/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6092012]

The more I delve into medieval history and philosophy the more I'm convinced that the scientific method and other fruits of modernity developed out of the Christian theological framework. It seems to me that the Enlightenment narrative of Christendom being a dark stain on the glory of Europe is severely mistaken, prejudiced and just bad history. I've seen some writers hint in this direction but largely whenever I try to put forward this hypothesis I just seem like a strange reactionary, even though It's increasingly obvious to me. I mean, when you actually look into common myths about the Church it all starts to look severely exaggarated or plain propaganda like the Inquisition, Crusades etc. Actually looking into it I was forced to conclude that the Inquisition was a highly developed legal system that anticipated modern forms, and after examining original sources there is a concensus among scholars that executions, tortures and other commonly held gripes were extremely rare, in fact the Church was positively enlightened compared to secular leaders and their brutal and swift punishment for disobedience. Also let's not forget the huge efforts to preserve ancient documents and classics undertaken by monks which allowed their study in the modern world to begin with.

After this kind of shit I really don't know what to believe - Every credible historian seems to paint a wildly different picture of western Christendom than the one we're fed through the media. Is our whole narrative of the religious dark age misguided?

[Anonymous No.6092049]

>The more I delve into medieval history and philosophy the more I'm convinced that the scientific method and other fruits of modernity developed out of the Christian theological framework

It didn't. Science already existed in ancient Greece and ancient Rome.

Also, Alhazen had already developed the modern version of the scientific method. Then again, you can't really pin anyone or any single homogeneous group of people as 'the' inventors of science, so this thread is pretty pointless

[Anonymous No.6092060]

>>6092049

This. Study more history and philosophy OP.

[Anonymous No.6092064]

>>6092012
>The more I delve into medieval history and philosophy the more I'm convinced that the scientific method and other fruits of modernity developed out of the Christian theological framework.

Obviously.

[Anonymous No.6092069]

>>6092064
Of Atheism
- Sir Francis Bacon

I HAD rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind. And therefore, God never wrought miracle, to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. Nay, even that school which is most accused of atheism doth most demonstrate religion; that is, the school of Leucippus and Democritus and Epicurus. For it is a thousand times more credible, that four mutable elements, and one immutable fifth essence, duly and eternally placed, need no God, than that an army of infinite small portions, or seeds unplaced, should have produced this order and beauty, without a divine marshal.

[Anonymous No.6092071]

>>6092069
The Scripture saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it, by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it. For none deny, there is a God, but those, for whom it maketh that there were no God. It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man, than by this; that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it, within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened, by the consent of others. Nay more, you shall have atheists strive to get disciples, as it fareth with other sects. And, which is most of all, you shall have of them, that will suffer for atheism, and not recant; whereas if they did truly think, that there were no such thing as God, why should they trouble themselves? Epicurus is charged, that he did but dissemble for his credit’s sake, when he affirmed there were blessed natures, but such as enjoyed themselves, without having respect to the government of the world. Wherein they say he did temporize; though in secret, he thought there was no God. But certainly he is traduced; for his words are noble and divine: Non deos vulgi negare profanum; sed vulgi opiniones diis applicare profanum. Plato could have said no more. And although he had the confidence, to deny the administration, he had not the power, to deny the nature.

[Anonymous No.6092073]

>>6092069
>>6092071

Look, what's the point of constantly posting this pasta? It's just another dumb argument from authority

[Anonymous No.6092074]

>>6092071
The Indians of the West, have names for their particular gods, though they have no name for God: as if the heathens should have had the names Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, etc., but not the word Deus; which shows that even those barbarous people have the notion, though they have not the latitude and extent of it. So that against atheists, the very savages take part, with the very subtlest philosophers. The contemplative atheist is rare: a Diagoras, a Bion, a Lucian perhaps, and some others; and yet they seem to be more than they are; for that all that impugn a received religion, or superstition, are by the adverse part branded with the name of atheists. But the great atheists, indeed are hypocrites; which are ever handling holy things, but without feeling; so as they must needs be cauterized in the end. The causes of atheism are: divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division, addeth zeal to both sides; but many divisions introduce atheism. Another is, scandal of priests; when it is come to that which St. Bernard saith, non est jam dicere, ut populus sic sacerdos; quia nec sic populus ut sacerdos. A third is, custom of profane scoffing in holy matters; which doth, by little and little, deface the reverence of religion. And lastly, learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion.

[Anonymous No.6092077]

Have you read the Magic Mountain?

[Anonymous No.6092079]

>>6092073
Then refute it.

>>6092074
They that deny a God, destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts, by his body; and, if he be not of kin to God, by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature. It destroys likewise magnanimity, and the raising of human nature; for take an example of a dog, and mark what a generosity and courage he will put on, when he finds himself maintained by a man; who to him is instead of a God, or melior natura; which courage is manifestly such, as that creature, without that confidence of a better nature than his own, could never attain. So man, when he resteth and assureth himself, upon divine protection and favor, gathered a force and faith, which human nature in itself could not obtain. Therefore, as atheism is in all respects hateful, so in this, that it depriveth human nature of the means to exalt itself, above human frailty. As it is in particular persons, so it is in nations. Never was there such a state for magnanimity as Rome. Of this state hear what Cicero saith: Quam volumus licet, patres conscripti, nos amemus, tamen nec numero Hispanos, nec robore Gallos, nec calliditate Poenos, nec artibus Graecos, nec denique hoc ipso hujus gentis et terrae domestico nativoque sensu Italos ipsos et Latinos; sed pietate, ac religione, atque hac una sapientia, quod deorum immortalium numine omnia regi gubernarique perspeximus, omnes gentes nationesque superavimus.

[Anonymous No.6092085]

>>6092049
>>6092060

[Anonymous No.6092093]

>>6092079
>Then refute it.

It's an argument from authority. Also, it assumes that God is necessary for meaning, which is at best an assumption and at worst wrong

[Anonymous No.6092095]

>>6092012

[Anonymous No.6092096]

>>6092093
So you can't refute it but simply disagree with its premise? Fair enough. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

[Anonymous No.6092097]

>>6092085

>/pol/pasta #12.708

[Anonymous No.6092101]

>>6092049
>Science already existed in ancient Greece and ancient Rome.
They didn't even have decimals or any notion of infinite or our perseption of time. If anything, it was Arabs that made more science that influenced the West afterwards.

Also OP you too western-centric yourself. While you westerners where actual backwards savages after the fall of Rome, we at the Balkans were doing fine with the whole civilization thing.

[Anonymous No.6092105]

>>6092097
That one isn't from /pol/. This one is though.

[Anonymous No.6092107]

>>6092096
>So you can't refute it but simply disagree with its premise?

No, he claims that God is necessary for meaning, and never demonstrates his assumption. He only presents that 'well, everyone has a god', which is an argument from popularity and says nothing about the truth value of such a concept

By the way, is posting whiny little /pol/isms all you're going to do in this thread?

[Anonymous No.6092113]

>>6092107
He doesn't need to demonstrate his assumption because he is writing to a Christian audience that understands what faith is. If you don't have faith that's your choice, but please do not dismiss others for having a different perspective than you.

[Anonymous No.6092126]

>>6092113
>that understands what faith is.

I also understand what faith is. Not an argument

[Anonymous No.6092132]

>>6092085

>I'm a 'fedora-fag' because I recognize the monumental contributions that Pagans, Muslims, Hindus, etc. made to pre-modern science

*clutches crucifix*

[u No.6092155]

And instantly we have /pol/ memes thrown around. Can we actually, you know, try to talk about history?

[Anonymous No.6092168]

>>6092155

>have religious/political demagogues
>expect the possibility of having a normal discussion

Fool me once, etc.

[Anonymous No.6092215]

>>6092012
>Not realising that the forefront of science shifted to the arab world after rome, and didn't move back until after the age of exploration
>Ignoring the vast contributions of china and india

[Anonymous No.6092230]

>>6092155
We seriously need a /his/

[Anonymous No.6092240]

>>6092101
>perseption
>we at the Balkans
>Greeks didn't have knowledge of decimals
>Egyptians didn't use decimals since 3100 BC

2/10

[Anonymous No.6092247]

>>6092215
Did those civilizations develop the scientific method? I don't see how I'm ignoring them, my case applies to the western conception of science and how it owes itself signicantly to a particularly Christian worldview.

[Anonymous No.6092249]

>>6092247
>Did those civilizations develop the scientific method?

>>6092049
>Also, Alhazen had already developed the modern version of the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.6092259]

>>6092249
That seems pretty far fetched and I'd like to hear more

[Anonymous No.6092272]

>>6092259

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

>The scientific method is the process by which science is carried out.[14] As in other areas of inquiry, science (through the scientific method) can build on previous knowledge and develop a more sophisticated understanding of its topics of study over time.[15] [16][17][18][19][20] This model can be seen to underlay the scientific revolution.[21] One thousand years ago, Alhazen argued the importance of forming questions and subsequently testing them,[22] an approach which was advocated by Galileo in 1638 with the publication of Two New Sciences.[23] The current method is based on a hypothetico-deductive model[24] formulated in the 20th century, although it has undergone significant revision since first proposed (for a more formal discussion, see below).

[Anonymous No.6092309]

>>6092247
>Did those civilizations develop the scientific method?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#Emergence_of_inductive_experimental_method
The arabs certainly contributed a lot to it
>Ibn al-Haytham
>Al-Biruni
>Avicenna

[Anonymous No.6092316]

>>6092259

What about it is it far-fetched? People have used 'scientific methods' of various sorts for thousands of years, this guy's works just happen to contain an early formulation of a scientific method familiar to modern minds.

[Anonymous No.6092328]

>>6092247
>>6092316

The named propagator of the scientific method is Sir Francis Bacon.

"Bacon has been called the father of empiricism.[4] His works established and popularised inductive methodologies for scientific inquiry, often called the Baconian method, or simply the scientific method. His demand for a planned procedure of investigating all things natural marked a new turn in the rhetorical and theoretical framework for science, much of which still surrounds conceptions of proper methodology today."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon

>>6092069
>>6092071
>>6092074
>>6092079

[Anonymous No.6092347]

>>6092328
This isn't Civilization V, the scientific method has slowly accumulated in sophistication since ancient egypt. Francis Bacon just came up with eliminative induction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method

[Anonymous No.6092399]

>>6092215
Arabs, Chinese, Indians and Romans (East and west) all had amazing ideas and made great contributions. That being said the children of Rome are the ones who have made the greatest strides with the others westernising to keep up. I don't know enough to know why, but it is interesting how each of these were stopped by not being western and have all adopted it today to one degree or another.

[Anonymous No.6092420]

>>6092328
>The named propagator of the scientific method is Sir Francis Bacon.

[Anonymous No.6092427]

>>6092420
Well meme'd my friend.

[Anonymous No.6092451]

>>6092069
>>6092071
>>6092074
>>6092079

[Anonymous No.6092456]

>>6092420
fuck off to /r/athiesm

You are the scum of the earth. I hope you enjoy the eternity you will spend in hell XD. get fucked

[Anonymous No.6092476]

>>6092079
>They that deny a God, destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts, by his body; and, if he be not of kin to God, by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature.

Why would someone take this seriously in 2016, let alone 2015
>constanza.jpg

[Anonymous No.6092484]

>>6092476
You think acknowledging the tension between the material and spiritual is ridiculous?

[Anonymous No.6092492]

>>6092456

*tips halo*

[Anonymous No.6092504]

>>6092484
Because i deny God does not mean im a "base and ignoble" creature. I mean, this is too edgy, i can understand what he says taking into consideration when it was written, but
> 2015
> being a base and ignoble creature.

What comes next? ill go to hell?

[Anonymous No.6092505]

>>6092484

It is if you don't define the 'spiritual' in the first place

[Anonymous No.6092571]

>>6092399
I think that ideas and new technologies have always proliferated, so whenever one civilization was significantly ahead of the rest, the others would eventually obtain its advances. Also, with more efficient trade routes, the world has become exponentially more connected as time has gone by. As a result, after europe's surge to prominence following the age of exploration and the opening up of new sea routes, land and resources (and taking into account the increases in the world's interconnectedness in the last 200 years), many have and are adopting european (and by extension american) ideas, technologies and cultures, and can thus be said to be "westernising". However, the west have only really had supremacy in the last 350 years. The USA and the EU will both soon be overtaken by china (in about 20 years in absolute gdp, and about 100 in GDP per capita), followed by India. The developing nations will soon catch up, and who knows which nation or group will lead the world in the future?

So I would hesitate to say that " the children of Rome are the ones who have made the greatest strides". Before the rennaisance that could have been said of arabia. Soon it may be said of china or india.

[Anonymous No.6092605]

>>6092069
>>6092071
>>6092074
>>6092079
This has nothing to do with your thesis, OP (assuming you're OP), it's just a bog-standard argument against atheism that happens to have been advanced by a person significant to the scientific revolution (but still operating in the framework of a total collapse of Church power). Which yeah, Newton was an alchemist too; not even the most euphoric Redditor will argue that the history of science has been all Dawkins from the get-go. Is this the best evidence you've got?

>>6092347

[Anonymous No.6092650]

>>6092605
I didn't post that dude, it's just a bait copypasta. Besides it's Bacon, and I have earlier, medieval thinkers in mind.
For proof I guess you can read something like"Medieval foundations of the western Intellectual tradition", but I don't really know specific aithors to point out, since it's a general impression I gathered from various sources. In fact ai myself would like authors who argue about it in more detail.

Here's a pretty good essay:
I didn't post that dude,http://www.quora.com/Why-did-science-make-little-real-progress-in-Europe-in-the-Middle-Ages

Here's a pretty good essay though:

[Anonymous No.6092654]

>>6092650
Sorry about that posting on a damn phone

[Anonymous No.6092682]

>>6092049
>Also, Alhazen had already developed the modern version of the scientific method.

>mfw people overplay the Arab role in science

[Anonymous No.6092706]

>>6092682
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen#Scientific_method
>The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and,.. attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.
The arabs speerheaded science for a thousand years. In my experience people have only overlooked the contributions of islamic civilizations.

[Anonymous No.6092805]

>>6092682

Arab/Muslim achievements are sometimes exaggerated, but they're more often written off or simply ignored.

[Anonymous No.6092833]

>Thus the question "Why science?" leads back to the moral problem: Why have morality at all when life, nature, and history are "not moral"? No doubt, those who are truthful in that audacious and ultimate sense that is presupposed by the faith in science thus affirm another world than the world of life, nature, and history; and insofar as they affirm this "other world"—look, must they not by the same token negate its counterpart, this world, our world?—But you will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysicians still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine.—But what if this should become more and more incredible, if nothing should prove to be divine any more unless it were error, blindness, the lie—if God himself should prove to be our most enduring lie?—

[Anonymous No.6092836]

>>6092085

[Anonymous No.6092882]

>>6092049
>It didn't. Science already existed in ancient Greece and ancient Rome

Hell no. Aristotle killed science for over a thousand years, biggest catastrophe in human thought ever.

[Anonymous No.6092900]

>>6092882
Aristotle was a decent empiricist, although certainly no Hippocrates. However, it was actually the Church which killed science by making an idol out of Aristotle, Aristotle was not dogma in the ancient world like he was for the Church.

[Anonymous No.6092902]

>>6092833
>that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato
Christ was born 400 years after Plato.

[Anonymous No.6092907]

>>6092902
Plato is proto-Christianity.

[Anonymous No.6092919]

>>6092833
Did you write this?

[Anonymous No.6092922]

>>6092833
>Thus the question "Why science?" leads back to the moral problem
How so? Morals are subjective, science is objective.

[Anonymous No.6092948]

>>6092907

No, not really

[Anonymous No.6092955]

>>6092948
But he is which is why Christians like him so much.

[Anonymous No.6092959]

>>6092833
>>6092948
Christianity is Platonism for 'the people'.

[Anonymous No.6093048]

>>6092922
science is less subjective than non-science (for lack of a better word), but its still subjective.

measurements are made using human (read:subjective) tools, interpreted by human minds, represented in human-made symbols.

[Anonymous No.6093055]

>>6092959
Christianity is for people who weren't chosen by God but wish they were

[Anonymous No.6093085]

>>6093048
>measurements are made using human (read:subjective) tools, interpreted by human minds, represented in human-made symbols.

You have no idea how ignorant this makes you sound. You're spouting vague nonsense with no basis in reality.
Science is a broad field, and while human error and paradigms certainly exist in science, what you just stated is pure bullshit.

Physics, for example, is not subjective. If it was subjective, we would not be able to land people on the moon, create nuclear weapons, make computers or calculate anything in the real world. Numbers and math are not abstract or subjective. Seriously, stop trying to impose vague philosophical idiocy on science.

[Anonymous No.6093100]

>>6093085
>If it was subjective, we would not be able to land people on the moon, create nuclear weapons, make computers or calculate anything in the real world
So apparently objectivity is just utility?

>Numbers and math are not abstract or subjective
Numbers and math existed before humans were around to recognise them? I thought a big part of the scientific mindset was to avoid these kinds of intuitive projecting that we are ashamed of from the past.
>Seriously, stop trying to impose vague philosophical idiocy on science
Although I guess 4chan/reddit/etc "muh science fuck philosophy" are not proper genius scientists and science is merely a herd to which they belong.

[Anonymous No.6093102]

>>6093085
you didn't refute anything i said. rockets, nuclear weapons, and computers are all human made.

[Anonymous No.6093107]

>>6093102

And how would all of those things be possible in the first place if, for instance, Newton's laws of motion weren't related to anything objective?

[Anonymous No.6093127]

>>6093107
you've shifted your position just now. earlier you said "science is objective." now you say science is only "related to [something] objective"

you are in agreement with me now

[Anonymous No.6093145]

>>6093127

Complete bullshit semantics. There is no significant difference between 'X is objective' and 'X is related to something objective'. At no point do either of these statements even slightly imply anything subjective

[Anonymous No.6093155]

>>6093145
>There is no significant difference between 'X is objective' and 'X is related to something objective'
...
Apparently art is objective now since theory has objective elements.

[Anonymous No.6093160]

>>6093155

Art has next to nothing to do with science or physics. Now you're just changing the subject

[Anonymous No.6093163]

>>6092836
lol that is so incredibly false

[Anonymous No.6093178]

>>6093160
>Music has next to nothing to do with math [which you brought up earlier]

[Anonymous No.6093183]

>>6093100
I'm an engineer, you imbecile.
Are you genuinely going to try to refute math by using some vague argument with no evidence? The reason philosophy is bullsht, is because you can make any claim you want without having to back it up with reason or facts.
Math works. It corresponds directly to our real world, and has never failed.
You can go on a wild tangest and claim we're trapped in the Matrix, and that we're just tricked into thinking math works, but that just makes you a contrarion moron, trying to sound smarter than you really are.

>>6093102
Human made. By utilizing the laws of nature, that we have come to understand through math, physics and chemistry.

[Anonymous No.6093188]

>>6093145
there is quite a difference. an equation only exists objectively as ink on paper, light coming from a projected powerpoint slide, sounds coming from someone's throat, etc. an equation isn't literally what it describes (unless you somehow cook up an equation like one that describes what proportion of the paper its printed on is black or white)

i'll give you an opportunity to clarify exactly or expand on what you're arguing. at this point all i can understand you to be saying is something like "an equation about gravity IS gravity"

[Anonymous No.6093207]

>>6093183
>i'm not a genius scientist [or engineer]
as I thought.
>Are you genuinely going to try to refute math by using some vague argument with no evidence?
I didn't say anything about refuting math.
>Math works
Again, so apparently objectivity is just utility? Simpleton minds!
>It corresponds directly to our real world, and has never failed
Then why have so many forms been discarded or ridiculed?
>You can go on a wild tangest and claim we're trapped in the Matrix, and that we're just tricked into thinking math works, but that just makes you a contrarion moron, trying to sound smarter than you really are. vague argument with no evidence? The reason philosophy is bullsht, is because you can make any claim you want without having to back it up with reason or facts.
Serious projecting.

>utilizing the laws of nature
How do we know that 'laws' are not merely convenient fictions the human brain and sensory system projects onto the world or uses simply in order to deal with the world more easily, for more utility?

[Anonymous No.6093237]

>>6093207
Do you see the irony of someone with the intellectual ability of a stoned out hippie trying to call out science?

>How do we know that 'laws' are not merely convenient fictions the human brain and sensory system projects onto the world or uses simply in order to deal with the world more easily, for more utility?

How do you know they area? Oh right, you don't have to prove anything. You can just regurgitate the first thing that pops into your mind. If only I'd gotten that humanities degree, and I could be a genuis like you.

[Anonymous No.6093254]

>>6093237
Do you see the irony of a smelly geeky nerd trying to call out God?

How do you know he don't exist? Oh right, you don't have to prove anything. You can just regurgitate the first thing that pops into your mind. If only I'd gotten that science degree, and I could be a smug wage slave like you.

[Anonymous No.6093257]

>>6093237
Do you see the irony of a smelly geeky nerd trying to call out God?

How do you know he don't exist? Oh right, you don't have to prove anything. You can just regurgitate the first thing that your pop science heroes spewed into your mind. If only I'd gotten that science degree, and I could be a smug wage slave like you.

[Anonymous No.6093269]

> in fact the Church was positively enlightened compared to secular leaders and their brutal and swift punishment for disobedience.

Right, but that's like saying that the cultural institutions of today are better than Latin American governments and African dictatorships. Of course they are. These are purely cultural and ideological authorities. They don't have the power to mow down cities full of people. The church didn't have an army (aside from in its italian territories), it had to convince secular governments to go to war, so saying the church was better than secular authorities is like saying the U.S. government is better than the U.S. military.

The sins of the Catholic Church are exaggerated, but the instituion does indeed suck, and sucked worst of all in the middle ages. They were basically like a Mafia; they provided services but they were shit tier compared to legitimate institutions. They did promote research and scholarship in certain areas but they heavily censored what was allowed to be said, especially compared to the standards in the Muslim world at the same time.

I don't see any metric by which the middle ages could be thought of as better than Classical Civilization, or post-renaissance Europe. The period pretty much was what everybody said it was. I mean look at the technological stagnation for instance. All those great roman aqueducts falling into disrepair, such a travesty.

[Anonymous No.6093283]

>>6092012

Yes OP, now it's edgy to overplay the christian role in culture and society.
In a few years, when the trend is going to revert, you'll be more and more convinced of the opposite.

[Anonymous No.6093311]

>>6093269
Actually, the USA is one of the most admirable empires in history.
>highest cultural diversity/selfovercoming
>political model, culture, economies that other countries copy without coercion
>only takes part in wars started by others
>foreign policy of indifference (unless provoked)
>freedom of speech
>wealthiest

[Anonymous No.6093321]

>>6093311
>only takes part in wars started by others
That's a straight up lie, otherwise I agree.

[Anonymous No.6093346]

>>6093321
Prove otherwise.

[Anonymous No.6093356]

>>6093257
There should be a study on whether or not reading fiction rots your brain, given the sheer insanity of people on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.6093363]

>>6093311
I'm not anti-American, but this has to be a troll post.

[Anonymous No.6093375]

>>6093356
philosophy isn't fiction.

>>6093363
>>6093346

[Anonymous No.6093377]

>>6093257

>this is now the intellectual level on /lit/
>mfw

[Anonymous No.6093390]

I am very interested in returning to Catholicism. But something inside of him is saying that I'm denying myself and just submitting to a doctrine, and that I should simply live as I feel I should. Help

[Anonymous No.6093400]

>>6093375
No, it's superstition.

[Anonymous No.6093405]

>>6093390
>But something inside of him is saying that I'm denying myself and just submitting to a doctrine, and that I should simply live as I feel I should. Help

You are. You're only doing this because of pictures of fat guys wearing hats with fake quotes. Why don't you stop caring for once what some intellectually illiterate /pol/ack thinks of you and believe what you think fits you best

[Anonymous No.6093407]

>>6093405
>and believe what you think fits you best
I think Catholicism might, though.

[Anonymous No.6093413]

>>6092706
>for a thousand years
More like 200 years

[Anonymous No.6093417]

>>6093400
hai, not that anon but teehee xD i agree 100 percento dude

[Anonymous No.6093420]

>>6093407

Because of fat guys wearing hats spouting fake quotes?

[Anonymous No.6093421]

>>6093417
Great meme!

[Anonymous No.6093423]

>>6092012
>Actually looking into it I was forced to conclude that the Inquisition was a highly developed legal system that anticipated modern forms

they actually rarely burned witches during medieval ages but mostly heretics, all that witch burning thing it's the enlightenment and pre-enlightenment

[Anonymous No.6093425]

>>6093421
>>>/r/eddit

your sperm belongs in the trash compactor

[Anonymous No.6093428]

>>6093375

What you're doing isn't philophisy, its just making baseless arguments and statements.

[Anonymous No.6093429]

>>6093311
What? Where did you get the idea I was expressing any anti-American sentiment?

[Anonymous No.6093441]

Any catch with this Azamon and ikoob direct (self) publishing? Self publish, promote on blogs and social media and what not...and profit?

[Anonymous No.6093443]

>>6093425
>>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.6093445]

>>6092012
[citations needed]

[Anonymous No.6093449]

>>6093441
How did that end up there? Answer question anyway please...

[Anonymous No.6093461]

Is a life without a religion the patrician's way?

[Anonymous No.6093464]

Um, pretty fucking sure that the Islamic golden age was way more enlightened than the faggot fucking christfags.
>le angels dancing on a pin
>le ontological argument
Christians really did set the world back 1000 years, they're just spreading this fucking shit and you ate it. Fuck christianity.

[Anonymous No.6093469]

>>6093425
Fantastic meme!

[Anonymous No.6093471]

>>6093461
Being sane doesn't necessarily mean you're patrician, but it's a start.

>inb4 a thousand fedora memes

get lost, christfags, your God is dead.

[Anonymous No.6093474]

>>6093464
The islamic golden age is greatly exaggerated. They made a few breakthroughs in a couple of fields, based on old Greek texts.

[Anonymous No.6093482]

>>6093474
Hahahaha no. They pretty much founded modern civilisation.

[Anonymous No.6093488]

>>6092155
/pol/ has a lot of good stuff among all the shitposting you know. Hell, the shitposting is just for giggles and laughs (which /lit/ doesn't seem to have) and then you got the discussions that brings up a lot of good stuff.
pic related I guess as it focuses on the crusades.

[Anonymous No.6093489]

Jesus is too good of a figure not to follow.

[Anonymous No.6093513]

>>6092571
>in the last 350 years
Uh, what about the 15th and 16th century? Or would you say that the Arabs had more control? Or the Chinese?

[Anonymous No.6093520]

>>6093474
>I let my emotions control the way I view history

[Anonymous No.6093525]

>>6093520
Everyone let their emotions control the way they view history.

[Anonymous No.6093529]

I almost want to be a Christian just because it feels lazy to be an atheist. Plus, I'm going to be living under the influence of Christianity regardless.

[Anonymous No.6093539]

>>6093474
>being this eurocentric

[Anonymous No.6093558]

>>6093513
> 15th century
Ming Dynasty China was superior to Europe in global influence (Guess which emperor got tribute from Tibet, Northern India, Indonesia, Central Asia, Indochina and Japan), technology, standard of living, economy and administration.
> 16th
One could argue that Ottoman Empire during its peak especially as Europe had descended into long and violent period of religious civil wars from 1515 to 1648.

[Anonymous No.6093568]

>>6093474
> Based on old Greek texts
its funny because Byzantine Empire had access to all of those same Greek texts and made less breakthroughs, even though they were properly translated and available to them (quite a few works of Aristotle and Plato were lost to Arabs but not Byzzies!)

also Muslims gained a lot more knowledge from India than they did from Greece. 19th century classicism is cute, but not very accurate.

[Anonymous No.6093574]

>>6093513
I'd say the chinese were more advanced at the time, although they never sought or valued widespread "control" aside from their immediate neighbours. I think the ottomans come in in that time frame, and they inherit enough from the arabs to stay ahead of europe until somewhere in the 17th century.

[Anonymous No.6094307]

>>6093568
>also Muslims gained a lot more knowledge from India than they did from Greece.

Depends on what field of knowledge you're talking about, but this generally isn't true.

The guy you're responding to is still dumb and wrong, though.

[Anonymous No.6095596]

>>6092095
Consider the following. You have a society were almost all of its people beliefs in a firm cosmology. Then there is this one guy stating his thesis that would basically change one of the foundations of your religion's cosmology, overthrow it all - society and power structures - just for the sake of astronomic calculations which were actually pretty accurate with known methods.
What would you do in the mindset of a cleric of this time?

Anyways, Kepler is past medieval time.

[Anonymous No.6095639]

Christians burned the library of Antioch, shut down all the philosophical schools of ancient Greece and persecuted pagans with more religious violence than Europe had ever seen.