|
Post by karl on Aug 16, 2020 18:08:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 20, 2020 14:47:08 GMT
I know that Greek were painted (only in special colors). Hmm, did they follow up Greek traditions?
The reason why Renaissance's statues were bleachly white is, perhaps,of emptiness of that period. I don't like Reneissense's culture; except for some pamphlets of the Northern Renaissance writers as Erasmus.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 22, 2020 14:42:26 GMT
I know that Greek were painted (only in special colors). Hmm, did they follow up Greek traditions? The reason why Renaissance's statues were bleachly white is, perhaps,of emptiness of that period. I don't like Reneissense's culture; except for some pamphlets of the Northern Renaissance writers as Erasmus.
What time periods do you like? The renaissance also includes Leonardo da Vinci and the writer Boccaccio. I agree that there was an underlying emptiness in the renaissance, which I believe is exactly why it left room for the individual to step forward in an attempt to fill that void. I see it as comparable to the emptiness we're living through now, which I expect will eventually allow the individual to rise above the mindlessness of the collective.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 25, 2020 10:53:27 GMT
I know that Greek were painted (only in special colors). Hmm, did they follow up Greek traditions? The reason why Renaissance's statues were bleachly white is, perhaps,of emptiness of that period. I don't like Reneissense's culture; except for some pamphlets of the Northern Renaissance writers as Erasmus. What time periods do you like? The renaissance also includes Leonardo da Vinci and the writer Boccaccio. I agree that there was an underlying emptiness in the renaissance, which I believe is exactly why it left room for the individual to step forward in an attempt to fill that void. I see it as comparable to the emptiness we're living through now, which I expect will eventually allow the individual to rise above the mindlessness of the collective.
Thank you for this question, I'd like to know what's yours? Hmm... the question is not so easy for me, because usually it seems that each period can be oversearched for pleasant, unusual and decent things, episodes. The beginning and to mid of XX century is the one, probably. Many writers, philosophers, and the other famous ones worked than or appeared that time. Lovecraft, I. Asimov, D. Hemmeth, L. Andreev; Moore, Russell, Karnap, Lukasiewitsz; such styles or waves like Noir, Surrealism, Avant-garde. Even political or economic personalities as S. Vitte, P. Stolypin, John Ford, and the others. Detectives and advocates as F. Plevako. The time was full of intentions and wishes, even with all that wars. Studying if this period could bring us more about our present situation that somehow reminds the one. New war intentions, new slavery, new pilitical confusions, and so many other things. Renaissance started to critique religion, and the one not always was good. From one point of view it brand good features and took off shores out of sight, and with that brand atheism. Boccacco and especially Da Vinci were atheists. Such persons as Machiavelli and Bruno were not only infidels, they seemed to be completely nuts. About Bruno there was a book of Frances Yates "Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Traditio" where was told Bruno imagined himself being Christ... There are so much atheistic things out there, so the far from atheism the better.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 25, 2020 16:35:27 GMT
What time periods do you like? The renaissance also includes Leonardo da Vinci and the writer Boccaccio. I agree that there was an underlying emptiness in the renaissance, which I believe is exactly why it left room for the individual to step forward in an attempt to fill that void. I see it as comparable to the emptiness we're living through now, which I expect will eventually allow the individual to rise above the mindlessness of the collective.
Thank you for this question, I'd like to know what's yours? Hmm... the question is not so easy for me, because usually it seems that each period can be oversearched for pleasant, unusual and decent things, episodes. The beginning and to mid of XX century is the one, probably. Many writers, philosophers, and the other famous ones worked than or appeared that time. Lovecraft, I. Asimov, D. Hemmeth, L. Andreev; Moore, Russell, Karnap, Lukasiewitsz; such styles or waves like Noir, Surrealism, Avant-garde. Even political or economic personalities as S. Vitte, P. Stolypin, John Ford, and the others. Detectives and advocates as F. Plevako. The time was full of intentions and wishes, even with all that wars. Studying if this period could bring us more about our present situation that somehow reminds the one. New war intentions, new slavery, new pilitical confusions, and so many other things. Renaissance started to critique religion, and the one not always was good. From one point of view it brand good features and took off shores out of sight, and with that brand atheism. Boccacco and especially Da Vinci were atheists. Such persons as Machiavelli and Bruno were not only infidels, they seemed to be completely nuts. About Bruno there was a book of Frances Yates "Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Traditio" where was told Bruno imagined himself being Christ... There are so much atheistic things out there, so the far from atheism the better.
I'm not kidding when I state that my favourite time is this one. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I see the stagnated world I was born into as finally coming to an end. Humanity has moved into a wide open empty landscape, forced to build new structures from scratch.
I see the atheism of the renaissance as the anti-thesis to the stagnated, medieval form of Christianity. The black plague demonstrated the weakness of the Church's worldview, and priests themselves died in vast numbers due to their contact with the sick. Christianity needed to be reformed in order to pave the way for empirical science. Dealing with the black plague was empiricism in its early stages. They observed how the pandemic spread, and required a quarantine of 40 days for people who wanted to enter a city. Recent research has indicated that the incubation time of the plague was 37 days, which, in case, means they got it right.
I agree with the Hegelian dialectic on that the world doesn't move continuously towards the truth, but rather switch from one falsehood to another, but in the process, slowly approaches the truth. For that is how I see thesis vs antithesis. It's one misleading oversimplification of reality replaced by another. Medieval Christianity was opposed by atheism, and the preferred synthesis would have been an enlightened form of Christianity. But the power struggle between Christianity and atheism was largely won by atheism, leading to social Darwinism and Nihilism. In the modern world, humans are regarded as little more than biological computers with flawed software, and computer engineers are pushing for the idea that we should fuse with computer technology, since computer technology would otherwise overtake us. In reality, they express contempt for humans as God's creation, and want themselves to play God.
However, I think the reckoning for this worldview is approaching, and that human beings shall again view themselves as spiritual beings.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 25, 2020 19:14:58 GMT
Can't really say there's nothing in Renaissance we shall take for now; really, there are plenty, but it what hasn't been taken by many researchers, especially, as those as Hegel who mentioned Republic over an Individual. Renaissance was the one that with crystally pure upholding of Individual over Society - perhaps, the most truly and objective view on it.
I do not like any social over individual theory, because usually they are dramatically metaphysical and unreal, and most mythical, with enough falsely of it. There's no sincere and true words in such "true" utopias as Plato's.
Renaissance also had several utopias like Plato's, despite of the latter, Renaissance's were more optimistically individual. Without a doubt it was not only positive comparely to the modern ones. First of all I mention not only plenty of dictatorship ambitions of some current politicians, but "the dichotomy of global forces" as well. For me it's more like turning back to the Cold War. What positive tendency it has?
Yeah, anti-thesis against medieval views was powerful enough, I also said about that last time, and again these time was full of atheism. And political ambitions of certain members such as Borgia's clan represenred the enter of formal and greedy tendencies out.
You agreed on that the worst tendencies were what usually came out. Such tendency seems to be repeated all the time, but not for an individ. A person is able to obtain some freedom with new features and new technologies, and, opposely to your view, this is a good feature that helps us being more independent to/from each other. Unabomber's view is about social and government actions; I find to be very truly views that Putin was particupated to destruction of some living-houses, and responsible of Nord-Ost terrorism, and also that is obvious, responsible for death and poisoning of some his political enemies.
The more powerful weapon is being equipped by a person, the worse is expected. Renaissance made this view to be obvious and uphold it too (Da Vinci was an author of a project of some territory changing).
In general: no society are good for happiness; Renaissance did much to obtain a person, an individual; also, Renaissance created not only art masterpieces, but weaponry race start points; mastering and development of as tools as living places and housing did make our modern lives be much better; there was understanding of technology unlike today's it had a way to escape stupid society, such persons as Paracels and Grygory Skovoroda hold this view (not misanthropic or anti-social, but rather individualistic-oriented).
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 25, 2020 19:15:48 GMT
karl(made it to notify - I forgot to quote last time)
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 25, 2020 21:56:01 GMT
Can't really say there's nothing in Renaissance we shall take for now; really, there are plenty, but it what hasn't been taken by many researchers, especially, as those as Hegel who mentioned Republic over an Individual. Renaissance was the one that with crystally pure upholding of Individual over Society - perhaps, the most truly and objective view on it. I do not like any social over individual theory, because usually they are dramatically metaphysical and unreal, and most mythical, with enough falsely of it. There's no sincere and true words in such "true" utopias as Plato's. Renaissance also had several utopias like Plato's, despite of the latter, Renaissance's were more optimistically individual. Without a doubt it was not only positive comparely to the modern ones. First of all I mention not only plenty of dictatorship ambitions of some current politicians, but "the dichotomy of global forces" as well. For me it's more like turning back to the Cold War. What positive tendency it has? Yeah, anti-thesis against medieval views was powerful enough, I also said about that last time, and again these time was full of atheism. And political ambitions of certain members such as Borgia's clan represenred the enter of formal and greedy tendencies out. You agreed on that the worst tendencies were what usually came out. Such tendency seems to be repeated all the time, but not for an individ. A person is able to obtain some freedom with new features and new technologies, and, opposely to your view, this is a good feature that helps us being more independent to/from each other. Unabomber's view is about social and government actions; I find to be very truly views that Putin was particupated to destruction of some living-houses, and responsible of Nord-Ost terrorism, and also that is obvious, responsible for death and poisoning of some his political enemies. The more powerful weapon is being equipped by a person, the worse is expected. Renaissance made this view to be obvious and uphold it too (Da Vinci was an author of a project of some territory changing). In general: no society are good for happiness; Renaissance did much to obtain a person, an individual; also, Renaissance created not only art masterpieces, but weaponry race start points; mastering and development of as tools as living places and housing did make our modern lives be much better; there was understanding of technology unlike today's it had a way to escape stupid society, such persons as Paracels and Grygory Skovoroda hold this view (not misanthropic or anti-social, but rather individualistic-oriented).
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to express. Are you stating that you believe it's the individual, not the collective, that causes progress, and that societies always attempt to suppress and oppress the individual?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 26, 2020 20:29:26 GMT
karlNo, not exactly. "Weaponry race" had been started in Renaissance. Individual: If I were the last man one the Earth, or I would be alone in the Universe, and I had nuclear bombs, there would be no offenses, no calms, no hysteria about it. I just had it, and that's all. Another story the nuclear bombs in society. Weapons and some tools are the reason of panic in societies. "The weapons" is just an example. By it I wanted to say that the technology is not so dangerous as you typed in the pre-previous comment. You said: So, about this I've been talking about. It is not the computer technologies who overtakes us, is - namely - a society. I think here is the most common-shared mistake appears: Usually we think that *a hammer* is a cause of death. The real cause of death is not *a hammer*, it is a human being. (** - any tools can be put here).
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 26, 2020 20:37:32 GMT
karlHmm... I want to add, that for a thought that "humans want to play God" I can say the same thing too: societies are what hide the danger. Alone human being is out of any dangerous. The one can be confused by some nasty rumors, and that is what may bring everyone troubles. The same is about parenting, education. If a person is screwed up, he will be tainted with the plague inside him. It's like to make a person be an atheist. I think there are two possible lines of this: a) we try to find a type of education to make a person be less evil with technology b) not matter what we've found and how we educate someone, the technology makes anyone be evil My opinion is always (a), because the computers are soulless things, and only right and smart care about it, and wise dealing with it can save us from variety of possible evil scenarious "humansVStechnologies".
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Aug 26, 2020 23:49:47 GMT
Thank you for this question, I'd like to know what's yours? Hmm... the question is not so easy for me, because usually it seems that each period can be oversearched for pleasant, unusual and decent things, episodes. The beginning and to mid of XX century is the one, probably. Many writers, philosophers, and the other famous ones worked than or appeared that time. Lovecraft, I. Asimov, D. Hemmeth, L. Andreev; Moore, Russell, Karnap, Lukasiewitsz; such styles or waves like Noir, Surrealism, Avant-garde. Even political or economic personalities as S. Vitte, P. Stolypin, John Ford, and the others. Detectives and advocates as F. Plevako. The time was full of intentions and wishes, even with all that wars. Studying if this period could bring us more about our present situation that somehow reminds the one. New war intentions, new slavery, new pilitical confusions, and so many other things. Renaissance started to critique religion, and the one not always was good. From one point of view it brand good features and took off shores out of sight, and with that brand atheism. Boccacco and especially Da Vinci were atheists. Such persons as Machiavelli and Bruno were not only infidels, they seemed to be completely nuts. About Bruno there was a book of Frances Yates "Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Traditio" where was told Bruno imagined himself being Christ... There are so much atheistic things out there, so the far from atheism the better.
I'm not kidding when I state that my favourite time is this one. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I see the stagnated world I was born into as finally coming to an end. Humanity has moved into a wide open empty landscape, forced to build new structures from scratch.
I see the atheism of the renaissance as the anti-thesis to the stagnated, medieval form of Christianity. The black plague demonstrated the weakness of the Church's worldview, and priests themselves died in vast numbers due to their contact with the sick. Christianity needed to be reformed in order to pave the way for empirical science. Dealing with the black plague was empiricism in its early stages. They observed how the pandemic spread, and required a quarantine of 40 days for people who wanted to enter a city. Recent research has indicated that the incubation time of the plague was 37 days, which, in case, means they got it right.
I agree with the Hegelian dialectic on that the world doesn't move continuously towards the truth, but rather switch from one falsehood to another, but in the process, slowly approaches the truth. For that is how I see thesis vs antithesis. It's one misleading oversimplification of reality replaced by another. Medieval Christianity was opposed by atheism, and the preferred synthesis would have been an enlightened form of Christianity. But the power struggle between Christianity and atheism was largely won by atheism, leading to social Darwinism and Nihilism. In the modern world, humans are regarded as little more than biological computers with flawed software, and computer engineers are pushing for the idea that we should fuse with computer technology, since computer technology would otherwise overtake us. In reality, they express contempt for humans as God's creation, and want themselves to play God.
However, I think the reckoning for this worldview is approaching, and that human beings shall again view themselves as spiritual beings.
Being a European how likely do you think that a religious revival happening in Western Europe is? And if there is one will it be Christian or pagan? I ask about the latter because I see a lot of Western white people worshipping the old European pagan gods because they they think it reflects their native culture and ancestor's spirituality better than the Israel focused Christianity. Obviously I would prefer the former to latter given my own faith.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 27, 2020 0:36:25 GMT
I'm not kidding when I state that my favourite time is this one. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I see the stagnated world I was born into as finally coming to an end. Humanity has moved into a wide open empty landscape, forced to build new structures from scratch.
I see the atheism of the renaissance as the anti-thesis to the stagnated, medieval form of Christianity. The black plague demonstrated the weakness of the Church's worldview, and priests themselves died in vast numbers due to their contact with the sick. Christianity needed to be reformed in order to pave the way for empirical science. Dealing with the black plague was empiricism in its early stages. They observed how the pandemic spread, and required a quarantine of 40 days for people who wanted to enter a city. Recent research has indicated that the incubation time of the plague was 37 days, which, in case, means they got it right.
I agree with the Hegelian dialectic on that the world doesn't move continuously towards the truth, but rather switch from one falsehood to another, but in the process, slowly approaches the truth. For that is how I see thesis vs antithesis. It's one misleading oversimplification of reality replaced by another. Medieval Christianity was opposed by atheism, and the preferred synthesis would have been an enlightened form of Christianity. But the power struggle between Christianity and atheism was largely won by atheism, leading to social Darwinism and Nihilism. In the modern world, humans are regarded as little more than biological computers with flawed software, and computer engineers are pushing for the idea that we should fuse with computer technology, since computer technology would otherwise overtake us. In reality, they express contempt for humans as God's creation, and want themselves to play God.
However, I think the reckoning for this worldview is approaching, and that human beings shall again view themselves as spiritual beings.
Being a European how likely do you think that a religious revival happening in Western Europe is? And if there is one will it be Christian or pagan? I ask about the latter because I see a lot of Western white people worshipping the old European pagan gods because they they think it reflects their native culture and ancestor's spirituality better than the Israel focused Christianity. Obviously I would prefer the former to latter given my own faith.
The ending of what you wrote confused me a bit. It sounded like you prefer the old European pagan gods to Christianity. Was that really what you meant? Or did you mean to express that opposite, that since you're a Christian, you wouldn't prefer paganism?
Ah, will it happen in Western Europe? Fantastically good question. Europe has been playing a provincial role in relation to the US ever since WW2. Or, perhaps more accurately, ever since the end of the Suez war. I'd be hard pressed to find Europeans these days I'd call spiritual, irregardless of how much I stretch the definition of that word. And when I do refer to spirituality, I am not specifically referring to religion, but also philosophies that delve into existential questions.
In the world I grew up in, Europeans seemed jaded, with little interest in deeper questions. I'm hoping for that to change, and I'm sure it will eventually. The question is rather whether European will be in the forefront, or let others be the pioneers, for then to absorb a watered down version of it.
I see the interest in pagan Gods as one of many ways by which people attempt to fill their inner void, in a world that offers the individual no sense of purpose and continuity. I don't actually think focusing on pagan Gods will offer people much beyond a connection with the past.
What I really want is a revival of Western philosophy, and I do not wish for people to see philosophy as some kind of antidote to religion. A philosopher needs to ask the same questions as religion attempts to answer, and be open to the possibility that religion might sometimes be right.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 27, 2020 0:49:28 GMT
karl No, not exactly. "Weaponry race" had been started in Renaissance. Individual: If I were the last man one the Earth, or I would be alone in the Universe, and I had nuclear bombs, there would be no offenses, no calms, no hysteria about it. I just had it, and that's all. Another story the nuclear bombs in society. Weapons and some tools are the reason of panic in societies. "The weapons" is just an example. By it I wanted to say that the technology is not so dangerous as you typed in the pre-previous comment. You said: So, about this I've been talking about. It is not the computer technologies who overtakes us, is - namely - a society. I think here is the most common-shared mistake appears: Usually we think that *a hammer* is a cause of death. The real cause of death is not *a hammer*, it is a human being. (** - any tools can be put here).
I agree that it's not technology that threatens us, but how society employs technology.
My favourite quote from the gospel of Thomas goes something like this: "He who has found the world has found a carcass, and he who has found that carcass, of him the world is not worthy."
The collective thinks in what I refer to as vegetative tracks of thoughts, which only resemble actual thought processes. Their thinking is associative. If an action can be associated with a word with negative connotation, then it's bad. If it can be associated with a word with positive connotation, then it's good.
For example, if a representative of the collective doesn't like your statement: "Stop being social, start being an individual.", he/she can just refer to it as "elitist". And since elitism is a word with negative connotation, it's therefore demonstrated that what you wrote was bad, and if it's bad it can't be true.
Although I believe empathy plays an important and positive role in society, it's not lack of empathy that is the main threat to civilisation, but the lack of will to acquire insight.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 27, 2020 1:04:06 GMT
karl Hmm... I want to add, that for a thought that "humans want to play God" I can say the same thing too: societies are what hide the danger. Alone human being is out of any dangerous. The one can be confused by some nasty rumors, and that is what may bring everyone troubles. The same is about parenting, education. If a person is screwed up, he will be tainted with the plague inside him. It's like to make a person be an atheist. I think there are two possible lines of this: a) we try to find a type of education to make a person be less evil with technology b) not matter what we've found and how we educate someone, the technology makes anyone be evil My opinion is always (a), because the computers are soulless things, and only right and smart care about it, and wise dealing with it can save us from variety of possible evil scenarious "humansVStechnologies".
I'd suggest a slightly different approach. Motivate people to think for themselves. It's always the active thinkers who are skeptical of how technology is being used today. Just inspire people to be active thinkers, and they'll figure it out on their own.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Aug 27, 2020 1:19:15 GMT
Being a European how likely do you think that a religious revival happening in Western Europe is? And if there is one will it be Christian or pagan? I ask about the latter because I see a lot of Western white people worshipping the old European pagan gods because they they think it reflects their native culture and ancestor's spirituality better than the Israel focused Christianity. Obviously I would prefer the former to latter given my own faith.
The ending of what you wrote confused me a bit. It sounded like you prefer the old European pagan gods to Christianity. Was that really what you meant? Or did you mean to express that opposite, that since you're a Christian, you wouldn't prefer paganism?
Ah, will it happen in Western Europe? Fantastically good question. Europe has been playing a provincial role in relation to the US ever since WW2. Or, perhaps more accurately, ever since the end of the Suez war. I'd be hard pressed to find Europeans these days I'd call spiritual, irregardless of how much I stretch the definition of that word. And when I do refer to spirituality, I am not specifically referring to religion, but also philosophies that delve into existential questions.
In the world I grew up in, Europeans seemed jaded, with little interest in deeper questions. I'm hoping for that to change, and I'm sure it will eventually. The question is rather whether European will be in the forefront, or let others be the pioneers, for then to absorb a watered down version of it.
I see the interest in pagan Gods as one of many ways by which people attempt to fill their inner void, in a world that offers the individual no sense of purpose and continuity. I don't actually think focusing on pagan Gods will offer people much beyond a connection with the past.
What I really want is a revival of Western philosophy, and I do not wish for people to see philosophy as some kind of antidote to religion. A philosopher needs to ask the same questions as religion attempts to answer, and be open to the possibility that religion might sometimes be right.
When I wrote former I meant the former in this bolded sentence. I would prefer Christianity.
|
|