historical facts out of thin air is completely different.
Typical. Johnston is a RCC apologist writing an attack piece against Galileo in a RCC rag. No historian makes any mention of Galileo having had pamphlets handed out in Churches throughout Europe, but you're perfectly willing to accept it as true just on such a biased source's off-hand comment. You're sharp as a marble, LH.
Besides, most of the points Johnston made (about Galileo's arrogance, for instance) are points you'll find echoed in virtually any modern historical monograph on Galileo.
Unlike you, I see no reason to distrust someone simply because he is Catholic. Also, I trust the integrity of the editors of some of these "RCC rags".
16 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt's rather cool that you mention Descartes, some of Bruno's writing was a percursor to Descartes philosophical writings a few years later.
Mathematics wasn't invented by Newton or Gauss (what's with you and Lie anyway?)
Would it be disingenuous for me to call Descartes a mathematician? Or Fermat? And did Copernicus or Galileo need calculus for astronomy and mechanics respectively? All of them were pre-Newton.
Geometry and Algebra aren't enough to describe the universe.
That's why Newton and Leibnitz developed Calculus and Lie developed whats called Lie Groups, you have to understand that the universe isn't readily put on paper.
16 Apr 06
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour tiresome whines about anti-Catholic bias every time someone points out the fallacies of your "arguments" are your main MO in this forum. Johnston's off-hand comment was part of his/her character assassination of Galileo, an attack on the victim. No historian or historical record supports his specious claim. Your research techniques leave quite a bit to be desired; you were trying to suggest that Galileo was never threatened with torture when it is directly stated in Church documents that he was. Maybe you should have read them rather than rely on information in magazines written by RCC apologists.
I see no reason why he would make up a fact. Sure, he can ascribe greater weight to certain arguments than others to get to the desired conclusion, but creating historical facts out of thin air is completely different.
Besides, most of the points Johnston made (about Galileo's arrogance, for instance) are points you'll find echoed in virtually any ...[text shortened]... he is Catholic[/i]. Also, I trust the integrity of the editors of some of these "RCC rags".